Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Patch 7 Ascended Astarion's kisses goes against his story as written

The game details the process of transformation into a spawn and openly states that if a vampire allows you to drink their blood, you are freed from their control. Astarion gave Tav his blood, this is proven by the fact that Tav doesn't burn in the sun and also sees himself in the mirror. Tav can't just be a spawn, according to the lore of the game. I don't know if this was done intentionally or if Larian just made a mistake, but it's a fact. Tav is not a spawn. Also, the game has never, not once - not once - shown that AA can actually control Tav. They showed how Cazador does it, they showed how Bhaal bends the Dark Urge to his will, but they never showed how AA controls Tav. It takes tremendous mental gymnastics to ignore all these facts in favor of your beliefs.

«You were drained dry, and at the height of your delirium, I granted you one drop of my own blood.»

«Player: How does someone become a vampire, exactly?
Astarion: It's simple. Just find a vampire that will drink your blood and turn you into a vampire spawn: their obedient puppet. In theory, the next step is to drink their blood. Once you've done that, you're free and a true vampire.»

«Astarion: It will only hurt a bit, the pleasure will be far greater than the pain.»

«Astarion: I remember how it hurt when I turned to a vampire. My body writhed and warped while I was utterly helpless, the grip of death owned my heart as it beat its last.»


In the same dialog, he states that he is not going to control Tav the way Cazador did, and that he would never hurt Tav. There are no dev notes in there about this being a lie, although other lines have such dev notes in them. And at no point in the game is AA shown using the true vampire's control over his spawn, as was shown in the game with the example of Astarion's siblings. We've seen what it should look like and we have NOT seen AA do it. AA also never hurt Tav without consent until patch 6. AA also shares Mephistopheles' gifts with Tav, guaranteeing Tav protection from the sun and hunger, something Cazador would never do for his spawn. Cazador has been torturing his spawn with hunger since their transformation. The relationship between Tav and AA is a far cry from the relationship between Cazador and his spawns.


Let's not get into unnecessary philosophy here about good and evil, corruption by power and the mindset of evil characters. Why not get away from simplistic understandings of moral issues in games and works without falling into simplistic schemes and stereotypes? Mintara has that mindset too. Tav and Dark Urge might have that mindset too. Astarion has a neutrally evil worldview by default, since he's a vampire. That's why Spawn and AA have the same approval system in Act 3 and the same evil ending.

The evil endings just prove that AA is trustworthy. He doesn't even have any thoughts of betrayal. He treats Tav like an equal. Tav makes her own destiny, he stands back and looks at Tav with pride.

Honestly, if Tav was just his spawn, it would be extremely disadvantageous for him to agitate Tav to become an Absolute. Because it was only the tadpole that prevented him from having complete control over Tav. The moment Tav becomes Absolute, he himself is in a vulnerable position, knowing that in this way Tav can control him as well. But he doesn't expect a catch, because Tav's agreement to become his spawn has convinced him that their relationship is based on complete trust. «Thank you for trusting me.» Therefore, he cannot believe that Tav would betray him.

«Lae'zel: You have shared your new power with your lover, Astarion. I'm surprised - I expected you to turn your back once you got what you wanted.
Astarion: Quite the opposite - I need someone I can trust. And now I know they'll never betray me.»

«Karlach: You know, Astarion, I'm not sure I can trust you anymore. You're... different. A bit scary, to be honest.
Astarion: I have one person who trusts me completely. That's enough for me.»

As a reminder, AA can be killed immediately after the ritual by siding with Ulma. (I suppose Tav, frightened by the change in Astarion's behavior, could have taken that chance, and she wouldn't have had to fight alone). He can be kicked in the balls in the transformation scene. He's also easy to kill with a dagger to the stomach for some reason. Is it safe to say he's that strong compared to Tav? I've seen anti-AA mocking AA because of this. But for some reason those same people insisted that Tav should react to the kissing with fear. Those people who mock his inflated ego and the way he squirms after hitting balls, finding it hilarious - they claim that the only reaction to his kiss can only be fear. I can see the flaws in that logic.

