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

I don't think the problem is just the new scenes of some weird relationship that someone calls "kissing." The problem here, in my opinion, is much deeper. It is the problem of how, through the visual series, one author tries to reinterpret and twist the original idea of another author. Now we have different characters in context between the release version and patch 6. I don't understand why the new author wants to convey his "morality" to me by breaking an old character. There are two options here: completely, from chapter 1 and the first meeting, re-sound and re-write the character or the second option is to leave him as his creator intended.

The changes to his romance already started happening in the previous patch.


Because all adults love being preached at while playing a fantasy video game that's supposed to entertain them, right?

The thing is that, from what I've mentioned, Astarion hasn't been rewritten much, regarding the script. Again, like I said, the changes you mention were probably coming from the cinematics department. If you were content with the Patch 1 version, then there hasn't been much opportunity for twisting the script since then.
Writing changes to Astarion have mostly been some tweaks (I think his Origin ending was tweaked a bit for Spawn) some small additions (Datamined Spawn reaction to Mizora, Reaction to Haarlep) and the epilogue. Cinematic tweaks are constant, though.

The visual changes are too contradictory to the character's personality. It's the same if Frodo hadn't melted the ring, but had taken over Middle-earth with Sauron.

Thank you jinetmoranco (and others) for those behind the scenes tidbits. And I fully agree that it's better to keep a cool head.

Still, it makes me think. I mean, personally, when I'm playing a game, more so one that is still changed after release, I don't feel like it should be required of me to hunt down such pieces of information. I can be considerate and respectful for the work and those behind it. But I can also understand that experiencing such changes like that can lead to perplexity and trying to make sense of things.

Honestly, in the absence of an official and explicit information (and if there's one for those kisses/faces, well I have not seen it), it seems to me that even correlating them to the theme of the circle of abuse, and saying "yes, finally, the stars have aligned" (sort of), is also akin to wishful thinking. Not that it's bad if some read it that way, but it doesn't mean it's the only understanding to have of it. A probability, yes, sure. A reality, I don't think so at the moment.

Which is why I think what this thread is about, centered on player agency suddenly being taken over, is valid. There's nothing wrong with expressing the aftermath of a change and asking something. In the end they see it or not, address it or not.

(P.S. : Just to say some messages made me think of this, but it's not a response to someone in particular.)

I agree. Visual changes, Ametris mentioned it started in the previous patch or post-Patch 5 hotfixes (like facial expressions, body language) should only happen in accordance with the story, the characters and voice lines and not let an atmosphere look or be completely rewritten (like mentioned in the thread), while it contradicts the character or story. Rewrites (like "you are my favourite" voice line or the SA/DA context) and visual changes, which are not consistent and contradictory, should never be done, it destroys an RPG and the gaming experience. Not to mention the damage to the SA/DA survivors who witnessed it playing. The story of a role-playing game is one of the most sensitive thing and should be treated with extreme care...nonsensical rewrite/changes also harm the game because more players will stop playing the game and probably won't buy another game from the studio. And as it progresses and affects more routes and characters, it will reach wider and wider circles.

I myself, don't support a game's self-destruction with nonsensical rewrites/ooc changes. A lot of people, who had worked on the game, had put their heart into it, the director, the tech team, character and concept artists, RPG Designers, writers, voice actors and so on, I cannot mention all, and I would also feel sorry for them, when a great game that won the GotY is ruined by subsequent bad changes. I mysef believe, noone deserves that, not the players, not the RPG and not the ones, who put their heart into creating this rich fantasy world, that was meant to immerse yourself in and to bring enjoyment.
But everyone has their own opinion about it...

Hahaha, exactly. Self-destructive at it's best. All the moviegoers would have run out screaming and would have complained the nonsensical rewrite/changes.

It even made me want a little to watch Frodo slap a frightened Sauron across the face and bring him to his knees ... (Joke, may Tolkien forgive me)

Lol. I already swapped a lot of characters in this scene, Ketheric, Raphael, Gortash. I should make a poster with everyone's terrified faces.

Plus, this visual series is completely out of place in the narrative, as many have pointed out before. I would just like to add that Tav's facial expressions are also used as a "moral delivery tool", both Astarion's character and the player character are being broken. In the new scenes, Tav's facial expressions are those of horror, Tav's body language is that of a victim, very realistically embodied, down to the nuances and minutiae. Even players who like Astarion's behavior experience at least cognitive dissonance at the sight of their Tavs. We can't control our character and their reactions, we become viewers of a "how you can't be a bad girl/boy" movie. That's at best. At worst, we let it go "through us". It's like the game is telling us, "Didn't you realize you're supposed to feel bad? Yeah, you feel bad? Now you do. Great." Excellent work by the cinematography department. There are other nuances - for example, Tav's face also becomes sad in the epilogue (when Tav gets out of bed), in the fifth patch during the dialog with Astarion, Tav had a normal face. The love story of Astarion and Tav is like inserting pieces of some alien "novel" about an evil vampire and a poor stupid victim, these pieces are in sharp contrast to the main storyline, and you're right, if they don't re-sound and re-write the character completely, it will remain a "mush" of a primitive novel about a "cycle of abuse" and the original plot of the game.


