Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Astarion's Backstory (May Contain Spoilers)

Thanks, that makes sense. In general, I like the confession scene itself in both versions (well, and besides, the first impression from the first game is not forgotten anyway), and having two scenes diversifies the walkthroughs, that's good too. Rather, the difference is in the quest event that leads up to it. In Yurgir's case, the confession turns out to be more deserved, in Oblodra's case it didn't cost me any effort, I can't even at least force her to apologize to Astarion for the insult. But if you take the meeting with her simply as an occasion, as a situation that prompted Astarion to talk about his past, it's also a curious departure from the more usual version of romance where you kill an enemy/solve a lover's problem and there's dialog afterward that strengthens or develops the relationship. There was a surprise effect after the encounter with Oblodra, I didn't expect Astarion to thank me for it, and even more so I didn't expect such an acknowledgement, that's interesting too.


Yeah, that shouldn't happen, it's worth fixing.


What a nightmare. In that case I should boycott this scene and only go through Yurgir . In all seriousness, I didn't notice anything wrong with this scene, negative lines and a breakup line are there in any romance scene. In this confession scene after we learn new details of Astarion's past suffering, there is an option to open my consciousness to him, which seems to me a very good option for confession, there is an option to hug him (for confession of feelings for me this action seems too weak compared to the option to open consciousness, but the scene itself is very touching, and I, although I don't use it in the walkthrough, I gladly go into this save later just to hug Astarion).


Yes, that would have been a very good plot move. The mail from “M” hints at an interesting story in the future, and it can be a pity when such hints don't materialize in the game. It would have been very interesting if it could have been revealed to the Gur that their leader is a hag. For example, after the Ascension it could have led to the fact that it would have been possible to persuade the Gur to leave and fight the hag in her guise, or the Gur would still consider us enemies, but they could not forgive the hag's deception, and then it would have been a curious battle of all against all. But most importantly, there could have been an interesting dialog, which could have revealed interesting details of Astarion's past.


But if Ulma was a hag, it wouldn't be her people. She would be just as much of a monster to the Gur and would likely deceive them and use them for her own ends, at least it seems that way to me.


I believe that romantic relationships can be without sex, in which case the authors should have implemented the possibility for deep platonic love, if Astarion has that kind of trauma. I would have really wanted to apologize to him if he had previously felt bad around me, even though I knew nothing. And to tell him that I love him and will always be there for him, that I don't need any sex, that I care so much more about how he feels. But there's no hint that Astarion is against affectionate and gentle touches, without sexual overtones. After the first kiss, he told me, “I do rather like it, you know?”. That's what love is, sex isn't necessary, it's just that possibility isn't explicitly written into the story. It would be possible, for example, to put passionate kisses in Act 1, Astarion and Tav are already sleeping together, it is very strange that they do not kiss. And in Act 2 after the confession replace them with more gentle, chaste and non-sexualized ones, for example, a kiss on the cheek, on the ear, a kiss on the hand, add a hug. The dialog after Ascension with “I want your body” just looks awful given his trauma. Larian probably won't fix this, but at the very least they should definitely make an official support for a mod fixing these lines to allow those players who play this way to be normal loving partners towards Astarion. If I could ask him how he feels, if he really wants it, that would be realistic, but unfortunately there's no such roleplay. In Act 2, the lack of lines suitable for platonic love is fully compensated for by the opportunity to open my mind, to imagine that I've said everything I wanted to say, and that Astarion knows it. The Act 3 scene, alas, is a mess.

