Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion There must be more true friend companions in the game who support you no matter what

I'm really frustrated with Larian's idea of what makes a "deep character" like Lae'zel and Shadowheart, who still threaten to kill you even when you have 100 approval and a completed romance arc. That's just not how loyalty works in real life. Have the Larian writers ever heard of wives lying in court to protect their husbands, even at the risk of going to jail? Or lovers betraying their own people or country for their partner? They should read Jack London's "The Story of Jees Uck" - a story that shows what love looks like in novels. Instead, we're served this sick, toxic barrage of constant conflict, threats, and oversized egos, presented as if it's a normal relationship between loving partners. Smh...

I was left with a really bad aftertaste after sparing the Emperor. The Githyanki gave me no help in getting this far, and Lae'zel - despite 100 approval and a completed romance arc - threatening me with death yet again was just too much. Imagine having a wife who threatens to kill you every other day for not doing what she wants.

Going forward, the presence of companions who are genuinely loyal friends, no matter what, will be a major factor in whether I buy the next Larian game.

Gith'yanki do not have quite the same psychology as the RL people around you. Lae'zel was brought up as a killing machine. She killed her cousins when she was still a girl. Still, she softens up quite a lot throughout the game. Her mind does not totally switch to human culture and customs, but she 's come a long way, IMO.

And Shart, well, what have they done to her. ! She was made to torture her own parents without knowing. Give her some time to adjust, right ? At Wither's reunion party, she wants a quiet life tending to animals and plants. If yoou've romanced her, she wants to do this with you. Looks like a good and eternal friendship.

Karlach is extremely likable, despite 10 years in hell, and her life hanging on a thread. A bit foulmouthed maybe, but her infernal iron heart is figuratively one made of gold. You cvan get a lot of friendship back from her.

Haven't romanced Wyll or Gale, but I think they will become good friends. Astarion, a vampire spawn, can hardly be measured to human standards also.

I find the track that the companions make very interesting. And I did find a strong bond of friendship with some. Karlach and Shadowheart especially.

Lae'zel may not exist in the real world, but I do. Belonging to a different culture doesn't grant anyone the right to threaten their loved ones with death. Even "killing machines" can show kindness and care to those they truly value. I don't understand why people enjoy this kind of toxicity, it's more of a sadistic femdom fetish than a healthy expression of love.

As for Shadowheart, I'm not sure, because I always visit Nightsong's jail without her. The dialogue feels poorly written, offering only two choices: "I'll kill you" or "Do whatever you want". The option "Please do it for me" never convinces her, which reinforces my point that either the writers don't understand true loyalty, or relationship points don't reflect the strength of a bond. As I understand it, 100 approval should mean "I would die for you" not "You're allowed to invite me to dinner", right?

There's a lot to unpack here...

Firstly, different cultures have a massive impact on social values. Even more so when death and murder are so normalized within those societies.

Attributing your cushioned modern societal values onto a Githyanki, who was literally raised in a kill or be killed society that seeks strength above all and deems anyone who you are capable of killing to be so inferior as to not warrant attention is misguided.

Human history has plenty of behaviours that our modern values would consider shocking based on the societal norms of the time (For example, King Henry VIII beheaded 2 of his wives for the mere act of... Birthing a girl instead of a boy). Let alone quite literal alien societies, in a fantasy setting...

Secondly, different cultures and different individuals have different notions of relationship values. For example, Githyanki (And as a result, Lae'zel) do not care much about relationships. They aren't necessary for their society (Given the way they reproduce with designated egg layers), they're merely a means to an end of having sex for fun. Lae'zel soften up somewhat over her romance arc, but she's still going to be dealing with her Githyanki values.

Thirdly, beliefs are very strong. Even in the real world, there are people who hold their beliefs above all else, including their loved ones. Not everyone is capable of suddenly ditching everything they believe in because they fell in love with someone. So going against someone's beliefs won't naturally just cause them to jump to your defence.

Fourthly... The overall game of BG3 takes place over a short period of time. Like even if you long rest gratuitously you're talking about a month total (And if not like a week or so). How deep a relationship will you form over that short period of time? You are trying to compare this short a relationship to people who've been together for 10, 20, 50+ years, where there is a much stronger bond and a lot more loyalty between them.

Fifthly, people enjoy this sort of thing because it gives characters depth. They have convictions and beliefs, allowing them to be individuals. They don't just suddenly become your own "Yes man" because you slept with them and therefore will never ever disagree with anything you ever do.

Heck, trying to spout off that a partner can never be wronged is how relationships are, shows a complete and total ignorance of relationships. Where it's in fact toxic when partners stop thinking for themselves and will completely abandon their own beliefs to appease their partner (This is actually a major problem and is part of why it's so common to find people stuck in abusive relationships, because they put their partner above their own self and values so they continue to stick around receiving abuse)

Sixthly, Lae'zel threatening to kill you after sparing the Emperor isn't just "A wife threatening to kill you because she doesn't get what she wants". You aided a Mindflayer. The sworn enemy of her people. A race that uses deception and manipulation to further their own ends. This particular one has also been keeping the saviour of her race locked away, killing countless Gith who tried to save that saviour, all to utilize this saviour for their own selfish purposes.

To her, this is a MASSIVE betrayal. You call her unloyal for threatening you... Yet disregard your lack of loyalty when you completely and totally went against her entire beliefs and helped the one being she hates the most in the universe. Even if she wasn't from a aggressive and bloodthirsty society, that'd get most people to turn on you.

Same with Shadowheart, seeing the trial through is the most important thing to her, which she tells you over and over again. Not taking her along must feel like a betrayal.

Requiring of your lover to be their everything and have them place all other obligations second to your wishes, is a huge ask and personally not one I particularly like - fiction or not. Loyalty should go both ways and I feel my pixel buddies are solid.


Edit: I don't think 100 Approval means "I'd die for you", it just means I like you very, very much and largely agree with your actions. It's, as the name says, approval, agreement.

[quote=Taril][/quote]
The kind of relationship you're describing sounds like "I love you only when you do what I want". That's not love - it's a transactional arrangement. If Lae'zel's people matter more to her than I do, that's perfectly fine, but I won't die for her, I won't sacrifice my people for her, and I won't abandon my beliefs for her either. That turns everything into a casual situationship - two self-centered individuals incapable of forging a meaningful bond. It doesn't make a relationship with her interesting or deep - it just makes it indifferent to me.
So exclude Lae'zel, exclude Shadowheart - who's left for romance when you're playing a honorable character? Only Karlach, whose good ending is sacrificed for the sake of a cheap tearjerker.

All of them - except Minth and Ascended Astarion probably - but what's the problem with Karlach? That you have to join her in Avernus? That's is not looking terribly favourable on your stance on loyalty.

I don't take her because the dialogue only consists of two options: kill her or let her do whatever she wants. To me, that's a mockery of the party leader role by the dialogue writer. That's not how hierarchy works - you either stay in the group under the leader's command, or you leave. There's nothing in between. That's why I prefer not to take her in the Nightsong jail rather than kill her there.
There should be a third option - reasoning with her. Throughout the game, she's portrayed as a compassionate person, so why would she support all the rot and decay we've encountered during our journey? She says Shar represents darkness and protection, but the game clearly depicts Shar as a force of death and destruction. So why not an option to reason with her based on what the party experienced in the cursed lands?

I would follow her if there were a reasonable case for it - like saving her or convincing Zariel to free her. How can I defeat such a powerful brain, yet somehow I can't "buy" Karlach from Zariel to let her periodically visit Avernus and restore her engine? Following her just makes me feel like I'm being sacrificed for a tearjerker moment. Plus, I'm not exactly into two-meter-tall red women with horns and tails.

They're not "yes men" - they're your companions who support you and believe in your cause. For a car to move, all its wheels must rotate in the same direction. Otherwise, you end up with a group of selfish, egotistical individuals incapable of functioning as a cohesive, efficient team. No matter what you try to achieve with this team, you will always fail.

It might just be me, but I never felt it was this type of group or that I was that type of leader. I mostly feel like my character got the job because nobody else wanted it, and the group is just a bunch of unlikely maybe-friends who stick together because you have a shared problem and don't even 100% agree on what the problem is. (Just my impression of course.)

And I can see why folks who romance Wyll have a bit of an issue with Karlach's Avernus ending, since giving up your fairytale ending so you and your sweetheart can go on a road-trip to hell with your bestie, isn't a very conventional romantic fantasy. But if you romance Karlach your character stays by his lover's side through the worst, that's pretty romantic, even in the sense of the examples you gave in your first post. Just that not the side character sacrifices everything for the protagonist, but that the protagonist sacrifices their comfort to be with their lover. The reasonable case is, so she does not have to be alone.

That's a totally legit setup for a journey - except why do they believe in entitlement to my servitude? Why the hell am I supposed to escort Lae'zel to the Creche? Why the hell do I have to bring Shadowheart to the Temple of Shar? I owe them nothing. But at the same time, if I don't do things their way, they dare to threaten to kill me. How are they a "a bunch of unlikely maybe-friends"? They are clearly potential enemies that leave only two options: avoid at all costs, or strike first.

If they want to belong to the group, they must obey the law of the group. If they want freedom - they leave and stay free. But they cannot benefit from group protection and supplies while exploiting the group and threatening the leader for their own interests.

Would the game maybe define "Camp" and "Companions" differently, there would be no question. But clearly I'm the leader. I decide the location we visit and the enemies we fight. I decide who equips what. I decide how everyone levels up. I decide what we sell and what we buy. I am the leader. And if you are beloved of the leader - you are his right hand, and he trusts you with his life. If he dies - you continue his cause. This is what strength looks like. And if, as a leader, you hear from your beloved one "Do it my way or I'll gut you with my sword" then that "beloved one" will, at best, get kicked out of the camp - and next time, she's welcome to fight the leader however she wants as a regular enemy encounter, not sneakily kill him in his sleep like Lae'zel regretted not doing. There must be order, respect, and honor. Otherwise, it's not a group that's going to fight the big evil and win. It's a messed-up circus that'll fall apart and end up killing each other after the first squabble over a badly roasted sausage.

Erm, you're the leader because you are the player. It's a game, remember ? If you play Tav, Tav is "the leader". If you play Astarion, it's Astarion.... And yea the group is chaotic and undisciplined because they all have a heavy backstory. Shadowheart hates Gith'yanki at the start. Wyll is on a quest to kill Karlach. We have a vampire, a once archmage demoted to lvl 1 wizard with a bomb in his chest who needs to feed on your expensive magical items. Yes that's certainly the crew that will make an orderly group. No reason for conflict at all.
If that's what you expect, I understand you don't like the game. But it's not because the game is bad. It's just not your thing. I hope you find one that fits your tastes better.

No - I’m the leader because I make decisions and take responsibility.



They can be chaotic and come from any background - that's fine. But there should be progression throughout the story. They should grow beyond themselves, building trust, friendship, support, and mutual respect over time.



If you enjoy permanently aggressive, selfish companions, then yes - BG3 has a lot to offer.



It fits my taste just fine - except for the lack of mentally attractive female companions I could romance.

You have the power to make a lot of the decisions you mentioned above because you are the player. As the player you can download mods to give everyone the pusheen pyjamas they deserve or dress Scratch in a dragon onesie, as the player you can respec Shadowheart into a druid and decide which strategy to apply in fights or which ability to use each turn.

Your character otoh just kind of got the leader-roll (also because squiddy probably thought they were easy to handle) and I don't feel it is this big of a thing. Before player prioritisation was pushed so hard, you didn't even have to have them be the party face, so some other character could do all the talking and deciding. While the group does grow together, they just always stay a slightly chaotic bunch with their own agendas and interests, who never develop a cult like obedience to the player character. Just not that type of group.

Why is everyone so fixated on the idea that I'm not a leader just because I'm a player? By that logic, someone born into royalty wouldn't be a legitimate king - since they inherited the crown rather than earned it. It doesn't matter how I entered that world - the point is, if I don't act, nothing moves. If I don't organize and make decisions, everyone will stay near their tents in the camp forever.
Would the game really have Lae'zel declare "We're all going to the Creche. Anyone who refuses will be kicked out (and the game will end)" - that would make her the leader. But there's no such mechanic - so the leader is me. I'm the one who decides whether we go to the Creche or skip it. She has no right to demand anything from me. Any reasonable person knows that something is better than nothing. And if she insists on getting everything her way, she'll end up spending the entire game in camp while I completely ignore her (that's what she deserved in my next playthrough). Which makes her an aggressive fool - unable to cooperate with others to achieve the best possible outcome for herself.

Because there is a difference between the player (outside of the story) and the player character (inside the story) that you in places seem to overlook.

So from a story perspective, I'd look at how the companions treat you and it's not as this all powerful leader. While you as the player often have the final say, many of the important moments are framed as group decisions. For example when Gale reveals his condition, he talks to the whole group and even though you say yes or no, it is framed as a group decision and he thanks everyone when allowed to stay. Same with Wyll and Karlach, that conflict is mostly between them, even though you make the decision in the end.

Astarion and Shadowheart even make fun of your leadership role a bit. That's not what you do to your revered leader, it's what you do to your buddy who's maybe a bit too full of himself - which is probably why everyone doubles down on this if you play as Gale.

So if I'm not the leader, how does Shadowheart dare to blame me for not taking her into the Nightsong prison, or Lae'zel for letting the Emperor kill the Prince? If they're so independent, then Shadowheart can go fight the Nightsong herself, Lae'zel can go fight the Emperor herself, and she can go die for her beloved Queen in that brain extractor herself. Let them handle their own mess without me. It's like your friend blaming you for not helping him get a job, and then blaming you for him becoming homeless.

Astarion's existence literally depends on me - and yet he mocks my leadership role. I'd have serious issues with people like that in real life. They would instantly take a direct chartered flight to GTFO and stay there permanently.

Have the Larian writers ever heard of wives lying in court to protect their husbands, even at the risk of going to jail? Or lovers betraying their own people or country for their partner?


Surely you've also heard of plenty of real life scenarios in which people did not choose their lovers over the law, justice, the good of their societies, and so on.

They should read Jack London's "The Story of Jees Uck" - a story that shows what love looks like in novels.

This isn't a novel, and nor should anyone writing in any medium set out to write "what love looks like in fiction." They show a range of diverse personality types and responses, which is good writing.

Meanwhile, you must be aware that love does not look only one way in novels; otherwise, you wouldn't have given a specific example. You would have simply said, "they should read some novels."

I would urge you to read more in general. You could start with His Dark Materials, in which young lovers are forced to make an impossibly hard choice for the good of the world, and then move onto Wuthering Heights, where everyone is in a toxic relationship with at least one other person, and someone can reject you in life and then jealously haunt you in death.

Instead, we're served this sick, toxic barrage of constant conflict, threats, and oversized egos, presented as if it's a normal relationship between loving partners. Smh...

That's not at all what this game is? It sounds like you wanted to romance specific characters while making specific decisions that made that hard for you.

I was left with a really bad aftertaste after sparing the Emperor. The Githyanki gave me no help in getting this far, and Lae'zel - despite 100 approval and a completed romance arc - threatening me with death yet again was just too much. Imagine having a wife who threatens to kill you every other day for not doing what she wants.

