bit too much into the direction of "what is a character's true self?"
And ... why would that be a bad thing? O_o
Most of our companions are in some form or another messed up by their life's experiences and those experiences shape their reasoning.
Nah, that would be actually fine ...
People are evolving and they are evolving trough their experience that is natural process ... what bothers me in BG-3 is that our companions are evolving towards our character, no matter if they experienced anything with them.
You see its perfectly fine in my honest opinion that if you take a Bloodthirsty Vampire trough (sometimes litteral) hell, and you experienced a lot together, maybe even save each other lives few times ... and you show that Vampire how benefitial it is and how good it feels to actualy help others, being kind and and genuinely care about them ... that Vampire may hypoteticaly make a few compromises here and there, bcs he changed ... or at very least understanded that he should hide his true nature.
And that would be good.
Sadly, in BG-3 case ... if you take the same Vampire, put him into your camp, and he experiences quite litterally nothing with anyone ...
How can he change to not being cold blooded selfish bastard anymore?
Especialy concidering that this whole story took barely few days, weeks at best, but most certainly not even whole month!
That is awfully little to change habits you hold on for last 2 centuries!
And that is why i think that Larian never intended to give our companions "their own decisions" ...
That is why i dont really believe they were ever supposed to have any personal prefferences, they have two paths ... and will follow wichever they "feel" (for lack of better therm) your Tav would aproove.
Each and every companion will allways reflect your character, no matter what you do ...
Each and every companion is therefore tailored to be your perfect partner, no matter who you pick.
If you think about it ...
They all are just empty vessels with pretty faces, where we input our desired behaviour and they follow it.
I kinda feel like our companions are in some ways on very simmilar levels as Halsin himself who lets be honest, is there just bcs people were thirsty about him on internet.
And i dont really like that.
I do like when my companions have some story, some character and some prefferences that are fixed bcs they define that character, and then some minor aspects that can be affected ...
But if my companion can be anyting from cruel tyrant to goldstar folks hero ... who *is* he really?
---
What i would WANT ...
But i doubt its going to happen anymore ... but maybe Larian can take that into concideration for their next game ...
Is for our companions to have their own agenda, their own prefferences, to BE fully developet characters ...
And then to just show it ...
I want Shadowheart to be devoted to Shar, if i never gave her any reason to change her mind ...
I want Lae'zel to remain loayal to Vlaakith, as long as i never mention any red flags about her ...
etc,
And most of all, i want to allways have an option to tell them something like "this is your decision *X/Y* im not going to tell you what to do" ...
Bcs what i want is to see where their story would lead them.
Not mine.
And that is why i think that not just Wyll, but every companion should make their own decisions ... and that none of them ever do in curent state.
Is that understandable?
What they want on the surface often is not what they want if you dig deeper. Calling this their "true colours" isn't a train of thought I'd subscribe to.
Why?
And i mean it, is there something bad about it?
For the purpose of this thread, I think "make their own decisions" means they either have a "do what you want" dialogue option or approach you with an idea of their own, that you can either agree or disagree with. If in Wyll's case he is indecisive, this would still call for a decision-making dialogue.
That would be a start ...
But still, as long as every of your decisions will affect all your companions no matter if they are there or not, its pointless.
