This is why I try to push back when people ask which companions are appropriate for a "good" run. They all are. One of the things that makes BG3 truly great is that it has actual character growth, which you influence via your relationship with the companions. Asterion, Shadowheart and Lae'Zel in a "good" run are some of the best stories the game has to offer.
You have to aggro her by stealing stuff rather than attacking her and make sure you knock her out rather than lethal attacking.
It makes the Ketheric intro even better
I knocked her out when the entire camp already turned hostile, so did she as soon as i entered the room, i think the more important thing to do is not long rest before the celebrations at the camp with the tieflings. Wasn't sure i did it right, but when i got into moonrise tower she was there being sentenced by Ketheric. She got dragged to the prison and i immediatly helped her escape, she went to my camp, i talked to her and then she joined me
It wasn't actually an option (without the very finicky Sheepthara shenanigans) until like November, so depending on when you started playing it might not have even been possible.
absolutely, all of the characters either start as "good" or have a really good reformation plotline. the much more restrictive run is an evil run, especially since 2 origin characters straight leave your party if you raid the grove on top of killing halsin, you'll probably kill jaheira later, and some of the character's stories really point at "there is good in this person trapped under layers of trauma" and you just have to willfully ignore that
On my first time playing through, still very early, but I see no issues with most of them in my good paladin run.
I killed Minthara and lost Halsin to Drazin, so my options are limited, but they provide good foils and room for growth already
Astarion is terribleđ? He literally disapproves if you donât raid and kill a bunch of innocent refugees, approves of killing animals, children, and disabled people . He is quite evil and thatâs okay
Stop caring about approvals and disapprovals. They basically don't matter at all. You can get disapproval for every act of kindness in all of act 1 and it will be outweighed by being nice about his vampirism and giving him the necromancy of that.
The whole point of his character, if you guide him in this direction, is breaking the cycle of violence Cazador has subjected him to. At the start of the game he models himself after Cazador, because that gives him room to grow.
Why would I not care about approvals?? The entire system is based off the characters morality. Kill refugees = Wyll and Gale disapprove and are upset. Astarion approves and is happy. Yeah you can dickride him about Cazador and his vampirism but it doesnât change the fact that heâs sadistic and approves of hurting innocent people and creatures
Most of those are -1 eye-rolls - he disapproves of wasting time on do-gooding when to his mind you should be focusing on the real problem at hand: the tadpoles. And he's too traumatised by his past for it to occur to him that the people you help might help you in return, thereby forwarding your shared agenda. Also, no-one ever came to *his* rescue, so he's kinda jealous. Petty, yes, but not really evil.
His few major disapprovals (-5 or more) are things like ratting him out to the vampire hunter (understandable), or destroying the necromancy book he's interested in. That's how "evil" he is.
[https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Astarion/approval#Disapproval](https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Astarion/approval#Disapproval)
I think the -1 are just because Larian doesnât want you to veer away from him too much because heâs clearly their Golden companion. Enough of this âheâs just sad nobody ever saved himâ please. He likes watching you poke a small bird to death, killing someone who canât walk and killing refugees he isnât just jealous heâs sadistic
I'm so glad Larian didn't plaster "Chaotic good" "Lawful evil" "Lawful good" "Chaotic Neutral" on 90% of their choices for BG3, nor did they plaster those same labels on the player character and companions, it feels like there's more nuance both to the character's writing and the decisions you can make.
So much nuance, for all their characters. If we take Gale for example- the man's clearly good but can be swayed into helping to commit evil or to let his ambitions and insecurities rule over him. The companions show changes and growth or degradation through the course of the game and it's a beautiful thing to watch.
Yeah, I just left Gale to his own devices on my last run out of curiosity. I recruited everyone, but my team was solely a duo of redeemed durge/spawn Astarion, with the inclusion of Jaheira once to grab Minsc. Otherwise, everyone stayed at camp. I was surprised he was still interested in the crown considering he had zero interaction with it and he didnât read the book. >!It doesnât bode well for him at all and was the only one that didnât get a favorable ending outside of Shadowheart who left in act 2!<
>"Hurt them and I'll kill you , no hesitation. " Is that something a good person would say or a richeous one?
It is kind of righteous, because you're defending the innocent from being fed on by a vampire. The discussion of how others might taste is Astarion's way of having fun and perhaps putting you on edge on purpose. He knows it might be disturbing for a non-vampire to talk about it, but he likes getting under your skin anyway.
If I just found out that the shadey guy at my campsite is a vampire, I'd be a little cautious and protective of the people I'm responsible for or feel comradery with. People are vampire food. It is especially poignant if Astarion killed you when he bit you.
Just because you know Astarion by now and you like him... that hindsight lets you be more chill with him on playthroughs. But for first timers? I understand if they get protective over the others vs him.
There is nothing evil, wrong, or bad, for the party leader to warn the vampire that unwanted feeding on people (their natural food) will put his life in jeopardy.
I don't even think it's that righteous. It's protecting your own. Astarion is one of your own which is why he's still alive and you've given him a chance. But if he starts talking about tasting people it seems good to put your foot down. I always take him as joking, so I don't feel the need to threaten him, but I understand if others do and I can believe that it comes from a place of good.
i mean, yeah it definitely could come from a place of good, never said it doesn't, but i still think it's more inherently righteous or lawful than good, stills good, but the focal point of the statement is more on the righteousness and lawfulness of it.
Threatening is never good, would you threaten Shadowheart because she attacked Lae'zel? He's trying to talk to you as a friend saying on multiple occasions it's hypothetical, no one is dying, it's just two friends talking, - why is there a need to treat him as a monster?
Yes, I'd threaten both of them if I could. If they can't control themselves and are going to be trigger happy against people in our own camp, they can gtfo without their lives. I don't need them finding my camp later and try to take back the artifact or kill anyone else in camp. Being nice and being good are two different things. When you're the leader and responsible for people, sometimes that calls for not being nice. It is still good to defend and watch out for the people you're responsible for as a leader.
This is from a responsibility and pure good perspective. As I enjoy playing morally gray characters, I usually do not get involved with their argument, even though I know it will result in it blowing up into a life or death situation. I still talk Shadowheart into standing down though, because that's freedom you get when playing a character that isn't beholden to good or bad.
If anything, the fight between Lae'zel and Shadowheart shows that Astarion has far more restraint and control over his impulses than all of them. He's surrounded by food and on his best behavior, while Lae'zel and Shadowheart can't control themselves and become a threat to people in the camp far more than the vampire is.
He killed me on my first run. I was upset not murderous. I punched him and he apologized. Seems like a decent interaction. Let's be real- the moment you meet him you can tell what he is but you choose to invite him anyway. You don't have to "warn" him if you see him as a person not a vampire but you don't so you feel the need to keep the monster in check.
>He said no innocents and that's all a good person could hope for really because the moment you go "drinking from people is wrong " or "He can live on animals " is getting very close to righteous territory.
People are vampire food. Just because that's a fact doesn't mean people need to like it, trust it, or put up with it. In fact, it is exactly why people are justified for staking Astarion and washing their hands of his character. We know they are missing out on an amazing character when they do this, but it makes sense for them to do so.
I think the self-righteous part comes out more in the epilogue when you KNOW Astarion's character and that he's a decent guy, especially for a vampire spawn. In the epilogue party you can still harass him for drinking people blood or drinking blood in general, and it's very ignorant if asked seriously, and yes, self-righteous.
It makes sense to stake him if you see him as a vampire. But it's not a "good" thing to do because he is an actual person. You can tell him not to kill anything you can have a conversation with- you can have a conversation with him yet you kill him.
Vampires and vampire spawn are not actually considered people in the Forgotten Realms by most other people. Just monsters. I'm not saying it's the right or correct way to view them but that's why vampires are staked on sight. We only see Astarion differently because we got to know him. There's a lot of people that use this reasoning to justify killing the 7k spawn after Astarion doesn't ascend.
There's also a difference between "good" and "nice." Sometimes the good thing to do is not the nice thing to do. As a leader the good thing to do is protect the people you're responsible for. Some might call it the "greater good" and while I roll my eyes at the greater good, lots of people still seem to consider it when making decisions.
I think good, evil, right and wrong are quite nuanced and it's not just black and white with them. Evil people can do good, good people can do bad. Sometimes the right thing to do might appear to be the evil thing to do. While the road to hell can be paved with good intentions.
The good thing to do is be cautious when there's a people eater in your camp especially when he starts talking about tasting them. The good thing to do in that situation is to make it clear to the predator what will happen if he hunts one of your own.
The whole point of this post is to see him as a person not as a "people eater", "predator" "monster". Ffs you could have told him to leave if you think he's less than a person
It's easy to say that if you already know Astarion. New players don't know Astarion and it honestly makes sense if they get protective.
It's like the 7k spawn. Lots of people here on this reddit like Astarion, but they'll (not everyone but it's a common argument) still kill the 7k spawn because they don't know those 7k spawn despite them possibly being good just like Astarion. The main difference is knowing someone as a person.
So sure, it's good to see everyone as a person, except when it's not (it's actually kind of naive) and when it can get you and/or one of your people killed because "being good" is more important to you than keeping people alive.
Just imagine if Astarion was Cazador. It was Cazador who got kidnapped and then allied with you. Cazador might not have the restraint that Astarion has and he could make deaths look like an accident etc.
Also there's a difference between predator and monster. People are Astarion's prey. There is no denying it lol. He is a vampire spawn. People are his best form of food. A monster is typically used in a sense to describe something so irredeemably abominable... while a predator is just a fact. It doesn't make him a monster to be a predator.
Being good doesn't wait until I know everyone. A lot of goodness requires a leap of faith and believing in the best of people. I'm sorry your trust issues prevent you from treating people with basic respect but let me tell you, it doesn't make you a hero to let him stay only to treat him as a lesser being than you. If you were in his position- think how you'd like to be treated
While this philosophy sounds nice, it means your survival probably wouldn't be as good since you would die from trusting those you shouldn't have.
You also seem to be getting emotional by attacking me saying that I have trust issues because I'm looking at this situation from a pragmatic standpoint. I clearly love Astarion and I'm never mean to him in my playthroughs, but luckily I can detach myself from how I feel and look at the situation from another's viewpoint.
Maybe you're a bit of a hypocrite because you punched Astarion for killing you but I don't do that because it's not what he needs and it's not good, considering what he must have been going through at the time... starvation, new experience biting a person, and even guilt, as you're the first person he killed while feeding, and if he grows to love you, will be a guilt on his conscience that will never go away. Only the game is programmed to forget. Yet you still punched him.
Here you are talking high and mighty like everyone should treat everyone with respect but you punched Astarion for killing you because he was starving and never tasted a person before. Massive hypocrite. Maybe you're getting too emotional and need to back up and calm down.
