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

[Edit: Deleted].

Hello! I'll try to answer with my knowledge and opinions as an EA player, although IDK if this thread will get moderated because there are so many active Astarion threads going on currently.

So, to start, that backstory you're mentioning isn't *exactly* his EA backstory. That tidbit is grabbed from, if memory serves me right, a Feb 2020 article from a guy that was at that event where Larian showcased some footage of IIRC their alpha build, so a full 8 months before EA release. A couple years later (which is admittedly a lot later) his writer gave an interview where he said "his backstory then isn't necessarily his backstory now"

His backstory in EA is pretty much what you see in full release's act 1. Nothing changed, really. I think they changed a couple lines surrounding Gandrel? The thing is that it's always been implied there was some shady business going on with the ruling he handed down for the Gur (mostly, that he did something extremely bigoted) and that Cazador being there was sketchy, also almost implying they knew each other. But because of the game not really tackling either of these things despite leaving them in, it almost feels like it's a dropped storyline. They also left in comments about Cazador's extensive family and Astarion having to obey them, despite that not being very present in full release. His family was more or less datamined, unlike any mention of Astarion's previous storyline.

Regarding his canon biological age, I honestly think it's a big goof. A 39yo elf in DND is physically in their early 20s but considered an elf minor by their society. However, Astarion does not remotely look like a 20yo. But, he does very much look like a human 39 year old (I've also seen people say it's a nod to the age Neil Newbon was when he started playing the character). This makes me believe they assigned him a human age while forgetting he's an elf, as they often do with Astarion, honestly. His elven heritage is barely mentioned.
Astarion's mirror scene and his concerns there if you point out certain traits feel like heavily points to him being at a middle-age-crisis age, rather than his 20s. His writer also said in an interview the concept for him was "aging rockstar" and that he already thought he looked too smooth in the concept art.

I also have to add the dates surrounding both that tombstone and the Cazador palace are a complete and utter mess. No date in his tombstone fully makes sense, even when people try to construct a way to make them work, and even then it actively contradicts dates given in the palace for when Cazador became a lord. At this point I feel like we have to accept it's kind of nonsensical and build our own HCs about what's right and what's not. Personally I don't think Astarion being an elf minor suits him, so I don't really stick to that.

Ah, also, for your interest, the artbook also seems to have been made at an earlier stage in development and they also talk a bit about Astarion's background there, that he was part of the corrupt elite and "looking for immortality". Despite being part of the full release artbook, this seems to be old and scrapped judging by the game.

Thank you, this is really insightful! The tombstone thing is especially interesting. I think you're right - given the conflicting information, it's more of a headcanon situation than a canon one. It's a bit of a shame, though. I hope Larian will shed some more light on the chain of events at some point.

No prob! I love talking about the more intricate and less known parts of the canon, or the canon that never was, rather :P

As much as it pains me because I find kind of nonsensical, I wouldn't call Astarion being 39 (or, well, 239) a headcanon, as it's what's in the game. I'm not sure if him being that young for an elf is headcanon or not though, since I can't be sure what the intent truly was even if I have my opinions about it. I suppose it's accidentally or not canon since it's set in the dnd universe, so all we can conclude is that he was for some reason that young, as much as we can think it was a mistake. I know some people have tried to explain it by saying that "he lived in a mostly human society, and thus considered an adult in Baldur's Gate" but I still find that flawed both because of the clues from his personality and his looks. Others have said that the trauma or undeath has significantly aged him, which I find clashes with how we conceive most vampires to be, frozen at the time of their death if only looking a bit deader. But people have grown attached to those ideas, and that's okay.
What I prefer thinking is that he's whatever the elf equivalent of human 39 is. (Given that Minthara is ~250? and Halsin is 350, Astarion looks somewhere inbetween that range)

Another interesting thing however is that there is this pseudo-canon mobile game called "Idle Champions" where they established they had worked with his main writer for his bio sheet in that game and there his age at death was established to be 150, IIRC. It was still not old enough in my opinion, but a lot more apt. It was changed to 39 ingame a couple of months later in a silent patch, and I'm not sure if it was because of the writer notifying that mistake, or because of fans noting it, and in the latter case, if the writer was asked for permission to change it. To this day, however, their blog's bio that was in collaboration with his writer has his age as 350, so I haven't got a clue.

