Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Hollow Companions as a Mechanic

A Treatise, with a preface:

This is a more general problem that I am concerned about, where a group of "features" in BG3, combined with some "features" that were in DOS2 could make for an absolute disaster in character-driven storytelling. In this post, I am going to touch on complaints about playersexuality. These complaints are not designed to marginalize LGBT folk or make it so that they cannot romance who they want (everyone has a place here), as I have seen some accuse others of "polite homophobia." There are legitimate problems with the "player-defined" storytelling that Larian has, and I hope such accusations will not derail this subject. To preface, I am in no way against providing a space for LGBT people in this game, but there are legitimate problems with the way Larian rolls out sexuality. However, playersexuality is not my primary concern, but a premise of the argument.
_____________________

Part One: Playersexuality

Playersexuality, when considered as a MECHANIC, follows the basic pattern: the character in question has a vague sexuality until it is defined by the player. Almost a Schrödinger's sexuality, if you will. If it is defined by the player, it is often done either through an acceptance of advances, or a rejection of advances. The first consequence of this is that the writers cannot use a sexuality independent of the PC's interests as a character trait in the writing process. In real people, sexuality is not a malleable character trait, otherwise sexuality would not be a matter of identity, but a matter of preference, and that "argument" has been settled decades ago. The way I understand it, people are born the way they are in that department. Now, maybe realistic portrayals of sexuality are not the priority here, but it is one more thing the writers cannot use in their utility belt of characterization (there are some nice responses, like Shadowheart's embarrassment, but these are few and far between). The next problem with this is that it implies that your character sets the identity of these characters, which breaks the illusion of the player-independent, complex, in-depth character with a concrete personality. This makes it so that every character feels like an interactive backstory, but if you sneak around the back, you can flip a switch that says "SEX" to make them interested. It is a robotic portrayal in nature, and makes for exceptionally unconvincing characters.

I will return to the "interactive backstory" problem later, but I want to counter the "iterative game world" argument that I have seen on this forum. I have seen some posters tell other posters that each game world exists independent of another, and within a given world, the characters you romance or are interested in you have a sexuality that corresponds with what would rationally make sense with their advances. This "argument" pursues a tenuous, barely technical validity over actual quality storytelling. Neither I nor anyone else can erase other game worlds from our memory. Every character with a certain approval level expresses advancements towards you. The sexuality "set" for a companion within a given game world is hardly used in characterizing that companion, if it is referenced at all (there are a handful of lines that allude to it... barely). Ultimately, the "iterative game world" argument is based on a level of self-deception and suspension of disbelief that Larian has not EARNED in its character writing. It could conceivably earn it through other means, but as the game stands now, it has not done so. Imagination is good, but this argument advocates for imagination to compensate for mediocre writing. The characters and their characterization is not player-independent or immersive enough to warrant this imagination.
_____________

Part Two: Playerreputation

Playersexuality on its own does not break the game for me. It becomes a much bigger problem when we consider the handling of ALIGNMENT/REPUTATION in Divinity: Original Sin 2. In DOS2, your companions will follow the reputation or alignment of the decisions of the player character. Yes, there are a handful of small exceptions (Beast and the Conspiracy). In other words, DOS2 reputation follows the same pattern as its playersexuality, becoming playerreputation. This strips out actual moral and ethical content from characterization. If you take the good route, all "evil" characters are just edgy, which is a watering down of their personalities. I am deeply worried that Astarion will take the same path as Sebille, where if you take the good route, you can reason that Astarion only is the way he is because of Cazador, and if you get rid of Cazador and show Astarion kindness, then he will be redeemed (and his personality does a 180). This approach takes a reprehensible character and makes him sympathetically edgy because the PC felt like it. This approach is remarkably unconvincing in its storytelling.

Outside of a substantialist definition of evil (i.e., that Evil is a THING), another definition of evil is as the privation of Good (i.e., that evil is the absence of good, and it is only good which is a thing, marked by its moral desirability). To make all evil characters "redeemable" (in the way discussed above) is to deny the very existence of the evil character, or that such characters should be dispensed with for being terrible (God forbid a fictional character do something terrible!). People can be good; people can be bad; people can have reasons for being the way that they are; people can be without reasons for being the way that they are. In all of these cases, it is unconvincing to put the trajectory of reputational development of a companion completely in the hands of the PC's behavior. I have seen some complaints that Astarion is dismissive of slaves despite he himself being a slave (I used to complain about it too, a lot, but I changed my mind)... that's how a hypocrite lacking in empathy would react to the world around him. And maybe being a hypocrite lacking in empathy is a defining character trait for Astarion that doesn't require a redemption arc. In the real world, the majority of clinically diagnosed psychopaths don't have redemption arcs. I've never seen a dictator regain his humanity. There are many interesting ways in both history and literature through which bad people have been brought to do good things in the end.