There was an article about it in GamePro magazine (I've posted it in other threads, but I'll duplicate it just in case anyone who reads only this thread wants to read the article too). And the number of traumatized people will get bigger and bigger as other players start to reach these scenes in their walkthroughs.


Yeah, that would be fun. How are our Tavs worse than Ketheric, Raphael and Gortash? We could also add Sarevok and Ethel, hehehe....

Yes, deviant*, although the other side of the bite scene is much more interesting, as most people pointed out, but it is prefered to show Tav's sad and frozen face, whose gaze is miles away, as if Tav doesn't know the man, who is in front of him (the same with the Karlach scene). It looks like as if Tav was just kidnapped by a sexual predator. And that's more or less the only possible way to roleplay these scenes and without playing the story before and after: "boy captured by a sexual predator Vampire" as a deviant kink, that's it. Somehow ridiculous
*forgive me, if I used a wrong translation

I thought about the movie like aspect. I mean, yes, there are instances of out of character things throughout the game. I can not care about many of those. But there you take an action, to ask for a kiss, and it’s one lengthy and intimate sequence where the character is just shown as not into it. Even when forcing that view, wouldn’t it make sense to leave a sort of escape option ? I mean, there can be an attempt for a bit tactfully crafted, if nothing else. That passivity and no one peeping a word in the background, and then back to business, it does not sit well with me. Edit to add. If it’s not consensual games in between the character and Astarion, I do think there needs to be at least a form of trust and consensual relationship in between the player and the game/studio (personal opinion).

I have an even more interesting question. Who started to spread the idea that AA is "evil"?
What did he do that was so evil? Did he perform a ritual? But spawns aren't living people, 7k spawns are 7k potential killers who can't control their bloodlust and releasing them into Baldurs Gate to peaceful, ordinary citizens is the most chaotic evil thing you can think of.
"I will release 7k insane, starving, spawns that haven't been fed in 200 years and release them into the city to peaceful bakers and tailors in the name of Good!" Really?! So yeah, putting them out of their misery isn't a bad thing, but saving the city from an invasion of 7000 hungry wild vampires is a good thing.
The pact itself. Is it bad to make a pact with the Devil? Will's pact with Mizora doesn't stop him from using his powers for good. What's stopping AA from doing it? Where is there even one hint in the course of Acts 1 and 2 that he is ready to be a monster, ready to kill everyone, ready to become a grotesque horrible vampire from horror stories? He's not. Astarion himself says that after the ritual he became alive, only the living can have real emotions, empathy. Spawns, like real vampires, lack empathy and emotion in the human sense. And he also says in Act 1 that "the strong can afford to be a Hero and take care of the weak* (c). So why did AA abruptly change his shoes after the ritual and is billed as "evil evil"? Why? For what purpose? Someone really wanted to shove their "world picture" and their "morality" through to work off their personal negative experiences?
Oh really, AA come to Tav with a bouquet of roses with the words - love, adore, be my partner forever without the kneeling scene at conversion and no one would care about 7k spawns.

Well, I don't think there is a solution to the dilemma of freeing or killing 7k vampire spawns. Both options have positive and negative consequences. Killing 7k vampires doesn't make you an evil person but you're not a good one either because among all those people there may be some spawns who deserve a second chance (like Astarion) I personally never know what to choose when I get to that moment in the game, I simply roleplay according to the interests of my character at that moment. Sometimes I kill them for Astarion's benefit and mine and sometimes I free them. In both cases, there will be victims.

Quoting Anne Rice " Evil is a point of view"

Yes, most of the time there are even more than one answer that you have to give for something to happen, especially bad things. There is often the opportunity to say no or to get out of the scene or to attack, e.g. Harleep.
Actually, there are specific games written for specific kinks (like SA/DA scenes) and these players consuming such games know what they're getting into. But here, an SA/DA scene inserted into a romance after several months in a mainstream game? People were trusting the game/studio. Something like that can't go well. Whether it was accidentaly or intentional.