Sadly I don't think they'll address it. Perhaps years down the line, in some supplementary book or comic? It'd probably not be from his original authors. Who knows. I also think it'd come with the disadvantage of invalidating some people's ideas (probably invalidate mine, since now they're probably going to have to work around having established what I think is a goof). The advantage of the dates not adding up is that the people who like the tragedy of him dying that young can believe that, while I can think it was a mistake because he looks human 39, not elf 39.

Idk if you've heard of this as well, but Astarion was originally a tiefling, and I find him being an elf much more apt. His tiefling veeery early origins have led some people to believe it influenced his storyline and tombstone, which I disagree with since those aspects of the script would've come much later down the line, when he's already been long established as an elf and not a tiefling.
Unfortunately I have to give credence to the fact that Astarion's personality hardly feels like that of someone who has the lived experience of centuries, unlike someone like Halsin or Minthara. That can be due to the regressing experience of going through all that trauma, I suppose, but when I see him it's hard to think "Oh, this guy was 300 before he died." It's much easier to picture him being literally 39. Which is a problem, given that he's an elf, as little as that's acknowledged.
I also suppose writing centuries-old elves in DND is hard since they're bound to be somewhat human-like because of the universe they're set in, where anyone can play as anything and be whichever way they like, plus conveying the almost alien experience of someone having lived that long is probably difficult, and I think brushed off for most DND elves if possible.

I'm genuinely curious – how do we know that this backstory (written in the artbook) has been scrapped? Or rather, what parts of the game imply/indicate that this was scrapped? I am just curious because I also don't really know. I assumed he was actually a corrupt magistrate, since he does tell you he's a magistrate when you first meet him, and at another point he says that he made a ruling that upset the Gur. I think it's a shame that his background (before he became a vampire spawn) is mainly left unexplored in the game.
That's a good point about Cazador's extended family. It implies that there are more Szarrs out there who had power over Astarion, but you never see or hear about them after you deal with Cazador.

It seems that his age in Idle Champions is now 263? I wonder why they keep messing with his age and can't stick to one. I agree with your own thoughts on it, that he looks about 39 in human years imo. And it seems most likely to me that this was probably a mistake (them not taking into account that he's an elf).

@Celesti4 I guess we don't know if it's truly scrapped- But rather that there's just no mention of the "looking for immortality part" (shame, because it'd add a layer of depth to that one dialogue where he insults Cazador's servants for seeking vampirism) and that the artbook tends to have some outdated info that makes it seem it was made earlier in development. I agree that the game still does heavily, heavily, HEAVILY imply he was a very corrupt magistrate, and find it strange there's no follow-up on the tidbits he drops about how his death happened in act 1 that were clearly written with a follow-up in mind. IIRC, one of the datamines I saw in Early Access had him allying by default with this monster hunter guy called "Spencer" against his spawn siblings (you met them in act 2 here). That might have tied into it? I can't recall if he was a Gur, might not have been specified. If so, it could've been part of his arc.

And about Idle Champions: my bad. His age there was never 239, I'm just tired and didn't get it right. They changed it to 263 indeed, and that age is a band-aid to try to fix the tombstone inconsistencies, except it doesn't deal with all of them. IIRC (might be wrong, I'm so sleepy!) what they did to get that age was add a 1 in front of both the year he was born and the year he died, and changed the current year to 1492, which is the correct date but not the one he writes down on his tombstone ingame, he puts a date that's like 25 years before the events of the game but acts like it's the current year. Thus the fix 263 is born.

Astarion's only mention of his elven heritage ingame are him talking about his pointy ears, the vague sense of high-elf superiority syndrome trope, and that one Durge conversation where he mentions Evereska, if that's even considered addressing his elvishness. They really do treat him as a human, in a way they don't do for the other elf companions. It's a bit jarring when the story treats him as extraordinarily ancient at times, because there are 2 characters older than him that you can recruit. I guess immortal vampires and how they clash with mortals' lifespans doesn't gel well with worlds where people can naturally live 750 years. (Don't take my nitpickiness as me hating on the game, these are all extremely minor and trivial complaints and I do love BG3)