Based on the lore of the dnd, the spawn have a Neutral Evil alignment, while the true vampires have a Lawful Evil alignment, for which hierarchy is of great importance. That's why AA sets up this relationship dynamic. For this reason, he orders Tav to kneel. For this reason he calls Tav his consort. «We are sovereigns. My sole endeavour now is to make this world yours and mine alone.»


My love for Astarion as a villain and my love for his romance with Tav are not mutually exclusive. Evil characters can love too. I, too, love Ascended Astarion - exactly as I love Astarion in general - as a villain. I am told that I romanticize Astarion, but I have never denied that he is a villain. In fact, the very people who accuse me of romanticizing him are the ones who themselves romanticize Astarion a little more than completely, and go into furious denial when reminded that Astarion is a vampire and an evil character by default, not just because of his trauma. The claim that Astarion isn't evil at heart because he's a victim is a classic manifestation of romanticization. Believing in the “I can fix him” plot trope is a classic example of romanticization. I always find it funny to hear something about how I romanticize Ascended Astarion from people like this.

Some girl on youtube made a mocking video about AA fans, donning the white cape of an educator of morally correct choices, calling us delusional. She also made a video claiming Astarion was safe and not a threat. He's non threatening, and he nonthreateningly tries to cut your throat and nonthreateningly tries to bite you and nonthreateningly drink your blood and non threatening promises not to kill you and if you take him at his word, he nonthreateningly kills you. Many Spawn fans look at Astarion through rose-colored glasses and don't even realize it. Ironically, only AA fans fully recognize the fact that Astarion is an evil character from beginning to end.

The difference between Spawn fans and AA fans is that the latter realize they're playing a game and don't take the whole Astarion story as a parable. To me, the spawn route is a completely fairy tale story about Astarion being “fixed” by the power of love\ friendship by throwing a charisma dice. In real life, such fantasies are very dangerous and are romanticization. A short post about it.

So by what logic am I romanticizing something toxic if we've all romanticized the manipulator from the beginning? And make no mistake that you have continued to do so by playing the spawn route. I want to enjoy my dark romance with the villain, and have as much right to do so as you do. And no, if you enjoy AA “as a tragedy”, i.e. as a parable with a moral lesson, then you're a spawn fan all the same. Because to you the AA route is just an appendage to the spawn route.

Frankly, I was surprised when someone called this story “complex story about a cycle of abuse”, when in fact it's just a schematically simplistic view of the story and the character, an attempt to reduce the complex personality of the Ascended Astarion to an archetype that works for a particular narrative fitting into 10 lines of dialog.


So I find it ridiculous that you're wasting your time on this topic instead of asking Larian to add more kissing to the spawn route.


AA sympathizes with Tav because of the situation with Haarlep. He has a deep understanding for Tav as he has been through it himself.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VCnVV3YjRAk


I don't see him doing anything horrible or scary. Games of two vampires, not puritans. Which, according to the script, is what it was originally intended to be. Not a dead dove.

«Astarion's right hand shot up quickly, grabbing the Player's neck. Locking eyes with the Player, he starts to squeeze their neck, slowly choking them. Player squirms a bit, gasping for breath. They're enjoying it.»

«Player kneels before Astarion. Astarion stands proud before the Player. He is powerful. He is free.»

«Astarion takes your hand, kisses the top of it, then turns it over and starts to bite your wrist. Astarion reaches down, takes Player's left hand with his right hand. He brought the hand up to his lips. He kisses it gently, tenderly. Then looking at Player, he turns their hand over to expose the wrist. He takes a bite. Player stares at Astarion while he feasts, enjoying the sensation.»

«Player and Astarion standing facing each other. They gaze lovingly at one another. (Note: They're both naked. Construction anim used for standing.)»