If D/s dynamics were intended - a lot of players would have appreciated it according to the survey - it would have suit Astarion (we see it in act1), especially if you chose "let it hurt". But these scenes with Tav are far away from it. The whole scene how it is now, is nonsense, Astarion doesn't actually force anyone, it would look completely different, Tav does everything "voluntarily" and then behaves like a victim of abuse and as he wouldn't know Astarion (blank eyes, avoiding eye contact). I don't know how something odd like that could have been put together. If anything, you only really see something like that in specific kink games / animations, I would assume.

It's a good question. He's actually not that much more evil than in Act 1. He just has power now and don't need to be afraid.

Perhaps this opinion went from this conversation the developers had about character endings.

Because it's very cool and dramatic when Astarion burns in the sun. This is called " bring him toward salvation". Otherwise we "want to make Astarion evil". I'm honestly deeply surprised by this kind of story presentation and player understanding. In fact, this is the first game in my life where I've been so disgusted with the "goodness" in a game.

Well.. "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."

I can't remember to tell AA "you are right to be afraid", because.. actually, where is he afraid or where does he actually "feel fear" ? You could interpret this as Spawn Astarion, who is "actually him", who actually feels "fear" and leaving him as a spawn, who is forced to go back to the darkness, forced to feel endless hunger, is actually a horrible place. So, Evil is a point of view (thanks, Lorna). For Astarion himself, there is no better ending, than the ascension, for his enemies and his possible victims, it's a bad ending.
Maybe there is another interpretation for people, who are native speaker

I'm going to be real, the 7k souls dilemma fell really flat for me. Releasing 7k feral, starved vampires into the city? Lol no. As an evil durge 7k are rookie numbers. It was never even a question, and I didn't even bat an eye.

If we're using DnD logic, their souls were already gone.

As a moral dilemma, it didnt really feel dimensional. It felt like the train car question, where the writer already had a preloaded idea of which answer was 'right'. If you're an evil character it's just an eye roll. Did it and didn't feel a thing. It wasn't emotional. And it largely didn't impact any other part of the game.

On one hand a wagering issue, but Astarion is only special because of the illithid larva. 7k is a lot, a lot, there's no guarantee that out of those 7k, 6k of them will control themselves, just on the scale of the city, even 100 mad spawns ready to suck the blood dry of any peaceful citizen is a disaster. It's extremely irresponsible to let that many hungry spawn loose.
If they became mortal and ordinary people again, then and only then would the rule "perform a ritual = kill 7k innocent souls" work. Then we could say that AA is committing a truly evil act.
And in this case, releasing spawns is at least a chaotic-neutral action. And if you think about the consequences of your decision, it is an evil act. But there are no consequences to the player's decisions in the game. Nothing affects the world. We can spend the whole game committing any action, but at the very end with one button cancel all the negativity and become a hero. It's not supposed to work that way. If you've been using the illithid larva all game, and we know it's bad because the game itself tells us so, then logically that player can't have a good ending. And in Early Access it was, but on release they removed it, and with the 6th patch they just rewrite the whole game and characters like on a conveyor belt. Are we playing the release or is this still a beta test? I don't know any RPG in which authors rewrite characters after the official release. Except for BG3.
Oh, no, there was one rpg, Mass Effect: Andromeda, Jaal added an affair with a male protagonist. But to stand in line with the Mass Effect: Andromeda is a very dubious decision.

haha, okay, so let's try and break this down.

Why is Astarion evil? All he did was kill 7,000 spawn. And those spawn are really just evil inhuman vampire spawn, so killing them was good.

But Astarion is also an inhuman vampire spawn. Because "spawns, like real vampires, lack empathy and emotion in the human sense." So it's good to kill those 7,000 because they're evil, but Astarion is the unspoken exception. I see.

*

Anyway. It's so abundantly obvious that Astarion is fully corrupted after the ritual. It's evident in his personality, his body language, everything. In fact, I would argue that it's as self-evident as the sky being blue.

*

I don't think most people realize exactly how many people there are in the number 7,000. All of those people had lives and families. The depravity is off-the-charts. It's more than the number of people who died on nine eleven.

A big part of the dilemma is what to do with them? I don't think there's a great answer here, but I would suggest that if you decide they need to die, your motivations for doing so have some less-than-negligible impact on the morality of the decision. Doing so for power is not the same as doing so to relieve their suffering and save future generations.

You could try to say I'm doing the right thing by killing them all, and oh yeah, I might as well get the power while I'm doing it. But, in my opinion, that's just one of the many ways people lie to themselves or seek to justify what they're doing. The stain remains. The motivation was corrupted and the morality is undeniably darkened.

To whom is it obvious? It's not obvious to me. The player can play as Astarion, perform a ritual and be kind and gentle. Then limit the player and after the ritual, do not let them do good deeds. If the ritual changes and spoils the personality. And if it does not spoil, then the original Astarion does not have to be evil after Ascension.