EDIT: Re: Spencer the monster hunter, I wanted to say I looked for my source because it was an interesting thing but the tumblr who datamined all that recently deactivated. That's such a shame because they datamined a lot of stuff that most people don't know about. The only other mention I've found online of that guy's existence is this VK post, although there's some issues with what seems to be the automatic translation? https://m.vk.com/wall-178381386_183365?lang=en.
I'm skimming over, but it's missing other parts of that datamine about how a bunch of Astarion's siblings were (at Moonrise Towers?) playing cards or something and then saw him and cheerfully asked him to join them at the table or something, to which he got mad and started bragging about how he's now free and doesn't have to do a damn thing, something like that. And Spencer comes in, and he prefers to side with him. In this version of the story, act 3 datamines had the spawn seemingly be happy about Cazador's treatment of them, saying he was a strict boss but that he still fed them well. Could've been them being compelled to say so, I guess, but also could imply that Astarion was extremely punished in comparison, which was something heavily implied in EA (that he was "Cazador's personal slave, never to leave his side unless instructed to") and taken out when they changed how Daisy/The Emperor works. Honestly, back in EA everyone seemed to conceive Astarion and Cazador's relationship not like that of an abusive father and his son, but of like, an extremely abusive """romantic""" relationship.

@jinetemoranco - Thank you so much for taking the time to write down all of this info! I didn't know about most of the datamined things you mentioned. I definitely never heard about Spencer the monster hunter and the scene with the siblings playing cards, or that he may have been a Tiefling in early stages. Very interesting.

No problem That makes sense for them to change it to 263, if the current date on the tombstone wasn't correct. I've seen some other sources that have him at different ages like 350, and I would believe that a lot more. 63 would still be very young for an elf, but slightly better than 39. And looking at his pics in the artbook, I think he may look even older there on that artwork than he does in the game.

Off the top of my head, the only other times I remember him specifically indicating something about his elven heritage is when he looks at the portraits in Ketheric's tomb. "A big painting of a sad elf, heartbreaking" / "Now that's what I like to see: An Elf at the head of an army."
During one of the conversations with Dark Urge, he says, "Although I don't look a day over 100 (years old)"... why would he say that if he was only 39 when he died / got turned into a spawn? I think there was definitely something that went wrong here behind the scenes when they put his age on the tombstone. If they had him say it out loud, like literally saying "I was 39 when this happened," rather than just having it on a texture on the tombstone, then maybe it wouldn't seem so much like it was a mistake to me.

That's also interesting, that Astarion in EA was never allowed to leave Cazador's side and was implied to be more like his personal slave. In the current game it seems that what they've left in is that he would get treated badly (or worse than the others) because his screams sounded sweetest to him or something along those lines, and maybe because of his overall strong personality, but I think it's not really explained why Cazador gives him special attention.

You're right about the Ketheric comments and the Durge conversation- I remember I've used that line as a counter-argument to Astarion being that young before, but I also wasn't sure if he was doing elf humor or vampire humor. It at least sounds like elf humor though, and it is implying he was 100+ after death. I can't say for certain though. The disparity might come from different writers, since I'm very confident the durge scene we're talking about was written by Welch. But Rooney has also been seemingly inconsistent about Astarion's age. Perhaps it was truly meant as an easter egg for Newbon's age when he started? A mystery for the ages.

The thing about the date on the tombstone is that it was written quite plainly on the devnotes, so it wasn't the tombstone artists' mistake or something- but IDK if they just very quickly wrote it. The tombstone reflects everything written on the devnote except a small difference in the surname- The devnotes say Ancunín, while the tombstone reads Ancunin. This is because the alphabet they used doesn't account for accents like that.

I want to clarify that I'm not 100% sure the spawn siblings were playing cards- it's a silly detail but I dislike the idea of spreading misinfo or something :P I just remember they were like, hanging out at some table. If the tumblr blog hadn't deactivated I could confirm, but I suppose it's pretty trivial.

The current game does seem to point at him having the same role as the other spawn except he was the most hated, but EA seemed much more extreme. I also got the idea Astarion was out of all the spawn the only or one of the only ones that hunted people, but he didn't talk about his siblings much so idk, I just found it weird he specified his role as a spawn back then.
There are things I prefer about full release and things I prefer about how I imagined the EA version would play out (which I of course can't know because I haven't seen what they were planning, I'm just trying to solve the puzzle here). I think the father/son abuse angle is better and more narratively cohesive, and that the siblings also being tortured is better, because it's silly to think they'd be content in those circumstances. However, I was very interested by the possibility of Cazador thinking he was doing a twisted version of justice by punishing Astarion- a whole "abuser becomes victim" kind of plot for Astarion. It would have made a lot of people heavily dislike Astarion, though. I also think Astarion's arc could've been more complete if his past evils had been addressed, like the OG version seemed to plan on doing. I have more complex thoughts on what I liked about the whole thing and how I imagined it'd play out, but I don't feel super coherent or articulate right now.