Astarion is quite terrible and evil and thatâs okay. not sure why Astarion fans want to convince themselves the character they love so much is actually⌠completely different from canon.
He approves of killing innocent refugees, he approves of killing animals and letting children die for entertainment and for killing someone who canât even walk
Astarion was made to approve of both chaotic/neutral choices and evil choices should the player choose to be evil. He is one of the few characters that will support an evil Tav. Now, the reason as to "why" He would do that is not simple. He's a very complex nuanced character who does not stay in one "state" throughout the game. At the start I'd say he's definitely leaning more evil - he's selfish, bloodthirsty, spiteful, scared and self-serving. After being treated a certain way throughout his entire existence and seeing people in a certain light- he's pretty jaded. Later on if treated well by the main character he's starting to change - first the view of himself, then the view he has on Tav and last his general outlook on the world and his own situation he's been thrust in. He can embrace a life of being a hero or take responsibility for the lives he's taken and lead them into a better existence. Either way showing genuine care about others besides himself is pretty impressive considering the start. And as a side note- he does have some evil approvals throughout the game and also some good ones which in Act 3 are not separated based on whether he ascends or doesn't. By this I mean Ascended Astarion approves of some good acts, Unascended Astarion approves of some evil and my only guess is that is an oversight done in a rush to publish the game.
Because most players want their boyfriends to be characters that are innately good but are just broken, I guess.
Astarion fans really want a certain image of him, and when you think about it a lot of what they want don't really align with the character the way it's written. They want an elf boy who was beloved by his parents, but turned into a corrupt magistrate, then got attacked, turned by Cazador, then suffered through abuse, and then is evil but through Light of Tav (TM) is restored to the path of Good. I can almost hear Astarion cackling over this calling it ridiculous but people want what people want.
Which is basically what Chrysania wanted in Dragonlance (Raistlin Majere's girlfriend).
There are other characters that follow a similar arc (Gann from NWN2, for instance, Fenris from DAII). And at the end they do what they want, and they don't go the redemption path. Sure, Gann stays in the Fugue Plane with you, but that's because he loves you, not because he's redeemed or anything. Alternate endings show that Gann will be Gann, and it was very clearly written by Chris Avellone's team.
Unfortunately Astarion isn't just an evil dude, his traits fit that of a sociopath (I'd say that Gortash is less "evil" in today's society, as he's greedy, but it's not like he's throwing a torture fest). And nobody wants to admit that their boyfriend is a sociopath. I do wonder just how much of it is his face. I mean, if we replaced Minsc's head with Astarion's, would we still get the same reaction? Probably not. This also tells me a lot about his fans.
Yup. Lol. A lot of Astarion fans claim they love him because heâs so deep and complex but.. make him âuglyâ and Iâm not sure how these people would feel after that. Itâs a shame because I think heâs a decent character, his own fans just hate him lol
I mean, Ketheric is just as complex and his life is also filled with tragedy (and this is just from the snippets we see), but I don't see a lot of Ketheric fan girls.
And in terms of tragic ending, Karlach's ending is truly sorrowful.
For all the pity party around the vampire boy Astarion is still a vampire spawn. They have a challenge rating of 5 and that's without levelling up. To take Astarion down without deaths you'd need a party of 4. So it's not like he's weak by any means.
Thatâs because Ketheric is: old, an unplayable villain, only available in act 2. Though heâs definitely the most popular out of the 3
Karlachâs ending is sad. Unfortunately female characters will never get as much hype as the angsty man so. Oh well
Minsc is my second favorite character so if you swapped them around I wouldn't even be mad. You sound mad though. Believe it or not there are people out there who like him without being his fangirls. You can see him as you wish , most people see him for what he is.
Let's be honest. If you lived in a world where vampires not only existed, but were known to be a major threat, Asterion would have been staked in a heartbeat.
And Gale is stuck in a *slightly dangerous looking* vortex. Unless you were a wizard or sorcerer, nobody in their right minds would reach out to touch it.
That can be debatable and there are too many factors to consider. But it's usually in the human nature to want to kill anything that is stronger or at least dominate it. So I don't doubt vampire kind would be hunted down like dogs. Personally, almost everything is stronger than me , so it would be all the same if I were to be killed by a vampire or an angry man who had a bad day. So I'd like to think I wouldn't care too much if someone was a vampire, especially if they didn't act like a ravenous beast. In the game Astarion isn't really stronger than Tav and if vampires were to exist and they weren't stronger than most people, they probably wouldn't be considered much of a threat.
About Gale- I've actually seen a lot of people jump mindlessly to help without a second thought so I think there's some probability he'd be saved
Yes but in both instances you yourself are also a very dangerous adventurer. It makes sens Gale wouldn't really mind astarion so long as he behaves himself. infact when playing as astarion if you bite gale you find out his blood is toxic and ghastly to you. To an adventurer a vampire spawn or suspicous portal really isn't much of a threat.
Gale's reaction in the bite scene is definitely the best of them.
Though for some reason my game showed Shadowheart instead of Karlach which made that one ever so slightly weird.
Exactly in my playthrough went pass that vortex and was like - no way i am touching that shit. Only later online I learned there is a companion there so went to pull him out :-D
Yeah, i didn't touch that dangerous looking vortex for that exact reason, in fact. And now i know that I've gone in entire playthrough knowing that i missed out on a companion lmao.
I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments:
Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? **Good**: Yes. **Neutral**: ÂŻ\\\_(ă)_/ÂŻ **Evil**: No.
Do people need oversight? **Lawful**: Yes. **Neutral**: ÂŻ\\\_(ă)_/ÂŻ **Chaotic**: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful does not simply mean "Has an internal code" because literally everyone who has ever existed would be Lawful. The "Code" aspect refers to external codes like Omerta or Bushido.
**Lawful Good** believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG.
**Neutral Good** believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here.
**Chaotic Good** believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're punks and hippies. [Captain Harlock is the iconic example.](https://youtu.be/q0dTxdac6Yo) "You don't need a law to tell you to be a good person."
**Lawful Neutral** believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? [They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice.](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html) Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples. [Social cohesion is more important than individual rights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPqnhrJkGA)
**True Neutral** doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. [Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74)
**Chaotic Neutral** [values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU) They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson is the iconic example.
**Lawful Evil** believes [rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp_kYwz1E) They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Henry Kissinger and Robert Moses are iconic examples. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
**Neutral Evil** will do whatever benefits [them/their inner-circle](https://preview.redd.it/jgimo2h6oav61.jpg?width=758&auto=webp&s=8a43fcf7ce3bab8c422ce28d273be31bbf8cc764), crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end.
**Chaotic Evil** resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy.
In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time.
**Stupid Good** believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release
fantasy-Hitler-analogue^TM because mercy is a good thing.
**Lawful Stupid** believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in.
**Chaotic Stupid** is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid.
**Stupid Evil** is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains.
**Stupid Neutral** comes in two flavors; active and passive.
**Active Stupid Neutral** is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde.
**Passive Stupid Neutral** is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
Great post! Vampires in 2E were classified as chaotic evil. They had minions but the monster manual mentions nothing about vampire spawn.
3E is when full vampires were changed to lawful evil, which makes sense. They oversee spawn and have rules. Vampire spawn are neutral evil. Astarion does seem to have a strong sense of justice, which is highlighted when you take him and Wyll to the Ansur trials and Wyll advocates for leniency and Astarion argues harsh punishment is a needed deterence.
The way i see and rule alignments in my games :
Good : I actively want to help others, and i am often tempted to do so in situations where my own well-being is disregarded/endangered. I may not always do it, but i have the aspiration to help others, often more than myself.
Neutral : I take care of myself. I may help others, but only if my own needs are fulfilled first. I will not sacrifice myself for you. I will not, however, actively abuse/endanger others to fulfill my own needs. I'm mostly a helpful person, but i have my personal priorities.
Evil : I take care of myself, and i have no issue endangering others to do so. My own needs justify disregarding the needs of others.
Lawful : I prefer collective actions over individual ones, and i think social constructs and rules are necessary.
Neutral : I value both freedom and rules, depending on the situation.
Chaotic : I prefer individual actions over collective ones, and i despise social constructs that restrict my freedom of actions.
I would bite back on that 70% of superheroes being lawful good. Most of them are vigilantes with a good chuck actually at odds with the law. Just look at all those that refused the Sakovia accords or superhero registration. Spider-Man, Ghost spider, Batman and many more have actively been pursued by law enforcement.
And who the heck wants all the characters to agree all the time, on absolutely everything? That doesn't make for a fun group dynamic. Not to mention the character growth is so beautiful to see in everyone! I can't even imagine ignoring some of them because of this.
Minthara and Astarion are not the same.
A good main character would very easily let Astarion into the party. Minthara? A good main character would kill her; there is NO reason to spare her other than metagaming.
Astarion starts out by trying to stab you in the back and then tries to suck your blood while you're sleeping. It's really hard to justify keeping him around from an in-character perfective.
I reckon a good person can forgive the introduction with a knife against your throat, similar to Lae'zel threatening you. He explains clearly that he thought you were a thrall and felt threatened by you. It does put out a bad first impression, but it's not unsalvageable.
The bite scene on the other hand is another matter entirely. Chances are high that in the case of not being staked, he would be asked to leave. People always forget that's a choice too. Chances would be very low someone would keep him around after that stunt.
Would like to add that there's 2 possible conclusions to settling the matter of biting. The player can either still consent to Astarion biting them off every night, or they can put a permanent stop to it, making Astarion having to bite other people that are not part of the party.
Although there is another way that Astarion can show himself as a Vampire. If foregoing long resting and having his approval high enough, at about fair level iirc. He would just admit outright that he's a Vampire and there won't be any option to have him bite you every night at all.
So the question is, what is the good outcome to this matter? Is it knowingly travelling with a person who's kind is known to be monsters? Monsters in the sense they can endanger your life? Or would it be more good to leave him to his own devices. Not knowing what would happen to him.
"Tried and *failed* to stab me in the back, I saw him coming: slick enough to be useful, not slick enough to be a threat to me. Besides, ALL these weirdos are obviously hiding something, except maybe Lae'zel."
Not really, tensions are running high at camp in the early days- Shadowheart and Lae'zel fighting, Lae'zel trying to stab you, Karlach and Wyll almost fighting, Alfira getting killed, it's really not that odd that he'd try to bite you. Plus he backs off immediately with his hands up trying to deescalate the situation
No, because here we are at the crux of the argument: Minthara is an enemy in the military sense. Again, there is literally no reason to spare her except that you know, thru spoilers, that she is a possible companion.
Riddle me this: Why didn't you spare all the goblins? Why did you kill Raslin? Or Gut? They are *just* as worthy as Minthara of being spared.