Dude, you knew who Lae'zel was going into this. She's from a ferocious warrior culture and has also been brainwashed by a lich-led cult from birth. You've known her for like, a few weeks, MAYBE months, and you routinely betray everything she stands for. The fact that all you got is fussed at is honestly pretty tame.

So you're saying Lae'zel approved of every single choice you made for the entire game up until one of the major moments of the ending? Since you say she only loves you when you do what she wants, that must mean you've only ever done things she wanted up until then, yes?

And also that she actually expressed "I fell in love with you and have now fallen out of you"?


The fact that you think someone must be willing to sacrifice their people, abandon their beliefs, and even die in order for their love for you to count is genuinely terrifying. I hope you talk through these issues with your therapist and work on developing the ability to view other people as autonomous beings and relationships as complex and diverse.

The space between "casual situationship" and "would literally give up everything I've ever known or cared about and have my happiness and everything else depend entirely on one person" is vast, the latter is generally not healthy for anyone involved, and anyone who feels, thinks, and behaves that way weeks or months into a relationship probably has a lot of deeper issues they need to work out before they can actually be a good partner.

Considering both Lae'zel and Shadowheart are extremely recent cult survivors - so recent, in fact, that you've watched those events unfold - they DO have a lot of issues to work out before they can be good partners, and the last thing they need is some dude demanding that they throw away everything they've ever known and lay down their lives or else this relationship, possibly the first one they ever felt truly safe in, is nothing.

Really? Imagine your wife has been deeply loyal to her people and country since birth - willing to die to protect both. But it's Nazi Germany, and it was recently announced that Jews are arch enemies. Now imagine you are her Jewish husband. What should she choose: report you to the Gestapo as an enemy of the German people, or hide you, risk her life, and become an enemy of the very state she's devoted to? Ask your therapist which choice in this case represents true loyalty to a loved person.

The insinuation here, is that you believe that love only counts if the person will simply drop all of their prior beliefs at the drop of a hat in favour of you.

When even in this scenario, it's a lot more complicated. Since your wife was loyal to Germany, but then the German government was upended when the Nazi party rose to power. It wasn't a case of your wife being a loyal Nazi for her whole life and then suddenly out of the blue they dropped the anti-semetism. No, it was a massive shift in the political climate during a very short period of time that dramatically changed the country.

Then of course, we have the notion of "Wife and Husband" - Signifying a relationship that has matured, usually over a long time. With an expression of devotion from a marriage ceremony. (Though this is complex as women were pressured into early marriage during this time period due to only men being allowed to partake in jobs that paid well enough to support owning a home). Whereas, in BG3, we're talking a very short scale of time. A relationship that has lasted at most a month. Thus will not have much time to become anywhere near as deep as a long term relationship (On top of being with people who mostly have massive hangups about relationships too... Lae'zel being a Gith and not respecting the notion of relationships, Astarion being messed up from centuries of abuse, Shadowheart being literally brainwashed by a literal cult, Gale being on the rebound from a failed relationship, Karlach facing the issue of her infernal engine heart making her only able to live in Avernus).

Finally, we have the complexity that is loyalty and love. In this scenario, we have the wife wanting to protect their husband out of love. On the other hand the husband may want to protect their wife out of love and will want them to report him so that she will be safe. In the latter case, the wife is still showing loyalty to her husband by honouring his wishes and reporting him, allowing himself to sacrifice to keep her safe.

Love and loyalty are very multi-faceted emotions. Made even more messy by the fact that these emotions can be felt for multiple things at once (Especially true in the case of relationships that include children)

Look, Wyll, you won an award by omission. *giggles* Please carry on, this was just very funny to me.

Exactly. Why would a woman who genuinely believes the Fuhrer is a messiah - as many did in the late 1930s - risk her life and reputation for a Jewish husband?

"Yes, I betrayed you, but you have to understand my circumstances" - that's how all traitors talk. Half-loyalty is despised by both friends and enemies.

This is a family of failed species. In a family that wins evolution, one member protects another at all cost.

Yeah... He's literally the only companion that hasn't got a messed up love life. Things are are a little complicated with Mizora and his contract, but he's just your average bachelor. Hence him hitting on Shadowheart and Lae'zel constantly in Act 1.


Did many believe that Adolf was a messiah? Or was he simply talking about empowering the country post-WW1 wherein they were crippled not only by the cost of the war itself, but also shackled by the Treaty of Versailes afterward...

Also, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement. Your prior points are all about "Love doesn't exist if someone doesn't give up everything immedietly in favour of their partner" but here you're pointing out that there are individuals who might value their patriotism more than their husband (Whom they love)


This is quite literally your entire scenario with Lae'zel. The one you're complaining about.

You're upset that she's upset when you literally betrayed her.

The fact you don't see this and instead pin the blame on Lae'zel for "Betraying you" when she's invariable upset at you betraying her kind of gives of major narcissist vibes...

Also, my comment hadn't anything to do with betrayal. Just that loyalty and love can make for very difficult decisions, ones that are not to be taken lightly.


And that's what's happening.

The husband, is protecting the wife (And potential children) by sacrificing his own freedom to ensure they are unharmed.

This is actually evolutionary more beneficial than the wife harbouring the fugitive husband and putting both of them (Plus any children) at risk.

It's actually a staple of evolutionary design, with many species having the male sacrifice themselves to protect the females and offspring (It also appears in disaster protocols, where women and children get priority for life boats and the like)

Yes, it was a cult of personality. He was seen as a messiah and father of the nation. Ask those who can speak honestly - many loved him and were willing to die for him.


You constantly replace "sacrifice" with "favor," intentionally or not. Their meanings are different.


I see you're quick to sacrifice a man, so let's flip the roles: he's a prominent top German officer from the early '30s, and his wife is Jewish. What does true love look like – sending her to a concentration camp for glove leather to protect the nation from so-called terrorists who tore apart the beloved country? Or hiding her and risking everything – his career, his friends, his life – and betraying the country he swore to serve?


You cannot betray what you never swore allegiance to. Githyanki mean nothing to Tav. Can you betray China as a US citizen?

I never complained that Lae'zel betrayed me. My issue is with the game designers making her act like a psychotic btch with a complete lack of basic reasoning. "You don't do as I ask – I'll kill you, even if we swore to love each other". That's her entire so-called "deep character" – aggressive, egotistical, and idiotic. I don't find it entertaining to cater to deranged idiots in a computer game – I already encounter enough of that species in real life. After all, I'm the one who bought the game with Lae'zel — not Lae'zel who bought the game with me.


A narcissist eagerly throws labels around, driven by self-imagined moral superiority, while in reality relying on shaky reasoning.

Betrayal doesn't require swearing allegiance, it requires trust. I might be wrong but from what you wrote before, it sounds like you allowed the Emperor to suck out Orpheus's brain while being on the rebellion path with Lae'zel in which she along with Voss and the rebels wants to free her people from Vlaakith, and for which they deem Orpheus necessary. They trust that you free him and if don't but side with the Emperor instead, they are understandably upset. Poor Voss tried to free his friend and prince for how many centuries? I forgot but it was a long term project.


He can join the conversation again when they all discuss their parents.

In my research I've not encountered any notions of him being a messiah. Just that he was orator getting people in a broken nation hyped up.


I do not.

I replace "Sacrifice" with "Give up everything"

Since it better encompasses what is being said. Sacrifice doesn't necessarily mean everything, just that something is given up.


I didn't make any of these up. Go tell nature and the people who made these rules up this.


Concentration camps were not a thing in the early 30's.

Early in the Nazi parties reign, Jews were simply segregated into ghettos. It wasn't until later that concentration camps were set up.

Also in this scenario, the outcomes are exactly the same.

The man can try to put themselves and their partner at risk to hide them (Or defect to another nation, which many people did. It would be easier for him than the average joe given his station as a high ranking officer)

Or the woman can decide she wants to sacrifice her freedom to protect her husband (And potential children)

Both decisions can be made out of love and loyalty to one another.


You "Swore allegiance" to Lae'zel when you initiated romance with her. Your whole "We are in love" shtick is you having an allegience to her.

It is Lae'zel you betrayed. As SHE is someone who does value the Githyanki society.

In your US vs China example it'd be more like:

You are a US citizen. You are in a relationship with someone who is from China. Your partner still likes China and values their country of origin and the peoples that reside there.

You as a US citizen then do something that then provides a massive negative impact to all of China.

Have you betrayed your partner who has a strong allegience to China? (The answer is "Yes")


"I was left with a really bad aftertaste after sparing the Emperor. The Githyanki gave me no help in getting this far, and Lae'zel - despite 100 approval and a completed romance arc - threatening me with death yet again was just too much."

You quite literally are complaining that "Despite 100 approval and a completed romance arc" she was threatening you (AKA betraying the "Loyalty of love" as you went on to talk about)


I mean, you yourself seem to heavily rely on this concept... Being unable to grasp many basic concepts like, how you massively betrayed a character or how integral societal values are to characters.


Uhh... No? That's not what a narcissist does.

Also, I'm not "Eagerly throwing labels around" I'd really rather not, however, you show a distinct lack of empathy and care about others and entirely focus on your own point of view, even going so far as to think a relationship where someone doesn't defer their entire belief system to whatever YOU personally want is somehow "Toxic".

It would likely be beneficial for you to discuss such things with an actual psychologist or therapist, as these are not normal lines of reasoning, it is indicative of extreme narcissim.

Larian is in the end not very good at writing.

Just like the story of BG3 is not very good and falls apart when put under any scrutenie so are the characters in bG3 rather flat once you take away the sex.

What Larian managed to do is to capitalize on BGs fame and cater to the currently booming genre of fan fiction level romantic fantasy. But there is no place for deep characters there.

because it's convenient for your demagogic style of arguing


You are confusing survival mechanisms with love. Replace "man" and "woman" with "partner A" and "partner B".

You quite figuratively put words in my mouth. I'm not complaining about betrayal - I'm saying this isn't what love looks like.

The answer is "No". Love places people above their country, their nation, and their families. Let's say I'm a CIA officer and she's a Chinese spy. If she demands I steal classified documents to save her country - that's manipulation. If my colleagues are about to arrest or possibly kill her and I risk everything to hide her - that's love. If I ask her to become a double agent to help the US fight Xi's regime - that's manipulation. If her mission was to infiltrate, use me to steal documents, and then eliminate me, yet she tells me everything and ends up on China's death list - that's love.

and this is where it became clear that you're not defending your opinion, but rather indulging in moral self-satisfaction

The thread has been Godwinized. That theoretically puts it to an end.

I'll allow it. The personal comments are getting quite close to the line, though. Let's be careful to discuss opinions rather than those who hold them.

I told her "we'll see". I didn't promise her anything. I expected the game to offer more choices beyond “him or him.” I said I was entirely on the Githyanki side and would do everything to help them, but I never ever promised to exchange the life of my most important ally for their Prince. So no, I didn't betray her trust.
Even with Orpheus gone, there were still paths to defeat the Queen that didn’t require killing my allies - and I would've backed them completely. But no - they demanded I do exactly what they said: free Orpheus. That's manipulation. How the hell could I be sure that freeing him would help us defeat the brain, or help overthrow the Queen? And Lae'zel threw another tantrum "I regret not killing you in the camp". Thank you, Lae'zel. Had she killed me at the camp, her pathetic ass would've ended its existence in that brain machine in the Creche. Screw the sunset scene in the Lower City and the 100 approval. Why is she simply incapable of such basic reasoning as a sapient creature?
She'd make a great pitbull-style NPC - aggressive, dumb, and relatively loyal. But as a main companion? Maybe if there were more satisfying GTFO mechanic available throughout the whole game - not just at the beginning - and a wider selection of female companions to choose from, I'd be happy. But with only Karlach not periodically getting on my nerves, I'm not.

Casting "Friends" and canceling it repeatedly is a super efficient GTFO mechanic.

But again, not how trust works. I think you never explicitly say or have to stay that you won't take over the Brain and I feel the companions are still justified in feeling betrayed when you do. Lae'zel probably never told you that she would never threaten you again if you do something incredibly stupid either. You might have noticed she isn't someone to talk things out over tea and biscuits. I mean, I think I understand what you want, but I do get why they react the way they do, so I don't quite understand the outrage - or much of the reasoning.

But I wonder, in the title you wrote about "friend companions" but wrote exclusively about the girls' romances (minus Minthara) so what makes the rest of the gang bad friends? And how can you think this way about Scratch?

In real life, we would know each other's steps years in advance, but that requires hundreds of hours of interaction. The game can't afford such luxury, so instead it uses a simplistic approval scale to replace or "replicate" those long hours of bonding. When I see 100, I assume we've gone through that lengthy process of connection - where you know everything about your partner: all beliefs, motivations, dreams, health issues, past enemies and friends, food preferences, etc... Instead, at 100 approval, the game flips me off and Laezel threatens to kill me. It's like your partner stabbing you in the back after ten years of happy life just because you didn't help her criminal brother escape jail (for example). If the game designers truly wanted unpredictable characters, these approval numbers should be thrown in the garbage. Otherwise, it's nothing but trolling and mockery. And yes, I mostly talk about Laezel - I'm still fuming over that Emperor vs. Orpheus choice. It's just so poorly designed. Just like that binary choice with Shadowheart and Aylin - no middle ground.

Nah, that's metagaming - I don't do that.

their hairy asses

So you are upset that Lae'Zel, who is a Githyanki, leaves the party and attacks you when you betray Orpheus and side with a mindflayer, the sworn enemy of her people? ...... Wow

You chose back in Act 1 and 2 to pursue the Orpheus Rebel path. You knew that Orpheus was the only way for her people to overthrow Vlaakith and achieve freedom. Yet at the critical moment you sided with the mindflayer? And you expected that she'd be cool with that?

Now true love would be you becoming a mindflayer so that Orpheus would live to free his people and that Lae'Zel would choose to stay with you, which is what happens. You make the ultimate sacrifice and you become the greatest hero.

So basically you're saying that if someone saves my life, I owe him nothing and have the moral right to side with anyone who wants to destroy him — just because it's in my girlfriend's interest? That is dishonorable. I live by honor. I can't turn against someone who saved my life, no matter who they are. That's why I can't betray the Emperor — it feels repulsive to my core.

I never swore loyalty to them — I only expressed a willingness to help in the fight against Vlaakith. That never included a promise to sacrifice my allies in the process.

There's no love in this — just obsession and servitude to Lae'zel.

Do you pursue the romance with the Emperor?

Lae'Zel choosing to stay with you after you become a mind flayer is the greatest act of love and devotion in the game. She is the ultimate ride or die girlfriend.

Nope, I had no interest in romance with him and rejected the use of tadpoles. The only reason I sided with him was because his support was overwhelmingly stronger than anyone else's. If the game had a scene where Voss and his team sacrificed their lives - say, to help us escape an army of mind flayers - and his last words were "Promise you'll do everything to protect Orpheus and Lae'zel" - that would've been a waaaay more compelling dilemma for me.

I didn't reach this moment. It was very difficult to recognize her love and devotion behind her regret of not killing me in the camp.