So, according to the original plan, no dead dove was on this route. The dead dove is fandom fiction.


Astarion can be all of these things at once. He does not claim that one excludes the other. According to Rooney, the two most important aspects of Astarion's character are that he enjoys violence, but also has fun about it: «He has a certain appreciation for violence, I guess? A bit of a murdery streak. […] He’s a vampire, he’s all about blood, and he’s all about, kind of, those darker sides of humanity. [...] But at the same time, he is… He is really fun, he’s really fun to write, he’s really fun to have in your party, and it’s very important for me that that is also represented.» «He’s gonna stab you, but will have a smile on his face as he does it? I mean, I dunno. That’s kind of him in a nutshell.» Rooney says Astarion is consistently terrible throughout the game and awful in many ways. He also referred to him as his “horrible little vampire boy”.

For example, it's the spawn dialogs at the end of the game:

Player: Are you sure about this? The Hells are a horrific place.
Astarion: Don't threaten me with a good time, darling.

Astarion: Think about it: in the Hells I never have to fear the sun, I can kill anyone I want, and I'll be with you.

Player: Then you'd better live that new life of yours to the fullest. Live enough for both of us.
Astarion: And I intend to. I can go anywhere, do anything, indulge in whatever hedonism or carnage I like. Once I stay out of the sun. So I was thinking; where can I go that is devoid of sunlight, filled with violence, and has the one person I want to spend all my time with?

He's still him, who finds violence fun.

Here's how Neil reasoned about the two endings:

«But what was it like getting to explore two sides of a character which you don't often get to do in a role?»
«Well, I think the thing is about it is that it wasn't just two sides of the character. It was every conceivable possible combination of every situation that the character can face. So it wasn't just ascended or "good or better" or whatever the Astarion. It was all the different shades of gray in between.»

«I like games a lot for this because in film or theater, there is the story and maybe sometimes you get branching narratives. They're always set branching narratives, like sliding doors - is a start and to finish experience with two different realities. Right? In games the reality is chosen by the player and the story is dictated by the player. In things like this where there are so many different choices and different possibilities and combinations. The fact that Lauren allowed all of that and the different permutations and combinations and the amount of work to do what it takes - is extraordinary.»

Neil literally says he played all sorts of Astarion combinations.


I know about this developers note, and it's purely from friendly dialog, and the funny thing is that it's literally the only thing that in any way supports what Smith said about fear. I'm arguing that there is significantly more fear in the spawn route, much more explicit than the dev note that few people will see. In case you missed my previous post, I'm duplicating it for you:



He made similar statements not just about the AA ending, but about any evil path in the game in general.

«So with Astarion, his evil ending is actually him...much of what he does is out of fear. And as a player, you can say to him, "You're right to be afraid." And that sends him to a really horrible place, and that I think is really powerful. I think one of the things that happens on the evil playthrough is I always see this thing where they're like, "Oh, there's no tieflings anymore because I killed the tieflings." It's intentional. Your world is a little emptier because of that, and you are playing a route which is much more selfish and much more, again, afraid. You end up isolated.
SV: It's very hard to show lots of consequences in the evil playthrough that are actually happening.
AS: Yeah, they become emptiness instead.
SV: The emptiness is the issue...If you play the good playthrough, and then you play an evil playthrough, and then you realize how much the evil playthrough is affected by your choices, then you actually feel really evil. Which is why Dark Urge is such a good choice on the second playthrough.
AS: The impact is often absent, but that's a reality, that's a true choice. If we just said, "Okay, you're just going to get reskin versions of these characters to jump in, it wouldn't be true." It's like there's this Gnome in the beginning, Barcus. And the impact of what you do with that guy runs all the way through the end of the story. It's so large. But if you just go evil, you never see any of that, right?»

Honestly, he might as well have just said:

«Murders are bad, mmkay?»