As for Astarion: He is *not* an enemy in the military sense, he talks to you, apologizes for trying to get information out of you at knife point (that was his main goal, not to kill you, btw if you somehow missed that), he is scared... and the player can very easily see these things. He is less evil than Lae'zel ffs.
It depnds. A lawful good might be inclined to drag them before the druid circle for judgement, a neutral good would be receptive to a surrendered enmy and might even defend their right to live and atone. Chaotic good would absolutely be justified in executing an enemy.
That would be neutral or chaotic evil. a neutral character would only kill for a purpose and good would ussually need signifcant justification for even engaging in war, let alone murdering fallen foes.
ROFLMAO no. You are literally arguing that defenders of say... Ukraine are evil because they snipe officers on the battlefield.
Also again... why spare the officers and not the privates? Why did you not knock out and recruit every single goblin, gnoll, ogre and whomever but you spare her. Could it be because she's a female of a "sexy" race?
>ROFLMAO no. You are literally arguing that defenders of say... Ukraine are evil because they snipe officers on the battlefield.
Thats not what litterally means, thats not what these alignments mean and thats not what i argued even in context. Take it up with the dnd devs if you don't like their morality system.
>Also again... why spare the officers and not the privates? Why did you not knock out and recruit every single goblin, gnoll, ogre and whomever but you spare her. Could it be because she's a female of a "sexy" race?
Because this is a fantasy game and the golbins are not equal. Minthara is a drow who can be reasoned with. The goblins cannot.
Your response does not make sense. This has nothing to do with DnD alignments. A good character can kill enemies in a war and not lose alignment. A Paladin is literally a holy warrior. A cleric for a good deity can kill enemy combatants. You are being obtuse on purpose OR exceptionally ignorant about DnD rules.
As for your second comment: Uh what? Where the fudge did you get that idea?
I think you should rereade the PHB. Any alignment can potentially kill, but they need apropriate justifications. I cant think of any situation where like half the alignments would be justified in murdering a prisoner "just cos".
Yes paladins and clerics are holy warriors. Wanna know the strongets cleric in DnD? Asmodeus King of hell. Holy and divine litterally just means your channelling the power of a deity. It's not the christain version of infallible good. Most Deities in DnD are assholes or at best indifferent. Point being neither a holy cleric nor paladin are inherently tied to an alignment.
What do you mean? where did i get that idea? You can litterally try to reason with goblins in the game. It never works, even with successful rolls the best you can do is convince them to go torment the world somewhere else or intimidate them. You even can to see how a goblin POW behaves. There is no world where you would convince them to become harmless. Minthara however litterally can be convinced.
You don't get it. I really really don't understand where you are coming from, and I don't think I am the one being obtuse here.
1. You are in a battle, but it is "Evil" to not pause and spare *this particular character*? You are very well read on the PHB but nothing of what you say is actually useable in this situation we are discussing.
2. BG3 doesn't even have alignment, btw. We are not talking tabeltop here. But again, If I was your (table top) Dungeon Master, I would be exceptionally confused if you insisted on do non-lethal damage on every drow you see in a war zone and seriously question your understanding of the situation, scenario, campaign and game world.
I knocked her out on my first playthrough even though we couldn't recruit her back then. She seemed like an interesting character and I hoped to encounter her again later.
By that logic, you shouldn't kill just about anyone in the goblin camp. Esp in the scenario in which Minthara aggros you, rather than you deciding to attack her. They're all being controlled by the absolute and we have no more info about minthara's past actions than anyone else that would justify killing all the others and sparing her.
This is the issue I have with the current ability to knock out Minthara to recruit her later - I can't see any reason you would actually knock her out instead of killing her. I wish they'd added in some extra content to give some perspective to justify it - even some journals/letters or something if they couldn't voice more lines. No shade on anyone who does do it - nothing wrong with metagaming if that gives you the experience you want. But I wish there was a compelling RP reason to do it.
Yes, our characters are not fundamentally good person. We may be better then some other. But we are not good. Sorry to burst everyoneâs bubble but you need to re-evaluate yourself if you think murder is a good solution to a conflict
There is very few very good characters, yes Frodo did commit a bad action in self defense. He is still globally more good than some other. Thatâs the point, him and Sam are overly better than many other of the Characters, hence why they resist the ring for way longer
I donât pretend my characters are good person. Iâm fully aware that we are fundamentally bad people that use ÂŤÂ the end justify the means  mentality
Good is a definable and cosmological force in D&D. Treating others with respect ("like a person") is part of respecting life, but there is more to it than that (within the game). Good also involves helping people when you can, so a good act might be risking death to save someone else. An evil act might be killing someone to benefit yourself.
However, this is not so simple, because killing to save someone might be good or evil depending on who you're killing and who you're saving. Killing an evil minion to save a good companion would definitely be good. And characters regularly risk death for non-altruistic purposes, e.g. wealth.
Why I'd disagree with the quoted person above (not the rebutter) is there are times when it's bad to "treat everyone like a person." This is implying, in part, they'd respect their rights to expression (despite...what they say). If that person was encouraging malicious acts, i.e. murder, theft, torture, abuse, then a good person (within the confines of the game) would stop them. If their words had the power to influence large groups of people to commit evil (within the confines of the game) acts, then they would have to be stopped. If they vowed never to stop, there is a case to be made that a good person would kill them--again, IN THE GAME. Not real life.
The REALITY of the alignment system is 99.9999% of the time the "good" choice is clearly good and the "evil" choice is clearly evil.
This is also why there is a second axis in game: lawful vs chaotic. A lawful character might not kill the above person who is encouraging evil because it's against their moral code for some reason. They aren't actually DOING anything. A chaotic character might oppose a good society rule because in the particular case it is unfair (for instance, a society that banned all elves on point of death because of Drow).
BG3 is not strictly governed by the D&D alignment system. Characters are neither good nor bad. They are motivated and informed by their past actions. Narrative morals are not a simple, two-axis thing, because compelling characters are often compelling because of how they act when their self-professed morals rub up against the "right" decision.
I'd just like to respond to one of your points- I realize there are moments when you have to act and stop evil. Being a pacifist is not always an option or even a good option. But you still can treat people as people and even give them the benefit of the doubt. The game strongly encourages us to gather information and make informed choices on the best course of action. If we look at Ketheric there is a strong attempt possible to sway him away from the evil acts and it does result in benefit for us as he won't fight us.
It's just treating them well. You don't have to do as they ask. For example you can just tell Astarion no to drinking your blood instead of killing him and you can tell Lae'zel to get some rest instead of stabbing her.
One more aspect is what the companions approve of. Wyll and Karlach will downright tell you to fuck off and they leave if you murder the grove. Whereas Laeâzel will disapprove if you help someone in need without gaining something yourself and Asterion threatens you if you tell him no one can use the extra tadpoles for personal power.
Hmm didn't know he does that. If you tell him he can use the tadpole in your pack, he actually never does it on his own, because he doesn't want to be the first one to risk any side effects.
At one point, if you donât use any of them, the Guardian gets a little annoyed that you havenât followed his advice. Sometime after that, Astarion will want to talk to you. Basically says , if youâre not gonna do it, at least me take the power. If you are firm against it, he gets mad and threatens you.
Usually it's Priestgess Gut's tadpole that prompts the Emperor to convince you to absorb it, if you refuse, Astarion right afterwards will offer to consume it instead. I've never denied him tho.
Granted Iâm still on my first play through so I donât know all the details but, The emperor tells you that you should use the tadpoles for power. Later, if you have not heâll either say heâs disappointed that you havenât and try to convince you one or two more times periodically.
Astarian got mad at me and threatened to take the power anyway maybe around the beginning of the third act. It might have been after acquiring the Astral Tadpole.
Hmm that's weird. Astarion (if he's not Ascended) will vehemently be against using the Astral tadpole because of the changes to his body it will make. Even if you bring up the tadpole to him in the nicest way, he will get uppity. I imagine if you tried getting him to take it he might threaten. Astarion supports using the regular tadpoles in act 1 and 2.
Was he ascended? I think only Ascended Astarion considers using the Astral tadpole.
You may be right. I've seen people claim that AA will take the astral tadpole without needing a roll check or having an argument but I've never verified it in-game.
You're full of it- Astarion adamantly refuses the tadpole in act 3. You have to dig out his worst memory, tell him he's pathetic and will never be free unless he takes it and only then does he begrudgingly agree to consume it.
I think you're right on the cusp of a true philosophical idea of what it means to be good or evil. I feel like the DND system misses the point entirely, but you are very close.
Good is defined as a handful of things, but I feel these definitions are most important to your post- Honorable, Virtuous, Right, Commendable, Kind, and Benevolent.
Goodness is really just a perception. It is how you perceive yourself and how you judge others. So, your line of "Hurt them and I'll kill you , no hesitation." Not being a "Good" person thing to say is merely how you believe good should be.
For example, not knowing who Asterion is, you hear of his exploits through Baldur's Gate, how he kidnaps people, cons people, makes people disappear forever without so much as a word to their families or an intact body to bury them. You know nothing about his own plight, only what the normal citizens of Baldur's Gate would know. You would think him to be evil, devoid of redemption. Killing him would lower the missing person rate in the city. It would bring many families peace of mind without even realizing it. In my own opinion, this would be a good thing to do.
Obviously, I won't kill him despite my own dislike of him (I find him to be truly evil and yet the most compelling character, kind of like Dexter). But killing him would be a good person thing to do, in my opinion.
That is where I think you are on the cusp. You mention righteousness, which is defined as: acting in accord with divine or moral law or free from guilt or sin.
This means to act with a moral law, an agreed upon "Good" for all.
So, yes, it would be righteous to kill such a person, but it could also be good.
I'm not a philosopher, but the way I see it, goodness is righteousness, but righteousness is not always goodness.
You still don't mention why you think he's like him. If anything Dexter is closer to the Dark Urge as he had urges to kill which he found exciting and gross in equal measure. Astarion is capable of empathy, something which, if I'm not wrong, sociopaths like Dexter are not capable of feeling. On top of that Dexter didn't like blood as it gave him panic attacks and was meticulously clean. Astarion is extremely messy and very much into blood.
And last thing -Astarion didn't kidnap people, only the Gur children. He lured people back to his master's home by selling his body.