In this case, there is also a "just imagine it/just roleplay it the way you like" counterargument that emerges on the forums. Once again, given how much Larian strips out of characterization and places flippantly on the shoulders of the PC's whims... Larian has not EARNED the suspension of disbelief. These are not characters; they are interactive backstories that follow your reputation and activate sex scenes if you respond to their advances. The ray of hope in BG3 is hidden alignment, the approval system, and the possibility that characters can leave you if you neglect their approval enough. It remains to be seen how much ethical characterization Larian rips out of its companions for playerreputation, and if it will be done to the same extent that they rip out sexual characterization of companions for the sake of playersexuality. Indeed, you are granted so much unwarranted agency over a character's development that they might as well not have an independent personality at all.
_________________

Part Three: Playerorigins

Playersexuality and playerreputation taken together present a major problem, but still don't break the game. The coup de grace comes when you combine these two systems with the Origin System. In principle, the Origin system allows you to take over any of the companions and play AS them, taking full control over their characterization and decision-making. One narrative consequence of this decision is that every companion is written to conceivably be an independent and headstrong main character with an interactive backstory upon which the world hinges (that you, the player, can decide however you choose, if you so wish to play as them, leading to flimsy commitments to the heavily suggested outcome, a wishy-washy approach). A problem is that the "independence" and "objective-oriented" and "headstrong" traits we are TOLD the companions have are contrasted by the absurd levels of personality malleability we are SHOWN. The result is that companions feel like hollow skins with interactive backstories that we can slip on at our convenience, romance and fuck at our convenience, and morally develop or degrade, at our convenience.

None of it feels consistent and none of the characters feel real or independent. Their secrets, machinations, and approval ratings are the only things making them feel "real" beyond the whims of the player character (and much of those will go away when you play as them). It also doesn't help that the Origin System seems to lead to the unintended (or maybe intended) consequence that every character's dialogue occurs only when the PC decides to talk to them alone. They have so much to say to the PC individually that you can react to, but rarely respond to the world around them, or to other companions. Can't characterize them TOO much, lest you want to play them a different way in a different playthrough. This problem is compounded by the fact that-- if the game is anything like DOS2 -- an overwhelming amount of content and storytelling will be locked behind the Origin System and playing with companions. So the conflicts listed are almost inevitable.
___________________

Suggestion:
Now, there is something to be said for allowing your roleplay decisions to impact the development, nature, or playstyle of a character in an RPG. That's just a good way to go about an RPG, but there are limits, and EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE is better with some modicum of moderation, or at least awareness of a moderated, healthy path of implementation. Even Goodness itself is better in moderation, lest you forget what makes something Good to begin with. I don't think playersexuality needs to be cut, nor do I think companions should be disallowed redemption arcs or changes in reputation/alignment from initial characterization, nor do I want to prevent anyone from taking advantage of the Origin System. I think all three of these things need to be REWORKED so they function better.

Instead of having characters approach you at the party based on approval, it should be based on taking specific dialogue options earlier AND having a high approval rating. In BioWare's games, specific dialogue options open up romance down the line. There should be some sort of attraction/flirt dialogue option in camp discussions that triggers an approach... like expressing interest or chemistry earlier on that a companion follows up on during the party once approval is high enough. That way you don't have random companions to whom you have never expressed any interest swarming you at the party without notice because your approval was high enough, thereby bypassing the "flippant," "PC-determined" sexuality that takes away from characterization. And it would allow the writing team to define and tailor what a companion finds as a persuasive flirt/attractive/chemistry-y TO THAT SPECIFIC COMPANION, which is good writing. Then, for whichever characters you are not expressing interest, allow them to have an independent sexuality (that's still PC-determined, but will give the illusion of not). Then lightly allude to each character having a certain sexuality (that can be overridden by the PC's consistently interested dialogue and high approval) with certain dialogue, banter, past lovers (or lack thereof), etc. I think a consequence of this will be making the PC approach companions for dialogue of their own volition more often to advance the relationship.

