I think the relationship between a Dark Urge and Astarion is very deep and intense because they are so similar and understand each other.
On the night you are supposed to kill the person you love, you are not yet in a relationship with Astarion, but the conversation is one of the most beautiful conversations between them and later Astarion says for the first time that he cares for you and that it is worth the risk is.
When it comes to the story of the Dark Urge, you shouldn't forget what the Urge actually is and the Durge cannot defend himself against it. Before the dagger in his head it probably didn't matter to him but now he can of course say that he doesn't want that and defend himself and Astarion will help you, because he know what you feel.
Personally, I can't play anything other than Dark Urge, preferably Drow and Bard. I prefer to play alone with Astarion, the rest can stay in the camp.
So he has even more texts that other companions might otherwise say.
Yeah, yeah, that's exactly how I wanted to play it now, with the DU and two with Astarion, to get the most out of Astarion and the most out of my relationship with him. Damn, if I had overplayed then and taken the DU, I probably wouldn't have finished the game before patch 6, it wouldn't have been any fun at all either... I would have liked to hear caring words from Astarion. And to get recognition through Yurgir, rather than Oblodra. The Oblodra scene is much easier to get if you play without spoilers in the blind playthrough - she's encountered right away in the Moon Towers, and Yurgir has yet to be reached. Does Dark Urge have any option for a more violent interaction with Oblodra? Or the same lines (or rather, lack thereof) as Tav? Honestly, it's pretty frustrating that there are so many NPCs in the game that you can insult or do cruel things to, and yet when a loved one is insulted in front of you, called an actual slave, and you can't in any way teach her a lesson for it. I didn't even realize at first to ask Astarion why he didn't want to bite her and I didn't know about her tainted blood because I was really angry with her, but... From the answers only, “He said everything.” You can say that line out loud in a Don Corleone tone, sure, and kill her in Act 3, but I still wish my character could have acted tougher towards her.
Yes I agree, there need to be an emotional understanding to write about those topics and it must be done very carefully. As well as consulting medical and psychological experts to check the appropriateness of the portrayal and possible impacts for an interactive story. Especially in a mainstream RPG, which isn't horror, it's problematic to throw in such topics in the way, it was done with BG3: Disconnected from the story and without player agency.
Absolutely. Horror stories rarely give opportunities for roleplaying, they are more likely to have a set story. When the player's participation is so suppressed, and the player character is made into a victim puppet for the sake of “showing a story” (a story of violence, moreover), it violates all the laws of the RPG genre.
Besides that: Overall, in the romance story, I think some of the possible answers for the players do not take any emotional level into account. In some places - for whatever reason - how a compassionate or sensitive character would react was completely ignored in the romance. A lack of emotionality and a lack of consistency in a story is fatal, if the story wants to touch upon the topic of "abuse" in an "interactive (")romance(")". Romance in quotes, because as Ametris rightly said, (sexual) abuse is not in the definition of romance.
I agree. There are very few options to show love, understanding and empathy, this aspect of the relationship is severely neglected. In many of the heavy plot points, when Astarion talks about his past, Tav doesn't react in any way, like a stone dummy. Neither supporting Astarion nor trying to comfort him is possible. In the scene of reading the scars, the lines are terrible, it's impossible to ask him to turn around politely. In the same scene with Oblodra, you can't stand up for him properly, show that you not only respect his autonomy, but that you are ready to “popularly explain to anyone who tries to encroach on that autonomy how they are wrong”. I would also have liked, in that scene in Act 3, when Astarion says at the entrance to the city that he sees Baldur for the first time in the light of day, to take his hand and stand by him, or at least say something supportive. But the worst thing about it is the dialog after Ascension, the line, “I want your body”, or “I want to become a vampire” and that's it, nothing a loving person could say. And the fact that you can't show Astarion how wonderful and how precious he is to you after the 'mind-reading' check: “He thinks you're degrading yourself by staying with him...” This for me is the hardest moment in the romance of this game (not counting the “new kisses”), it's better to ignore and not pass this check. In the epilogue, you can't confess your love to him, Tav (again against the player's wishes) makes a sour face, you can't hug or kiss him at the party. And like, yeah, sexual abuse is clearly not part of the definition of romance.
Now I'll get back to what I wanted to ask, before Marielle posted that interesting lecture of Larian's romance feature lead, which gives a lot of insight. What does it mean to "lose the soul"? In general in DnD? Do and how do characters change after the loss of their soul? Are there examples? (Without referring to Astarion)
For example, zombies don't have souls. In D&D, the soul is you. There's a body, a soul, and an animus. We remove the soul, the animus and the body remain - this can be controlled by magic. The soul after death goes to the fields of Kelemvor, that is, you will be there, but your body can be raised as undead by some necromancer, but you will not know about it. A revenant can inhabit any body with his soul, the joint functioning of a specially prepared body and the soul of a revenant create an animus. The lich places his soul in the phylactery - the phylactery is a focuser and the phylactery allows the necromancer to interact with the body, controlling it with the animus produced by the interaction between the soul, the phylactery and the dead body chosen for control. For example, the skeleton raised by Balthazar is controlled by the animus, and its “brother”, sewn from pieces of flesh, contains, most likely, also a soul. Ghouls have preserved scraps of soul (incomplete soul, its remains), so they can live and feed (they feed not only on the flesh, but also on the victim's animus), but they are rather stupid, because only scraps of soul remain. The soul is essentially your self, the body is the physical receptacle, and the animus is the magical animating substance that allows it all to function. Death knights have their soul in their sword, destroy the sword and you destroy the knight.
One cannot lose a soul, a soul can be stolen, a soul can be completely split or destroyed (the devils have soul coins, the material for the wall of Kelemvor is the souls of unbelievers who gradually become part of that wall) - this is true death, nothingness. There are creatures without a soul - a magic skull (this skull will be stupider than the one in which the soul is enclosed, but will be able to speak coherently and follow instructions). If the skull is bound as a familiar, it uses its master's soul. You can steal a soul and encase it in something. You can weave several souls together in one body, endowing the subject with the desired qualities, but if the ritual is unsuccessful, we will end up with something similar to a split/personality disorder, as the souls will compete with each other for control of the body.
The effect on the personality can only be exerted by magic or psionic influence. In order for this effect to be permanent, a focuser is needed, but this is not applied to the soul, but to the consciousness of the bearer.
Told DM when we were playing necromancers, I've now verified the information with him.