By the way, during the night after Ascension, Astarion doesn't look at all like he's feeling bad about what he's doing. He looks like he's enjoying it himself. I specifically watched the scene frame by frame to study facial expressions - he feels good about it. The video brothel scene with Spawn doesn't need any frame-by-frame viewing, it's already painful to watch. Ascended in the brothel - it's only bad at the very end, but still, you can see something wrong here in the frame-by-frame view. Maybe Neil played it so well, maybe, certainly, it seemed to me, or I made up something to myself, but in any case after a night with a beloved person there is no dissociation. Deep serious look, sincere gratitude: “You gave me everything. Thank you.” And with what tenderness he kisses Tav's hand. I think that it is the sex in the brothel that traumatizes him, which brings him back to his past, and the intimacy with a loved one whom he trusts is no longer there (at least, according to the video, his facial expressions, his voice). Maybe the dominance element is there for a reason too, I've read that people with sexual trauma can feel better when they are in complete control of the situation, when they are dominant, that's how they feel safe. Of course, everything is individual, but in Astarion's case, outwardly it looks like that, and may well be suitable for perception and roleplay. Though I'd be all for it if there was more opportunity for platonic love, but specifically love rather than something like friendship.


But the partner can say, not only “I can wait,” but also “I don't need it if you don't need it.” Nothing prevents these two people from having a deep and strong connection, perhaps stronger than many couples who have sex, but are superficial about the relationship itself. It doesn't get in the way of love. I'm even a little uncomfortable with the way the game actively pushes Halsin in, as if I'm so wrapped up in sex that when I find out what my significant other has been through, I'm not going to think about him or how to take care of him, I'm going to think about having sex with someone, I don't care who. I agree with you that it's just roleplaying, but I want Astarion to be happy and I do everything within my power to do so. If there were more opportunities, including platonic love, I would do more. I feel like Astarion feels better when he has someone close and loving to him around anyway, and that it's not just my selfishness because I don't want to play without romance with him. He even changes throughout the story - he starts to smile genuinely, looks at you with wide open eyes, even though he used to always squint them, he needs that too.

I didn't mean that that line is a remnant from earlier development, but rather, that it seems to be his only acknowledgement of having done something wrong to the Gur other than kidnapping their children under Cazador's orders. I still think the current game heavily implies he did something very bigoted to the Gur when he was alive, it's just dropped and never acknowledged again.

I also don't know for a fact that Maiden Fel was a hag- I probably considered it, but I don't think we had proof back then to conclude that. All we know is that dead Gandrel described her as "Reason even monsters have nightmares" "Dread creature, but not the one I hunt" and as a "Wise woman with questions". The fact that she wants Astarion unblemished reinforced my idea at the time that she had business with him, from way back when.


Interestingly, I just opened the full release datamines for this scene- and Gandrel still refers to her as a "dread creature" and, obviously, as a "wise woman with questions" (other lines have been changed- She's now referred as Ulma, the leader of his tribe, and he talks about the children)
Him being returned unblemished has been substituted for the children line, but the flag still refers to it as such- which makes me wonder if it was the original intended plotline or more what I had in mind during EA?


(I just realised I was calling her Madame Fel when she's Maiden Fel- my bad!)

(BTW guys, I don't like being a killjoy, but may I suggest that we move discussions about his romance path to the other Astarion romance thread?)

Interesting. That hint remains. The fact that Astarion was a magistrate in any case makes it seem like the Gurs attacked him (before he was captured by Cazador) because of his judicial activities. But, on first playthrough, due to the lack of explanation, I was under the impression that the Gurs were more like such nomadic bandits and attacked him as a representative of the law, or just an overly rich guy who wandered into the wrong neighborhood. That's basically what I thought until I was told his story from the artbook.

About the hag - it was written about in that VK post you cited earlier. It coincides with the letter from “M” (Maiden Fel, maybe), she called Ethel her sister in the letter. When I read the VK post I immediately thought of the very strong appearance resemblance between Ulma and Ethel - they really do look like sisters, one face. Even when I was playing and didn't know any of this, the first time I met Ulma in the city (she behaves rather harshly with Astarion, the reasons are clear, my attitude is subjective, but still) I thought something like: “That old hag!” . And then I started thinking about where I saw her - and remembered Ethel, thought it was funny, two hags (a real one and in my subjective opinion :)) - one NPS model. Looks like the developers really did use the same face model for them. Yes, it happens, I've occasionally encountered my Tav's “sisters” in the game, but after reading that post it all came together. “Circumstantial evidence” matches, plus the night hag in DnD does give nightmares. But from what Gandrel said, the Gur knew who she was, so the option of her deceiving them can definitely be ruled out.