Next, some evil characters can be allowed to become "Good but Edgy," but other evil characters should not have that path, or the difficulty of achieving one or the other should be greater depending on a character's personality, or it should be context-dependent based on the cumulative characteristics of a playthrough's permutations. GIVE THE COMPANIONS MORE INDEPENDENT CHARACTERIZATION THAT MAKES THEM FEEL REAL, NOT LIKE INTERACTIVE BACKSTORIES THAT BEND TO THE WHIMS OF THE PC. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, ALLOW OUR CUMULATIVE DECISION-MAKING TO CONTROL THE FURTHER TRAJECTORY OF THAT CHARACTERIZATION. LARIAN IS MISSING OUT ON THE FIRST STEP. Finally, and I will beat this drum to kingdom come, more intra-party dynamics and cross-companion dialogue/banter which is independent of the PC and provides characterization of how the characters act with each other outside of the PC's purview.

_____________________

EDIT (A FEW MORE COMMENTS):
-There is already the start of having independent sexuality. We have reason to believe (though by no means confirmatory reasons) that Gale and Wyll are not "strictly" homosexual based on the implied sexual nature of their relationships (whether one-sided or two-sided) with Mystra and Mizora, respectively. Now, this implied sexuality is overridden by high approval rating and the subsequent romance decision. One can reasonably assume Gale and Wyll are probably bi, pan, or straight. It would be nice if their INDEPENDENT sexuality could be fleshed out more even if you do not romance them.

-My hope is that more is done to separate Astarion morally from Sebille. I hope Astarion's Master is not as morally defining for him as Sebille's Master was for her. Sebille's behavior was a product of her enslavement and torture. Who's to say Astarion wasn't a pompous, sadistic hypocrite lacking in empathy BEFORE he met Cazador? That would subvert expectations, methinks. I can easily see how someone like Astarion, born into Baldur's Gate nobility and granted power as a local magistrate, would use that wealth and power for corrupt and cruel ends, especially given what we have seen of a post-torture Astarion.

-Another problem with not allowing reprehensible characters to be reprehensible, or converting them into "good but edgy" characters is that it leads to predictable writing. They are always tortured, or sheltered, or there's some bigger bad out there. It narrows the scope of acceptable personality, to the point that every "bad" character needs a genuine justification for being bad. Maybe their justification isn't good enough, maybe they're just bad people, maybe they overreact to perceived slights, etc. Not everyone has to be good or redeemable or justifiable "deep down." Some are, and that can make for good writing, but not all.

-ALSO, Larian is remarkably inconsistent and a little bit "bad" about visual storytelling for its characters. See this thread: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=824010#Post824010 , compounding the severity of the problems contained herein. This thread and that thread kinda cover the same inconsistency of characterization but in dramatically different ways.

-Saw a comment about stereotypes or mannerisms being used to "code" sexualities and how it was a problem because it was fundamentally stereotypical in nature. I happen to agree, but I also think there are ways of alluding to a PC-independent sexuality in characterization without using stereotypes as a crutch. Alluding to romantic history is part of that. Expressing interest in attractive characters of certain sexes is another part. Maybe having non-romanced characters flirt with NPCs based on their (implied) sexuality is an option... I'm not sure what Astarion's implied sexuality is outside of "Can it be tortured, mutilated, deceived, manipulated, humiliated, or harmed? If so, that's hot," But he does come across as a flirty character in general. I think the key to sexuality is not stereotype or mannerism, but allusions and implications.
(Also, if anyone is wondering why I am posting about playersexuality on this post rather than the playersexuality topic... it is a matter of principle that I am not going to reply to a topic that refers to playersexuality as "Sexdolls.")

-Also, apologies for making it sound like LGBT-folk were the problem and were making baseless accusations. The polite homophobia one on Sozz was really baseless, but I understand there is legit hostility on the forum.

-Finally, instead of having hollow characters follow the behaviors and alignments of the party/PC, allow specific dialogue trees to shape the direction of character development. Perhaps arguing with an evil/bad/cruel character after an important character-defining moment opens up different ways the character can go, regardless of your own character's moral development. Present redemption arcs and doubling-downs as options the character can go, with your own moral arc being another set of options, rather than just having the companions "tag along" with your own development. Also corruption arcs maybe?

Is there any way to break this up into smaller paragraphs? I'm not trying to be snarky or whatever the word is. I just can't read it this way.

Very good point. Will edit accordingly.

Very good writing.

I think there is a reason why most games let you create a custom main char and you meet companions but you cannot select companions as main char.

Looks like BG3 does not really have a main char. You are expected to play a group of origin chars travelling together.
I am not 100% sure because you cannot play as origin char now. (I am not using mods)This leads to problems.
You fully control one char (or even 4) but at the same time all of them are supposed to have their own personality.
This may be very irritating when you select an origin char as main char and in the next playthrough you have him/her as companion
and suddenly he/she acts totally different then you expect them to.

