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).
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.
Originally Posted by ArneBab
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ArneBab
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ArneBab
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.
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.
