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

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.