Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Was BG3 overly sexualized?

That would be totally awesome! It would kind of be the culmination of what I see as special in BG3.

There’s already a special ending for „just let Gale explode“, so it would be great to have this theme take center stage if it comes to it.

(I pulled this part out from the spoiler, because I think I removed all that needed a spoiler, and this way more people can see it — I hope I got that right)

Mind the *just* here. I don’t disagree with the point that they have fanfiction writers as part of the target group, I just don’t see them as the only target group.


I know fanservice only in definition from Anime where it means inserting scenes of scantily clad women regardless of character or plot. But only for people who watch the anime already.

The point I see here is rather that romance is a necessary condition to reach that audience at all.

That’s a pretty strange quote, yes. Maybe they mean that people trapped in unhealthy relationships can realize that life could be better?

There are people trapped in abusive relationships in real life and this could help them get out.

On the other hand the example she gave where someone broke up because they did not recognize the deceit of the NPC and thought it genuine love feels wrong. That should be a warning to tread carefully when creating fictional romance.
I missed the "in fanfiction" when reading this. And I see that long tail outside fanfiction, too.

I’m not sure whether this is only true for romance, and not rather something about experiencing a character. That said: when I think back the relationship parts of roleplaying sessions in the past 20 years are still more present in my mind, so she may have a point.
She’s talking about improving romances here, so a point about improving the plot would be off topic.
Maybe that’s what makes the Lae’zel romance special: it’s the one which is most closely tied to the plot.
Didn’t they violate that rule with Minthara?
Some of the points boost fanfiction production, but 1 abc and 2 bcde do not.

That’s why I think the argument that this is only or mainly about fanfiction doesn’t hold.

I see something in that direction, but rather that they want to enable different story progressions — a wide variety of ways through the plot — and this means stepping back and starting the plot design with an onthology: which types of relationships could we include? And then writing characters that match these.

Once you start writing branching plotlines, that becomes important: how to make sure that each branch is actually distinct from the others?

Maybe that’s also why Halsin feels out of place: there’s actually no space left for another kind of romance so they had to find something to get him in (which is then: coming too late to the party).

That’s something that should not happen, and I think that should be reason enough to re-work these scenes.

Similar to how games nowadays mostly avoid too strong flashing lights to avoid triggering epileptic seizures.

They may not be able to undo the damage caused already, but they should fix that for the definite edition (which I hope will come).

That Astarion would be broken and evil after Ascension was something hinted at multiple times, so I think that’s not surprising, but the scenes should not trigger common traumas (and sadly domestic violence traumas are common in our society).

Maybe they misjudged that, because they had their intimacy coordinators who made sure this was OK for the actors, but they did not check enough for the impact on players.

Or maybe the actors did not know the larger context of the scenes — how little parts of them match the development that came before them in the plot is described in the article (in German).

Regardless of the reason: that’s something they should fix. Because from watching these scenes, I would see ending the relationship at once as the only option. The ascension obviously causes Tav to hate the intimacy, without any ambiguity, so I see no reason the character would ever ask for it again.
Yes, I prefer having these bad options. Ideally with a way out. But if not: I also like playing a devils bargain in a game to have a better idea later about the consequences of that.

I once played someone who betrayed all his friends. That taught me that this is something I cannot stomach. That to me losing everything would be preferable to betraying my friends.

I can’t get that kind of self-reflection without trying it out.

One more concrete pain point I saw in here: When Astarion is your companion and in the end …

Yep!

@ArneBab Thank you for being so delicate during this exchange. Know that I wouldn’t have spoken (semi)publicly about this if I hadn’t come to terms with it, so the spoiler tags aren’t for me. They’re for unsuspecting forum readers who might live with triggers. I can’t tell if you did it right, so I’d still err on the side of caution and add tags to the quote.

As for the endslides, I’m not going to go point by point, mainly because my beer supply is getting low, but you raise fair points, namely: this presentation is about romance specifically, not plot as a whole; making a branching narrative requires ticking boxes, thereby dulling thematic resonance.