If we choose the Grove side, we get quests there + Halsin's quest + tiefling quests. If we choose Minthara, we get only her quest, three battles in the Grove, a party and a rescue in the towers (which can still be failed). Is it okay to skew this way because of the evil route choice? Maybe we should add something else for the “evil” side? Instead of making the excuse that “evil is isolating”? At least other RPGs have managed to strike a balance.

@AnnaMyrk I saw your post, I just didn't really agree with your arguments for it, unfortunately. Also, bringing up what Adam Smith said was mostly meant for Marielle, but I also found it important because earlier on this thread his words were being used as definitive proof for the opposite side of the argument- so I thought, if one of his opinions go as authority as to what's "true", then all do (which I don't really share, people should be allowed to disagree- which is why I don't like writer statements being used as a complete authority.) I'd also argue that fear is a big, big underlying theme for all of AA and what has gotten him up to that point, but I don't think an analysis on it would be interesting to anyone on this thread.

I also have to add, regarding Tav's possible "bride ritual status", that it doesn't seem intended by the writers- the game's script refers to them as a Spawn in flags and the descriptions for them, and says the reason Astarion laughs at the Elfsong Tavern scene is because he knows they can't leave (Says, "Genuine laugh. The player can't get away from him, not even if they wanted to"), and the flag it sets is "DeniedPlayerBreakup" with a description of "Denied the player the ability to break up with him" . That's the one show of compelling- Tav can want to break up, and yet they're still together 6 months later. The player had no agency in that, which suggests something else going on.
I'd argue that, for this reason, definitely saying "it's a fact Tav isn't a spawn" isn't quite correct. I won't say the opposite is the case- that "it's a fact Tav is a spawn", but there are different schools of how to read the text that'd differ in how to take this at face value, especially when you take into account a few limitations BG3 has that doesn't affect other more classic texts like books.

EDIT: Ah, I've also remembered another interaction at the Elfsong- you can ask him "And you promise me you'll make me a full vampire soon?" and he will reply "My darling, of course! I want nothing more." with the devnote specifying "Overly sincere. He doesn't really mean it."

AnnaMyrk If you like so much to refer to devnotes, then I should note that Tav is flagged as Spawn in the datamined files. It's canon. They are not a full vampire. AA promised to turn Tav into a full vampire and he lied.
SPAWN. Not a vampire bride (absolute nonsense in my opinion, Larian never ever said it's true, on the contrary)
AA himself constantly reminds Tav that they are his spawn and his property, he only needs to say one word and they obey. Just because he is not yet so awful to his Spawn as Cazador was to him, doesn't mean for me that he isn't abusive. A favorite slave is still a slave. Spawn Astarion said so himself that he wanted to be "just like Cazador".
Obviously, you need to DRINK from a vampire to become yourself a full vampire, one drop is not enough at all.

Yeah, not wasting my time on the rest wall of text, it's only your interpretation, I have my right for my interpretation. Even with Tav's happy expressions, AA's actions are still the same, Larian didn't change his behaviour. Confirmed by the new patch once again for me: "You didn't leave me, I let you go". He constantly reinforces how he has the full control over Tav and Tav is essentially his slave.

Why do you call your romantic-ness hopeless? Especially if it makes you happy? So do a lot of people who love AA. For many AA fans the animations were unacceptable, people wrote about it, there were a fair number of fans in the polls too who voted to change the animations itself. It's just that after the mod ("Nightingale's Lord Astarion - Ascended Astarion Alternative Romance") came out, most people downloaded it and started playing with it (at least PC players), well obviously seeing that in patch 7 the animations stayed the same, they just kept playing with the mod and didn't get involved in what was going on in the game. Adding a romantic kiss doesn't change Astarion's character in any way. Think to yourself, is there a single line, a single moment in the game where you could tell Astarion that you don't like being dominated like that and you want a gentle kiss? There isn't. Astarion is simply by plot certain that this is how Tav likes it (we can't argue in any way with “Tav likes to degrade themselves” either). That's why happy faces are relevant to this story, in the story Tav is the one who enjoys it. Not romantic-ness is hopeless, the story is unfinished. There is a distinct lack of a roleplay element, and this is an RPG after all. There is a choice on the night of the conversion - “gentle” and “let it hurt”, but it has no effect on the plot later on. Those who prefer to see Astarion as a dominant first and foremost usually choose “let it hurt”, but all AA fans, regardless of preference for D/s or classic romance, have talked about the need for choice, realizing that such animations don't suit everyone. In patch 5, Astarion felt fine kissing the way he did. And everyone was interested. Especially since it's possible to add kissing both ways, there's nothing stopping them from doing it. But of course, as you wish, you can support the point of view you like.