I think the core of what you have to say is good, and thoughtfully written, but maybe take a day or two and then read over it again and see how it reads to you then - a lot of the time the writing runs on in a way that makes it easy to muddy up the points that you're making. I think also that leading by talking about sexuality does you no favours - it's the least consequential of the issues here, and not particularly relevant to the crux of the issue you're discussing, except in the tertiary sense of being another element affected by the style that they've designed this game with. Making it the top point of your discussion takes away from the very legitimate core of the rest of it, I feel. It would probably sit better as a supporting point; as a more narrow example backing up the discussion about the companions overall malleability based on the player's choices and their reputation with them.

I don't agree 100% with everything you say here, but I do support the core of it, which is that the way Larian have designed this whole system, and run with it, is putting them in the position of tying their own hands and shooting themselves in both feet, for very little gain. Their writing is not good in the first place, but it's made weaker by they way they've forced themselves to write. Characters can and should have fleshed out, developed personalities - other RPGs have been doing this well and successfully for years; Larian undermines themselves by making forceful, headstrong characters who always have comebacks and always get the last word, on one hand.. but in doing so effectively put down and belittle the player consistently, and also have those character-defining comments and dialogues mean very little and stand in stark juxtaposition with their actual behaviour, which is to declare the PC the party leader and to follow them more or less blindly, nagging, perhaps, about their personal goals, but not acting in any way that backs up how strongly they make their demands.

It makes for weak, fake-feeling, shallow and ultimately unbelievable companions and a player character that feels even weaker and less present by contrast, because they get consistently spoken down to, condescended at, insulted and belittled... by people who nevertheless fold over and meekly follow them everywhere for no established reason. They want to make their origin character self-directed, self-sure, headstrong and capable of taking charge and being a leader... but they don't realise that the stronger you try to make companions in that regard, the more clear and apparent the reason for them nevertheless following the player character needs to be to balance it... and right now there is no such reason, at all, never mind a good or clear one. Why have they done this? Because of the corner they've backed themselves into by putting so much focus on origin characters and being able to play them directly.

==

The reason I say that bringing up the sexuality topic first is bad for your overall discussion is because it immediately set me off-side to your efforts from the outset. I wanted to object to and correct many elements of what you were saying (and I still will, in a spoiler below, because there are many things that were said that need a response, for fairness), immediately, and it put me in a combative and negative frame of mind reading forward. It was only because I'm in the habit of making the consciously aware decision to review my own state of mind and read things more fairly when I catch myself having that kind of reaction, that I did so. Reading more fairly, the Core of what you're saying is valid and something that I can agree with.

I think you have made your points relatively well OP, but I just can't agree with you.

The narrative is different each time I play, if in one Astarion is shown consideration and respect and given support and becomes a less antisocial person then why is that not a legitimate narrative?

If he is not shown that and remains selfish, stuffed by trauma, and overwhelmed by revenge then why is that not also ok?

What should matter is how the world and other characters respond to the decisions I make - if I make different decisions and the same thing happens that is less meaningful of a narrative than what is possible.

Yes, it's a problem if every character and event only takes its cues from the player character, but I think you are wrong to suggest this is what the game is trying to do or is currently doing.

If all characters are asexual if the player doesn't romance them then that's weird and poorly done. But where is the evidence that is the case? ShadowHeart currently flirts with some companions and not with others, Gale thinks Wyll is full of shit, and LZ and SH have the beginnings of a significant feud.

There's no sign that the game solipsisticily revolves around the player - in fact I would argue that the whole origin character focus is leaning too hard to the opposite, that characters and narratives are too hard coded for there to be a strong sense of emergent role play.

+ 1

Traditionally there are two types of party based RPGs:

- western RPGs: The main char can be whatever you chose. His/her background is defined by the devs (a bhaalspawn who grew up in candlekeep for BG1+2) but his personality and choices is up to the player.
There are different companions with their own personality and preferences. Depending on your choices they may like or dislike what you do. If they dislike you they may leave you, attack you or work against you. If they like you they may start a relationship with you. If you are not their type (sex, race, age, . . .) they may start a relationship with another companion or a NPC.

- JRPGS: All characters including the main char are very strong pre defined people. You are Cloud from FF7 for example. The story is very scripted and even if you can chose, the choice is limited to things that make sense for this character. The relationship between those characters is often fixed and even when you can chose the options and outcomes are limited.

The lines between these two points have been blurred, but you have to chose if you want your main char to have a strong and consistent personality or you can be whatever you want.
The devs say that BG3 is a lot about player freedom. This is good, but then the origin char concept is really shooting yourself in the foot.