It sounded more like elf humor to me too. That makes more sense to me here that he's implying he's over the age of 100 when he became a spawn.

Yes, that sounds very possible -- maybe it was originally meant to be a little easter egg that they thought most people wouldn't even pay much attention to (I probably wouldn't have noticed the age on the tombstone myself or known how to translate it honestly). I really like the idea that they could have done this as a nod to Neil Newbon.:)
Ah, if was in the devnotes too, it probably wouldn't just be a random mistake. But then again, I guess they also got the current date (the year when the events of the game took place) wrong on there. So if the devnote was a mistake then the artist would have easily just copied it onto there, too.

Hmm, I'm wondering too if that's why they kind of leaned away from pushing the backstory that he was a corrupt member of the elite in the past who had a hunger for eternal life and so on, in favor of him being a more sympathetic character to most players, perhaps. But like you said, it could have been interesting story-wise if Astarion himself had done evil things before, and then having it all be turned around on him when he becomes a slave to Cazador. Things like that could have added more layers to his story and yes it could have been interesting for him to look back and address his past in regards to that. I was personally interested in knowing if he had family before he became a spawn and what kind of relationship he had with them. As far as I know, throughout the game we don't meet any relatives of his or anyone who knew him before he got bitten. Although if he can't remember things like his old eye color, maybe previous family ties or his old life are fuzzy to him.
Thank you again for sharing those interesting facts!

You are talking about the three puzzle paintings in Ketheric's tomb, aren't you? I got different dialogue for those "Ketheric Thorm, mourning his daughter. Who knew he had it in him?" and "The mighty general - Ketheric at the head of an army of Shar worshippers." Maybe those are specific to his origin.


I think I might have preferred this angle too. In the current version I feel the narration focuses too heavily on Astarion's suffering while ignoring how the abuse he experienced makes him cause the pain in return (unless you ascend him) - which would have been more fitting for the whole "cycle of power and terror" theme. Especially the romantic version of his post-Araj confession rubs me the wrong way, where he, after thanking you for not using him, makes fun of a PC who realises they have been nothing but a tool for Astarion up to this point. Instead of break-up drama, which the scene is primarily concerned with, it would have been more interesting for me to explore how you can even break out of such a cycle if you don't even notice how awful your own behaviour is. But ... probably not the point of this thread. ^^

I've never played his origin story, so that's new to me. : )

Yes, he was a companion in my playthrough when he said this. More accurately he says:
- "A big painting of a sad elf. Heartbreaking, truly."
- "Now that's what I like to see - an elf at the head of an army. Even a Sharran one."

Here it kind of sounds like he doesn't realize this is Ketheric (and his daughter) he's looking at in the paintings, vs. how he talks about it as origin Astarion.

Oh that might be the reason, Celesti, they do have different things to say about Isobel's sarcophagus depending on if they have already met Isobel and snooped around Moonrise or if the went straight to the mausoleum without any prior knowledge. It might be just his comment when he knows neither Ketheric nor Isobel.

This is a very interesting topic! Jinetemoranco, thank you for taking the time to provide so much interesting information!


In Act 1 Astarion talks about the “Szarr family”, pronouncing it “they”, I had full confidence on first playthrough that we were going to encounter a vampire clan. Subsequently, in Act 2, Astarion says that Cazador referred to his enslaved spawns as “family”, which brings up associations with a psychopathic maniac who keeps his victims in his basement while referring to them as “family”. But in Act 1, Astarion said that he would no longer be subject to “them,” and this is confusing. We only find the diaries of Cazador's niece (Lady Incognita), a vampire who didn't want to accept being a vampire, and apparently died, though I couldn't find information in the game about what exactly happened to her.


I agree. A 39 year old elf would look like a very young boy, it doesn't fit with DnD lore in any way.


Astarion remembers almost nothing about his past, he tells us that he remembers almost nothing, perhaps his previous experience has been largely erased by the horrors of 200 years of slavery and torture. It seemed to me that in the course of the game he kind of starts to live again, gradually reveals himself, so for me, in general, it is normal to accept that he was 150 or even 350 years old before the moment of his conversion. Especially since it's still, indeed, as you correctly point out, impossible to accurately convey the character of a character with centuries of experience. The only example from the games in which I think the authors have best managed to convey this is the image of the blind Storyteller from Pathfinder. Something like that really feels right there, but that kind of character is completely unsuitable for any kind of romantic line, not even for any kind of deep friendship. Not even as a mentor, but only as a kind of really almost alien being that you can talk to, you can listen to his stories, reflect on them, but you and he will always be, if I may say so, on different levels.