To the first point, you may entirely be correct. It’s been gnawing at me, “Hey Flooter, you’re no stranger to emotional outbursts, are you sure you’re reading this right?” But it’s not even subtext. It’s just text:

Not just any Larian employee, mind you. Beaudelaire Welch is described as both Romance Feature Lead and Senior Narrative Designer for Larian Studios.

Keep in mind, Welch was hired after early access started and she had written her share of Halsin fanfic. This suggests two things:
1. Romance wasn’t part of the initial vision for BG3.
2. Larian’s Romance Feature Lead had the fanfic community’s interests in mind when making BG3.

The presentation’s topic is clear: what romance means to some players, why it means so much to them and how to make romance better for them. I added the part in italics, but it doesn’t feel unfair in light of the topics brought up. According to Welch, the way to improve romance is to implement the fanfic wishlist.

2a. Make the romances last. 2b. Have cool systemics. 2c. Have challenging relationships. 2d. Don’t make the stories too happy. 2e. Don’t be like that Dragon Age meme we’re all super familiar with. 2f. Make room for unconventionally attractive characters.

That sounds fantastic for a game centered around romance, and the game Welch plugs during the presentation (I assume as a proof of concept) does sound sweet, but aside from 2b the advice doesn’t seem to care what game it fits into.

Why is the first endslide’s title “Why does romance matter beyond fanservice?” Doesn’t that betray a point of view? Going by your definition of fanservice, it sounds like a frustrated fan finally able to enact their dreams. Why is fanservice even a consideration in a work of art?

“Art” may seem like a lofty standard, but it’s the standard Larian claim to meet, so let’s hold them to it. I don’t believe that standard can be met when those are the stated priorities for romance while the game misses its own thematic implications.

Which brings us to the second point: can a branching game have its paths be meaningfully different while staying cohesive?

I think Disco Elysium pulled it off by having a gazillion themes to latch onto and the wherewithall to follow through on those threads. It helped that “making your hapless way through a clusterfuck” runs through pretty much the entire game. Also it’s much smaller than BG3.

So there should be Larian’s cues. Make smaller games, in both size and scope. Make the story dense, convoluted and reactive. There are a bunch of unexplored topics in RPGs. Larian should follow their own advice, pick a topic and write their whole game around it.

Just a joke, there. I make those, from time to time, while waiting for death or more beer, whichever comes first.

Yes, I have the same feeling. I wonder if it's - at least in part - due to how the player character in Astarion's romance is written. Very often the PC seems to do nothing more than giving Astarion cues to start a monologue about. The occasion when his dialogue has the back and forth of a conversation are rare. I get the strongest feeling of being in a conversation from some of the early camp scenes (The stars are beautiful, who tastes like what, the mirror and looking at the scars) and the long branch about whether or not it was a good idea to release the other spawn after the ritual.

I also do still love the character, but I do much prefer him as my Origin than as my romance.

Yes Anska, I tend to agree on that too.

Maybe what I'm going to say is biased because of personal preferences, and maybe I should refresh my memory more before. But, first of all, for a character with such a backstory and themes of sexual objectification in it, I really think it would have been interesting to be able to connect with Astarion and maybe enter a romance without having to take his offer of sex. I think it could have worked, maybe better in some regard. But there, I was able to make one comment on the fact that he doesn't have to offer such things the first time, and then nothing. The option doesn't seem to go far, and then it's like you have to be tone deaf and/or lusty, stupid even, because he can be quite obvious when buttering the character up. So, my character and I are in a convenient narrower mindset. But, since caring for him seems to have an effect on him, I don't really understand why it's not built on in that first act moment. I would see it make sense for just friendship too.

Then yes, the conversation bits also seem to me like they have that imbalance. Like my character and I are here for him to do his own exposition. In a way, I can understand why some people can feel that the player character is too moralistic with him. In that, even though I like challenging in a broader and more than just us manner, still I feel like there's also a form of more intimate challenge and reassurance that is missing sometimes. Like there are some limitations in places. Sometimes it's like he raves about how wonderful my character is, and still it feels to me like it has been limited in my role play. Like the relationship is sometimes defined in a sort of arbitrary way. But I'll admit, maybe it's me who was lacking in the understanding and the use of the dialogues at my disposal.