I agree with the OP, they have a point. But i think the problem stems from the fact that there just isnt much unique dialogue for when you have exceptional relationship or the character is your romantic partner - there should be unique options and unique lines but there arent. So Shadowheart treats you the same way in the Nightsong encounter whether you have 50 approval or 100 approval, whether youre just friends or a romantic partner. It's abit disappointing tbh, there are a lot of permutations for events that are far less important, there shouldve been more permutations in the instances OP is talking about too. So its not clear if writers even thought of these situations because its not reflected in the available dialogue options and permutations.

So yeah, its jarring that Shadowheart would say that she "step over your corpse" even if you romance her with max approval, but the answer is clear - she wouldnt have said that, they just didnt write the unique dialogue to reflect that.

Oh, that scene is easily the laziest and most poorly executed key moment in the game, making you question whether it was written by Larian or by a cheap freelance writer. At 100 approval there should've been an emotional dialogue between Tav and Shadowheart where love and trust help her break free from her indoctrinated dark side. It could've been romantic and intimate, showing her truly surrendering to someone she loves and by that finding peace in her soul.

Instead, Tav gets two choices: kill Shadowheart or let her do whatever she wants. That completely breaks the emotional bond between Tav and SH and turns this climax decision into nothing but personal whim.

The "spare her because I beg you" option leads straight to an aggressive outburst and middle finger from Shadowheart. At that point, I honestly started wondering if the writers have a thing for bitchy, egotistical female characters.

--- General ---

Your Tav is a blank slate that is barely their own character in the world of Baldur's Gate 3. Even as a Baldurian, you'll at most get some one-liners showing that you know some history or peculiarities about the city, but nothing beyond that to acknowledge that you actually exist, have background and that there are people that know you or have known you. You're a vehicle to progress the main story and origin companion stories, you're the glue that keeps this eccentric bunch of goofballs tolerating each other's presence and you're the one steering the story one way or another. If you choose an origin character to start with, Tav doesn't exist and is irrelevant, Durge is dead and irrelevant, all the other origin companions do exist and have just as much relevance as they have when you start out with a Tav or Durge.

Your Tav also doesn't have any personal stakes or goals beyond wanting to get rid of the tadpole, there's no personal quest like all the origin companions have. Depending on romance and epilogue choices, you'll end up just tagging along with a specific companion's epilogue and will not do anything meaningful beyond sharing their closing story. So the story will never be about companions being loyal to you, it's about you being important enough to them and liked enough by them for them to consider your opinion and allow you to somewhat steer their personal choices and path in their personal companion quest. It's not about loyalty to you, it's about trusting your judgement when it comes to most decisions on which path to take even when it comes to themselves. And if your personal choices are opposite to their core beliefs and views, this will be a deal-breaker and lead to confrontation, like Jaheira and Minsc choosing to square off against a Durge fully accepting Bhaal and having them try to convince other present origin characters that this is against their core beliefs as well. I've never gone on that path, but I believe it comes with persuasion dice rolls depending on the origin companions and you could possibly end up in a 1v5 with Wyll, Karlach, Selunite Shadowheart, Gale and/or Halsin switching sides in that moment upon failing rolls.

Even though your Tav is the PC you control, your character is not the main character of Baldur's Gate 3 and is less important than the main story and the origin companion stories. Anything beyond this is a lot of head canon and using imagination as to why your Tav exists, where you came from and how you are important and relevant without the game facilitating any meaningful way to affirm your head canon. It'll never be about true friend companions supporting you no matter what, it's about you supporting them (or not) and giving them a nudge in a certain direction here and there when you feel that that's what would be best for them. Your Tav simply doesn't have any strong ties one way or another in-game to anything and it's all about whether you want to involve yourself in the strong ties the surrounding companions do have.



--- Shadowheart ---

When it comes to Shadowheart (and likely other romances that are a bit less familiar to me), there are several things to take into consideration. There are distinct differences in the romance stages for every companion that influence which interactions are available with them, alongside main story relevant events and canonical time spent together in act 1, 2 and 3. Being 100% approval with Shadowheart before even seeing her wolf memory gives different conversation options and bonding moments than when you reach the 4 Nightsong point threshold for example, or having had your moment alone with a kiss yet or not, or seeing her reaction in act 2 to the Shadow Curse, or her reaction to entering Shar's temple and later the Shadowfell, etc. etc. etc. In act 1, you can have the kiss and then be considered flirting, which is a status you can have with more than one person. In act 2, you can have the moment where you have to break off other flirts and choose one person for an exclusive relationship. Then in act 3 you can have a moment that solidifies this and you are considered partnered. It's not a simple matter of how much approval you have, the story events play a huge role as well.

And during almost all of the interactions you have with Shadowheart specifically up until the encounter with Nightsong, you learn that she pretty much sees herself as a tool for Shar and that she thinks she will get rewarded for her blind faith, rather than being her own person with the freedom to choose for herself what's right or wrong beyond Shar's doctrine. That's a core view she has of herself. And in all the interactions you have with her leading up to Nightsong, you'll quickly find that most interactions that are judgemental, negative or in any way aggressive towards that core view she has of herself, she will disapprove and lash out. However, being kind towards her or others, listening, being open-minded and allowing her to work things out on her own will often lead to approval and way more pleasant conversations. You don't even have to necessarily agree with how she views herself or Shar, just lending an ear and not judging is enough for her to greatly appreciate you. And when you give her that space to breathe, she'll come out herself that she's starting to doubt her blind devotion and starts thinking for herself more and more.

Then you enter Shar's temple and there are several moments you can notice Shadowheart feels Shar's presence and from the outside you can even catch on to the fact that Shar is literally speaking to Shadowheart similarly to how The Emperor is trying to manipulate you in your own head. However, you also know at that point that pushing Shadowheart, the thing Shar is doing at that time, will likely cause Shadowheart to disapprove and become more adamant in wanting to do the opposite. Until Shadowheart specifically asks for advice and is open to listen, she wants to be left with her thoughts and be given the space to figure things out for herself. So the entire temple, and all interactions leading up to that, you'll have yourself listening to Shadowheart and allowing her to breathe, and Shar pushing and saying "do it do it do it do it". And what does Shadowheart do if you don't interfere? She goes against the one pushing her and spares the Nightsong. And what does Shadowheart do if you don't interfere until the moment she actively asks you which choice to make? She'll do exactly what you'll tell her to do because she asks for your opinion and trusts you. On the flip side, what does Shadowheart do when you push her to make a certain choice before she asks? She digs her heels in the sand and becomes adamant about doing the other thing.

For (pretty much) all of act 1 and 2, Shadowheart's a character that is very predictable and consistent in her behavior. The only part that's a bit sneaky and contradicting is with high approval, right at the moment of sparing the Nightsong or not, the narrator mentions "You may yet be able to sway her from the path of duty to the path of light". It's sneaky, because what this means is that you have already done so with your high approval and Nightsong points and she will spare the Nightsong if you take a hands off approach. However, it sounds like you need to actively convince her in this moment to spare the Nightsong and that your high approval makes it possible to do so.

So in my opinion, it's not bitchy or egotistical. It's getting to know a person that's deeply troubled and indoctrinated and gently helping her to break free from this.



--- Lae'zel ---

I'm less familiar when it comes to Lae'zel's romance side of things, but as a character she has a lot of similarities with (parts of) Shadowheart's experiences with being indoctrinated into a cult. She starts off seeing herself as a tool for Vlaakith who will get rewarded for her blind faith. If she switches sides, rather than being adrift and unsure like Shadowheart, Lae'zel responds by immediately seeing herself as a tool for Orpheus. Her own identity, wants and desires will always be subservient to the greater good of her people. She makes it very clear from the get-go that this is how she views herself and stays consistent with this both on the Vlaakith or Orpheus route. This is also why she so willingly wants to take the direct route to saving Orpheus by accepting Raphael's deal, whatever else is happening and whatever else she might want is less important to her than saving Orpheus and her people. She can greatly appreciate you and even love you in her own specific way, but this concept is largely unknown to Githyanki and their own wants and needs are very much subservient towards their duty towards their people. So what you see is what you get, she's very adamant about it and consistent in it, you (should) know what you're getting into if you choose to go for her romance.

I feel like youre just trying to rationalize why it is this way, when its obvious there is a lack of writing to support different situations and relationship status. LIke i pointed out earlier, she acts and says exactly the same regardless of if you romance her or have extremely high approval in the Nightsong encounter. Letting Shadowheart decide Nightsong's fate isn't the moral thing to do, she's an innocent victim and her life is not for Shadowheart to decide no matter how much you like her. You can predict what she'll do only from meta perspective of what writers are likely to do. But she still looked and talked like she will do it and do as lady shar asks, as she does the entire way through gauntlet. If your character is good and stands for justice then they will speak up and be firm that Nightsong can't be killed, its not moral to play with her life for the sake of character development moment. And besides, if she can turn on you just for standing for justice even if you have max approval and romance her, then how capable is she in making the right decision really? The writing there is just insufficient to support how she reacts and her fighting in you in various contexts.

There are some situations in other RPGs where a companion can turn on you, like Leliana in DAO for defiling sacred Ashes and it truly makes sense because that's evil. Shadowheart's reaction is not as consistent or predictable and killing Shadowheart there will be the right thing and morally justified in most cases with how they wrote it.

I see where you're coming from mentioning Leliana's situation (as well as Wynne and Alistair from what I remember?). However, despite me not knowing about Nightsong points and all that in my first playthrough, all the signs for Shadowheart's personal struggle were there to find in my experience. They were even neatly put down in her personal quest journal to read back in case I missed something in the moment. And the choice is phrased somewhat differently than what you say and the nuance is a part of what swayed me personally. The choice for the first dialogue round says "Trust Shadowheart - do not interfere". Given previous dialogues with Shadowheart, the talk that she's having a crisis of faith, the talk about our relationship and that she seems distracted and drifting a bit in act 2, as well as the high approval I had with her, I did trust her. For me, I had seen enough signs leading up to that decision to believe that she would end up sparing Nightsong all on her own.

It's totally fair if you do not feel that way, many people did feel they had to interfere with varying results, but many people also did choose to trust Shadowheart in their first playthrough. And if you want to roleplay standing for justice, like a paladin with a specific oath, a righteous monk or a cleric of Selune for example, it can definitely make sense in that moment to not trust Shadowheart's ability to make the right decision and end up fighting her over this. If I were to put it in D&D terms, Lawful Good would be more likely to want to take charge and interfere I imagine, Chaotic Good could be more likely to trust their friend to do the right thing without them having to interject themselves.

As for the writing there being insufficient, agree to disagree I guess. All I can say is that if you're interested on the matter of getting people out of an indoctrinated mindset, there are plenty of documentaries on people who have been in a cult and/or people with Stockholm Syndrome after having been kidnapped for a certain amount of time. Directly pushing against what they've come to firmly believe in their time being under someone else's thumb is usually the quickest way to get them to lash out and become violent in one way or another. Giving them space to breathe and gently supporting them in starting to think for themselves and weaning them off of the indoctrination they were led to believe as truth is a healthier approach to get them feeling better and more like themselves again. So in that light I personally don't feel like the writing for Shadowheart in those moments is insufficient and I can see certain decisions leading to certain results given those real life examples.

But what exactly are you trusting her to do? To me, trust means expecting someone to act exactly as you hope - and believing they won't do otherwise. Without metagaming on a first playthrough how could you possibly know that sparing Aylin is even an option? In my view "trust" in this situation would be Shadowheart saying to Tav "I will spare Aylin if you want it so much - just give me the spear and let me approach her" - and this is where you trust her. But handing her the spear and saying "do as you wish" while she's practically crackling with the urge to kill Aylin? That's not trust - that's servility.

What i mean is that if you do interfere it leads to exact same lines regardless of your relationship status with her, regardless of approval she will give an aggressive jarring response like "If I have to step over your corpse to fulfil what Lady Shar asks of me, so be it." There is no variation at all or depending on how you influenced her. And you know, trust goes both ways? If you have a good relationship shouldnt she be more charitable, more amicable?
And what of the lack of reactivity? The scene is written as if were the only 2 people there, but if my other companions heard her talk like that i'd imagine they'd comment on that and call her crazy or something, maybe even support what i'm telling Shadowheart.

See there are a lot of areas where this interaction could have had more depth and permutations in a character defining moment.

This confuses me a bit Djoperdjo, because to me the entire concept of trusting is not having to have this conversation speaking about each other's intentions. Shadowheart says "Her fate is mine to seal. Let me handle this" and I'm trusting her to make the right decision in handling this situation based on the foundation of trust I've built with her over act 1 and 2 leading up to this moment. To me, you are not talking about trust, you are talking about convincing and asking permission. Having the spear yourself instead of her having it in the first place is already strange in this scenario, because it's her spear to get. Upon going to that library section to go get that spear, you've agreed to accompany her as she grabs it, so she already has the spear anyways at that point.


To me, this isn't trusting, this is her having to convince you that she can be trusted. And it implies that right before she says this, you have actually told her that you didn't trust her or expressed doubt about being able to trust her, which is why she's trying to convince you that she can be trusted. So to me, the starting point of this conversation would be the opposite of trust. In my case, Shadowheart has already earned my trust leading up to this scenario and I don't need another conversation to reaffirm this trust. If she didn't have my trust after clearing out act 1 and most of act 2, I probably would have gone behind her back and would have entered Shar's temple without her all together.

And naming the kind of trust currently available to you in the game at that moment as servility instead is interesting to me considering the start of this topic. To me, the way you have described how you'd want Lae'zel and Shadowheart to reply to your decisions in the game once you have reached 100% approval with them is that they show servility to you. I'd see true friends as being a two-way street of knowing each other, understanding each other, trusting each other and not expecting the other to go against their core beliefs and ultimate life goals on a whim when you say so.

Lae'zel is annoyed if you didn't go the direct route in accepting Raphael's deal to get the Orphic Hammer, but she trusts you in the moment. Later when you explain your intent to go the House of Hope to steal it from Raphael, a far more perilous path to acquire it, she even ends up saying she admires you for choosing this path. That's a true friend to me.

However, then later expecting Lae'zel to give up any hope for her people to fight against Vlaakith's oppression by choosing the Emperor, a mindflayer, over Orpheus, that is not something a true friend would ever ask of her. Her not being accepting of this choice makes total sense, you've betrayed her in this moment and have broken her trust in you. If she would go along with this just because you want it, then she's not a true friend, she'd be servile to you in that case. Overall your concept of what a true friend is to you comes across as very much of a one-way street. You seem to want to be able to disregard their wants and needs and expect to be able to ignore your part of being a true friend to them, then expect them to be servile to you if you do something that goes against their wishes and goals.

Ah I get what you mean now Frozenkex, that specific way of telling her not to do something is definitely a full-on trigger for her regardless of approval yeah. She's on edge with a god speaking in her ear and you apparently just said the one thing that makes her completely fly off the rails regardless of previous interactions. Every other conversation option for that dialogue tree does have different dialogue lines depending on approval and Nightsong points from what I remember. And the follow-up dialogue tree completely changes depending on approval once Nightsong mentions the wolves, at low approval she disregards what Nightsong said, at high approval she'll actively start asking for your opinion. As for your companions and reactivity, they're staying out of the heated argument, but when it leads to actual physical confrontation they will choose your side.