I think it's definitely easy to miss, but he can talk about how he was killed by them because of one of his rulings, and the fact he refuses to elaborate is very suspicious. It does sound like Cazador knew him and maybe had something to do with it as well, though, because of how suspiciously he brushes off that Cazador happened to be there.

Here are his different lines talking about it:
"I was attacked. A gang of vagrants, a tribe of wandering 'Gur', took issue with a ruling I'd made.
They beat me to death's door when Cazador appeared. He chased them off and offered to save me. To give me eternal life."
"Not him, no. A gang of thugs attacked me, angry about a ruling that I'd handed down as magistrate"

Going through these lines reminded me of another contradiction, albeit smaller than others- or maybe I misunderstood. Both in EA and the current game Astarion can talk about Cazador inviting him to dine with him, serving him a putrid rat. I assumed that he'd be in the room where Cazador is feeding. But then in Act 3 Ulma assumes -and is never corrected- that Astarion has never seen Cazador feed from his victims.

Yes, I had those lines. After that I decided that Astarion passed judgment on some of them, and then already visited a more dangerous area, where they attacked him to avenge their own. That's basically how I perceived the story during the first playthrough. I could assume that Astarion gave an unfair judgment, for example, by not giving due consideration to “all sorts of scum”. When I agreed to help the Tieflings, he scolded because we were “going to help the scum” (not quoted verbatim, no close save). Yes, it was exactly those words of Astarion that created the perception of the Gur as traveling bandits (who probably take “orders” for assassinations, kidnappings, etc). Until the conversation with Gandrel's corpse when he utters the line, “He knows where our children are”, I perceived Gandrel as a mercenary hired by Cazador to retrieve or kill Astarion. The fact that the Gur are monster hunters finally becomes clear only in Act 3.


When does Astarion say this? I've heard of it but I didn't have it in the game, can you tell me in which dialog this line is in? I remember Ulma's lines - it's when talking to her in the gur camp.

I think it's unrelated to Ulma- he says it when you ask about his story. Here's the dialogue branch:

Astarion: I suppose you want to hear about Cazador.
(...)
Player: Not a good master, I take it?
Astarion: He had me go out into Baldur's Gate to fetch him the most beautiful souls I could find.
Astarion: It was a fun little ritual of his - I'd bring them back and he'd ask if I wanted to dine with him. And if I said yes, he'd serve me a dead, putrid rat.
Astarion: Of course if I said no, he'd have me flayed. Hard to say which was worse.

IIRC, this iteration is kind of specific, I've definitely had it in EA a few times, but I can't nail down what kind of situation triggers it right now. I think it's if you haven't discussed Cazador at all, and then you discover about him. When you talk to him, he directly brings up the topic.