Then, there's the specific thing when branched to ascended Astarion. And, again, convenient narrower mindset when talking to him during long rest after the ritual. I might have wanted to become a vampire, and I'll take spawn without having the talk then and there. Or I want his body, which is strange to me, because if my character is objectifying him so much then I probably encountered the break up of act two they are showing in the presentation (or maybe my character is brighter than me, and they think that he's all good after ritual). Or I lecture him, or don't enjoy the pet names anymore, when my character has helped and might be worse than him, even trying to manipulate him, or wanting to fool themselves. I don't know, to me it's just a little part of it, and it gives me the impression that I'm contorting and trying to make do in a story that is very much not mine (in a weird way, some could say it's fitting at that juncture). And still, I feel like it could go somewhere, tell good things when the roles are starting to be reversed. But no, it's like it doesn't want to chose a lane, stays ambiguous in a way I don't personally find serving, and I just find it meh. And it's too much of a hassle to save what I do enjoy.

Which now kind of makes me unable to go for it again, no matter the branching out. I don't know if it was intended that way, but I find that, for me at least, they succeeded in making me think about objectification and coercion in relation to the companions. Even if it's not always well executed. It's even more true for the ones that can be romanced. And I don't know if it was intended, but right now, to me, it's like maybe it's better not to go the romance route with him ?

This is more than surprising, as it completely contradicts both the story and the logic of the game, previous and subsequent lines, dialog, etc. Just like you and Lae'zel and all the other companions - the kissing scenes have nothing to do with the plot of the game. Broken, thankfully Astarion won't be made, Swen said the plot of the companions won't change. Do you remember if that was hinted at in any articles? About Astarion being “broken” I haven't seen it. As written above, the romances are not related to the game's plot, without the romance Astarion ascends fine, without any problems or “consequences”. All the “evil” is solely in the romance. The hints can probably be considered the romance author's desire to make the player feel like a failure:

Baudelaire Welch: «I feel with the bad ending, it’s very much exactly that one sentence he says to you when you read his mind. “He will always see you as degrading yourself if you continue to be with him… but that’s perhaps what you like.” It’s ultimately reducing your relationship with him back to being a kink/form of gratification. Which is a fine thing to enjoy as a fantasy, but it’s very much admitting that you failed to think of him beyond a sex object, and care about more than that. You’re so attracted to him, you’d also turn yourself into one.

I think it’s perfectly nice to fantasise about that, hell, I wrote the incubus scene where you can essentially make an irreversible sex-pact, and I think that’s sexy. But it isn’t something that I think is a lesson for real life. And I wanted the bad ending to really make you feel ‘I failed to see this video game character beyond my own fantasies. The game was more real than I ever expected it to be.” The article is the source of the quote.

In general, this is related to the theme of sexualization, only in this case the author does not invent sex content, but a sexually horny player. For the sake of this fictional player, there is a dialog scene where the player can only choose a line: “I want your body” or “I want to become a vampire” (the line about the vampire, I take it, will not prevent the player from remaining the sexual objectifier of the person they love). And a rail scene where there's an opportunity to throw a check, and find out that: “You degrade yourself by staying with him, and you enjoy degrading yourself”. This is the only check in the entire game, passing it gives no results, no extra lines, it exists only so that the player signs off that they enjoy degrading themselves. And in general, yes, the facial expressions of a rape victim on the player character's face add up to this overall concept and it's probably not surprising. It's one thing to introduce sex content into the game that can be used or avoided, but “prescribing” a sexually horny player, creating scenes without the possibility of at least some roleplaying for that purpose, seems to me to be a clear overreach in sexualization.