Is the scene with the Nightsong a 10/10 when it comes to approval variances in dialogue options and reactivity from present companions? No. Nothing will be a 10/10 and especially when it comes to act 3 I have various standout moments where I think the game needed far more polishing and clean-up when it comes to companion reactivity, (lack of) party banter, but also straight up bugs or contradictory things occurring even now still.

Is the scene with the Nightsong sufficiently written when it comes to approval variances in dialogue options and reactivity from present companions? In my opinion, yes. I'd always like to see more, but I didn't find anything jarring about it in my first and second playthrough of the game.

well yeah because you didnt pick the options that would make it jarring and reveal the issues and lack of reactivity. Just because you picked the ideal options to lead to most optimal result or just picked only thinking about Shadowheart (and not the innocent woman) doesn't mean there isn't an issue. She says NIghtsong's fate is her's to seal, but is that actually true? The moment its revealed that she's an innocent victim then it stops being just about Shadowheart, she has no right to Nightsong's life.

That's where the roleplay comes in. In your playthrough, you didn't agree with Shadowheart saying that Nightsong's fate it hers to seal? You believe Shadowheart is facing an innocent victim and that she has no right to Nightsong's life? And you don't trust leaving it up to Shadowheart to come to the realization on her own that she doesn't have a right to Nightsong's life and that she should spare her? Then you interfere and come across the myriad of consequences depending on which options and follow-up options you choose. Then if she mentions stepping over your dead body if she has to, you can choose to fight or have two options to say it's a bad decision but to let her continue if she really wants to do that, or you can give a dismissive sort of whatever just do what you want then. If you don't fight, you get the continuation of the conversation between Nightsong and Shadowheart and all the different dialogue options that follow and can once again vary depending on approval levels.

Having seen the other options and their consequences in watching other people's playthroughs, I didn't find it that jarring there either to be honest. Of course, Shadowheart isn't being the most reasonable person in how she goes about things in the Shadowfell, but given that she's in the realm of a literal goddess who is demanding that she does something, it isn't all that strange that she's on edge and could react explosively regardless of approval levels. Many interactions with Shadowheart that have built up approval high enough to where it matters have given you opportunity to learn that Shadowheart eventually comes to the right conclusions if you give her space and trust, but also that she'll lash out quickly if she's feeling pressured or judged. So it's all about applying what you've learned previously and giving her that space in that moment, or going against what you've learned about her and pressuring her leading to her becoming aggressive.

For that single conversation option in the first dialogue tree, telling her not to do this, there's no variance between low approval and high approval. In getting to that higher approval threshold though, I learned that trying to tell Shadowheart to do something or saying to put herself above her god's demands would be the quickest way to turn her against me anyways, so these weren't good options to take in that moment. So what's left then is gently asking her whether she's sure and you can already see and hear the reluctance, and you have the option to trust her to make the right choice.

Personally, my biggest gripe in that moment with Nightsong is probably how the narrator seems to want to nudge you to telling Shadowheart what to do when you're on a high approval path, which is the exact opposite of what you've learned about her up to that point and which is also the exact thing you shouldn't do. That's probably what threw me off the most when first approaching the Nightsong.


And about the other companions not really reacting there also kinda makes sense to me to be honest, if you have three people shouting at each other, what use would another voice be at that point? They're there in your corner and hope things work out and stand ready to follow your lead whichever path you choose to take. It's also consistent with how they did companion reactions to other companion's important decisions as well throughout the game, there might be an approval or disapproval pop-up in the moment, but for the most part they'll only speak about the aftermath of a choice when asked rather than interjecting to give their opinion when the choice is being made. So in that respect I also didn't find it jarring compared to other bigger companion specific moments where the other companions watch from the sidelines like with allowing Wyll to behead Karlach or not upon first finding her. All other companions approve of stopping Wyll after speaking with Karlach, they all disapprove of fighting Karlach after talking with her, none will speak up until the aftermath of the choice that was made. I'd love to see everyone react more to everything, but the way it's done now is pretty consistent throughout the game, aside from an unfortunate drop-off in reactivity during act 3 that is very noticeable to me sadly, but the moment with the Nightsong didn't negatively stand out to me at that point in the game.

If she came to that realization there is no written dialogue to actually show this, there are no dialogue options where you can actually say that to her or argue a case.

You are doing awfully a lot of work to rationalize and justify lack of options and the only viable options is to be a spectator rather than an active participant who also has responsibility of what happens.


Youre just working from conclusion using hindsight knowledge. But even so youre just focusing on Shadowheart and making analysis to please and coddle her, and in that kind of situation she has no right to expect it. She didnt make it alone and what happens to Nightsong is whole group's responsibility.

The fact is, the dialogue could have had much more depth and nuance, and a positive outcome should have been achievable in multiple ways that were more true to and consistent with the characters and their relationships.. The writing was lacking. Not to mention how poorly edited and stitched together was the dialogue that immediately followed after leaving Shadowfell, where she went from talking about Shar to confessing and ranting again in front of everyone with no reactivity from others, it was really weird. It couldve been a lot better and im not sure why you want to argue that it's good enough as it is.


Oh come on you cant be serious, any and all lack of reactivity is for budgetary reasons, unfortunately a lot of which is spent on things that in general matter less to most people like origins and other little features. Your rationalizing on the level that you could rationalize why a guy in act 3 that was buried by Minsc doesnt recognize Minsc in your party even if Minsc himself digs him up and he speaks to him. Like "Honestly it makes sense, he forgot and he's confused from being buried!".
They are companions and many of them are friends from eachother, it would be far more likely that they'd speak frequently and encourage/give advice and input on what is going on especially when they see an innocent chained up and one of their companions/friends is considering murdering her in cold blood.


I think its a problem in the other examples like the one you mentioned as well. Id rather have more reactivity than playable origins, speaking with the dead/animals etc, but maybe its just me.

I don't think it's always a budget reason but sometimes comes down to preferences or narrative choices. If you have the companions butt in on everything, this might be more realistic but narratively it draws attention away from the main situation. The Shadowfell is Shadowheart's scene so the focus should be on her. I think a scene that handled this really well is Gale's orb reveal, during which you can ask your companions about their opinion on the matter. It keeps the focus on his situation but allows the others to voice their opinions which makes it feel like a group decision.

The high stakes dice-rolls, I think, are often added to give some excitement to the scene, like you are in the hand of fate. And I get the impression that a lot of people really like that. Personally I don't, it's often a cheap way to get a dramatic climax opposed to having to write a dramatic dialogue. Though it didn't bother me too much in Shadowheart's case, for me easily the worst offender is talking Astarion out of the ritual. That scene is such a waste of some excellent build-up and all of it's "excitement" hinges on that stupid die roll. - On the other side you have Gale's amazing boat-ride which is pure dialogue with no gimmicky rolls at all. Just a long conversation about how the two of you want to proceed with your lives, very beautifully dramatic with excellent player dialogue that gives you a great deal of range in your replies, but it is also a very calm scene.

Also, I really like the playable origins. I wouldn't have finished the game with a Tav or a cringy horror-for-people-who-don't-like-horror Durge, but I absolutely love it when taking up the mantle of one of our pixel-friends. Astarion's whole story is so much better if you play as him and Gale's gives you such a unique perspective on things, and I love how everyone just treats you like a bro and doesn't coddle you overly much. My Shadowheart run was spoiled a little by forced player-prioritisation for which I hope there will be a better solution in future games. (Having Astarion, Gale & Bae'zel do the talking for me, felt like such a Sharran approach.)

PS: Not talking about act 3 here which probably really suffered from lack of baking time.

This is rare according to statistics, vast majority of players prefer playing a custom character. You can argue Tav is boring, but that's also a trade off due to origins, he didnt have to be boring. Custom characters like the Warden, Shepard, Hawke feel much more like they're part of the world and important characters compared to Tav. I dont think a single person bought the game because they wanted to play as one of the promotional characters instead of interacting with those characters with their avatar. Have you not played Mass Effect, Dragon age? Being able to playthrough the game as morrigan, alistair or varric would not sell copies, but enabling the player to play as them would require sacrificing something. Now the actual origins of DA:Origin did add a lot of value, making the player character part of the world and immersing the player into the appropriate chosen origin/background.


The point is that everything is a trade off, dont think about what you'd lose but what you could potentially gain. Most people would have their experience improved with better reactivity and more depth in dialogues and interactions with companions. There are games that you can make comparisons with where the feeling of a party of adventurers is stronger. Consider that vast majority of players wont do many playthroughs either, and most people report that origins feel like Tavs most of the time with the origin skin, but i wont try to confirm this.

If you dont like the custom avatar enough to play the game, the solution is to make the character better with more depth - throwing various "origins" at you is not the solution and it's content most people wont benefit from as they're not interested in it and not gonna play the game 10 times.

Oh I don't mean that you have literally read her mind or heard her say this in that moment, the "Trust Shadowheart - do not interfere." for me is based off of trust built up in act 1 and 2 leading up to this moment, which was enough trust for me. And for me personally it couldn't have been hindsight because I went in blind, it just felt intuitive in my journey and watching her character growth throughout story events and conversations. Totally valid if you didn't feel that trust in your playthrough at that time of course, everyone experiences things differently and I could have been wrong about Shadowheart there and would have faced the tragic consequences in that case, but in this case I apparently read the situation and her character well enough to get the outcome I hoped for. You say it's coddling and she has no right to expect the way I've treated her in that situation, and it's fine that you think so, but I saw from a mile away early in act 1 that I was dealing with a cult victim that needed a bit of "coddling" throughout the journey to break free from that.


Same can be said about our PC character, but throughout more than 95% of the game all companions trust you to make all the big decisions mostly alone, even as Durge with their questionable outbursts. They might briefly chime in, you can get some approval and disapproval here and there and they'll give their thoughts about the aftermath, but with things that are the whole group's responsibility they will largely leave it to you and leave people's life or death in your hands. Hell, even though she hates the idea of it, even when Shadowheart still has the Astral Prism herself, she still goes along to straight up walk into a Githyanki creche to see if the Zaith'isk can be a cure for the tadpole because you have decided that's what the group is going to do. I know for the purpose of gameplay someone simply has to be the leader, but narratively speaking there isn't really a reason why everyone would defer to you.


It always can, there isn't a single part in BG3 that I would consider perfect. From what I'm gathering though, I think I'm simply a bit more accepting with moments here and there being a 7/10 and you're leaning more towards striving for everything in the game to get as close to a 10/10 as possible. Ideally this moment definitely would have more companion reactivity in the moment rather than you making the rounds with your companions and hear their thoughts when you speak to them, but as it's largely on par with how they've done their writing up to this point in the game as well as how they've implemented companion reactivity through, I didn't really notice the flaws when I was playing through it blind.


Fully agree with that especially since, from what I remember at least, statistics early on in EA already showed that only a small minority actually played origin-specific rather than their own custom Tav or Durge, but a lot of developmental time still went into it. When it comes to that I'm actually very much hoping that modders can galvanize origin-specific dialogues and cutscenes and integrate them into a Tav and Durge playthroughs to significantly add towards companion reactivity. When Astarion talks about his fear of Cazador and if he trusts you enough, he could for example show the nightmare he had early on in camp when you do an Astarion origin playthrough, much like Shadowheart shares the wolf memory. And from what I remember seeing in Astarion's origin playthrough for example after refusing to use the ritual to ascend, people like Karlach will directly tell him how proud they are. If that kind of conversation could be modded so that it's integrated as companion reactivity in a Tav or Durge playthrough, that would be a wonderful addition to the game in my opinion. The voice lines and even cutscenes are there already in the game files, they're just stuck in the origin-specific playthroughs and for now you'll sadly never experience them in Tav and Durge playthroughs.


Haha, that's exaggerating a bit that I'm rationalizing things to that extent, don't you think? I already mentioned that for act 3 I have various standout moments where I think the game needed far more polishing and clean-up when it comes to companion reactivity, (lack of) party banter, but also straight up bugs or contradictory things occurring even now still. It's just that for where I'd give the encounter with Nightsong something like a 7/10, there are moments in act 3 where it can fall to a 5/10 for me. And in act 3 especially because other moments right around the corner can then be a 9/10 for me, it can feel very disjointed and take me out of the experience. Most of the main stuff in act 2 stayed around an 8/10 and I personally wasn't aggrieved by some moments feeling a little less fleshed out than others.


No argument there, I've just learned to accept that this isn't in the game for the most part and that companions will mostly just give their thoughts on the aftermath instead. It's a developmental decision, as you said likely because of budget and focus on other things, and I've just come to terms with that. Having adapted to this mindset, I'm more pleasantly surprised when a situation occurs where they do interject in the moment, rather than it feeling like a let-down every time it doesn't happen. So I'm hoping modders will at some point scavenge dialogue and cutscenes from the origin-specific playthroughs to increase companion reactivity in Tav and Durge playthroughs, but for now it's just the way it is and it'll have to be good enough as it is.

The basic example of trust is 'Trust me, I know what I'm doing'. But that's the problem - I don't know what she's doing. I want to spare Aylin. Shadowheart wants to kill Aylin. What exactly am I supposed to trust her on? Trust that she'll spare Aylin after she told me just ten seconds ago "I will step over your corpse" to kill her? That's completely absurd.



No, I want dialogue. I want to convince and be convinced. I'm ready to change my mind, and I genuinely want to hear my partner out - but I also expect my partner to be willing to hear me. Let's find a compromise. Why is it always me who has to sacrifice something? I don't want this binary "do as I say or get lost" kind of relationship in the game. I'm not a tyrant or a narcissist in relationships, but if I take a step toward my partner, I absolutely expect the same in return. If I see Lae'zel sacrifice something, I will sacrifice too. If I see Shadowheart sacrifice something for me, I will sacrifice Last Light Inn and the whole world for her. But I don't see them lift even a finger to do something that serves my interests. Being forced to swallow whatever your partner does just to avoid losing her while she doesn't give a damn about your interests - that's pure servility.


Yes, and I'm annoyed that she treats tieflings like garbage, and I had to go along with her side despite really disliking it. I'm also frustrated by the way she talks to me - I don't like it at all. Did I throw a tantrum at her? Did I say "I will kill you for that"? Do I even have an option in the game to notify companions "Hey, I also don't like what you just did, so if you want to maintain a good relationship, don't do this in the future"? No, I don't have such an option. I'm de facto in a position of servility. Whether I maintain it or confront my companions - those are the only options the game gives me. The only time I'm spared from that kind of servility is when my companions' wishes happen to coincide with mine - in that case it looks like we reached a resolution together. That's my complaint - I want to make decisions together with my companion. I want her to disagree with me and I want to disagree with her - but in the end I want us to reach a conclusion that doesn't feel like one of us got 0% while the other got 100%.


I don't ask her for anything. I just walk my path, and she walks alongside me by her own choice. I'm ready to do whatever I can to fight Vlaakith and help her people, even though I'm considered garbage by them. But I won't kill my ally for that. What kind of lousy friend must she be to not understand that my loyalty isn't her exclusive toy?

