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