Yeah, that's right. And it seems very unfair to me when a person who paid full price for a game upon release is suddenly, after another “update”, forced to end any relationship with that game. Yes, Tav is indeed forced, modders found in the game code a description of Tav's facial expressions as: “ hurt, fear, pain”. What kind of person would play that? Only people with very “special preferences” who specifically create Tav women to their liking and play for the sake of those scenes. I don't feel that such sexualization is necessary, and that it's worth throwing previous players out of the game for the sake of this audience. I tried to test this and played for about three days - it's really bad for a person's mental state.


If you need this as a Dungeon Master, there is a good book. Mentioned in this article about dealing with devils: "Making Deals with Devils in D&D 5e".

Will and Mizora are a good canon example of a contract with the devil. Examples of one-off deals, like the deal with Raphael, are also well shown. It's important to consider that a character's personality doesn't change when a contract is made, even for a class like hell slave. An example of a failed variant is the headcanon on the Ascended Astarion theme (“he loses his soul, and ceases to be himself”). It's not in the game, except that Tav can ask Astarion if he's related to Mephistopheles, and he'll say no. “Mephistopheles created a new monster, not bound the creature with his will. The rite has been observed. The sacrifice is over.” I myself wonder where this headcanon came from, couldn't find the source, but curious. In the case of D&D, you can't get a game with a home rule like that, unless you plan it as the end of the game for that character, the player creates a new character, and the former DM can be used as a NPC. But, since there are no devils in reality, you can, of course, come up with any home rule for this, as long as it is logical and interesting.


I have to admit, I had a similar self-analysis in BG3, even though the rails scene led to it. Indeed, for me, rethinking the meaning of the social construct of kneeling as a symbol of humiliation was far preferable to seeing the tears, pain, and vulnerable and dependent state of a loved one and ending up in the shoes of an utterly vile creature who is drinking in a tavern to her victory with her “friends” while her loved one is out there somewhere, behind crates on the docks, huddled in a lump, healing his wounds. I realize it's also rails, and Tav has no choice, but I won't roleplay something like that under any circumstances. I mean, up until those scenes in patch 6, romance in the game still taught me something - to look more into the essence of things, words and actions, not just their form. But still in RPGs it is worth giving the player the opportunity to roleplay and not to sexualize at least the player themselves.

I have asked myself the same thing, KlarissA. When I played through the Act 2 romance scene, my first impulse was to click "Maybe you need a friend and not a lover" hoping this would open up a platonic relationship path. I was disappointed, when it didn't, and instead just ended the romance. The dialogue makes it seem like friendship would be the route offering more emotional depth, but instead it only creates more distance. This is doubly weird because the epilogue for the spawn-romance does give me the impression of a largely platonic relationship - but maybe that's just me.

If you are biased, then we both are. I did get the Act 1 scene at the party, so there was no line about him not having to repay me with sex, but there still was a discernible - and I think intentional - shift in Astarion's behaviour between the party and the moonlight scene. I would have liked to talk to him about it, to make sure he was alright but there is no option for it. Like you wrote "you have to be tone deaf and/or lusty, stupid even" going forward. Even if you are attentive, you cannot derail his little scheme before it can properly get started, the script does not allow it.

I recently tried the ascension branch, to get a first hand impression of what everyone's problems with the dialogue are about, and found it weirdly impossible to keep up a cohesive position or line of argument between the ritual itself and the scene in which Astarion turns the PC. The dialogue selection you mentioned is especially weird, because all of the points you can choose from, come completely out of the blue. I think, wanting to become a vampire and the outrage about being called pet (becoming a vampire has strongly been discouraged up to this point, and it's not the endearment that's the issue, it's the tone he says it in) are the weirdest to me, but as you mentioned, wanting his body is also odd. The Graveyard scene has a similarly weird moment, when Astarion suggests sex and you have three options to say "yes please", one to say no, but not a single way to suss out if he's really up for it again. You are also not told how the night went.

With the video of the panel in mind, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on envisioning the player in Astarion's romance as pretty horny. I have never played Durge beyond act 1, but I got the impression that the Durge/Astarion romance leans in more heavily into the horniness - but I might be wrong. Especially given the themes of Astarion's romance, of him just playing the rake, instead of actually being one, this seems a little odd to me, but maybe that's just me.