@Frozenkex (hmmm cookies)
I haven't looked into the statistics lately but last time I checked, only a very small percentage of players has finished the game at all, so my prognosis that I might not have finished it does not seem so rare either.

Also, I am talking about my own experiences and don't make assumptions about the majority, and I personally would not have gained anything from not having the origins, I would have only lost. While the origins could have been improved (Gale's has some annoying bugs, more reactivity &c ) I like taking on the mantle of one of six characters that I am fond of and make it "their" story. On the other hand, I don't like spending tons of time in character creation, I didn't buy BG3 for the romance but for the immersive sim elements, and lastly I don't think that more dialogue is always better. There is a wonderfully ambitious mod which restores the early access dialogues to the game. So you can talk to your pixel-pals in-depth about Nettie or handing Astarion over to the Gur (or not). In the current game you only get overheard comments instead and, while I appreciate all the work that went into the mod, I like it better the way it currently is. Taste aside, this also shows that quite a bit of dialogue was removed deliberately because someone thought it was better this way not because there wasn't time.

When it comes to trade-off, I think it's more about focus: My favourite character is Gale, both because I just like the guy and because he is just very well written. For the most part you could read the player-part of his dialogue aloud like the script of a play, he has meaningful conflicts that you can resolve with him and through which you can grow as friends (or fall apart), he has a pretty strong friendship arc of which the romance is only a variation, and most of his comments somehow give you clues about his state of mind (even the stupid scene in the brothel), he also has several variations for the other origins that personalise his dialogue for them (for example he has lines about how they remind him of Tara during the tiefling party) . But if you compare his amount of dialogue (number of lines - someone counted them) to the others, he has quite a bit less than Astarion, Shadowheart or Lae'zel. So maybe a clearer vision for the characters is the answer? Gale also doesn't have any big set-pieces for his quest (Shadowheart has two) and I feel like most of his stunning cinematics ended up in his romance. That also makes them useless for many people, but makes the experience very special if you go down that route.

Even beyond EA stats, their anniversary stats have showed that companion-origins are still very much a minority of player interactions.

Which probably stems from the thing that I dislike most about Larian's Companion-Origins systems... That being you get 90% of their content through just having them as a companion (Even more so when not shackled to PC favoured dialogue interactions)

Having all this work put into getting 10% additional content just seems rather wasteful. Especially when, like you say, such things could be incorporated into their companion interactions.

It's why I prefer Durge style Origins. Whereby it's a unique character that can only be experienced through playing them. (I mean, sure, I dislike the actual Durge character itself but the concept of having an alternate viewpoint for the game is neat. It could even go further and have more drastic story changes for such Origin types. Like, what if in BG3 there was an Origin who WASN'T tadpoled which would have massive impacts on how they would tie into the story and also interact with various mechanics)

Seemingly this is also true for many others. Given that Durge sees significantly more play than other origins (With Tav being far more popular, likely due to how unpleasant the actual Durge character can be)


I think part of it also comes from the difficulty in doing it properly.

Like, there are many permutations of party compositions. Each one will have different characters making remarks. Then if you want to tie things in organically, there's even more work to make things function (As the default way games do it would be make everyone spout out independent lines in a round robin. Which would be just as jarring as "No-one makes any comments" as they're all ignoring each other. Compared to real conversations where one person might make a comment then another person would react to that comment)

It's one of those things that's awkward with party based RPG's. Even having just a handful of characters can open up a ton of permutations of party compositions, which would impact dialogue interactions. (And of course, due to the limitations of coding, would also result in specific dialogue interactions taking precedent over others based on compositions)

Meanwhile, we're still struggling to get actually good responsiveness from our single player characters and single other character dialogues. Especially when catering for "Blank Slate" characters like Tav whereby they're devoid of any personality so they have to try and make up options to help people impart their own headcanon onto them (Which is an equally impossible task whereby you'd have ridiculous amounts of permutations based on how other people view "Their" character, with equally ridiculous reactions to account for them)

At best, we see things like "Solasta" where each character in the party is involved in dialogues, but the party just acts like a single character with each dialogue option simply making a different party member say their line. It feels more "My whole party is actually involved in the conversation" but it's as equally deep and nuanced as "Only main character speaks and everyone else stands around like a cardboard cutout".

In general, we're still stuck with very basic conversation systems. Which, much like other systems (I.e. Relationships) are being neglected in favour of fluff like graphical settings in terms of development and advancement - Which is a trend across the industry as a whole and not just RPG's (There really has been absolutely zero interest in anything other than "Make everything pretty and high res and stuff in new graphical settings like ray tracing" for the past couple of decades)

@Djoperdjo
I think our concepts of true friends are just too disparate to find common ground. It's clear to me that your view on things like trust, loyalty and servility are quite different from mine. Of course, I'd always want more conversations than the game already has for more immersion in discussing options together and mutually agreeing on a path to take, but with how vast this game is and how much dialogue there already is in the game, I've just learned to accept things as they are for the most part. And as things are presented currently in game and with the conversations and choices that are available to you, I feel there are definitely true friend companions in the game depending on the route you take. And when it comes to the concept of servility, if I zoom out and view all decisions throughout the story overall, with the majority of decision making the companions are more servile to you rather than the other way around. They're extremely loyal when it comes to a lot of things even when it goes against their core views, but there are certain things that are considered breaking points for them when it comes to trust and loyalty and I think it's healthy and necessary that they do have some boundaries rather than always agreeing to walk whichever path you go on.

@Taril

Very much agree with this yeah, even if an amnesiac character with a very evil past is not my preferred background, I also still find it vastly superior to a Tav where I have to head-canon absolutely everything. In tabletop that'd be fine, because you can give a DM a character sheet with a little background and if they're experienced/creative, they'll weave that into the story somewhere. In a game when making someone like Tav, there's currently just no system to act like a DM to help facilitate your head-canon. I would have loved to have a little questionnaire accompanying your customization options like starting race and class, asking a human rogue whether they had past involvement with The Guild before being snatched up, for example. Then they'd have little variances and maybe even a small quest here and there when you enter Baldur's Gate, just little things that affirm that your character did exist in the world before you pressed "Start Game".


That plays a huge role as well, I agree. Thinking back, in my experience DA:O probably still had the most companion interactivity, especially Morrigan and Alistair bickering back and forth about what to do whenever a choice was presented. Even then, that system still definitely had its flaws. It's a very intricate and multi-faceted process where the balance can easily be off, even when it's in full focus of the development team. Choice based games lead to so many different options and variances that it gets more and more complicated to keep companion interactivity high enough throughout. A more railroaded team based RPG is far easier in that respect, because with only one route to write for, there's a lot more time and focus available to work on the depth of interactions for that single route rather than having to think of something for every different route available to you.

The way mysterious artifact was handled in Act 1 was the most frustrating thing for me writing wise (for Act 1). I played through the game just recently, and i was shocked this is how it was handled even after 2 years of patches. So for me Shadowheart kept the artifact until the end of Creche, but around the time i encountered Gith patrol and Voss, characters acted like I have it and Laezel acted like she knows about it even though she didn't - which i confirmed by reloading and going somewhere else to trigger the scene with the Chosen where shadowheart uses the artifact to protect the group from the Absolute, which is when Lae'zel actually learned about it the first time (for me). And it indeed stayed with Shadowheart. But again at Creche everyone acted like i have it and i had options to give it up - never an option to ask Shadowheart to give it up since it was hers. And when speaking to Vlaakith i had weird options like "The artifact is mine by rights" even though it wasn't even in my inventory. After Astral Prism it just automatically went into my inventory without any acknowledgement or dialogue about it with anyone, Shadowheart had nothing to say about it. I dont know why they didnt just give the player the artifact in the prologue if they want player to have it so much.
I felt like i played the game wrong and had skipped something somewhere even though Im a completionist.

Also it makes sense that youre seen as the leader if you assume everyone thinks the Prism that protects them is bound to you. It's like they wanted to avoid the "chosen one" trope while still having player be the chosen one anyway, they shouldve just leaned into it for consistency.

Heroic fantasy, like tLotR, doesn't emphasize individualism in its main characters. Did you see much of it? Everyone was united around the single goal. Personal feelings, desires, and interests were irrelevant. The only character who prioritized his people over the mission was Boromir - and he was portrayed as a controversial, even negative figure. This is heroic fantasy - not some teen horror flick where everyone splits up to sleep in separate rooms, because, you know… individuality.
Historically, before the invention of guns and nuclear weapons, dominance belonged to those who could build the largest and most organized groups. If an army was just following one man, you could kill him and the rest would scatter. But if the leader's companions were ideological clones of him, killing the leader changed nothing. His place would be taken by someone exactly the same. And that's when you have no choice but to fight the whole army. That's what dominance looked like.

And I expected the same kind of bonds between characters - like in tLotR - but with a touch of romance. Like Aragorn and Arwen, who was ready to sacrifice her immortality for him. Where the fck is "Arwen" in this game? BG3 is supposed to be about saving the world for good-aligned characters. Why are there no heroic women in BG3 who can align with honorable heroic men? Like a 'female Wyll'. Karlach is the only character who's pleasant to deal with, but god, the writers are obsessed with killing her - so every single playthrough for me ends in Avernus. Every single time. I finally installed mods that turn Karlach into a freak - plus I modified some dialogues so I can kill her at the beginning without moral pain and finally have some freedom at the end of the game. And you know what? After killing her, the game just shoves it in my face how bad it was to do that. Just pushes the shovel in. Only to kill Karlach at the end anyway. Odd. Very odd.

Most cuts are because they were unfinished and unpolished things, not because its better without those ideas. Just like Act 3 is still largely unpolished with lots of things feeling rushed and incomplete with severe lack of reactivity from companions. I dont know how you can say your experience wouldnt be improved if there was more companion content with more interactivity/reactivity.

As for origins you actually miss out on the things that people find most appealing about them - acting, performances. Them being companions give you opportunity to really understand who they are, at which point you realize that as origin 90% of offered dialogue options you get are totally out of character for those characters. Its not like in Witcher, where all dialogue options make sense for Geralt more or less.

@Frozenkex
It was clunky in the way they handled the transfer of the Astral Prism from Shadowheart to you, I agree, though I do think that your version of events might have been bugged a bit? Shadowheart was in my party and protected us near the Goblin Camp while the Astral Prism was in her possession. At the Creche, it was still in her possession, but with the way the game presents dialogue choices to the party, I personally viewed saying that "It's mine by rights" would be more on the lines of speaking for the group as a whole rather than my character specifically. Within the Astral Prism, the Dream Guardian for some reason chooses me specifically to talk to one-on-one and once I come out of it, the artifact goes to me. For me, the next time I talked to Shadowheart there was a conversation option to talk about how the Astral Prism switched from her to me. I could even try to give it back, but she'd decline saying that the Astral Prism has a mind of its own anyways and it made the choice to stick with me, as well as saying that all that mattered at that point was that someone in our group was carrying it so we'd have the protection we needed. So then by the time I talked with other companions, Voss etc., it was clearly established for me that I was carrying the artifact.

Even my unbugged version of events feels like an impractical way to handle the Astral Prism ending up with the PC character, though. It would probably have been much easier for the Dream Guardian to establish me as the holder of the artifact towards the entire group and then upon waking up finding it in my pocket instead of with Shadowheart. It would also provide a reason why I'm up front and leading conversations in that case, I hold the Astral Prism and the Dream Guardian protecting us told us all that it decided I was the leader.

@Djoperdjo
This isn't a railroaded movie series based on books with one clear set of events happening in its chronological order, it's a choice based video game with many permutations and intricacies. Lord of the Rings is fantastic and I love re-watching the extended versions of the movies every once in a while, but it's completely incomparable to a choice based game for a myriad of reasons. For 99.99% of LotR, the main group(s) have zero situations where there could be a conflict of interest for one of the characters and because of the way the story goes, they'll always be a unified front because of that. If BG3 were to be written as a railroaded game following the arc of the good guys, there'd be no choice to attack the grove instead of protecting it, no choice which route you're taking to act 2, no options for a potential alliance with Gortash, no choice between Orpheus or The Emperor, probably not even choices in dialogues with your companions... You would just have an interactive movie where you fight your battles as gameplay and then let the video game take the wheel again for the story parts. That could be a fun experience on its own, and the LotR games that have come out and have been like that were indeed fun to play, but that's just totally not what Baldur's Gate is.

And Baldur's Gate also isn't about historical accuracy, it's D&D and it's high fantasy. It'll never be about who has the more dominant, faceless, largest and most organized groups. It's prominent individual heroes and villains squaring off and deciding the fate of the world in dramatic, smaller scale, personal battles. If it would be about who could build the largest and most organized groups, The Dead Three would have utterly wrecked Baldur's Gate using the Absolute's Army, the Fists, the Steel Watch and the Bhaalist cultists to completely wipe the city out and either tadpole the lot of them or just murder everyone. By the time we would arrive, there'd be nothing left but smoke and death.

As for the "Arwen" of this game, I'd probably say Jaheira if you're on the good guy route. An already established character that doesn't have any big personal mission, dilemmas, crisis of faith or character growth still left to do. In that respect, Minsc is another one who would fit that profile. And I'm inclined to put Selunite Shadowheart in that corner as well post-Nightsong as she's past her crisis of faith at that point. For the rest, it's largely more of a coming of age story with most of the companions. They're right in the thick of it trying to find their place in the world, being tugged at from different forces from within and without, and dependent on others they would normally never work together with. Additionally, for the most part they're all just doe-eyed prodigies/chosen ones that are in way over their heads.

I have to say though, if you came into BG3 expecting a LotR-like narrative and companions, then I can definitely see how the story and companions didn't meet your expectations in that regard.

Nah, it means exactly as it seems. Its an option to imply its yours personally with assumption its already bound to you. The writing treats it that way.

Here is what happens if you give the Prism to the commander Therezzyn - this exact cutscene plays no matter what if you pick those options - you pull it out of your pocket and it jumps back to you as if its bound to you personally, but even after this cutscene it will be in Shadowheart's inventory still. It does not make sense. Please dont rationalize and suggest that the scene would play the same way if the writers assumed its in Shadowheart's possession. This is another example of writing being insufficient - a cutscene and dialogue just doesnt exist to account for situation where you dont have it but Shadowheart does, even though it seems it's fairly easy to find yourself in this situation.

I also reloaded the save after the Prism and exhausted dialogue options with Shadowheart and there's nothing about the artifact, just the regular options about the relationship. I was able to trigger the dialogue you describe by getting the Chosen scene in goblin area without Shadowheart around.



The same sequence also plays regardless of which character you initiate dialogue with, as you see in this example the person isnt actually playing Laezel origin, he just decided to initiate as Lae'zel because there are some differences in how youre treated in the Creche if you initiate as githyanki (its not specific dialogue for Lae'zel)

Ah, that's just a straight up bug then if it comes out of your pocket instead of Shadowheart's pocket with Therezzyn. I personally wouldn't call it weak writing, just the wrong animation playing. The animation for Shadowheart is definitely available and you could probably even trigger the conversation keeping your PC character separated somewhere else and have whoever you choose to speak with Therezzyn with have it in their pocket in that case rather than the one who actually has it in their inventory. That's a bug that should have been squashed ages ago in that case, but the people who encountered it either didn't report it or they never handled it.