To be honest, I was heartbroken by the entire 6th patch, and the animations too. I, like many people, was shocked that such a thing could happen in an RPG game. Thanks to the forum and those forum members who explained about D/s, I studied the theoretical base on this issue, figured out what to what, accepted and I liked it. Of course, with the mimicry of the 7 patch. I understand, as a fact, that there are people who enjoy playing the victim, though I could never “try it on” and accept having such a role imposed on me. And the triggers in these animations could be:

*** WARNING: sensitive content (may contain a discussion of violence, abuse, SA related to a BG3 scene) this content might not be suitable for all audiences. Trigger warning***


If something is valid, then it must have some justification, right? What constitutes a valid justification? As a general rule, in any debate at all, a valid argument can be considered to be something that cannot or is extremely difficult to refute. A fact base. Proof base. I can't help but see the point of an evidentiary basis simply physically, you can only argue with facts if you can prove something that isn't actually a fact. I am a proponent of logical analysis, if I see ironclad logic, I cannot and will never argue that it is not logical. But of course, if you don't want a debate, then let's leave the subject. I would be interested though.

I mean Astarion even calls you his spawn ... even if you aren't because you skipped the long rest. *coughs*

This is one of the big problems with the game having limited resources and being a buggy mess in places that affects the kind of arguments people can have on here, when they might not realise they're not coming from the same angle.
If you're from the school of thought where you want to read the text trying to incorporate the writer's intent into your reading of it, you'll think "oh, it's a bug". But if you'd rather completely ignore whatever the writer could have intended and rather extract conclusions from what the material itself presents (hope I'm wording it respectfully- this is very much a valid way to approach the text), I could see someone arguing that this means that Astarion calling you his spawn isn't a real equivalent for you being his spawn, because it can happen if you aren't.

Right, timing out this thread having read some of the recent posts as both Flooter and I could do with a break from repeating ourselves about constructive, respectful debate, not flooding the forum with repetitive, circular posting and not inciting conversation around community drama or infighting. I'm guessing a break will be a relief to a number of community members, too, and will hopefully allow a few folk here to take a step back and consider how they can interact more positively.

My thanks to everyone who has been trying to discuss this topic that seems to be emotive and controversial for many in a friendly and constructive manner, and refusing to rise to provocation.

I will reopen the thread tomorrow, though if there's any repeat of the behaviour that led it to be locked then it'll be shut down again until I can consult with the Larian community management team after the weekend.

And please, in case anyone is tempted, noone here try to create a duplicate thread while this one is timed out. That will be viewed as trying to evade moderation.

EDIT: Reopening the thread after time-out.

I saw an excellent solution for our problem on reddit. I can't take credit for it, so I will just show this screenshot of what this user on Reddit came up with:

A lot of people supported this as a perfect solution.

IMO, this would be indeed a perfect solution, especially as there are already plenty of such dialogue scenes in the game, for example: all of the Durge scenes where only the narrator speaks. It would fit perfectly with the spirit of the game and previous dialogue choices. We can be satisfied with just two options as we now have two different existing animations.

Please, Larian, give us this option to choose and give us back our agency to play Tav as we see fit for our RP. Thank you.

Rote90, this makes perfect sense and I support it!