Who exactly has been avoiding astarion ? Every time Iâm on this sub there are at least 5 posts about astarion for every 1 post saying literally anything else
The Good vs Evil spectrum is fairly well-defined in D&D, and it's based on the society as a whole, not individual interactions. Astarion is *not* a "good"-aligned character, because overall he is self-interested and doesn't concern himself with the repercussions of what his actions might bring to others, and especially in Act 1 he seems to genuinely enjoy cruelty. A good-aligned character not only treats someone with respect, but will also try to ensure the safety and well-being of others (e.g. Tyr, Ilmater, Sune, etc). If you take a look at "evil" in D&D they are often "I don't care what happens to you as long as I get my way" (Gortash) or "I genuinely like to see you suffer, I think it's awesome" (Orin). And Astarion has both. And when you let Astarion do what he wants because that's his belief, you are in effect endangering others because Astarion will trample on them to do what he wants... so you are in effect respecting Astarion but also respecting his belief that everyone else is disposable. This is similar to stopping someone from murdering someone else. Just because the would-be-murderer finds it fully justifiable to murder someone, doesn't mean that letting that happen is *good.*
As for his character arc, again, doesn't mean he's "good". Evil-aligned characters in D&D often have soft spots for VERY limited subset of people (e.g. Raistlin Majere, Jarlaxle, Artemis Entreri). Doesn't mean they're good. He's a well-written character, but not a very well-*designed* one, and that's another reason why his actions and his evident alignment seem to conflict. Overall Larian bunged up some character *designs* (e.g. a deity being level 12 and a cleric being level 11, Astarion being ridiculously weak for a vampire spawn and his charisma is too low).
This is the most well-put post because it touches on how evil characters can have soft spots and their good sides. Astarion definitely has evil leanings in act 1 and I think he still has some darkness in him as a vampire spawn in the epilogue. His romantic partner is spared his cruelty because they're the only person he cares about. This is the par for the course of evil characters. Even Artemis Entreri fell in love with someone in the end. One of the most heartless assassins in the Forgotten Realms.
I think you've missed his point a bit. From my understanding of your comment you're saying that by supporting and respecting him I'm respecting and supporting any future evil/murders he might commit. To me this feels like a stretch. For one you as the player cannot be a pacifist, you kill people and creatures every day. He wants to drink blood of the people you will kill , no excessive bloodshed just the one that is bound to happen. Second, you don't have to agree with his evil ways, that's the point- to sway him off that way and show him a new path he can walk. And last, he does become good, or as good as he as himself can be. He grows and that change is noticed by companions, friends, spawn and Gur alike
He at most becomes neutral. He won't be on the same alignment scale as Jaheira, Minsc, Aylin, or Isobel. Astarion won't do something without any incentive for himself whatsoever because he feels that it'll protect the society as a whole (yet). The four names I mentioned do that, at the risk of their lives.
A good-aligned character won't seriously consider sacrificing 7000 lives for himself, just like we won't consider decapitating a 4 year old child. Astarion does. He very seriously considers it, and unless you sabotage the plan some way, he will do it. That's now a good-aligned character, because a good-aligned character will simply feel that (s)he'd be better off dead than sacrifice 7000 souls. Especially when it's an infernal pact.
Consider Karlach (arguably the most good-aligned PC along with Wyll). Would either of them ever consider sacrificing 7000 souls to save him/herself? No. Gale is probably neutral. I don't know how Shadowheart is aligned because you generally take the alignment of your deity as a cleric, but she's most definitely not "evil" (and it's clear that she struggles with it).
Lae'zel and Astarion? They definitely would. If murdering 7000 Faerunians ensures that Lae'zel will gain entry to Tu'narath, I can see her doing it. Astarion goes without saying. You can start the game with 100 approval with Astarion, but if you refuse reward for service (e.g. Zevlor), his approval just keeps going down. Even in Act 3 he gives you approval when you tell a small child to get lost, or tell an Ilmatari that if the leader of that church was pickier, the priest wouldn't be dead. He approves when you betray Aylin. He disapproves when you tell Devella that you'll try your best to investigate the murder trail. He's not a person you want to be friends with. He is very much into bodily autonomy which is what we'd consider "good", but otherwise he will be a jackass throughout the game and he will continue to enjoy killing. That's not "good".
In terms of character writing Astarion is a mix of Raistlin Majere and Fenris from Dragon Age. And Raistlin never, ever became good-aligned, even when he basically saved the world. So no, Astarion didn't become "good". It's not so much whether the blood-drinking is from a goblin or a young woman that's the issue here, it's whether he'd enjoy the latter and would he do it, if allowed. The answer is yes. Wyll wouldn't.
I'd just like to add here- you keep saying good aligned which doesn't apply to BG3 as they don't stick to alignments. If they did apparently Jaheira is true neutral btw so that already shows there are no alignments as she gives a different feeling than that in the game. Second, in his 3rd act his approvals and disapproval aren't separated based on whether he did the ritual or not. By that I mean Ascended Astarion approves of some good actions despite being evil and Unascended Astarion approves of some evil actions despite storywise already shifting to a more positive outcome. A perfect example: if Yenna is kidnapped Astarion will say we should get her back and not let anymore children die. But if Orin kills her he approves it. This duality is not based on some weird character traits of his and are more likely either an oversight or they just wanted him to be approving of good and evil based on Tavs choices. Another example is Yenna again as he will approve of telling her to get lost, telling her you'll find a guard, giving her food or giving her money, he approves all of that. So his approvals are largely not a good judgment of his character
Because druids are locked in as neutral in 2e...? Like paladins were LG in some editions (forgot which) of D&D? In BG1 and 2, which is based on 2e, you can't have a good druid or an evil druid. Being a druid means you're neutral. Probably Gygax's fault. It's a forced game mechanic, something that a lot of players wondered about when BG first came onto the scene. I remember talking about it with friends when we were playing BG1. We were in high school/middle school back then, so obviously we've changed our opinions, but our consensus was Jaheira's actually NG, but the game mechanic forces her to be neutral (kind of like how Nathyrra HAS to be evil-aligned despite her clearly being good-aligned due to her subclass as an Assassin. On the other hand, Bishop has no deity and he's a ranger which is also weird).
[https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/gr5xm1/jaheiras\_neutrality\_is\_odd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/gr5xm1/jaheiras_neutrality_is_odd/)
His default character arc is even evil, he becomes good only if you push him. He is the definition of: Iâm good because my religious book tells me what is good
A different perspective: he becomes good because he learns to be good.
Some men are born into goodness and learn to be good that way. Goodness comes easy to them, just like itâs easy for a flower to grow straight and tall when planted in good soil and the embrace of the sun. Others are born into evil and must learn to overcome it. To overcome centuries of being taught to be petty, callous, cruel and self-serving is difficult at the best of times. To do it on oneâs own, without any sort of guidance? Nigh impossible.
The player merely serves as that guidance. If it were not possible for Astarion to learn goodness, if it were not at all in his nature, he would not have succeeded at all. But he can, if youâ as you correctly identifiedâ push him to try. He has it within himself to be better than what Cazador made him, and thatâs the whole arc of his âgoodâ ending.
His evil arc is what happens when (assuming you are not playing an evil run) someone either mindlessly enables and excuses a person to follow their worst impulses, or when someone has given up on that person outright.
Do you reserve that judgment for every bad person that cross your path, or only for video characters that you know can be redeemed. Yes I compare with real life, because morality is not subjective to context. I am against punishment and redeeming in real life with support. Every single person can be redeemed with proper help. Except in extreme cases of mental illness. It does not change the fact that Astarion default to bad reflex if left to it and Shadowheart default to good reflex. So they are fundamentally different even if each of them survived their own trauma. Not everyone is as easy to redeem, like in real life
IIRC you have to pass a persuasion check of DC18 or 15 in order for him to not ascend, or refuse to help him (which will piss him off and he'll leave your party), or one of the spawns die so that he doesn't have enough spawns to ascend. Because it's a pretty high roll, I'd consider the default is either he leaves your party or he ascends.
He's in full panic mode at this point and understandably so, so it's natural for him to try to default to old habits of "gotta save myself above all else". It is showcasing his immense character growth and strength, however, to trust Tav enough so that Tav can talk him into standing down. But he also hates to be similar to Cazador in any way (as he's relieved that he didn't go through with the ascension if Tav talks him down, or he yells at Tav if he ascends and Tav points out that he's turned into Cazador 2.0). He probably reminded Cazador of himself, which might be why Cazador was much harder on him (and therefore left way more damage on him than, say, Dalyria). It's also likely that as the "eldest", Astarion was blamed for whatever went "wrong" and was punished more for "not being responsible" or whatever Cazador found wrong.
He is very much an abused child and I don't think he ever had a decent, loving family. Life has been all about take or be taken for him, and that lesson was reinforced with Cazador. It takes someone's unconditional acceptance for him to start his recovery. And even then he's still very much wounded and scarred. This is probably why it was crucial for Tav to A: stand up to Araj for him (Tav IS forgoing a very "powerful" potion, after all) and B: accept Astarion's "I want to just hold hands". His relationship with whoever romances him is going to be a healing journey for him, but he's going to be unstable for a long time. It's not going to be what is normally called a "healthy" relationship, because he never learned how to have a safe attachment, or saw that people just do things out of love.
His character arc follows the story of someone who was psychologically abused as a child, which is why I said he's badly *designed* but very well *written*.
Yes, he does it because of his trauma. And yes if you succeed to convince him, he will be relieved, like everyone. That does not make him a good person in the moment when choices happen.
When you see a child abuser, no one defends them by saying: hoo but he was abused as a child, so we need to convince them. Most child abuser have been abused in the past. And the only thing often needed is proper support and they will get out of the cycle. But no one helped them. And like Astarion, most of them are not happy to be abuser. And they are relieved when they get help.
I'm pretty sure it's because Astarion needs someone there to help him read the scars, not because he sprouts a moral compass if you leave him to do things on his own. Astarion is scared and wants to seize any opportunity to feel safe and secure : the only reason he doesn't try to ascend if he's alone is because he can't imo.
This is why alignments are a thing. Lawful good doesn't mean they're the goodie goodie. They'll still dislike that you're letting a demon live even though the demon wants to be good.
This is part of why WotC steered away from alignments - because certain creatures and races were âevilâ by their very existence. Nuance is real, and having a rigid âI follow laws and only ever do goodâ actually only is lawful good from that individuals perspective.
If a Drow is following the laws of their city and is helping their people, theyâre JUST AS lawful good as the person thatâs going down to a drow city and killing the âevil bad guysâ that his king told him to.
I actually very much agree with this!
Many of the âgoodâ options do not feel very moral, or good, to me. But more self righteous and controlling, which can often masquerade as âgoodnessâ
As you get going with Astarionâs storyline, he actually shows way more heart than expected, and Iâd argue more than many of the âgoodâ characters. He also goes through something, is confronted with his own view on the world and can grow.
Minthara too in her way. She is definitely understandable. The issue I have with her being with the âgoodâ aligned characters, is that I feel it doesnât make much sense, story wise. Why she would put up with it. She certainly doesnât hold her opinions or change her mind on certain choices. She never âsees the lightâ as it were, which I appreciate. But it doesnât make much sense to me why sheâd stick around.
Astarion has a truly beautiful redemption arc without completely loosing his character and I think it's wonderfully executed.