The game has definitely has also made me think about how I treat my companions. It most of all has made me think about how to portray a relationship that favours equality and partnership, in a medium in which the player by default has all the control, or how to write a flexible script with dramatic tension, when you cannot really anticipate the player navigating it.

A medium in which the player has all control by default seems to me to be an inherently bad idea. I can't think of any way at all to portray a relationship favoring equality and partnership in this situation. Only the player themselves with their headcanon can “lower” this topic in their perception and behave with their companions from a position of equality and partnership. As if to forget about the existence of this control. But then there is the question about conflict with a companion - if there is a serious conflict that results in the companion leaving or being banished from the group, it is usually perceived as normal, you didn't get along, you may not like the companion. You can reveal their character in another playthrough, roleplay another character they get along with, or just wave them off. But in the case when a companion is dependent - your Tav becomes actually a killer of this person, there is no difference between a fight to the death (and it would even be much more fair) and expulsion of the companion from the group. Voluntary departure of a companion looks like a suicidal act, even as some manipulation on the part of the plot - you either do what this “suicidal person” wants, or you approve of their suicide. It should have at least implemented an ambush option in this case, an attempt by the companion to somehow get hold of a vital artifact, steal it or something. After all, does this companion want to live or not? Perhaps a variant in which people with different personalities find themselves coincidentally connected to each other, get into a common misfortune, and can't break that connection until they solve the problem could be tried in an “everyone is connected to everyone” format, where everyone needs to be in the group to stay alive. Yes, this would prevent them from breaking the link at all, but it would also create an interesting situation where people with different personalities and possibly opposing beliefs, despite everything, still have to cooperate, find some common ground, understand each other, etc.

About the scenario - in classic RPGs, as a rule, the principle of having a positive, neutral and negative line in each dialog is applied. This is the most primitive minimum, it is rather, three mandatory directions, on which you can further build advanced variants. Most of the emotional reactions of the players can be tried to be reduced to the scheme: “love/like/want to help/I agree”, “basically don't care/why not? /funny/” (different variants of joking remarks can also be considered neutral, although they can deviate towards a positive or negative key) and “hate/don't want to/I won't”. This is a very primitive scheme, but ignoring one of these aspects by the script can have a bad effect on both the roleplay and the player's perception of the story. In some games, alignment (LG, NG, CG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, NE, CE) is attached to the lines. In romantic lines it is easiest to anticipate the player who loves this character (quite logical, it's a romance), you can also anticipate the negative reaction of the player who did not like this or that behavior, they want to express themselves or even break off the relationship (well, with this in BG3 there are no problems, negative lines in the romance is full, here they did not spare, unlike the first option). With the other options, of course, much more difficult, there may be a lot of nuances of behavior in this or that situation. Can help knowledge of psychology, communication directly with players, if the game is in early access, considering the proposals of players, if the game continues after the release is in the process of development. Here is important flexibility of thinking, the absence of any predetermined “iron” narrative, when the story must develop only in this way, and not otherwise, the desire of the author to show and reveal the character from different sides, and not to impose one option, as in a book or movie.

Something I've wondered about is giving companions more autonomy.

The industry has set a standard with companions where they simply sit in your camp (After immediately considering you the leader of their group) until such a time when you decide to take them with you on your journey. At which point they do exactly what you tell them until you dump them back into camp.

Which is not condusive to good characterization and essentially makes all companions your slaves within the game (Which often helps make romance writing feel strange as a result because of how one dimensional it is. IF a companion commences a relationship it's due to the player initiating it)

While I believe we have the technological capacity to allow companions to do their own things.

For example, non-active party members won't just sit in camp all day twiddling their thumbs. But they'll go into the world and do things. The PC and their active party could happen across them doing things, potentially helping them out (Allowing organic character story progress without the trope of swapping in characters to an active party to do their personal quest when you feel like it) or leaving them alone, or having other companions help them (Depending on their relationship perhaps someone might leave the players active party to go help their friend).