I apologize, I read a previous thread, that discussed the lore of vampire brides, and this one has the same thing. I'd like to add a few words

As far as I know, Larian don't have the rights to use Ravenloftsetting material in Baldur's Gate 3. The
only thing from Ravenloftin the game are references to Strad, he's spoken by Astarion himself.
The bride really can't transform into a true vampire.

Larian also never said AA lost his soul or became someone else, quite the contrary. Larian can't officially confirm, but there are enough moments in the game that indirectly support the Tav-bride theory.




You don't need any blood at all to create spawns. Not even a drop. One drop is already too much to create a spawn. Not to mention that Tav's transformation process is completely different from how Astarion himself was transformed. Pleasure instead of pain is not about creating spawn.



Actions echoing Tav's transformation scene, where everything was described as a voluntary dynamic.
That's how it should stay. Otherwise AA better bring back the tender kisses of patch 5.

Since when can't an Ascended Astarion be gentle?
Ascended Astarion has been gently interacting with Tav since the game's release.

For example, his bed scene after the ritual is very tender, he gently kisses Tav's back. Or gently places his hand under Tav's
head during a kiss, which can be seen using the free camera. He is also gentle when Tav asks him to. "Astarion reaches down, takes Player's left hand with his right hand. He brought the hand up to his lips. He kisses it gently, tenderly."
He also had a tender kiss for 6 months before patch 6 and no one was embarrassed by it.


The gentle dynamic with Ascended Astarion is absolute canon and has been in the game from its inception until now, as it is in the bed scene and Tav's transformation scene. So on what principle should the addition of tender kisses somehow change or ruin a character?



This actually fits perfectly with the bride theory, exactly like the new dialog from patch 7 where he says he could have ordered Tav to come back to him, but didn't. What prevented him from doing so, I wonder?



I'm sure if Larian wanted to show the cycle of abuse in the game, they could have used all of these techniques. It would have been very effective if in the epilogue, after the words about freedom, Tav's eyes lit up red and everything became crystal clear. Maybe they should have added a hint of torture? But they didn't.

AA is the one and only Ascended Vampire. He needed to give one drop of blood to Tav to spread his protection from the sun on them. Ascended Vampire is completely Larian's invention. There is no D&D canon on that, so Larian can do whatever they want with it. And devnotes and datamined files clearly state that Tav is his Spawn, not a vampire bride. And also developers clearly state in these files that Tav can't get away from him once tadpoles are gone. It's confirmed.
Of course, you are free to have your headcanons, but it's not in canon in any way, so other people aren't required to take your headcanon as truth, when it directly contradicts to what is clearly stated by Larian in the game by AA himself and in their game's files.
Other than that, I'm not gonna continue to discuss this topic further, because this thread isn't about it, for me it feels pretty off-topic. Which takes attention away from the main OP's request.


Yeah, as far as I've seen, this was the most popular solution for this problem, so I really hope it won't get buried under offtopic posts and Larian will take note on this wonderful way of solving this problem and making everyone happy.

Grimace in disgust?
Smile longingly?
Hold back fear?

Guys, are there pros or just three cons?
I don't think we should bring arguments from other venues here. Judging by the screenshot you provided, you only represent one side in resolving the dispute - your own.By not providing analogies. That's not fair. There is no positive momentum here that people have been asking for for six months.
And please don't consider the opinions of other forum members as "headcanon" when your opinion can be put in the same category. That's biased and aggressive.
Thank you.

Hard disagree.

If we want disgust faces for one companion, or the option to not consent, then we should have it for all companions.

Also do not agree that a post on a forum where most AA fans cannot even post or interact is a good or unbais place to pull data.

If Larian wants to give us options on how to feel about one companion, they should give it for all.

Pretty off-topic, so I hide my opinion about what I consider canon:


Of course, you are very welcome to give your feedback on how this line about making a happy expression should sound/be written.
This was merely a popular suggestion to solve this problem.