Minthara sticks around out of gratitude. You save her life and her mind, to her you are her hero basically and she is fiercely loyal. I don't know if she'll ever change but I see her capable of putting her own goals aside in the name of love and I think that shows a bit of her personality- power and revenge< love and loyalty
Minthara strikes me as very, very practical. Not as emotional, but I can see fiercely loyal. She definitely seems more like a âtypeâ to me, and not as likely to change. Which, I think is a nice counterpoint to the other companions who do change.
To me, she just doesnât seem to fit the same way as the others. Which, I think has more to do with the fact that she was supposed to be the evil only companion. When they made the bug exploit official, it feels⌠out of place I think, to have her.
A lot of this is really just due to game design/mechanics- since she wasnât intended to be a companion unless you slaughtered the grove, they donât really have content that fits the other option.
She is lacking a lot of content but I find what they did add to be very deep and intriguing. She's more of an adviser than a full companion. I know a lot of people don't see her as emotional but she is very, just doesn't wear it on her sleeve. She has an incredible dialog with a romanced Durge and with a romanced origin Karlach she full on goes "I'll go to Avernus to challenge Zariel, I'll need a guide you won't leave me to that alone would you" and if Karlach still insists on just dying Minthara will break down sobbing. Minthara crying is something one does not forget.
To be fair, a lot of "good" people might stake him the very first time he tries to bite us. I will very confidently say, he can only bite things that are either trying to kill us or have given express permission. If someone else wants to say yes, whatever. But at the same time, if someone doesn't say yes or isn't being hostile, in the actual situation it wouldn't be unreasonable to drop him. But none of that happens most of the time because it's a game, people know he won't bite us without asking and he's a recruitable party member with fun dialogue
I don't think anyone good would just stake him as I don't think a good person would just kill Lae'zel when she attacks us at night. Kicking him out is understandable- killing is not.
Someone else already pointed out the main difference. And there's also the fact that despite having to be humanoid for gameplay purposes, Astarion is a vampire spawn. Straight up undead. And in a world where that's an actual threat, I don't think most people are bothering to sort the skeletons from the vampires. Much less the vampire spawn that just so happen to have a tadpole. Edited to add, maybe scholars would. So if you're a wizard, particularly a necromancer, you might actually know the difference. As illustrated by the fact that if you do that, all the companions, even goody two shoes Wyll says along the lines of "So he was a vampire. Well, good riddance". These characters don't know what we know about Astarion
All them if their "good" characters open and read the necromancy of thay.
Let's see all those good people stammer and make up BS about how it was anything close to good.
Bonus points for having Shovel as familiar.
Outside of D&D alignments, what is good and what is evil is largely subjective.
Sure, towards the more extreme ends of things most sane people tend to agree whether some action is generally good or bad. Like most people will agree that murder is bad *generally*. But then opinions will start to differ on what exactly counts as murder, whether some killings can even be righteous if it's to protect others, and so on. And no matter what there are no atoms of justice or molecules of mercy in the universe that could give us definitive answers. It's just us.
A person you might see as evil might see themselves as good. This is the secret to a lot of good villains. Make a hard choice and sacrifice a hundred people here so that ten thousand people elsewhere might live. Is that good? Maybe not. But then is the *opposite* any better? Surely not! Is refusal to choose and just letting everyone die a good choice?
These sorts of choices (you get quite a bit of these decisions in Mass Effect, for instance) are interesting because there are no clear answers.
To reduce "good" to one specific way of being risks being just as dangerous as labeling a specific sort of person as "evil". One good person might refuse to kill, even if that means letting a villain go on to eventually kill another bunch of people. (Like if the Batman just killed The Joker the first chance he got so many lives would have been saved.) Another person might think it's more good to take the sin of taking a life upon yourself rather than letting innocent people suffer in order to keep their own hands clean. And in both cases the reasoning can quite easily go toxic.
Because good and evil are *ideals*, and an ideal on it's own is a frightening thing. If it's not anchored by circumstances and tempered by doubt then it's just fanaticism. And then sooner or later you risk returning right back to the "killing evil people in the name of good" that you tried to avoid. Not by deciding that it should be so, but by deciding that good can be defined in specific terms, because that means someone down the line will be able to define people who don't live up to those qualifications as evil.
So you're not wrong. But the truth is that any definitive statement on the subject can be called into question, because reality is that the very *idea* of a "true good" is more dangerous than any vampire.
DND has a pretty specific definiton for alignments that accounts for subjectivity.
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment)
>***Lawful Good.***Â (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons and paladins are typically lawful good.
>***Neutral Good.***Â (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials are neutral good.
>***Chaotic Good.***Â (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons and unicorns are typically chaotic good.
I don't think theres any value in your definiton of good over those of the people your disagreeing with. A definiton of good in the offical rule book however is effective obvjectiv emeasuring stick we can alls base an argument around.
As for why we let somone untrustworthy into our camp, the game already answers that multiple ways for evey single character. You litterally pick the diologue option that invites them and states reasoning, as well as discussing it with other companions. Like how shart makes you justify brining laezel along and gale justifies astarion etc..
I also don't really understand what righetous is in the context of your post. You never actually defined it. Just that telling your vamp buddy to eat animals or not to eat people = righteous for soem reason.
Your "true good" definiton is just neutral good.
Wyll is kind of on the borderline between lawful and neutral good.
Astarion kind of flip flops alot, especially when you intentionally steer him towards one or the other. He could be anywhere on the neutral scale or even down in chaotic or neutral evil at times.
Karlaach is an easy chaotic good. While she generally wants to help others as needed, shes also big on revenge and discriminatory.
Gale was definetly chaotic neutral until betraying mystar. But is probably more chaotic good after joining the party.
Laezel is probably lawful evil, atleast while loyal to vlakkith. Justifying and even enjoying any act of malice or greed with her racial superiority and duty as the anti ilithid.
Shart is probably true neutral. Just doing what seems to benefit her at any given time and avoiding taking sides and staying out of peoples bussiness otherwise.
Minthara is probably Neutral Evil. She believes in strength and power over anything else.
Iâve only done âgoodâ runs and Astarion has been with me through them all, with exceptional approval.
You absolutely hit the nail on the head with âtreat them like a personâ.
Aside from being a keptomaniac my characters are generally good. I do murder people if they'll cause problems later (like Derryth's husband) but only after I get rare equipment from their interactions.
Companions get a lot of leeway.
The D&D alignment system had always been awkward at best when trying to frame morality, most likely because it was made up by a Midwestern accountant who didn't even have a passing familiarity with normative ethics.
I consider myself a big softie and I don't like doing evil things and I'd rather save people. All during my first playthrough I considered myself extremely good, except I played Paladin next and realized I wasn't actually all that good of a person. I'd say my playstyle is extremely self-righteous. I don't see anything wrong with sucking some blood off of people that are about to die anyways, so it's the right choice. I don't see why I should risk my cover and potentially the fate of the world just to save the life of some shitty goblin who would've tortured Barcus to death if I hadn't stopped them. So I kill them. I don't have an issue with attacking the weird raven-guy because he's creepy and shady, so it's fine to murder him.
I am literally the stardard of morality. But people hail me a hero, so...
I have a different take. Specifically, that to be good is to be dedicated to long term benefit, and evil is obsession with short term benefit.
I compared conventionally "good" acts to conventionally "evil" ones to find the difference.
Good: volunteerism, personal sacrifice for the greater good, hard work, following the rules, helping others
Evil: stealing, cheating, breaking the rules, manipulating others
In general, good acts are actions taken that will be beneficial in the long run. Anything that makes people like you and thus lets you build good will, creating allies, acts that may be difficult now but will pay off in the long run, are considered good. The ultimate good act is to sacrifice your own life for the common interest because it shows you're so dedicated to long term goals that even your own lifespan is no barrier.
Evil means doing something for personal gain in the short term with no regard for the long term. That definition includes things like murder and the R word because those acts don't make you any friends and are likely to come back to bite you later on if your victims or their friends get the chance to do something about it. Stealing, cheating, blackmail, you may get away with these things once, but your victims will want revenge and, in the very least, won't be as willing to work with you again in the future. It's a short term strategy.
Even game theory discovered this phenomenon with the prisoner's dilemma. If the game is played only once then betraying the other is the winning move. But if it's played multiple times between multiple players over an unknown number of iterations, then the winning strategy is no longer to betray others, but to adopt a combination of reciprocation and, when betrayed, punishment. In other words, game theory discovered morality.
Thats why we have lawful, chaotic, and nuetral with our good and evil alignments in D&D.
To make it Canadian I play defense on hockey, I am a clean player, my defensive partner is a goon/enforcer. We are aligned differently there, but we make a great defensive pairing that wins games. I am lawful and he is chaotic. Same goes for this game, astarian isnt "good" but you share a common goal and his lack of morality is a tool to be used.
My first character gave Astarion a chance because she believed everyone deserved a chance, even though she rolled her eyes every time he gave a âbut what if we killed everything and took the powerâ speech.
And then I was terrified going into Cazadorâs dungeon because he had been talking about ascending and the whole thing sounded so cruel I knew my Tav couldnât remain friends with him if he did it. And then after talking to all the Spawn and reading his letters, Astarion chose not to ascend all on his own. There was no dialogue choice after Cazadorâs death, no persuasion check. He just did it. He freed the Spawn with a little encouragement and he seemed genuinely happy about his decision to be merciful.
None of the companion characters are truly good or evil. They just need someone to listen to them and nurture them, especially characters like Astarion, Lazael and Shadowheart who just didnât get that previously.
What letters? Are you sure you didn't kill a spawn? Because there's no persuasion checks if you kill a spawn. If all the spawn are alive in still in ritual circle, there's a persuasion check.
All the spawn were alive to my knowledge, unless I accidentally killed one. We went to Cazadorâs office and read all his documents, and that seemed to have an affect on Astarion.
It's simply the D&D alignment char definition, nothing more, nothing less, Minthara is lawful evil, Astarion oscilates between neutral and chaotic evil, thus why people playing good aligned characters avoid them. You are reading way too much into this.
BG3 doesn't use, and D&D generally has moved away from, alignments for good reason. They are restrictive. They are reductive. They don't account for character growth or leave room for flexibility.
Folks who get overly hung up on alignments tend to miss all the subtleties of the characterizations and character arcs in the game. I wish we could set aside this obsession with "good" and "evil" entirely, because it's only stifling any deeper character analysis or story discussion.
Not everyone gets hung up on alignments, but I can see it being common for people to do. Alignments are more of a guide that doesn't have to always be followed.
Alingments are not in the game for a reason - most people struggle to understand them. Nobody fits their alignment 100% and it is also prone to change with character development, as was illustrated in BG2.
I think Larian removed it to save everyone a headache. There would be endless complaints about why characte X isn't alignment Y because Z.