Companions could develop relationships with other companions, that is if the PC isn't making a (Successful) attempt to woo a character involved. (It's still possible to keep the Playersexual nature of companions so that players can still romance the character they want... But it's not a clear cut case of the companion will only accept the player and that all the player has to do is eventually pick the right options to enter the romance)

Having more failstates for relationships and companionship would also help. Often such things are exceptions (Like in WotR if you become a Lich all the good aligned characters leave you). Having more acts that cause a companion to end a relationship or simply leave the party (Possibly both - A common reaction to a break up is wanting space from the now ex-partner) would create more sense of the companion having their own thoughts and opinions over the players actions.

While it's unlikely that such things would completely fix the aforementioned issue with relationships in video games, it would at least make progress. Towards making more organic characters that are individuals and not just pawns of the player.

That was actually the norm for RPGs until the companions were turned into a major selling point (Mass Effect) which caused the devs to not have fail states anymore and each companion being a willing puppet without their own agency.

Just compare BG2 where NPCs would leave for various reasons, reject your advances when you said the wrong thing and even developed relationships with each other, making romances impossible if you were too slow with companions in new RPGs, including BG3 where they sit in camp forever and wait for you to interact with them.

I didn’t even romance Astarion and for me the evil of ascended Astarion was obvious. Before the ending he is distant and fully selfish and In the new ending he becomes the new lord who oppresses people in the region, only caring about his new powers.

The GDC talk on animation said that the facial expressions are separate from the motion capture, so it might actually be possible to first fix this in mods and maybe also fix it in an update later.

Because I think that this is really an error: it is inconsistent.

Two reasons:

- If they say “but that’s perhaps what you like”, then the face “hurt, fear, pain” isn’t the right one. The main character is not Astarion but Tav, and if you (only) get to this point if you like this, you won’t make this face.
- Kissing is initiated by Tav, not by Astarion, so having it be something Tav doesn’t like isn’t plausible.

So — in addition to being damaging to players with experience of domestic violence — Tav should not make this face for plot reasons.

(feel free to quote me if you decide to report this as bug)
Ah, I was ambiguous (sorry): I didn’t mean the D&D devils bargain. I meant doing something that may have a price. Stuff like killing Isobel to gain the strength of the slayer (though I think you can only really feel the tragedy if you played a regular playthrough before: the difference between saving Isobel and killing Isobel is huge, and it hurts, but that’s a self-chosen consequence).


Yes, and they should really fix this, at least if Astarion is your romance. It should actually be possible: the Astarion-scene is already late in the epilogue, and they could push it last and make Tav follow and help Astarion. Having to flee from the sun need not be degrading — if you’re together. And they could just drink in a dark bar (with shuttered windows)?

Also maybe make the narrators comment more positive towards Astarion; that felt off (I just finished my second playthrough a week ago: the comment is more snarky against Astarion than it should be. After all, he gave up on the sun to stay himself).

They’d need some more motion capture for this (i.e. Tav throwing a blanket over Astarion to shield him from the sun), but as far as I can tell they have new mocap planned for added evil endings, so that may not break their process.