There are so many interesting things in the VK post. It's such a pity it wasn't implemented. And it's unclear why Astarion's dream after release is only available for Astarion Origins, even though in EA there was a scene about it and we could talk to him about his dream. I also thought it was interesting that the night hag, Ethel's sister, was supposed to be hiding under the guise of the leader of Gur. And Ulma does indeed look like a hag. Literally the same face as Ethel. And a letter from “M” stating that she's looking for someone, but that information is not realized in any way in the game. Perhaps she was looking for Astarion? This story would be great to spruce up the Gur plot.

Found this other video from EA, with some very vivid reactions and lines from Astarion where he's scared and angry.



In this case, on the contrary, I'm very glad it wasn't implemented. It would have been too awful. I never really saw the relationship between Astarion and Cazador as a father-son relationship, but rather as that of a psychopathic maniac and his prisoner, whom he tried to break but never could. But this story allows for different readings, because such a “father” is, in general, in any case at the same time a psychopathic maniac. Just as one can think of examples from history where slave owners called themselves “fathers” of their slaves, and considered themselves to be “mentoring” their slaves. “Father” in this case can be understood as a kind of overwhelming oppressive image, whom the hero must destroy in order to free himself from his power.


It seems to me that this story was removed for the sake of a mass audience. This image is impressive to connoisseurs, but not really suitable for mass perception. On the one hand, maybe that's not a bad thing, otherwise there would have been a lot more toxic “morality”. On the other hand, of course, Astarion's plot would have been more interesting and complete. I honestly feel more sorry for the softening and because of that somewhat simplification of his character, compared to what was in EA, than the removal of the corrupt judge's story directly. I still wouldn't have gotten him to some of those shiver-inducing lines in my game, of course, because that would require pissing him off, and I would have watched it on video as well, but surely the romantic interaction might have been a little different. His trust would have been harder to earn, and as it is, in the first playthrough at the beginning of the game there's an illusion that he's a difficult problematic character, and in fact Astarion is very easy for the player. He was a seducer in EA as well, so the early onset of the romance could have been there as well, but the transition to the next level of the relationship when Astarion opens up and starts to trust should have been worth more effort given Astarion's backstory and how he perceives the world around him as hostile.Especially the confession scene after Oblodra cheapens this (I went through the scene after Yurgir and felt the difference). If in the case of Yurgir everything is more logical, especially when you attack Yurgir without talking, immediately engaging him in battle, you can understand Astarion's desire to open up and trust - his lover took a risk for him, organized a combat operation without questions and without talking, attacked from a disadvantageous position, complying with Raphael's demand not to talk to Yurgir, because finding out about Astarion's scars is much more important than the details of the devils' history or the possibility to facilitate the confrontation with the enemy. Astarion might be willing to open up to someone like that, who has proven by deed that she is always on his side. And in the case of Oblodra, I did... Nothing. Just confirmed Astarion's refusal to bite her. Oblodra can't even be punished for humiliating Astarion. I mean, nothing at all. Didn't take advantage of Astarion's vulnerability and his PTSD for some miserable potion - well yeah, showed I'm not the last ***, but nothing more. As one of the situations that combine to earn Astarion's trust - that would be fine, but not as the main reason to get recognition. I wonder why there are two options for getting recognition in the game, and they are not connected to each other (if they were connected and you had to pass both scenes and get recognition after passing the last of them, as if for both deeds, it would be understandable)? Is the Yurgir variant an earlier version?

I have an answer for this one- the Yurgir version (which used to not be related to Yurgir at all, but just high approval, triggering once you slept after reaching Moonrise Towers) was made as a failsafe. Basically, they made that scene just in case you missed Araj, so you wouldn't be locked out of the Astarion romance. The Araj version is the one that was intended as the main one. It does surprise me, because I similarly think the Yurgir version is better, but I'm biased because it's also the one I found first. There are things about the Araj version I prefer, though. And I know people who say the Araj version is better, so it's a matter of taste.

That reminds me that a while ago I reported to Larian that it's weird that if you had had the Yurgir confession already, you can make Astarion bite Araj with no consequences, and they told me they were aware of this problem and working on it. Could it be in Patch 7?

