If you ever played Mass Effect you know about Paragon (good) / Renegade (bad) paths there. Statistics showed that 82% of players went pure Paragon path. So, yes, people are not as inclined to play evils as one can think. Since BG3 is advertised ass DnD game, and DnD is a lot about heroic adventure for the greater good, I would not expect too many evil-fans here either. It's not "some" players, it's majority, and locking Astarion off for them does not sound right (nor logical either - he is a civilized person and disapproval very often is "off"). I would ease his accessibility more or shift it to the personal interactions, not related to the reaction to quest taken.
If (hopefully "when") Gale's scene bug will be fixed, he might get even higher in popularity, and only because of game-mechanic.
Wyll literally leave if you destroy the grove. I would say that what you have now is already "lite" for evil companions, because Astarion and Lae do not leave you after defending the grove. If it was "fair" then one of them would have left. You can also get Astarion romance scene even on a neutral approval. How much easier do you need?
Honestly? This should be seriously complicated. Or have consequences in the future, for example, I believe that Astarion can betray MC very easily.
I also want to tell you that most people choose "good" because it is more profitable. Most of the companions in the games usually approve of "good options" and if you want to establish a relationship with them, then you have no choice. Evil companions are rare! Another thing is that in bioware games, most of the "evil" responses are not evil at all, they are aggressive and nothing more. That's why it's better to play diplomat or sarcasm than the aggressive idiot.
There are quite a lot of people who like to play evil or at least selfish neutral characters,
but evil must be well written. No one tries to do it well, the writers initially focus on the path of the hero.
Even in BG3, I read in an interview that writers are almost forced to write "the evil way". And it is already clear that it is worked out worse and its motives are quite stupid. It makes more sense to save the grove, even for an evil character to use Halsin's knowledge, than to join an unfamiliar cult. What's funny is that the "evil way" is only good for Astarion, because he is a vampire and wants to "control" the tadpole. But if you are playing evil and want to get rid of the tadpole, which is more logical, then joining an unfamiliar cult is very strange. In this way, Lae is much closer to me.
edit: I also want to say that by attacking the grove, you lose your romance with Shadow, you lose Wyll, and you may lose Gale. You are again "more profitable" to save the grove. If you lost one of the evil companions, maybe the % of good and evil would change.
and locking Astarion off for them does not sound right (nor logical either - he is a civilized person and disapproval very often is "off"). I would ease his accessibility more or shift it to the personal interactions, not related to the reaction to quest taken.
I do agree here - some of his reactions to quests/interactions, particularly regarding topics of slavery and freedom, raised my eyebrows as they didn't quite seem to fit his personality and what we know of his past.
What do you know about his past? He was most likely a corrupt judge. Apparently, he thought he was better than others and quite possibly sold people. Do you think he should sympathize with the slaves because he was a slave himself?