You just said it: "I didn't even romance Astarion". Point. It doesn't matter, how evil, narcissistic and mean Astarion is in an UNromance playthrough, what matters is, how Astarion treats Tav in the ROMANCE. This is a HUGE difference, and you cannot compare them. The romance is made to be enjoyable for (certain) players, at least this aspect predominates. It's for people who like to romance an evil character. We (or certain players) like, that Astarion is mean and narcissistic and cruel to others, he isn't like this to Tav. Yes, Astarion is caring about his new power and he is narcissistic (by the way, since act 1). But as much as he might treat his enemies, the citizien of Baldur's Gate or others bad or worse after the ascension, it doesn't count for how he treats his partner. If you play the romance, Astarion is treating his partner more or less well ( as much as a selfish man is capable of) and doesn't want to lose his partner. He is grateful for Tav staying with him. He wants to share his power with his partner. He wants a consort, who flourishes with him. He is giving Tav the best life (in his possessive way and eyes). So he treats Tav very well in his narcissistic way. (It's a fantasy game, and in real life, this would be nearly impossible. BUT. The story is not made realistic, both paths - Spawn and Ascended - are completely and pure fantasy. Both are meant for fun and to enjoy.) You mention the new Ending. Astarion and Tav are shown as a happy couple. Both are smiling. Astarion is always saying "us". The epilogue says: "You AND Astarion were hosting a grand masquerade in the refurbished ballroom of Cazador's palace (...) Astarion pouted, when you read the invitation to him. He gladly accompany you, but he would have been happy to host the party himself." The only one, he might think low of in the Epilogue, are the others: "And? How have our dear friends been without US to guide and protect them?" Tav: "Oh they're completely falling apart." Astarion: "Yes, well, that's to be expected. They were never anything without US (..) Still it is good to see them. And good for them to see US, side by side, flourishing. WE do turn every head the moment WE walk into a room. And rightly so. I may have power, but it would be nothing without you. You complete me". Tav: "It is wonderful, I am glad to get share this with you." Astarion: "And I am blessed to share it with you, my love."

I know you don't mean any harm. But there are many people who haven't played the romance and think (or say carlessly) that just because he's evil and cruel, he's also evil and cruel to his partner. And that's just not the case.

To add: I think Marielle particularly stumbled over the word “broken”. Astarion is definitely NOT broken in many eyes. You and others, not romancing him, are free to see it that way, but most of us, who are partnered, experience and see him to be a self-confident, proud, narcissistic and sarcastic (and also funny) villain. He was already narcissistic and manipulative when my Tav met him in act 1. So - for us - there is nothing odd, when he is narcissistic and manipulative after the ascension. On the contrary, it's the reason, why I enjoy this character.


Well said. Thank you!

Don't get me started on Astarion, this guy is supposes to be a vampire and D&D vampires are not "Normal human who from time to time bites the head off a mouse" but "undead monsters kept moving by negative energy whos mere existence spreads misery". Dracula, not Cullen.
So making him more cruel is actually an improvement.

But as I said, too much time has already been spend on fanfiction level cringe shipping and its a disgrace that Larian wastes the little support they are willing to give BG3 on even more of it instead of making the, lacking, adventurer part of their "fantasy adventurer game" better.

But sadly, BG3 got mainly praised for the sexual content and fanfiction level shipping, so that is what they focus on.
And also the reason why I will definitely not buy their next game on release and first wait if they continue this strategy or went back to make games instead of visual novels.

Whatever D&D says a Vampire is. Important is what LARIAN made of them. So it doesn't count what they are outside the game, it counts what is IN the game. I can only go and read about D&D Vampire and then think: Oh shit. Larian did an awful job! OR I just play the game and don't count on it and enjoy the game, how it is. You are free to dislike the way Larian portrayed Vampires. Astarion is one of the favourite characters, so I think, a lot of players, especially but not only those who romance him, enjoy the Vampire for how he is in the game.

[Cullen? Edward Cullen? Maybe your comparison is a little off? I don't know much about Twilight, but I thought the Cullen guy isn't narcissistic, sarcastic, manipulative or murderous, or is he? But maybe you just know twilight better than me. I cannot imagine, that Astarion's writer took inspiration from it. But honestly, of course I don't know Larian's sources.]


I don't know the other games of Larian, but I could assume, after this success and winning a lot of awards, that they will try to continue this strategy.

Karlach is the one who goes last and she has much the same problem as Astarion. Besides, new companion comments for Astarion's portion of the dock scene have been datamined, they just have not been made accessible. They are much nicer than the current ones, heck, they are even much nicer than the ones you currently get in Astarion's Origin. (Minthy is so vicious in Orign.) So there is really no reason to get overly emotional about that scene until we know how the dock scene will be altered.

Also: There is no hint that the group did follow through with their victory celebration after Astarion & Karlach left. Shart's epilogue dialogue made me think that the disbanded pretty soon after the scene. (I mean the one when she says that she would have offered to take in Owlbear after the fight but everything was so chaotic, that she didn't get around to it.)