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

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