I saw something half-bugged in the Mindflayer Colony with the brains in jars and the elven head you can talk with. You can talk to them with Jaheira and she can have telepathic tadpole-like connections for some weird reason, but then finally when the Githzerai offers to transfer the mind barrier buff you do only get to say that you don't actually have a tadpole when talking as Jaheira instead of your PC. Weird inconsistencies here and there. You can also trigger unique conversations/cutscenes sometimes for whatever reason, like if you're on a Tav/Durge playthrough and have the talk with Nightsong in camp about the real wolf memory but you choose to do it with Shadowheart and your PC is on the other the other side of camp, you'll have a different variation of the talk between Shadowheart and Nightsong without your PC involved and without dialogue options in-between. Same as when you stay back in the House of Grief boss room on a Tav/Durge playthrough and have Shadowheart approach her parents entirely by herself, she'll have a unique cutscene/conversation without dialogue choices that's also different from a Shadowheart Origin playthrough as far as I know.

When it comes to reporting bugs like you had with Therezzyn though, my personal experience is that any inconsistency or bug I report, even going back a year ago, unfortunately never gets handled or acknowledged. So I imagine people have noticed it like you and have already reported it, but for whatever reason Larian never did anything with it. I made a bug report and thread about Halsin's completely broken romance and consent flags almost exactly a year ago where people massively agreed it had to be looked at and fixed, and in there I referred to a similar popular thread from a year before that. Despite the majority agreeing that Halsin's romance and consent dialogue flags are completely broken at certain spots, they haven't looked at it and probably never will. Thread's here. And there's also a bug that they introduced in January's patch 8 stress test that is still there unfortunately, one I mentioned here and you can find video examples all over Reddit.

So yeah, personally I'd only consider certain moments in act 3 as weak writing, other things here and there I'd consider unpolished, unaccounted for variations and/or unsquashed bugs that haven't been looked at and fixed. A funny variation which they do account for in the creche is when you disguise every companion as Gith btw, they treat you far more accepting in that case and even with the Vlaakith projection they'll allow you to pretend to be a Gith with certain dialogue choices.

Its not a bug, the appropriate animations, dialogue, narrator comments dont exist. It can't be fixed. What had to be fixed is the player getting the artifact, though im not even sure when the artifact handover is supposed to happen naturally. Because they clearly wrote it with assumption that player already has it, it's not a bug.

Feel free to show me a scene where you dont have the option to hand over artifact if you dont have it, or to say "shadowheart has it" or whatever. I dont think those exist, so those arent bugs.


No you dont need to disguise the party as gith, just the person initiating the conversation needs to be gith, that's all. The characters ignore what race your companions are. So all you need to do is just control someone like Lae'zel and youl get the dialogue you describe.

I simply do not agree with your blanket statement that more is always better and that all things you, I or others miss are because of budgetary reasons or lack of time. In the examples I gave above - the reactions to the Gur and to Nettie - only the conversation with some relevance remained in the game
while the others were canned. I like that. I like the short overheard conversations between the companions better in both cases and I feel it makes the important conversations stand out more. A good cut in my opinion. You can of course disagree and like the longer versions better.

Also I think that a lot of moments that you (or I) perceive as lacking aren't due to budget but to what the authors were most interested in. Sorry if I pan back to Astarion, I just don't have many issues with Shadowheart. During his post-Araj-romance scene he can tell you that he just hooked up with you to use you initially, you can continue the conversation either by telling him how much you care or by breaking up with him, there is no option to express hurt but stay with him. If you stay, the options are cute but a bit shallow. You can open your mind to him so he sees himself with your eyes, a continuation of the mirror motif, but you don't actually get to say how you see him and get a generic reply. This is a pet peeve of mine. Would this have been better with more time? Probably not. There's an interview with Durge/Astarion writer in which they talk about how proud they are about the scene and they focus solely on the portion in which Astarion breaks up with you because you treat him badly. The interview also makes it clear that they are more interested in the disruptive elements of romance and in making Astarion pookie, than it what the player might feel. What the player might think is a foregone conclusion for them, which also explains how restricted the player-character in Astarion's romance is.

So sure I would have loved more banter in act 2 and 3 and I am missing some reactions, but I don't think that "more time and money" is the universal answer when much also comes down to the writers being more interested in some topics than in others. - Which btw is cool.

If you look at what is generally asked for in terms of reactivity, it's things like: Durgetash romance when? The companions are not fawning over my character enough (which is what this thread is about in its essence, also the famous "it was very twee" ) or the players wanting more presents and hugs to give to their companions (I am guilty of that, I want to gift Spawn-Astarion that damn portrait XD ). That the iron flask quest is missing an ending rarely comes up.


Actually, I don't. Your team consists of four, your character plus three buddies. Unless you kill them, at least half of your gang is stuck in camp and you probably only bother with them when you maybe do their quests. You loose nothing if you pick one of them - maybe the one you interacted with most on your last run - as your Origin, you just get a new perspective on them. (Or at least I don't, you might enjoy spending time in character creation or making up a story for your Tav.) As you said, it's a give and take, you loose them as companions for the run but you get their story as yours, which for me is compelling. I like both Astarion and Shadowheart as companions and I like playing their Origins. In Astarion's case I might like his origin a little better because it offers a more satisfying resolve to his personal quest. In Gale's case it is a little harder, because most of my favourite scenes are his. So he's the only one whom I really miss when I play him. Still, his Origin was a great experience that is dear to me. Could the Origins be improved? Sure. But that doesn't mean they aren't fun the way they are.

I also think the Origin system has benefits because it offers range. If you have one Durge-style player character, there is a chance people don't like their story. Durge for me is pretty boring and I absolutely (ha!) don't like the writing style. But I have 6 other folks, whom I do like, to choose from. So the game can be about a lot of different things (with Astarion killing Cazy and securing your freedom and safety might have priority over taking out the brain) and the "main plot" is just what set your story rolling. And these stories can be varied and maybe a little risky because there are alternatives.

It is the universal answer, or using your resources more efficiently on things that improve experience to more people. More polish, less rushed, more finished content would be better for everyone. More reactivity would be better for everyone, and not just people who are obsessed with one character or something.


I dont know what forums youre reading but no. What people usually mean by reactivity is companion commentary and participation in cutscenes, along with banter that reflects story progression, and so on, as opposed to them just standing behind you.

I mentioned other games that you didnt really react to, so might i assume you havent played them so can't make the comparison? BG3 is very ambitious in scope, but on this point other games have done it better, like most of bioware games with their companion reactivity and interactivity and no we're not talking about hugs and kisses. So yeah, with more time, better use of resources they couldve done it as well as DAO or better.

In DAO for example companions will all comment on your relatioinship with whatever romance, and in not a one-size-fits-all manner the way it usually is in bg3, but they talk about you and the specific companion. It helps when you dont have too many companions. In bg3 Halsin and Minthara comes on to you seemingly without the knowledge that youre in a relationship with someone or who youre with, there's not even an option to tell them who youre with, other than maybe referring to your partner as "them" (one size fits all). Larian clearly spread themselves too thinly.

No, to get it out of the way, I didn't. I started DA, didn't like it much and discarded it pretty soon - which was not solely due to the game but also due outside circumstances. But I don't need to, in order to know that I don't like being stuck in a menu for dialogue for dialogue's sake. I like an experience that is balanced between gameplay and story - which BG3 does.

And I think there's our point of disagreement. I also think that efficiency is key, but for me efficiency means deploying your resources in a manner to best realise your goal. (Not to make the most people happy.) For example, I got the feeling that all the (Wizard) dialogue was written with Gale in mind, which is great if you play Avatar-Gale, and is fine if you play a custom Tav because the wizard dialogue usually circles around the universal flaws of the class. Feeds two birds with one cookie, wonderfully efficient.

But I also think that dialogue should be efficient. "A good screenplay is an efficient screenplay." is something I once heard and that I agree with. Dialogue should have a purpose and ideally achieve several things at once. Take the banter between Shadowheart and Lae'zel about burying the hatchet, it's a fun dialogue on surface level, but it also tells you a ton about Lae'zel and a bit about Shadowheart on a deeper one. It also progresses the story by resolving their confrontation. The clip you linked does none of that, its only purpose is for the player to feel more important because they can make a selection - what I flippantly called a desire for the companions to fawn over your PC. It's not something I consider very valuable because to me it's basically bloat, that I am stuck in menu for. I hope this explains why I do not generally agree with you about more content.

So when I think about reactivity, I'd think about what would need to be explored further or add value if it was - asking the Gondians about Karlach's heart comes to mind. (A specific example instead of a general ask for more.) And it's apparently something they really didn't want to change. I can't tell you if it's because they were happy with it or what not, the much requested hug for Shadowheart during her Selunite graveyard scene was added later on, so someone appears to have liked that idea.

Dialogue in real life is neither efficient nor multi-functional.

People can be verbose simply because that is in their nature. As can people be prompted to talk more by being engaged by others.

Dialogue is simply a means for communication. The depth and breadth of that communication varies with people and situations.

Of course, the thing to keep in mind for games is that dialogue often happens in "Dialogue mode" due to the need to facilitate giving players choice of responses (Meaning both give them time to read the options and decide and also the UI for actually picking a response) which should be minimized. But options are the bread and butter of RPGs (It's how you go about allowing someone to "Role Play")


The clip is trying to highlight that Morrigan is directly referencing the player romancing Alistair. Rather than a "Generic romance dialogue"

It being tied to a "Dialogue Mode" is not indicative of reactivity... It could have been done as banter dialogue (Much like how Karlach will respond in a similar fashion to Morrigan here when you spend the night with her at the Tiefling party, she'll mention that Shadowheart seems happy)

But the crux is that the companion character is making a response to a specific action.


In general, there's 2 kinds of reactivity to mention.

There's direct reactivity. Wherein companions chime in during dialogues to add their opinion to what is unfolding. For example, when a companion gets a temperment modifier from a dialogue option, they'll actually say something about it then and there instead of just silently watching (With them maybe provoking a dialogue later, such as Karlach and Wyll talking to you if you agree to attack the Grove)

Then there's situational reactivity. Wherein companions will remark upon and alter dialogues based upon actions taken. For example, how companions respond to you after you've eaten a tadpole (With them having new greetings and sparking dialogues from Gale and Astarion)

Neither necessarily adds more dialogue modes, but it simply alters ones that exist as the player goes through the game. While providing benefits from doing so:

The former makes companions feel like they're relevant in dialogues, it also would help provide more insight into their stances and characters. Knowing why companions are reacting in such ways provides more information than just the "X liked/disliked that!" (It also allows the conveyance of such messages immersively. Instead of having meta pop-up text tell you, you actually get to see the character react in real time). It can also lead to more fleshed out experiences, instead of it being a ping-pong of "MC selects dialogue > Other party responds" there can be actual discussions occuring between companions and NPC's between MC choices (And allow for branching dialogue paths where you choose to direct the conversation towards your companions or the other NPC)

The latter provides long term development for companions. It makes them feel like they are actually experiencing your actions instead of just being cardboard cutouts with specific dialogue flags. It brings your character into the world as things they do are being noticed by those they are close to. This is also where the major complaints in this thread about "Relationships" come in, whereby people expect that a full approval and romanced character would have their dialogue altered to reflect the fact that the PC had gone out of their way to be extra nice to them to get that approval and actually engaged and kept with a relationship. (It is also here that the major flaws of RPG "Romances" are shown, with the complete and total lack of any reaction to being in a romance outside maybe being able to select an option for a kiss if you talk with said companion)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm totally pissed off again. In the end - all three main female companions are completely ruined by Larian for me! I'm fine with a wide range of personalities for different tastes - but for normal guys, Larian, could you please not kill the only decent character who doesn't trigger a vomit reflex?

So I finally decided to romance Shadowheart - the most repulsive female companion in the game. First night, we're drinking wine near the waterfall, and I give her a compliment - "you're beautiful". And you know what she replies? - "Yes, I know". So now Shadowheart is a Twitch streamer with a million followers or something??? Who wrote these dialogues? Guys and gals - never ever reply "I know" when someone you're genuinely attracted to tells you "you're beautiful". Don't be a piece of shit. Just say "You too" - or if you're not that into them just say "Thank you". Otherwise, it's not a romantic date - it's alms, a favour, an emotional pittance. At that point, any self-respecting person just stand up and leave.

Larian seriously needs to learn from Scrolls or DaO how to create companions who feel like they belong in a world of dragons and magic - not on a college campus. And if you include only one companion for people who value equality in relationships - then please, don't kill her at the end.

Ohh, I'm absolutely fuming... my ass is burning like the Sun.

Oof, at this point Djopderdjo, I honestly think you'll just have to accept that BG3's writing style for companions simply isn't your cup of tea unfortunately. If a companion jokingly saying "I know" when commenting on her beauty sets you off this bad to the point you start making comparisons to real life Twitch streamers and think someone's a piece of shit if they say this, you'll only to continue to make yourself pissed off again whenever anyone in the game says something that doesn't completely align with how you'd like interactions to be with companions or other characters in the game. Unless you simply like getting pissed off, I'd just go and find the next game that does bring you positive emotions rather than going out of your way to find more scenarios within BG3 that will piss you off again. Or if you like the gameplay part but not the companion writing, you can always just not recruit any of them/force them out of your party and just continue with three hirelings instead.

Resources in BG3 are not leveraged efficiently and dialogue is not efficient. For example Speak with the dead options are a waste of time 90% of the time, it barely adds anything to experience and you rarely learn anything from it that you didnt already learn from books/notes/letters and npcs. And you cant even use every option, while most options like "who are you" and "who killed you" are redundant especially when you know who they are and you killed them.
This is another thing i'd easily trade for more dialogue with companions, and i think most people would agree.

Besides talking with companions is optional, if you are a such a special case of a player that doesnt want the dialogue, you can skip it. Youre here acting how more dialogue would actually make it worse for you, meanwhile there are hundreds of random npcs that give you rather pointless one-liners when you interact with them with no option for dialogue.

Wizard dialogue options werent great, because [wizard] is only one type of person, and you cant express any different ideal of a wizard - for example someone like Elminster.

Calling dialogue with companions, that make them more believable and interactive, "dialogue for dialogue's sake" seems ridiculous to me. I'd agree if you described Speak with the dead that way, or talking to random rats - ultimately pointless, just shows "Look you can do this thing, isnt it cool?"


Yeah no, the other poster already explained how wrong your interpretation is here. I feel youre just being defensive of BG3 while lacking experience of other games, so you are in denial that another game couldve done something better. What we're saying is not a controversial opinion at all, Dragon age did companions better and had more reactivity throughout the game. If BG3 was like that it would be a better experience for me and you as well. You're not gonna understand that until you have experienced it yourself.

And talking about bloat in context of BG3's act3 is ridiculous. BG3 is longer than all Dragon age games combined (or feels like it anyway), while having less reactivity per companion than a single game and spread throughout a longer game. There is a reason why lack of reactivity, banter etc - how companions are too quiet - are some of the top criticisms of later Acts (especially act 3). More of content that people actually want and need can't be bloat.