Oh, that is a surprise. I had assumed that the Araj version was the failsafe, because it's easy to reach while you have to match several prerequisites to achieve the Yurgir version. The reasoning is also peculiar to me, because the Araj version - while very interesting - makes me think that the writing's hope and intention here was that you break up with him.

To be fair, that didn't use to be the case. At least in my case, when I still knew nothing about full release, it happened fairly naturally: I had high approval, I rested at Moonrise Towers, boom: confession scene. I think Yurgir being a trigger is worse, IMO, and IDK why it was changed.

The reasoning for why this one is the failsafe is, from what I could gather, that Araj was put there on purpose to explore Astarion's issues with consent and autonomy and using himself, which I guess isn't as evident for the Yurgir version? He still talks about it, I suppose. What I don't like about Araj's version is that you can miss that he says that that was an issue with you, or that he used you. Still, I'd rather move on from that as to not cross into topics about Astarion's romance which are already explored on other threads.

I forgot to say earlier that yes, the impression I got from Madame Fel back when the EA datamines were coming out was that she was some sort of supernatural entity allied with the Gur. I've datamined the current game and Madame Fel effectively became Ulma, and the Madame Fel flags are still there.
My theory back then was that Madame Fel was long-lived because of... whatever she was, and had been alive to see Astarion's ruling that got him killed, hence that part of his past would've been addressed because she knew of it and disliked it. It was nice to imagine how things could've turned out in EA.

Just briefly then: Of course I can only guess, but using Yurgir as a trigger synchronises it with the Araj encounter. When meeting Araj, you defend his autonomy; when fulfilling Raph's deal, you also support his autonomy because he learns what Cazador's plan for him is and can plot against it. As Marielle wrote above, fulfilling a devil's contract and slaying a mighty beast just so that Astarion can learn something about himself - a very classical romantic gesture if you will XD - seems like a good trigger for a guilty conscience too, while high approval alone maybe doesn't have the same effect.


This would explain why Ulma is so focused on Astarion's redemption in some of her dialogue and seems to think that it might be something he desires.

It seems to me they adapted whatever the original outline was for his interactions with the Gur into a softer, more palatable version for full release.
Basically, I imagine originally he had to confront something bad he did to the Gur in the past of his own volition: Now it's changed so the (seemingly one and only) issue he has with the Gur right now is something he did under Cazador's control, so he isn't even truly responsible for it, but he can still make an effort to try to fix it.

I find it peculiar that, when he remains a Spawn but you kill the 7k victims, he tells Ulma "I've inflicted enough pain on your people". Was this acknowledgement of his past deeds, perhaps? It's the closest thing we have. I guess I'll have to fill in the gaps, there.

I feel they overall polished off possible edges from the backstories so that the characters end up as mostly blameless, perfect victims - apart from Gale and maybe Lae'zel, who might end up with a grudge against Vlaakith but never against the githyanki culture in which she was raised.

trigger warning for sexual abuse

The writing, to me, heavily implies that it's not all that healthy for Astarion to pursue a romantic and/or sexual relationship right now. In fact, it seemed incredibly obvious to me to the point I was surprised more people don't talk about it. I think it's because it's something most people won't notice without experience.

When he told me he didn't feel comfortable having sex and I broke up with him, he was relieved. In a run where we stopped having sex but kept dating, spawn Astarion was relieved when I said we didn't have to have sex after we killed cazador. He seems to have trouble saying no to sex he doesn't want to have even to a partner he trusts, considering he dissociates during the brothel scene.

He doesn't even know if he can consent or wants it at all because it's been at long since he's been given a choice. He also obviously believes that if he doesn't have sex with a partner they'll leave him. I know he seems alright with polyam as long as it's not because he won't have sex with you, but I have no idea what he does if you say it is because of that. Either way it shows it's a worry.

As a person who has been there, someone saying "I can wait" implies that eventually they expect sex at some point. Which means they're going to end it if they think that point will never arrive. When you're desperate not to lose someone and are used to having sex you don't want to in order to keep people happy, it's easy to convince yourself you're ready before you really are. It's easy to think that once you don't have an "excuse" anymore that your partner will expect you to be over it. Especially since, unfortunately, a lot of people do believe those things.

To be clear, I am not saying that Astarion can't consent or that it's wrong to romance him or ascend him or anything. I did a spawn romance, a durge and ascended astarion queerplatonic thing, and am doing an origin run that will end with ascended astarion dating minthara. It's roleplay in a video game.

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.