Mirmi, I personally saw "smile longingly and feel safe in his embrace" as the pro and positive option in that suggestion. And Rote90 isn't importing an argument, they are importing a constructive suggestion. They also did say that people are allowed to have their own headcanons.

Please, let's all stop arguing about canon vs headcanon. Everyone has the right to their own interpretation of the game. This is the "Suggestions & Feedback" forum, so I think the best thing would be to focus on suggestions and constructive feedback to share with Larian. There is a separate forum for just discussing story and characters.

I agree with @Natasy. I remain in the camp that if only one companion is having negative facial expressions in their route that is an issue. The options (happy vs disgusted/fearful) should either be embedded within all character romantic routes, or the facial expression should be equally positive.


This ‘solution’ being posed by @Rote90 is offering ‘two’ aggressively negative options, and one that can barely be perceived as a ‘positive.’ I already do not like the options offered on the ‘turning night’ post ascension for PC response to Astarion (whose idea was it to put ‘I want your body’ option after we went through all of Act 2 placing sex on hold). I don’t want to have to select a ‘narrative dialogue’ option each time I want a kiss.

1. these are just suggestions and examples. 2. „smile longingly“ is literally what the smiling expression is now how is that a con?

These are just examples that the person thought of on the fly, don’t take it so seriously. and it wouldn’t be each time. The suggestion was that it would be a „dialogue“ after the first kiss after turning-night, as if Tav is thinking to themselves how they feel about the kiss, so just two options, on to trigger the smiling expression going forward, the other to trigger shocked expressions in future kisses. Since the first kiss the next day is already different from the kisses he gives Tav during turning-night, it makes sense for them to think about the dynamic. This is kind of like the Durge dialogue options after withers brings them back, some of the options are saying something out loud, and some are just thinking to themselves.
This is also absolutely not about consent (canonically, how somebody headcanons it is their thing) but canonically, whether Tav is into it or not, they stay in the relationship so consent is given as far as the game is concerned anyway.


@Natasy this is from Reddit, you can interact there.


I don’t understand how having options is a bad thing. You keep your headcanon AND can make it canon in your game, we are not taking away anything from you, if anything this gives you the option to say yes enthusiastically even more. I don’t see what the problem is. This has also absolutely nothing to do with other companions. You are simply trying to bring arguments into this so we let go of this topic. Adding one line of text will not take anything away from neither you nor other companions. If you want something to change for other companions, go support the threads about them. This is not the place to do it.

You can dismiss my comments and thoughts by telling me to not take it seriously, but please remember that this suggestion was introduced by @Rote90 as “a perfect solution” and is being represented as a “popular idea” because it was upvoted on Reddit. I am free to express my dissatisfaction on a feedback forum when ideas that I do not think would work are expressed by other forum members just as you are able to do the same.

Personally, I don’t agree that Astarion’s kisses should be handled differently than other companions. You can wave that idea away since I understand you feel I am “strawmanning” or something. But, every single kiss in the game is now ‘positive’ facial expressions (personally I again find the AA kisses the most neutral). I do not feel that any of them should be negative / punitive personally. So, unless you want Tav/Durge to have the option to ‘not be into kisses’ for all companions (which I would not personally want - just as I don’t for this route), I don’t agree with you.

Very well put!

I do not agree that Rote's suggestion speak for the majority, as they have put.

@blue. Yes. We are all aware we can physically do it. But as many have outright said, we are not welcome. So many of us do not.

But to your point spooky, I also agree that the writing *for Tav* is horrendous before the turning. It again feels god modded, where we are being told *why* we just did it, even when that is thoroughly not the case. It is a quite frequent occurrence that the dialogue doesn't match anything but a good player. Looking at a few other dialogue options for him in act 1 & 2 ("The world is a kind place"?? Really?? The world has not been kind to him. Nor Durge. The options there make me cringe. As do the act 1 "power corrupts" lines.) I'm glad you mentioned this!!