Ill give you another example, note that this is just random banter as you walk around the game, just like in bg3, the cutscene/dialogue format is fan-made.
Here you can see conversations companions can have about single romance - if companions speak as much about Shadowheart romance in the game i certainly didnt hear it in 300 hours of playing. It would be more "efficient" to invest in more content like this, than features that barely anyone utilizes or add a bit of flavour to the world at best.

Dude, I feel you are getting a little bit excited, aggressive and rude, so I cut this short here. Thank you for the conversation. The only thing I am defensive about is the Origin-system which is dear to me. So whenever someone states that it is useless and should never appear again, I'll say that I enjoy it and why. Telling me I am objectively wrong in this because it is objectively bad because I don't value what you value is super condescending.


It's not real life though, it's a work of fiction. The dialogue is supposed to sound believable but ultimately it has several jobs to do, characterisation, driving the plot, creating mood &c.


I think the crux is, I didn't buy it as an RPG (speaking in terms of genre) but as a strategy game with an interesting enough narrative and characters. I had an immersive sim shaped hole in my heart that needed filling. It doesn't mean that I don't value the roleplay component but I am obviously not as much into having to make every choice myself as you guys. I am perfectly fine with my character's love-interest chatting about us with our friends while we are adventuring and not having to do it myself.


The thing is, for me it is very generic, as far as romance dialogues go. As in: it's not especially compelling dialogue (Compared to say how Astarion roasts your romance choices in act 1) and I overall don't get much out of this - but I explained that above, I hope.

The tiefling party is a nice example though, because the overall setting and mood make the chats about with whom my character might spend the night much more appealing and I like their different approaches. It took me a while to find out that Shadowheart can play matchmaker for you, which is very cute.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I did read it but I have to think it over.

I didn't notice any joke. She replied like her dating schedule had been booked years in advance - while in reality she's meant to be isolated and deprived of any deep relationships. If you're walking down the street and suddenly, I don't know, Margot Robbie jumps out of a limo and tells you "you're beautiful" you would hardly reply with "I know" even jokingly.

Thanks to the ever-wise Sven Vinke who allowed game modifications, Wyll, Gale, and Astarion just received gender swaps and female voiceovers. Wyll, in particular, is absolutely perfect as a woman - loyal, trustworthy, and easy to talk to. In fact, Wyll is perfect as a human. I'm very curious: why are all three main male companions so pleasant to interact with, while two out of three female companions come across as insufferable bitches, and the only pleasant one is a dead man walking?
So no, BG3 has plenty of good characters, but Lae'zel and Shadowheart were the worst of the worst female characters selected as main companions with complex quest arcs.

She was teasing you. You gave her a lame compliment, expecting her to swoon and she gave and unexpected answer. It shows that she is mischievous and playful.

But enjoy your genderbended team 8 Strength, always good to read that someone likes Wyll and Gale. Although a voice swap for them hurts my soul. ^^

Gale and Astarion sound amazing - like real actresses. https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/2652 (Astarion_MtoF_Best, Gale_MtoF_Best). Wyll's voice, though, sucks.
I gender-swapped Lae'zel and Shadowheart as well so they look like complete freaks now and I can easily kill them on sight without any interference from my male neurons. Me happy.

said neither of those things and didnt use the word "objectively" at any point.


That's cool but it is an RPG and was advertised as such and RPG fans are the target audience and it is one of the main reasons for its success. Its not compared to strategy games but to games like DAO - and one of the major reasons for BG3 greater success compared to Larian's previous games is that it took inspiration directly from modern Bioware RPGs, making the game more cinematic etc, and they took inspiration directly from things that I'm now criticizing and making comparisons to.
So now that you know, i hope you better understand our criticisms and where we're coming from.


This is exactly what i linked to you in the previous post, and as far as i know BG3 doesnt have nearly as much of this kind of banter. It shouldve had more. I think i heard most of it in act 1 and then nothing.


Didnt hear anything from Astarion after the tiefling party that's related. But why just act 1? Romance develops throughout the whole game. I checked out a romance banter compilation and feels like Astarion's romance gets many times more banter than any other companion romance.

Maybe romance banter is bugged, but i played on the latest patch and they dont plan on patching more, so its not my problem. I judge what i see and it aligns with most people's experience it seems.

Anska covered this one already really, but I'll add to it.
It's playful and part of her character, as well as it being give and take with her when it comes to teasing. If you give her the Night Orchid, she pretends that it's poisonous and then laughs and gives you finger guns like a total goof as she says she's joking. Then when she says she doesn't have anything to give in return, you can joke that you'll just take the flower back then and she'll tease and say she doesn't want to spoil the kind gesture by breaking your fingers. She's not saying she's actually going to try and break your fingers, you're just having a laugh together and being in the moment appreciating each other. It's a moment of levity and a breath of fresh air amidst the dampened mood the shadow-cursed lands bring. If any of this comes across as her being an "insufferable bitch", trigger a "vomit reflex" or make you consider her a "piece of shit", then I believe you're seriously missing some important social cues when it comes to non-straightforward communication.

I'm honestly baffled that the "I know" line can be taken as seriously as you have and that your response is so strong to it. In all the playthroughs I've seen, as well as threads I've read discussing her romance path, I've never seen a negative response of this magnitude before.


I'm very surprised that you have such a strong negative response to Shadowheart's joking "I know" line, to then in the same post say that you find Astarion so pleasant to interact with. Astarion is also jesting about it most of the time, but he has so many "I know" lines in his dialogue in both the platonic and romantic paths. And the first part of his romance path isn't even sincere, he'll give (mostly) fake compliments to lure you in and then use having sex and feigned romance with you as a means to have you become protective of him so that he can feel safer. He only starts feeling more for you later on, but right up until rejecting the ascension, he's probably the most selfish companion only ever acting out of self-interest. And if he does ascend, he wants you as a thrall rather than an equal, continuing the self-interest and taking it to the next level on a path to become the new Cazador. DJ Shart has the decency to straight up tell you that on the path she's on she can't allow actual love into her life and that she thinks you do deserve to find it if that's what you want. So on that route she communicates clearly and gives agency to you to find happiness beyond her if that's what you desire at that point, or choose to stay in a pseudo-relationship dictated by Shar's terms.

I love both Astarion and Shadowheart as companions, I find both their routes intriguing and statistics show they're also by far the most chosen romance options. I'm just confused how you end up classifying one as an insufferable bitch and the other as pleasant to interact with. I've noticed a lot of talk about the differences between male and female in previous posts as well, as well as just now saying you gender-swap mod Shadowheart and Lae'zel so that killing them doesn't interfere with your male neurons, so I was wondering something. Could it be that instead of the actual character writing, it's instead because in the base game you find it less offensive if a male Astarion has an "I know" line and much more offensive if a female Shadowheart has such a line, perhaps?

But being believable relates to being similar to real life.

As I mentioned, it doesn't have to be exactly the same and there will be some meta inclusions revolving around video game things (Such as the oft used "We're in trouble and really need your help... But sure I'll answer all your questions regarding the current setting and plot!")

Making every dialogue terse and to the point is not believable. Sure, Gith may be like that. But other people will vary based on personality.



What you bought it as is irrelevant.

It was made as a CRPG, as a title in a series that is predominantly CRPGs, by a company that makes CRPGs, for people who like CRPGs.

Ergo, it will be designed with CRPG aspects in mind. Which nominally, means extensive dialogue (I mean, if we're looking at things like DA:O, Planescape, BG1 + 2... CRPG classics are very dialogue heavy because RPG nerds love to get deep characters in a fleshed out world)


It's quite literally not generic because it directly references the specific character being romanced. Not only namedropping them, but also highlighting traits of said character. If you want generic, then Withers comment on your romance is completely generic with absolutely nothing to do with who your romance partner is just a vague reference to you having a romance going.

Sure, it might not be the most compelling dialogue, as it's mere banter - But banter still provides a lot to characterization.


It's both a joke AND a representation of her being deprived of any deep relationships.

She's had a lot of interest, but nothing ever went deep, so she jokes as a way to sort of keep you at arms length, as she has no clue if you're going to actually try for something proper of if you're just another person looking for a good time with a pretty lady.

Which is hinted at if you kiss her and talk to her the next day. Where she's concerned about that exact thing, are you interested in a proper relationship with her?


I dunno... Different strokes I guess.

Personally, I can't stand the three male companions. Gale is a douche, Wyll is boring and Astarion is just plain awful.

Yet the female companions are great. Lae'zel offers some of the best character arc of modern RPG writing. Shadowheart can shake off her awful brainwashing and become a total sweetheart and Karlach is just fun.

Just saying "You are beautifull" – "I know" is very dismissive. If it was meant as a joke (which I firmly believe it wasn't) then it was delivered poorly. Here's how it would actually sound as a joke:

"You are beautiful" - "I know. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about you."
"You are beautiful" - "I know. Laezel already told me that today."
"You are beautiful" - "I know. Why do you think goblins target me the most?"
"You are beautiful" - "I know. I'm just surprised you noticed after a whole bottle of wine."

There has to be something after "I know" otherwise it just sounds like "get lost".

That would turn into a full treatise on my views about men–women relations and roles in the modern world versus the fantasy world. It's just too long and too subjective. I'm not unique - far from it - but I usually find my opinions supported only by a few. So I won't bore readers with my personal crap.

Anyway, I've solved the problem that bothered me, thanks to modding possibilities. If I hadn't been able to do this, it would've been the last Larian game I bought - because I'm not exactly high on opinions about either DoS. And no matter how great a game is, the strength of the aftertaste is what matters in the end. And I had a very, very bad aftertaste when I romanced Laezel and Shadowheart.

So, as an afterword: after casting a very dark forbidden magic on Gale, Wyll, and Astarion - it’s perfectly fine for me (can't say the same for them, though >:D

That's amazing. I'd probably feel the same if I hadn't met one Lae'zel and two Shadowhearts in real life - and it never ended well.

When it comes to the "I know" line, the nuance for me is in the tone of voice and facial expression that makes me interpret it as teasing rather than "get lost". Clearly it didn't for you, so that is unfortunate then in that case.


Yeah, I had a feeling that a topic on men-women relations could be an important factor in how you view the male characters compared to the female characters in BG3, which is why I asked out of curiosity. Totally fair to keep that to yourself, that would go way beyond the scope of your original thread topic as well I feel.


Glad to hear! At the end of the day, games are all about finding ways to enjoy them. Given that you've gone through multiple playthroughs going by you mentioning trying different romance paths, that's probably hundreds of hours of gaming for a single purchase, not bad!

Nah sorry, you misunderstood and have primed yourself to assume the worst. It was a joke as Taril said, as in she doesnt want to make it too serious and cheesy even though she likes the compliment, it breaks through awkwardness. Or you can see it as teasing and being playful, which is appropriate in flirting stage of relationship.

It's similar to this from Star Wars:


Also modding - this is just you making up your own headcanon to cope rather than truly engaging with the material. You should be more secure dealing with female characters and be playful back at them. Such modding is a lie.

Your whole take is built on a false premise, so I'm not even gonna bother. Just tell me - where do you see a joke, here's the video: https://shorturl.at/owgkB She sounds like a spoiled streamer who gets spammed with those comments daily. If that's a "joke" then describe what a non-joke would look like in this context.

But he butters you up pretty good.


I know, (Sorry! XD) that's why I was initially not interested in it at all. I looked into it because some mates of mine started playing it and what I found (on yt but also some interviews with the devs) mostly highlighted how the game encourages creative problem solving. Of course I might have had a peculiar algorithm working for me, but I did get the impression that they were aiming for a wider audience than just CRPG fans in mind.


Where did "terse and to the point" come from?

But I feel the conversation gotten a little lost, I am not sure what the context of the scene with Morrigan is, it reminds me of the scene when Astarion needles you after you spend time with Lae'zel (flopping about like dead fish) which stands in the context of his simple plan, and shows you just how an obnoxious a gossip he can be. It makes sense for him to butt in here but it would feel very weird to me if every companion wanted to chat about my character's relationship. I am also fine with Wither's dialogue for commenting on your relationship, it's basically a joke on the discomfort of someone being nosy about your romance, it doesn't need extra treatment, getting personalised responses to it is enough in my opinion. I rather have the personalised dialogue in situations that matter.

With generic I meant that "oh that oaf makes you happy, he must be good in bed" is an extremely cliché insult, but you are right, that might just be in character for her, but it's hard to imagine someone is looking forward to this conversation. But I also don't have emotional attachment to it, for me it's just a snippet of dialogue.

Honestly maybe you should ask AI what it thinks of that line. I literally show you scenes from a movie that is similar reply in a joking manner, and neither character is misunderstanding. What you would have preferred i guess is the generic "I love you too" or "You are also beautiful Sir Tav!" (that's a non-joke). That would just be boring. Your take is unpopular for a reason that people here probably see for the first time, so why are you acting like its an obvious interpretation? No she does not sound like how you describe it, nobody thinks this. She even says "youre sweet" right after, so she appreciates it. Like how do you not see that she hides her true feelings? Not sure what youre expecting. Shadowheart is a slowburn romance - the best kind.

Your fixation on "Efficiency", your stance of being against "More dialogue" and wanting there to be "Purpose" to all dialogue.

I.e. Terse and to the point. Little to no waffling for the sake of waffling. Nothing that is there simply because people like to talk about things. Nothing "Extra" that helps push characterization. Just everyone saying the bare minimum for what specific purposes they require.


IIRC the context is Morrigan being good friends with you and you deciding to pursue a romance with Alistair and then talking with Morrigan at camp. Whereby it's one of the new gossips that people will want to talk about because people like to gossip about such things.

As far as every companion commenting on such things... Part of that stems from how every companion becomes your BFF in video games. So everyone acts like your BFF, wherein a comment about you starting a relationship wouldn't be out of the ordinary. (One of the myriad of issues with current video game relationships, everyone being your bestest friend in the whole world)


It's less "Looking forward to this conversation" and more "It's a pleasant surprise to encounter it"

I mean, I don't "Look forward" to any conversations in any video game at all. Given the nature of dialogues they're only interesting the first time when you're obtaining new knowledge - Afterwards you already know what is going to be said and the overall outcomes of the conversation.

But it's nice to encounter things that help flesh out the world and characters. Stuff like the banter that BG3 companions have as you wander around. Is it deep and meaningful? No. But it provides additional information about the characters and especially how they view other companions (Which is even nicer given the rarity of any inter-companion interactions in video games)

So I'm not sat here thinking "Gosh, I wish my companions would talk about my romance choice!", but rather I'm pleasantly surprised when my choices in games (Not necessarily romance options) are brought up by companions and shape their views and opinions. As it provides more depth to not only the companions themselves, but also to decisions I make.

Even more so if I care enough to have my decisions swayed by the impact they can have on companions, an extreme example being the reasonably common "Do you become a Lich?" option, where picking yes grants you a ton of power to your character but the cost is most companions really don't like that (And will often leave you or be killed in the ritual of you becoming a Lich)

In that SW scene she replies "I know" to "I love you" - this is totally different. They re at such a stage of close connection that words have no meaning, only intentions. Even if she said "I hate you" it would still be an expression of love. It's totally different on a first date with Shadowheart. A first date is supposed to show that partners care about each other - that's enough. Saying "you are beautiful" is not the same as saying "you are 5 feet tall". It means "I'm telling you that you're special to me. I'm ready to open my heart and soul to let you in". If her reply to that is "I know" she's either a total moron or just indifferent to the person. So in both cases, if the guy has any self-respect and brains, he should just stand up and leave. I had to start a new game just so I could tell this pos to gtfo and continue alone.