PS:
- No, Dragon Age origin does not count: Translated to DnD, selecting your origin is like selecting a mix of class, race and background.
- The Witcher has a pre defined char and lots of choices, but its not party based.
- When I say "good relationship with companions" I do not automatically mean sex. Is there a game where you can develope a strong friendship with a companion?
Turning the game into a dating sim and at the perty 5 people ask you to sleep with them feels wrong. Its OK that you can do this with your companions, but there should be more to this than "raise their approval rating until they ask you to sleep with them."

Nicely written and pretty much exactly how I feel, give or take a few points.

Thanks for the thoughtful write up Zeru, I largely agree with most of what's being said there.

I think Lamaros, what's being said there regarding Astarion, isn't that change in his character is bad writing, it's that the approval system i.e. playerreputation is a bad way of implementing relationships with characters, Astarion is a bad dude, but you can game the system to make him like your selfless pc, because...you said the right things to him or decided to kick a baby in front of him, once. I would also say that it isn't impossible to make a compelling narrative around Astarion like this but it requires you doing a lot of the narrative work yourself, but that could also just because of how little we've gotten so far.

Niara, I'm not sure everybody feels so certainly about the malleability of sexuality, not that it isn't the case but it doesn't strike me as being a settled matter.

Garrus is my choice for strong friendship in a game, but maybe that's just me.

Honestly, you make a very good point at the self-undermining nature of the style of argument, especially how I structured it vis-a-vis sexuality. A lot of my comments on sexuality were overused because I was also replying to that other playersexuality thread that I absolutely refused to post to. I'm also not a psychology expert, and what I know of sexuality is more from personal, not professional, experience. My point still stands on how playersexuality is related to the "player-defined" experience, which leads to the post's critiques, but you are right in that it is certainly a significantly smaller part of the problem. That being said, I did admit that playersexuality by itself is not a game-breaking problem for me.

Having read the comics, I'd say he's fine. (My impression of him - again, post-BG2, post-stone to flesh - is that he's not particularly intelligent but able to get his point across, more impulsive than many characters but able to rein himself in (or allow others to do it.) Also, at times, he seems to lean into how people expect him to act to get what he needs... and that shows a tiny bit of cunning.

Now, if we consider that the 5 volumes were approved by WotC and are canon, then his vocabulary and thought-processes show no signs of Just your run of the mill impulsiveness, stupidity, and naivete. ....Like 9 Int Astarion pulling a knife on the PC (Yes, I'm still not over the fact that Larian raised his intelligence but left that scene unchanged. )

And if the PC is willing to be the brains of the pair, even better for the romance. Though doing a run with just an 8 int barbarian + him would also be hilarious.

Anyhow, it would be a lovely change from all these oh-so-witty, oh-so-snarky, self-important romantic partners. Personally, I'd be disappointed if he wasn't an option but I understand that he might not be everyone's cup of tea. Then again... neither are Astarion, Wyll, and Gale.

I think what is in the game so far doesn't necessarily follow that Astarions story is just linked to "is the PC good" and "does Astarion like the PC", but is linked to the actual interactions and decisions around Astarion. Assuming it's one thing or the other at this point is premature.

However, I assume they're less linked to the PC, given Larian's love of their origin character stories... but no one can really say.

And whatever way they do it it can also just be bad because the execution fails.

Story time.

It dont seem like a lie to me ...

+1

Companions should have more will to actually act on their opinions, not just state them, maybe have Tav take a bit of approval hit, but then possibly be easily persuaded that everything is fine.
Wyll should refuse to participate in the Grove Massacre.
Lae'zel should leave for the Creche if you take too long.
etc

Seriously how does Wyll not attack you when you side with Minthara. And Gale complaining about attacking the grove, what's his angle here, why doesn't he bring this up a little earlier than after the corpses are cooling?

When i was thinking about this topic ... something hit me.
We actualy dont need Narator in many situations.

Imagine ...
We come to the situation, where Passive check is rolled ... for example Arcana.
Instead of let only Tav rolls it, ALL members of our party rolls it (or just one, or two people with highest modifiers, w/e not the important part) ...

NOW!

IF our Tav suceeds ... Narator tells us what we remembered, just we we know it.
If our Tav fails tho ... another party member (Gale in this case, since i picked Arcana as example) can enlighten us ... and the best part, he can enlighten us WITHOUT EVEN MOVE A MUSCE so our enemies are not alerted, bcs we share mental conection.

Isnt this option like thousand times better?

Would actualy feel like our companions are there and actualy do something.

Holy cow! I was thinking that a lot of these ideas were overcomplicating things and just having Pathfinder's system of letting the companion with the highest stats roll without any extra dialogue or reference to it would be fine. But your idea and making use of the tadpole connection, that's brilliant!