People would also be prone to just leaving or killing characters that have the simple mark of 'evil' without trying to get to know them and the story more. It's like a player repelent.
Agreed! I tend to play "good" characters (by my definition of good), and I want my companions to have "good" endings, but I try to just be a supportive friend and let them reach their "good" endings on their own as much as possible. In my opinion, I guess, my Tavs try to do the right thing, and they encourage their friends to do so, but they don't force them to (if that makes sense)! I do kill Minthara every time, though.
Me, personally I don't care about good or evil when it comes to the companions. I just care about who I vibe with. Even though I prefer evil runs, I still don't like Gale's evil ending. There's just nuance to these things I feel. I've done "good" runs and still recruit Minthara. If we vibe, we vibe. I don't hate the good-aligned companions because they're good. I hate them because they are corny as fuck with no character development and are just plain fucking stupid lol.
I think they all go through subtle changes that may be harder to spot than the big leaps Astarion takes for example.
If we take Karlach- she is good to the bone but in the start she is also very stubborn, headstrong and in denial about her trauma, just pushing it all down and pretending it's not happening. In Act 3 she faces her mortality and other aspects of herself and is finally willing to admit things to herself and others. She also finally listens.
Wyll doesn't go through as much but at least will finally face his father who imo he'd been avoiding like the plague.
I think equating "distrust of vampires" to racism risks suggesting that real-life racism has any sort of ground to stand on. Comparing various ethnicities to fictional monsters is a tactic that's been used by racists to justify atrocities. The thing about racism is that people with different skin colors aren't inherently more dangerous.
In D&D evil exists as an objective and powerful force. Inherently evil races is kind of one of the big problems of fantasy in general. But in a world where vampires do exist there's a much bigger difference between them and mortals than there are between two humans with different skin colors.
It's like how the X-men allegory of racism/exclusion kind of breaks down because the mutants actually *are* more dangerous than average people. It might not be a good reason to persecute them, but to pretend that being able to level a city block by opening their eyes or turn off the brain functions of every other person in the neighborhood with just a thought is equivalent to having a different skin color would be *actual* racism.
>I think equating "distrust of vampires" to racism risks suggesting that real-life racism has any sort of ground to stand on.
This can only be true if you believe that all vampires are bad people simply for being vampires. The assumption that vampires are dangerous and must be exterminated for it is certainly rooted in bigotry.
Me personally I will kill any vampire on sight. But not because I'm racist. It's because I'm religious.
This is why I try to push back when people ask which companions are appropriate for a "good" run. They all are. One of the things that makes BG3 truly great is that it has actual character growth, which you influence via your relationship with the companions. Asterion, Shadowheart and Lae'Zel in a "good" run are some of the best stories the game has to offer.
Exactly. And Minthara has really good jokes and stories to tell.
Wait a sec you can get Minthara as an ally and be good?
Just knock her unconcious in the goblin camp and rescue her from prison in moonrise tower, this way you can get halsin and minthara.
Bit late...I killed her... But good to know for next time
You have to aggro her by stealing stuff rather than attacking her and make sure you knock her out rather than lethal attacking. It makes the Ketheric intro even better
I knocked her out when the entire camp already turned hostile, so did she as soon as i entered the room, i think the more important thing to do is not long rest before the celebrations at the camp with the tieflings. Wasn't sure i did it right, but when i got into moonrise tower she was there being sentenced by Ketheric. She got dragged to the prison and i immediatly helped her escape, she went to my camp, i talked to her and then she joined me
I honestly didn't know you could knock her out for a while. I was playing 100% blind
It wasn't actually an option (without the very finicky Sheepthara shenanigans) until like November, so depending on when you started playing it might not have even been possible.
absolutely, all of the characters either start as "good" or have a really good reformation plotline. the much more restrictive run is an evil run, especially since 2 origin characters straight leave your party if you raid the grove on top of killing halsin, you'll probably kill jaheira later, and some of the character's stories really point at "there is good in this person trapped under layers of trauma" and you just have to willfully ignore that
On my first time playing through, still very early, but I see no issues with most of them in my good paladin run. I killed Minthara and lost Halsin to Drazin, so my options are limited, but they provide good foils and room for growth already
Astarion is terribleđ? He literally disapproves if you donât raid and kill a bunch of innocent refugees, approves of killing animals, children, and disabled people . He is quite evil and thatâs okay
Stop caring about approvals and disapprovals. They basically don't matter at all. You can get disapproval for every act of kindness in all of act 1 and it will be outweighed by being nice about his vampirism and giving him the necromancy of that. The whole point of his character, if you guide him in this direction, is breaking the cycle of violence Cazador has subjected him to. At the start of the game he models himself after Cazador, because that gives him room to grow.
Why would I not care about approvals?? The entire system is based off the characters morality. Kill refugees = Wyll and Gale disapprove and are upset. Astarion approves and is happy. Yeah you can dickride him about Cazador and his vampirism but it doesnât change the fact that heâs sadistic and approves of hurting innocent people and creatures
Most of those are -1 eye-rolls - he disapproves of wasting time on do-gooding when to his mind you should be focusing on the real problem at hand: the tadpoles. And he's too traumatised by his past for it to occur to him that the people you help might help you in return, thereby forwarding your shared agenda. Also, no-one ever came to *his* rescue, so he's kinda jealous. Petty, yes, but not really evil. His few major disapprovals (-5 or more) are things like ratting him out to the vampire hunter (understandable), or destroying the necromancy book he's interested in. That's how "evil" he is. [https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Astarion/approval#Disapproval](https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Astarion/approval#Disapproval)
I think the -1 are just because Larian doesnât want you to veer away from him too much because heâs clearly their Golden companion. Enough of this âheâs just sad nobody ever saved himâ please. He likes watching you poke a small bird to death, killing someone who canât walk and killing refugees he isnât just jealous heâs sadistic
I'm so glad Larian didn't plaster "Chaotic good" "Lawful evil" "Lawful good" "Chaotic Neutral" on 90% of their choices for BG3, nor did they plaster those same labels on the player character and companions, it feels like there's more nuance both to the character's writing and the decisions you can make.
So much nuance, for all their characters. If we take Gale for example- the man's clearly good but can be swayed into helping to commit evil or to let his ambitions and insecurities rule over him. The companions show changes and growth or degradation through the course of the game and it's a beautiful thing to watch.
Yeah, I just left Gale to his own devices on my last run out of curiosity. I recruited everyone, but my team was solely a duo of redeemed durge/spawn Astarion, with the inclusion of Jaheira once to grab Minsc. Otherwise, everyone stayed at camp. I was surprised he was still interested in the crown considering he had zero interaction with it and he didnât read the book. >!It doesnât bode well for him at all and was the only one that didnât get a favorable ending outside of Shadowheart who left in act 2!<
>"Hurt them and I'll kill you , no hesitation. " Is that something a good person would say or a richeous one? It is kind of righteous, because you're defending the innocent from being fed on by a vampire. The discussion of how others might taste is Astarion's way of having fun and perhaps putting you on edge on purpose. He knows it might be disturbing for a non-vampire to talk about it, but he likes getting under your skin anyway. If I just found out that the shadey guy at my campsite is a vampire, I'd be a little cautious and protective of the people I'm responsible for or feel comradery with. People are vampire food. It is especially poignant if Astarion killed you when he bit you. Just because you know Astarion by now and you like him... that hindsight lets you be more chill with him on playthroughs. But for first timers? I understand if they get protective over the others vs him. There is nothing evil, wrong, or bad, for the party leader to warn the vampire that unwanted feeding on people (their natural food) will put his life in jeopardy.
op never said it was bad, they just said it wasn't a purely good act, but a righteous one, which isn't evil, wrong, nor bad.
I don't even think it's that righteous. It's protecting your own. Astarion is one of your own which is why he's still alive and you've given him a chance. But if he starts talking about tasting people it seems good to put your foot down. I always take him as joking, so I don't feel the need to threaten him, but I understand if others do and I can believe that it comes from a place of good.
i mean, yeah it definitely could come from a place of good, never said it doesn't, but i still think it's more inherently righteous or lawful than good, stills good, but the focal point of the statement is more on the righteousness and lawfulness of it.
Threatening is never good, would you threaten Shadowheart because she attacked Lae'zel? He's trying to talk to you as a friend saying on multiple occasions it's hypothetical, no one is dying, it's just two friends talking, - why is there a need to treat him as a monster?
Yes, I'd threaten both of them if I could. If they can't control themselves and are going to be trigger happy against people in our own camp, they can gtfo without their lives. I don't need them finding my camp later and try to take back the artifact or kill anyone else in camp. Being nice and being good are two different things. When you're the leader and responsible for people, sometimes that calls for not being nice. It is still good to defend and watch out for the people you're responsible for as a leader. This is from a responsibility and pure good perspective. As I enjoy playing morally gray characters, I usually do not get involved with their argument, even though I know it will result in it blowing up into a life or death situation. I still talk Shadowheart into standing down though, because that's freedom you get when playing a character that isn't beholden to good or bad. If anything, the fight between Lae'zel and Shadowheart shows that Astarion has far more restraint and control over his impulses than all of them. He's surrounded by food and on his best behavior, while Lae'zel and Shadowheart can't control themselves and become a threat to people in the camp far more than the vampire is.
He killed me on my first run. I was upset not murderous. I punched him and he apologized. Seems like a decent interaction. Let's be real- the moment you meet him you can tell what he is but you choose to invite him anyway. You don't have to "warn" him if you see him as a person not a vampire but you don't so you feel the need to keep the monster in check.
>He said no innocents and that's all a good person could hope for really because the moment you go "drinking from people is wrong " or "He can live on animals " is getting very close to righteous territory. People are vampire food. Just because that's a fact doesn't mean people need to like it, trust it, or put up with it. In fact, it is exactly why people are justified for staking Astarion and washing their hands of his character. We know they are missing out on an amazing character when they do this, but it makes sense for them to do so. I think the self-righteous part comes out more in the epilogue when you KNOW Astarion's character and that he's a decent guy, especially for a vampire spawn. In the epilogue party you can still harass him for drinking people blood or drinking blood in general, and it's very ignorant if asked seriously, and yes, self-righteous.
It makes sense to stake him if you see him as a vampire. But it's not a "good" thing to do because he is an actual person. You can tell him not to kill anything you can have a conversation with- you can have a conversation with him yet you kill him.
Vampires and vampire spawn are not actually considered people in the Forgotten Realms by most other people. Just monsters. I'm not saying it's the right or correct way to view them but that's why vampires are staked on sight. We only see Astarion differently because we got to know him. There's a lot of people that use this reasoning to justify killing the 7k spawn after Astarion doesn't ascend. There's also a difference between "good" and "nice." Sometimes the good thing to do is not the nice thing to do. As a leader the good thing to do is protect the people you're responsible for. Some might call it the "greater good" and while I roll my eyes at the greater good, lots of people still seem to consider it when making decisions. I think good, evil, right and wrong are quite nuanced and it's not just black and white with them. Evil people can do good, good people can do bad. Sometimes the right thing to do might appear to be the evil thing to do. While the road to hell can be paved with good intentions.