She jumped at me in the druids' camp with "are you following me?" and got a very firm gtfo the second time. She went back to her boulder and continued sitting there alone, totally lost. I pass by this boulder often when I sell my loot, and I haven't seen anyone around telling her how she's beautiful. So what makes her so sure she's beautiful? A mirror? Right... because obviously this is exactly what a battle cleric should be like in a high fantasy setting.

The writers at Larian should stop injecting modern personality tropes into fantasy characters. Or better yet - give a wider selection of main female companions. Not every man is attracted to disrespectful bitches, you know. Minthara and Jaheira are great fantasy characters - it's just a shame they're conditional and don't have full questline.

A first date should be about getting to know each other more.

Though there is the dichotomy between trying to establish a lasting relationship (So wanting to get to know each other more deeply) and simply being interested in sex (So the date is just a pretense for "Do we like each other enough to consider sex?")



Saying "You are beautiful" is not even close to saying "You're special to me"

It is a barebones compliment. It is not deep, it is not meaningful. It's simply a compliment. One that doesn't necessarily indicate anything special (Or even anything related to a romance at all... I've called plenty of my female friends beautiful when they've dressed up nice, simply as a friendly compliment)

Most importantly, it's not unique. Which is where the joke aspect comes from. It's such a basic complement that she would have heard it TONS (Heck, one of Wyll's banter dialogues is him calling Shadowheart beautiful... Before he gets shot down by both Shadowheart AND Lae'zel because of how lame it is as a way of wooing someone).

Her saying "I know" is a direct jab at you making such a unoriginal compliment.

Still, she's not the total Bitchy McBitchface you portray her as because she doesn't JUST say "I know" and move on, she immediately follows up with a much more sincere tone "But thank you for noticing" which is her acknowledging that you made a complement and showing appreciation that you did.

Sure she doesn't reciprocate, but not all compliments need to be reciprocated (And as I mentioned in a prior comment, she's still unsure if you're interested in a proper relationship that she's looking for until the following day, so she'd naturally err on the side of holding back) and instead she does the subtle invite to a kiss... Which means a whole lot more than a generic and meaningless "You too"

I absolutely agree - it's not unique if you hear it on a daily basis. Which makes me wonder who are all these fans constantly telling Shadowheart "You're beautiful"?

So let's say you're single and alone like Shadowheart. You're walking down the street and Margot Robbie jumps out of a limo and gives you the most unoriginal compliment "You're beautiful." Are you really going to just say "I know" ? Of course not. You'd cling to that moment of attention and try to build a connection - unless, of course, you already have a lineup of beautiful women to choose from.

Only if you met online. In Shadowheart's case, we're supposed to know each other quite well by the time the tiefling refugees arrive at our camp.

Context is crucial. Sure, you can say "You're beautiful" to anyone - even a colleague at work - and the whole spectrum of responses from "Oh, thank you!" to "Say that again and I'm reporting you to HR" is completely valid and acceptable in that situation. But a BG3 date isn't some college party hookup - it's about choosing your closest and most trusted companion. In this context "You're beautiful" isn't just a compliment - it's an intention.

Absolutely agree - there's no need for it to be reciprocated. She just goes her way and I go mine after that. Which ends up creating a lack of female companions to romance in BG3.


I really prefer idealistic love over casual sex in fantasy worlds - after all they're called fantasy for a reason.

I'd tell the person that they are creepy and that I am going to leave now. Good if you can walk away from this and aren't waiting for the bus or worse still are stuck in one. What you are describing is an extremely uncomfortable situation.


Act 1 romance can literally be a party hook-up, tiefling-party-hook-up. (The other one too, I guess) Some companions are more serious and cautious about it than others but it is a flirting stage. I have read someone boast that they started a fling with everyone in act 1 - though I am not quite sure I believe that and how it is supposed to work. But it's not any kind of deep bond yet. Depending on the companion you are starting to date it's either pure sex, friends with benefits, a nice bonding moment that can remain friendly (I am very fond of talking the night away with Shadowheart as friends, and the magic lesson is always a delight) or a tentative first acknowledging of interest.

And if you like Minthara, knock her out and date her later ....

No, I don't like her. But she fits perfectly into the fantasy world - unlike Shadowheart. Actually everyone fits except Shadowheart, she is too "girly" for a battle cleric.

Maybe he's the only one heaven chose to be your partner - the one who's spent his whole life searching just for you. And you'd walk away and never see him again.. I'm joking That is correct behavior for a woman. But not for a guy who just met Margot Robbie.

You don't have to hear it on a "Daily basis" for it to not be unique.

Shadowheart alludes to having past suitors. Presumably as a pretty woman, she'd have quite a lot of interest. Likely with people calling her beautiful or some variation on it (Such as Wyll as I mentioned)


1) I don't know who tf that is.

2) I'm a guy, so receiving complements is already abnormal.

3) I've already mentioned that friends can complement each other. Which is at best what you and Shadowheart can consider each other at the particular moment in time (Intentions of a relationship are after this comment, with the kiss and follow up discussion in the morning)


Uh... No?

Both, in terms of first dates not being about getting to know each other ONLY online... If you ask someone out you're not going to know each other. Heck, even in this case the entire scene revolves around Shadowheart asking you about your past in Baldur's Gate and remarking on how she can't tell you more about herself because she doesn't know anything on account of her brainwashing. Quite literally the entire date is about getting to know each other more.

In terms of how well you know each other... At this point in time you're both strangers. You've simply done a few things to make her somewhat like you. But you'd hardly even be called friends. (Of course, you can get some further development and trust in her confiding in you about her past, which would make you somewhat closer. But you still no next to nothing about each other, hence the date explicitly about getting to know each other)


Actually, it's none of what you said.

The Tiefling party is about having fun and then winding down with a companion. You can choose from multiple companions if they like you. But its not necessarily an intention.

"You're beautiful" is just a compliment. You can say it and then not go for a kiss and not pursue a relationship with Shadowheart.

It is also not an intended compliment either. You say it because you were called out for staring at Shadowheart.


There's plenty of female companions to romance in BG3. Just because you dislike small things about the way the characters act doesn't mean they don't exist.

Honestly I'm boggled that you for some reason accept Female Astarion who's 100x worse than anything Lae'zel or Shadowheart does (Even if you face full on vile Shadowheart by being a Selunite Cleric and confronting her Shar worship, that's still not as bad as normal Astarion).

Even Female Gale is worse than the actual female characters, because Gale is still actively pining over Mystra while trying to romance you in Act 1...

But you give these characters a pass because... Reasons? While being completely upset by the female characters when you actively betray them, or take a jokey quip way too seriously?


But there are people who are like that. Shadowheart likely has met quite a few. As there are people like Astarion and Lae'zel who's romances start out with a focus on casual sex before any emotions start to be a factor.

Even Wyll is very interested in Lae'zel's focus on casual sex. Karlach is also pro-casual sex (Though that's in part because she's lacked any physical contact for so long). Minthara is quite noted for her love of casual sex, with her Act 1 camp scene being noted as the most graphic (With her recruitment meaning she's the least close to your character given the complete lack of time spent with her before engaging in this casual sex)

Just because it's a fantasy world doesn't mean it should be filled entirely this one ideal...

Shadowheart is one of the few characters that is in fact interested in idealistic love. But she has to check whether YOU are also interested in the same before she is willing to commit, in part due to the fact that there are plenty of people who are just wanting casual sex (And in part due to her own stigmas regarding relationships and trust)

You don't know who Margot Robbie is??? I'm honestly shocked you've never heard of that mega-famous singer from Cameroon who invented the entire genre of Vietnamese country music. You know - "Country Roads" and all that, played on didgeridoo pipes and wompadoo drums? According to polls, 9 out of 10 women and 7.43 out of 10 men would sacrifice their marriage for a single night with Margot Robbie.


No, not for THAT reason. I'm as straight as North Dakota Highway 46. With them it just feels like my help is seen as a favor - not as the "entry fee" for the relationship.

This is nonsense, such polls dont exist. You shouldnt believe every meme you see online. If Margot Robbie did what you suggested a normal person wouldnt take it seriously and wouldnt swoon or whatever, they'd think they're being pranked or on TV and they'd say something dismissive. I'd say "Uhh, thanks I guess?"

Well, let's hope you prefer "Observant" over "I know."


I'd feared you'd say that because that's not at all what I meant, I hoped including characterisation and mood into my example list would get that across, but apparently not. I like a good waffle, I just want it to be a nourishing waffle and not puff pastry. If you have a few lines of dialogue, you have a chance to do something with them other then fill up space.

And granted, I might have extrapolated too close to the sun when I read "companions react" and immediately imagined every companion wanting to talk to me about my recent romance scene like the familiar vultures at a holiday dinner. That is just such a nightmarish and artificial situation because while some friends might like to chat about your new relationship, others are more private. Of course you could riff off the awkward family dinner situation and turn it into a scene. That could be fun, a camp scene during dinner in which you and your love-interest get grilled a little (or more depending on the characters) about your relationship, that would be doubly cool because it would allow you to act as a couple during the game proper (some of the epilogues do a great job at this) which I feel is fairly rare since most romance focuses on getting the couple together. But that's of course a different level of effort.

Other than that, I love these surprises too, I just didn't think of them in the context of the clip because it seemed to be a "Everyone comments on us killing Raphael even though they were in camp" situation which doesn't incite excitement - even though it's interesting. I tend to love those moments best that react to things that just help to make the world feel more organic, like remembering that Shadowheart likes night orchids and then being able to gift her one or small things like Gale explaining his condition by comparing it to vampirism for Avatar-Astarion. Or things that anticipate choices that you might not immediately think of as trackable, for example I was thrilled when I send Avatar-Gale on an adventuring ending for his romance's sake, that the letter he got from Elminster recognised this as an unusual decision for him to make. I think the "oh that actually works?" thrill is great with me.

And I think the banter is pretty great. The romance banter even creates little stories for some of them. For Gale it's that he stresses out over the romance and puts his foot in it or gets a bit cringe during act 1 & 2. Astarion & Shadowheart react to this by teasing him, Minthara is Minthara, Wyll is the normal friend who hopes this will all be over soon, Lae'zel gives the exchange student opinion like always, and with Karlach it takes a completely different spin because after Gale searches her advice in act 1, she opens up to him about some of her troubles in act 2. That's pretty good display of group dynamic in my opinion and in a way tells a side-story about your love-interest. Similarly it's cool that if you romance Astarion, Karlach continuously tries to suss out his intentions, continuing the reservations she voices during the tiefling party.

But I am waffling too. I hope that gets across that I do like dialogue, but I am a bit of a picky eater about it. It should be a little more thoughtful than someone recognising a decision, that can be the starting point of course but some sprinkles on top to make it a bit more extra don't go amiss. Just "more dialogue/reactions" makes think of "content" in the more negative sense of the word.

Of course all of this completely went a way from the original topic. ^^;

except you know there is barely any banter at all, especially during act 3 which is more than a third of the game. Which is one of the major complaints. I dont know how you play, but most of the game after Act 1 feels silent and not that organic as you suggest. The group dynamics end.

I dunno, my Durge re-spawning was very twee!

I think overall the discrepancy between acts, and specifically the drop-off to companion reactivity and banter during act 3 is what makes the more quiet moments stand out so much. Going from Shadowheart practically screaming at the group in act 1 that the Zaith'isk is going to kill Lae'zel if we don't intervene (showing a surprising amount of care btw), to then look at your romantic partner almost T-posing as your Durge rejects Bhaal and dies because of it. Some party members have more extensive conversation, I loved bringing Jaheira and Minsc there for example, but some of the others just express a bit of relief or being proud of you at most, so that can be rather underwhelming. Platonic Minthara even skips over your whole dying and coming back part to talk about how "we" defeated Orin. For the last step of a redeemed Durge I would have loved to have actual conversations with companions involving dialogue choices, as a way to more properly put into words how your Durge views closing the door on their Bhaal chapter for good.

And there are other spots where a lack of reactivity really stands out, like meeting Kressa as Durge in the Mind Flayer Colony and hearing all she has to say about us and what's been done to us. It reveals we didn't get tadpoled on the Nautiloid and are thus an anomaly being on that ship at the start, as well as talking about the straight up repeated torture we had to endure during our time there. But then we just kill her and pretend that conversation never happened.

There are also other moments where there is an initial response, but no actual follow-up or consequence and that can also feel odd. Meeting Gortash at the coronation as Durge and having Karlach along brought out an understandable and emotional response, after which she says she doesn't want to talk to us right now and needs time to process. I fully expected her to be out of the party and having a follow-up conversation during a long rest to hash things out with her. However, she instead stays in the party and if you immediately click on her again, not giving her time to process, she'll just give her standard greeting instead.

Another moment that comes to mind is where a penultimate step in a series of quests getting more attention from your active companions than actually finishing the quest series off with a literal bag. After the Iron Throne everyone of the active companions has something to say about what you just went through. However, actually blowing up Steel Watch Foundry and finally being rid of the Steel Watch and a huge chunk of what made Gortash a threat goes by like it never happened. Not

All in all I'm also not necessarily one who'd want dialogue to happen for the sake of there being dialogue or the need to fill quieter moments with someone speaking just for the sake of there not being silence. However, when there is so much reactivity to smaller, less important things early, to then later having some huge events at most getting a one-liner or even completely being ignored, that really stands out.

That's why my approach for act 3 now is to rescue Minsc as early as possible, pretty much always bring Jaheira and Minsc along everywhere I go, and then as a third bring along any companion that I'm currently doing their relevant quests for. And of course when rescuing Minsc and entering the sewers for the first time, make sure I have the right people in my party so that Orin can babysit Halsin. Jaheira and Minsc have so much more to say about many events, like the House of Grief with Viconia and being a devil and angel on the shoulder on killing her or not, or of course the entire Bhaal arc with Sarevok and the culmination of rejecting or embracing Bhaal as Durge. Minsc had his own hurrah, then Jaheira had practically an entire speech where Minsc also chimed in again. Then there's Jaheira's home where Minsc has a lot of extra comments of course.

All the OG companions at that point feel largely detached from anything not concerning their direct companion quest and the lack of companion interactivity/involvement in other dialogue, party banter and all that plays a large role in my opinion. In act 3, depending on which companion you bring to certain quests and such, there can be hours and hours of gameplay where they're practically more of a hireling than an actual companion. For a large part when you're out and about, some of them are just hibernating and running on autopilot until you bring them to their designated quests.

P.S. Another kinda hilarious one that is more unfortunately timed rather than an actual problem in my opinion, is that depending on Long Rests, you can have your Astral-Tadpole transformation at the same time as Shadowheart has her hair change. So then when you approach everyone all changed and looking horrible, everyone starts out ignoring your predicament to comment on Shadowheart's hair first. Had a good laugh when I saw someone experiencing exactly this in their blind playthrough.