The dialog with Ulma is as follows (In this version, Gandrel is dead in the swamps):
- (Ulma): So it is you, the impossible spawn who walks among us in the blazing sun. We have been looking for you.
- (Tav): What do you want with Astarion?
- (Ulma): The last time your friend visited our camp, he stole our children. Our future.
- (Ulma): When we sent Gandrell after you, we wanted to question you. To find out how to save our children and then finish you off. (The hunters wanted to kill him anyway).
- (Ulma): But the situation has changed. You've changed.
- (Ulma): Did you really leave your master? Dispelled the spell that bound you to him? (The hunters realize that the brats are bound to their master and his orders).
- (Astarion): Well, you know... something like that. It's a long story, to be honest.
- (Tav): What business is it of yours?
- (Ulma): For those your friend stole from us, it's a matter of life and death.
- (Ulma): We already tried to rescue our children once before by attacking Casador Fence's palace at first light. But even then, it was too well defended. (Let me remind you that Castle Zarr is not only defended by spawns, but also by enchanted men who are not responsible for their actions, which means that the Gurts are not afraid of spilling the blood of innocents).
- (Ulma): But what if his own brat comes to him? Someone he can control - as he believes he can. He will open every door, inviting you in.
- (Ulma): And once inside, you'll do what we couldn't. You will save the children you yourself have condemned to death. (By order of master. If it were his will, it would be possible to appeal to conscience, but in the realized version, Astarion can not be responsible for his actions, although he can correct them).
- (Astarion): You do not know Casador as I know him. He is ruthless. You want me to enter the lion's den and save your children.... But I could swear they're already dead.
- (Tav): What makes you so sure of that?
- (Astarion): For two hundred years I've been delivering victims to him. And each one was taken to him that very night - to be fed.
- (Ulma): But you didn't see him feed, did you? He could keep captives in his possession for days before killing them. (How can the head of the Gurus, who has no access to the palace, know more than the spawn who lived in the castle?)
- (Ulma): If our children are truly dead, then we will take payment in blood. I know you are able to understand that, spawn. (Words of pure revenge, if the children are dead, we will kill you).

In the dialog about the "rotten rat", indeed, the elf says that Casador invited him to "dine" with him. But in this dialog Astarion does not mention that Casador ate people in front of Astarion, he says: "he had a little ritual, if I said yes, I was fed to the rat, and if I didn't, I was skinned". I guess it just didn't look like a real one on one dinner, but rather a "food" question followed by torture depending on the choice.

The first time we hear from the hunter about the children, we can't ask the elf that question. That dialog just isn't there. I assume the developers intended for this moment to be the first time they called him to account, but then, abandoned the idea.

And Astarion doesn't exactly brush off the fact that Casador was there that night for a reason, he says:
- (Tav): He showed up just when you needed him? What an interesting coincidence.
- (Astarion): Quite possibly. Or maybe he was just attracted by the smell of blood. The important thing is that I have a long history with these barbarians.

A couple more interesting things left in the game and testify to the past of the elf:
If you go through the game as a "Bard" and in the goblin camp choose to play the goblin battle march on the drum, Astarion comments that: "you'd be worth a fortune on a slave ship.". So at the very least, the character sees nothing wrong with the "slave trade", if he hasn't been involved in it in the past at all.
+ Grimforge, the scene with the dwarf Distur and the two Dwagars:. Astarion says, "That's what I call servant training." And he'll approve if you saying, "What an interesting prisoner. Where do they get them? I want one of them.."

It's a pity that Cazador can only be killed once in the game. Slicing scars on him is also too little. I just wanted to understand, at least at what point in the game (in what act and after what events, at least approximately, this dialog can happen)? We've discussed Cazador multiple times - after the bite, after killing Gandrel, the dialog about the scars after the first night (I don't know if that can be considered dialog about Cazador, Astarion told how Cazador sliced those scars). After we learned from Raphael the meaning of the scars, Astarion said he was going to kill Cazador (and he said this later on, as I recall it was more than once). The dialog when Astarion talked about Cazador calling them “family”. In the castle during the main quest, Astarion recounts a few more hard moments from his past involving Cazador, but didn't talk about it specifically. I know I missed the story about Astarion taking pity on the boy and Cazador punishing him for it with “a year of hunger” because you have to start judging Astarion to activate that dialog, but there was nothing in the video of that dialog about “dinner with a rotten rat” either. And how can you not discuss Cazador? After the bite, Astarion still talks about “Szarr's family”, but after Gandrel starts talking about Cazador anyway.

@Mirmi, thanks a lot!

Yes, I had exactly that dialog with Ulma. Very good points about the Gurts. They wanted to kill Astarion, it doesn't matter to them that spawns don't have free will and can't do their master's bidding, same goes for enchanted humans. And:


It's clear that one's own clan and one's own children are more important than the lives of others, it's a matter of survival. But Tav, for whom Astarion is certainly more important, and who kills these very Gurts, is in no way more "immoral” than they themselves.