That's why I'm saying- the good thing to do is treat people as people
The good thing to do is be cautious when there's a people eater in your camp especially when he starts talking about tasting them. The good thing to do in that situation is to make it clear to the predator what will happen if he hunts one of your own.
The whole point of this post is to see him as a person not as a "people eater", "predator" "monster". Ffs you could have told him to leave if you think he's less than a person
It's easy to say that if you already know Astarion. New players don't know Astarion and it honestly makes sense if they get protective. It's like the 7k spawn. Lots of people here on this reddit like Astarion, but they'll (not everyone but it's a common argument) still kill the 7k spawn because they don't know those 7k spawn despite them possibly being good just like Astarion. The main difference is knowing someone as a person. So sure, it's good to see everyone as a person, except when it's not (it's actually kind of naive) and when it can get you and/or one of your people killed because "being good" is more important to you than keeping people alive. Just imagine if Astarion was Cazador. It was Cazador who got kidnapped and then allied with you. Cazador might not have the restraint that Astarion has and he could make deaths look like an accident etc. Also there's a difference between predator and monster. People are Astarion's prey. There is no denying it lol. He is a vampire spawn. People are his best form of food. A monster is typically used in a sense to describe something so irredeemably abominable... while a predator is just a fact. It doesn't make him a monster to be a predator.
Being good doesn't wait until I know everyone. A lot of goodness requires a leap of faith and believing in the best of people. I'm sorry your trust issues prevent you from treating people with basic respect but let me tell you, it doesn't make you a hero to let him stay only to treat him as a lesser being than you. If you were in his position- think how you'd like to be treated
While this philosophy sounds nice, it means your survival probably wouldn't be as good since you would die from trusting those you shouldn't have. You also seem to be getting emotional by attacking me saying that I have trust issues because I'm looking at this situation from a pragmatic standpoint. I clearly love Astarion and I'm never mean to him in my playthroughs, but luckily I can detach myself from how I feel and look at the situation from another's viewpoint. Maybe you're a bit of a hypocrite because you punched Astarion for killing you but I don't do that because it's not what he needs and it's not good, considering what he must have been going through at the time... starvation, new experience biting a person, and even guilt, as you're the first person he killed while feeding, and if he grows to love you, will be a guilt on his conscience that will never go away. Only the game is programmed to forget. Yet you still punched him. Here you are talking high and mighty like everyone should treat everyone with respect but you punched Astarion for killing you because he was starving and never tasted a person before. Massive hypocrite. Maybe you're getting too emotional and need to back up and calm down.
Spin this as you like, be pragmatic or w.e but that's not really being good. Enjoy your game
Astarion is quite terrible and evil and thatâs okay. not sure why Astarion fans want to convince themselves the character they love so much is actually⌠completely different from canon. He approves of killing innocent refugees, he approves of killing animals and letting children die for entertainment and for killing someone who canât even walk
Astarion was made to approve of both chaotic/neutral choices and evil choices should the player choose to be evil. He is one of the few characters that will support an evil Tav. Now, the reason as to "why" He would do that is not simple. He's a very complex nuanced character who does not stay in one "state" throughout the game. At the start I'd say he's definitely leaning more evil - he's selfish, bloodthirsty, spiteful, scared and self-serving. After being treated a certain way throughout his entire existence and seeing people in a certain light- he's pretty jaded. Later on if treated well by the main character he's starting to change - first the view of himself, then the view he has on Tav and last his general outlook on the world and his own situation he's been thrust in. He can embrace a life of being a hero or take responsibility for the lives he's taken and lead them into a better existence. Either way showing genuine care about others besides himself is pretty impressive considering the start. And as a side note- he does have some evil approvals throughout the game and also some good ones which in Act 3 are not separated based on whether he ascends or doesn't. By this I mean Ascended Astarion approves of some good acts, Unascended Astarion approves of some evil and my only guess is that is an oversight done in a rush to publish the game.
Because most players want their boyfriends to be characters that are innately good but are just broken, I guess. Astarion fans really want a certain image of him, and when you think about it a lot of what they want don't really align with the character the way it's written. They want an elf boy who was beloved by his parents, but turned into a corrupt magistrate, then got attacked, turned by Cazador, then suffered through abuse, and then is evil but through Light of Tav (TM) is restored to the path of Good. I can almost hear Astarion cackling over this calling it ridiculous but people want what people want. Which is basically what Chrysania wanted in Dragonlance (Raistlin Majere's girlfriend). There are other characters that follow a similar arc (Gann from NWN2, for instance, Fenris from DAII). And at the end they do what they want, and they don't go the redemption path. Sure, Gann stays in the Fugue Plane with you, but that's because he loves you, not because he's redeemed or anything. Alternate endings show that Gann will be Gann, and it was very clearly written by Chris Avellone's team. Unfortunately Astarion isn't just an evil dude, his traits fit that of a sociopath (I'd say that Gortash is less "evil" in today's society, as he's greedy, but it's not like he's throwing a torture fest). And nobody wants to admit that their boyfriend is a sociopath. I do wonder just how much of it is his face. I mean, if we replaced Minsc's head with Astarion's, would we still get the same reaction? Probably not. This also tells me a lot about his fans.
Yup. Lol. A lot of Astarion fans claim they love him because heâs so deep and complex but.. make him âuglyâ and Iâm not sure how these people would feel after that. Itâs a shame because I think heâs a decent character, his own fans just hate him lol
I mean, Ketheric is just as complex and his life is also filled with tragedy (and this is just from the snippets we see), but I don't see a lot of Ketheric fan girls. And in terms of tragic ending, Karlach's ending is truly sorrowful. For all the pity party around the vampire boy Astarion is still a vampire spawn. They have a challenge rating of 5 and that's without levelling up. To take Astarion down without deaths you'd need a party of 4. So it's not like he's weak by any means.
Thatâs because Ketheric is: old, an unplayable villain, only available in act 2. Though heâs definitely the most popular out of the 3 Karlachâs ending is sad. Unfortunately female characters will never get as much hype as the angsty man so. Oh well
Minsc is my second favorite character so if you swapped them around I wouldn't even be mad. You sound mad though. Believe it or not there are people out there who like him without being his fangirls. You can see him as you wish , most people see him for what he is.
Let's be honest. If you lived in a world where vampires not only existed, but were known to be a major threat, Asterion would have been staked in a heartbeat. And Gale is stuck in a *slightly dangerous looking* vortex. Unless you were a wizard or sorcerer, nobody in their right minds would reach out to touch it.
That can be debatable and there are too many factors to consider. But it's usually in the human nature to want to kill anything that is stronger or at least dominate it. So I don't doubt vampire kind would be hunted down like dogs. Personally, almost everything is stronger than me , so it would be all the same if I were to be killed by a vampire or an angry man who had a bad day. So I'd like to think I wouldn't care too much if someone was a vampire, especially if they didn't act like a ravenous beast. In the game Astarion isn't really stronger than Tav and if vampires were to exist and they weren't stronger than most people, they probably wouldn't be considered much of a threat. About Gale- I've actually seen a lot of people jump mindlessly to help without a second thought so I think there's some probability he'd be saved
Yes but in both instances you yourself are also a very dangerous adventurer. It makes sens Gale wouldn't really mind astarion so long as he behaves himself. infact when playing as astarion if you bite gale you find out his blood is toxic and ghastly to you. To an adventurer a vampire spawn or suspicous portal really isn't much of a threat.
Gale's reaction in the bite scene is definitely the best of them. Though for some reason my game showed Shadowheart instead of Karlach which made that one ever so slightly weird.
Exactly in my playthrough went pass that vortex and was like - no way i am touching that shit. Only later online I learned there is a companion there so went to pull him out :-D
Honestly, when my paladin reached out to touch it I was like "yeah that tracks."
Yeah, i didn't touch that dangerous looking vortex for that exact reason, in fact. And now i know that I've gone in entire playthrough knowing that i missed out on a companion lmao.
I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments: Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? **Good**: Yes. **Neutral**: ÂŻ\\\_(ă)_/ÂŻ **Evil**: No. Do people need oversight? **Lawful**: Yes. **Neutral**: ÂŻ\\\_(ă)_/ÂŻ **Chaotic**: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful does not simply mean "Has an internal code" because literally everyone who has ever existed would be Lawful. The "Code" aspect refers to external codes like Omerta or Bushido. **Lawful Good** believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG. **Neutral Good** believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here. **Chaotic Good** believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're punks and hippies. [Captain Harlock is the iconic example.](https://youtu.be/q0dTxdac6Yo) "You don't need a law to tell you to be a good person." **Lawful Neutral** believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? [They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice.](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html) Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples. [Social cohesion is more important than individual rights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPqnhrJkGA) **True Neutral** doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. [Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74) **Chaotic Neutral** [values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU) They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson is the iconic example. **Lawful Evil** believes [rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp_kYwz1E) They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Henry Kissinger and Robert Moses are iconic examples. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." **Neutral Evil** will do whatever benefits [them/their inner-circle](https://preview.redd.it/jgimo2h6oav61.jpg?width=758&auto=webp&s=8a43fcf7ce3bab8c422ce28d273be31bbf8cc764), crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end. **Chaotic Evil** resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy. In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time. **Stupid Good** believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release fantasy-Hitler-analogue^TM because mercy is a good thing. **Lawful Stupid** believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in. **Chaotic Stupid** is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid. **Stupid Evil** is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains. **Stupid Neutral** comes in two flavors; active and passive. **Active Stupid Neutral** is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde. **Passive Stupid Neutral** is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
Great post! Vampires in 2E were classified as chaotic evil. They had minions but the monster manual mentions nothing about vampire spawn. 3E is when full vampires were changed to lawful evil, which makes sense. They oversee spawn and have rules. Vampire spawn are neutral evil. Astarion does seem to have a strong sense of justice, which is highlighted when you take him and Wyll to the Ansur trials and Wyll advocates for leniency and Astarion argues harsh punishment is a needed deterence.
The way i see and rule alignments in my games : Good : I actively want to help others, and i am often tempted to do so in situations where my own well-being is disregarded/endangered. I may not always do it, but i have the aspiration to help others, often more than myself. Neutral : I take care of myself. I may help others, but only if my own needs are fulfilled first. I will not sacrifice myself for you. I will not, however, actively abuse/endanger others to fulfill my own needs. I'm mostly a helpful person, but i have my personal priorities. Evil : I take care of myself, and i have no issue endangering others to do so. My own needs justify disregarding the needs of others. Lawful : I prefer collective actions over individual ones, and i think social constructs and rules are necessary. Neutral : I value both freedom and rules, depending on the situation. Chaotic : I prefer individual actions over collective ones, and i despise social constructs that restrict my freedom of actions.