That's for sure. Except, logically, Cazador should have fed alone. He didn't kill his victims, but made them into spawns afterwards. And hid it from the spawns that served him, respectively, and he wouldn't feed in front of his slaves. But Ulma can't know that. Unless she can assume that Cazador “plays with food” by not immediately killing his victims. Or, if there are multiple victims, he wouldn't kill them all at once anyway, but would feed on them one by one, and someone else could be saved. Though, given how much time has passed since the children were kidnapped (more than a few days), it could also be some form of self-conviction, of hope.

Ah, my bad. This is very early in act 1. My understanding is that to get it you can't have talked/asked about Cazador at all previously, by name at least. It has a lot of flags attached to it so it's a bit hard for me to decode it into a clearer way to trigger it, but I know I've had it several times in early access.
I found this video with the scene I'm talking about, in full release:

My point was that it comes from earlier in development than Ulma, and he seems to imply he's seen Cazador feed (I assumed they'd be dinning in the same room, right?). Which contradicts Ulma's claims that he never corrects. Then again, for all we know: Cazador could've fed in front of Astarion, and it wouldn't have meant that those victims can't become vampire spawn. But I guess Ulma didn't expect that he was turning them to spawn.

Thank you! It feels like there's a definite parallel between this scene and the Oblodra bite scene. It completely explains the reasons why the mean Tav can force Astarion to bite Oblodra, why Astarion can't refuse them (although at some other times Astarion can very actively and emotionally demand something), and how his trauma manifests itself in this case. Cazador was forcing Astarion to drink vile blood or else he would face terrible punishment. The scene with Oblodra shows an example of PTSD manifestation in its purest form, maybe that's why Tav's support means so much to Astarion that he decides to confess later. And a rather spontaneous confession, and the confession after Yurgir looks more prepared. In this case, what I considered as a matter of course in the first playthrough and paid too much attention to Oblodra's rudeness and impudence, meant a lot to Astarion, and Oblodra's rudeness meant nothing to him at all, Oblodra is the same putrid rat, that's why he was so confused and didn't look like himself in this scene, it's PTSD.


It seems to me that Cazador could have uttered the phrase “have dine with him” as a bullying phrase. And he could have just watched it. But he could also have drank the blood of his victim, but then he would have to either expel Astarion in the process, or afterward carry the victim away to where he would carry out the process of turning them into spawn. Ulma definitely had no way of knowing this, none of the spawns serving Cazador knew this, Cazador hid the preparations for the ritual from everyone. Astarion learns of the ritual from Raphael, Cazador tells the rest of the spawns about the ritual in the last stage of preparation for it. At the same time, no one knows about the 7000 spawns in the cages, only that a powerful ritual will be performed. The other spawns couldn't know about them either, much less Ulma. The most the Gur could scout was the general fortifications, the guards, maybe some information about the castle they still had from that failed attack. Her words might be those of someone who clings to hope and believes what she wants to believe. Why doesn't Astarion correct her? Well, he says the children are probably dead. Astarion won't want to divulge details of his past to outsiders, that's for sure. That could also be an explanation. Astarion tells only Tav about his past, and not all of it. For example, the story with the boy he only tells if Tav condemns him, he reacts emotionally to that condemnation and it prompts him to tell. If Tav fully supports him and doesn't condemn him, Astarion won't tell anything. It's hard to talk about these things, and there are times when Astarion wants to talk, but obviously not in front of strangers (he also gets nervous, slumps his shoulders, and gives Tav a lot of disapproval if Tav blabs Astarion's biggest fear to an outsider dryad). Does it make sense for him to remember it again if he had such “dining” with Cazador, much less talk about it? Astarion likely thinks the children are dead, and agrees to help in the first place so that Tav doesn't go into Cazador's castle without him, wanting to save them. Ulma is hardly of any importance to him when his thoughts are occupied with the upcoming battle with Cazador and the ritual.