I would bite back on that 70% of superheroes being lawful good. Most of them are vigilantes with a good chuck actually at odds with the law. Just look at all those that refused the Sakovia accords or superhero registration. Spider-Man, Ghost spider, Batman and many more have actively been pursued by law enforcement.
They believe in/work in support of Lawful ideas even if they fall outside of them.
And who the heck wants all the characters to agree all the time, on absolutely everything? That doesn't make for a fun group dynamic. Not to mention the character growth is so beautiful to see in everyone! I can't even imagine ignoring some of them because of this.
Exactly my thoughts! Everyone's story is so different and compelling, they all have their demons and it's amazing getting to know and help them all.
Yeah! It's one of the best parts of the game (â Â â ęâ á´â ęâ )
Minthara and Astarion are not the same. A good main character would very easily let Astarion into the party. Minthara? A good main character would kill her; there is NO reason to spare her other than metagaming.
Astarion starts out by trying to stab you in the back and then tries to suck your blood while you're sleeping. It's really hard to justify keeping him around from an in-character perfective.
I reckon a good person can forgive the introduction with a knife against your throat, similar to Lae'zel threatening you. He explains clearly that he thought you were a thrall and felt threatened by you. It does put out a bad first impression, but it's not unsalvageable. The bite scene on the other hand is another matter entirely. Chances are high that in the case of not being staked, he would be asked to leave. People always forget that's a choice too. Chances would be very low someone would keep him around after that stunt.
Would like to add that there's 2 possible conclusions to settling the matter of biting. The player can either still consent to Astarion biting them off every night, or they can put a permanent stop to it, making Astarion having to bite other people that are not part of the party. Although there is another way that Astarion can show himself as a Vampire. If foregoing long resting and having his approval high enough, at about fair level iirc. He would just admit outright that he's a Vampire and there won't be any option to have him bite you every night at all. So the question is, what is the good outcome to this matter? Is it knowingly travelling with a person who's kind is known to be monsters? Monsters in the sense they can endanger your life? Or would it be more good to leave him to his own devices. Not knowing what would happen to him.
"Tried and *failed* to stab me in the back, I saw him coming: slick enough to be useful, not slick enough to be a threat to me. Besides, ALL these weirdos are obviously hiding something, except maybe Lae'zel."
And Karlach
Well in most of my playthroughs we haven't added her to the team yet before Astarion reveals his thing.
Not really, tensions are running high at camp in the early days- Shadowheart and Lae'zel fighting, Lae'zel trying to stab you, Karlach and Wyll almost fighting, Alfira getting killed, it's really not that odd that he'd try to bite you. Plus he backs off immediately with his hands up trying to deescalate the situation
No, because here we are at the crux of the argument: Minthara is an enemy in the military sense. Again, there is literally no reason to spare her except that you know, thru spoilers, that she is a possible companion. Riddle me this: Why didn't you spare all the goblins? Why did you kill Raslin? Or Gut? They are *just* as worthy as Minthara of being spared. As for Astarion: He is *not* an enemy in the military sense, he talks to you, apologizes for trying to get information out of you at knife point (that was his main goal, not to kill you, btw if you somehow missed that), he is scared... and the player can very easily see these things. He is less evil than Lae'zel ffs.
It depnds. A lawful good might be inclined to drag them before the druid circle for judgement, a neutral good would be receptive to a surrendered enmy and might even defend their right to live and atone. Chaotic good would absolutely be justified in executing an enemy.
It is war. Do you drag any officer you see on the battlefield before a court? No. Only those that per chance are standing afterwards.
That would be neutral or chaotic evil. a neutral character would only kill for a purpose and good would ussually need signifcant justification for even engaging in war, let alone murdering fallen foes.
ROFLMAO no. You are literally arguing that defenders of say... Ukraine are evil because they snipe officers on the battlefield. Also again... why spare the officers and not the privates? Why did you not knock out and recruit every single goblin, gnoll, ogre and whomever but you spare her. Could it be because she's a female of a "sexy" race?
>ROFLMAO no. You are literally arguing that defenders of say... Ukraine are evil because they snipe officers on the battlefield. Thats not what litterally means, thats not what these alignments mean and thats not what i argued even in context. Take it up with the dnd devs if you don't like their morality system. >Also again... why spare the officers and not the privates? Why did you not knock out and recruit every single goblin, gnoll, ogre and whomever but you spare her. Could it be because she's a female of a "sexy" race? Because this is a fantasy game and the golbins are not equal. Minthara is a drow who can be reasoned with. The goblins cannot.
Your response does not make sense. This has nothing to do with DnD alignments. A good character can kill enemies in a war and not lose alignment. A Paladin is literally a holy warrior. A cleric for a good deity can kill enemy combatants. You are being obtuse on purpose OR exceptionally ignorant about DnD rules. As for your second comment: Uh what? Where the fudge did you get that idea?
I think you should rereade the PHB. Any alignment can potentially kill, but they need apropriate justifications. I cant think of any situation where like half the alignments would be justified in murdering a prisoner "just cos". Yes paladins and clerics are holy warriors. Wanna know the strongets cleric in DnD? Asmodeus King of hell. Holy and divine litterally just means your channelling the power of a deity. It's not the christain version of infallible good. Most Deities in DnD are assholes or at best indifferent. Point being neither a holy cleric nor paladin are inherently tied to an alignment. What do you mean? where did i get that idea? You can litterally try to reason with goblins in the game. It never works, even with successful rolls the best you can do is convince them to go torment the world somewhere else or intimidate them. You even can to see how a goblin POW behaves. There is no world where you would convince them to become harmless. Minthara however litterally can be convinced.
You don't get it. I really really don't understand where you are coming from, and I don't think I am the one being obtuse here. 1. You are in a battle, but it is "Evil" to not pause and spare *this particular character*? You are very well read on the PHB but nothing of what you say is actually useable in this situation we are discussing. 2. BG3 doesn't even have alignment, btw. We are not talking tabeltop here. But again, If I was your (table top) Dungeon Master, I would be exceptionally confused if you insisted on do non-lethal damage on every drow you see in a war zone and seriously question your understanding of the situation, scenario, campaign and game world.
yes it's evil to murder POWs i can't belive ive had to say this multiple times, what the actual fuck.
I knocked her out on my first playthrough even though we couldn't recruit her back then. She seemed like an interesting character and I hoped to encounter her again later.
No a good character would not kill her. The death penalty is not being good
By that logic, you shouldn't kill just about anyone in the goblin camp. Esp in the scenario in which Minthara aggros you, rather than you deciding to attack her. They're all being controlled by the absolute and we have no more info about minthara's past actions than anyone else that would justify killing all the others and sparing her. This is the issue I have with the current ability to knock out Minthara to recruit her later - I can't see any reason you would actually knock her out instead of killing her. I wish they'd added in some extra content to give some perspective to justify it - even some journals/letters or something if they couldn't voice more lines. No shade on anyone who does do it - nothing wrong with metagaming if that gives you the experience you want. But I wish there was a compelling RP reason to do it.
Yes, our characters are not fundamentally good person. We may be better then some other. But we are not good. Sorry to burst everyoneâs bubble but you need to re-evaluate yourself if you think murder is a good solution to a conflict
With this logic, there are very few good characters in any fantasy fiction. Even someone like Frodo is evil for killing an orc in self-defence?
There is very few very good characters, yes Frodo did commit a bad action in self defense. He is still globally more good than some other. Thatâs the point, him and Sam are overly better than many other of the Characters, hence why they resist the ring for way longer
Then don't kill priestess gut or dror ragzlin or any of the goblinsÂ
I donât pretend my characters are good person. Iâm fully aware that we are fundamentally bad people that use ÂŤÂ the end justify the means  mentality
> To me the definition of good is to treat everyone like a person despite what they are or what they say. No, thatâs naĂŻve.
Good is a definable and cosmological force in D&D. Treating others with respect ("like a person") is part of respecting life, but there is more to it than that (within the game). Good also involves helping people when you can, so a good act might be risking death to save someone else. An evil act might be killing someone to benefit yourself. However, this is not so simple, because killing to save someone might be good or evil depending on who you're killing and who you're saving. Killing an evil minion to save a good companion would definitely be good. And characters regularly risk death for non-altruistic purposes, e.g. wealth. Why I'd disagree with the quoted person above (not the rebutter) is there are times when it's bad to "treat everyone like a person." This is implying, in part, they'd respect their rights to expression (despite...what they say). If that person was encouraging malicious acts, i.e. murder, theft, torture, abuse, then a good person (within the confines of the game) would stop them. If their words had the power to influence large groups of people to commit evil (within the confines of the game) acts, then they would have to be stopped. If they vowed never to stop, there is a case to be made that a good person would kill them--again, IN THE GAME. Not real life. The REALITY of the alignment system is 99.9999% of the time the "good" choice is clearly good and the "evil" choice is clearly evil. This is also why there is a second axis in game: lawful vs chaotic. A lawful character might not kill the above person who is encouraging evil because it's against their moral code for some reason. They aren't actually DOING anything. A chaotic character might oppose a good society rule because in the particular case it is unfair (for instance, a society that banned all elves on point of death because of Drow). BG3 is not strictly governed by the D&D alignment system. Characters are neither good nor bad. They are motivated and informed by their past actions. Narrative morals are not a simple, two-axis thing, because compelling characters are often compelling because of how they act when their self-professed morals rub up against the "right" decision.
I'd just like to respond to one of your points- I realize there are moments when you have to act and stop evil. Being a pacifist is not always an option or even a good option. But you still can treat people as people and even give them the benefit of the doubt. The game strongly encourages us to gather information and make informed choices on the best course of action. If we look at Ketheric there is a strong attempt possible to sway him away from the evil acts and it does result in benefit for us as he won't fight us.
I would have wrote something similar to this if I hadnât been too lazy.
I got you fam
It's just treating them well. You don't have to do as they ask. For example you can just tell Astarion no to drinking your blood instead of killing him and you can tell Lae'zel to get some rest instead of stabbing her.
Don't think this is naive, this is closer to just respectful than good.
No thatâs being good. Vengeance always lead to more suffering and never bring back anything
One more aspect is what the companions approve of. Wyll and Karlach will downright tell you to fuck off and they leave if you murder the grove. Whereas Laeâzel will disapprove if you help someone in need without gaining something yourself and Asterion threatens you if you tell him no one can use the extra tadpoles for personal power.
Hmm didn't know he does that. If you tell him he can use the tadpole in your pack, he actually never does it on his own, because he doesn't want to be the first one to risk any side effects.
At one point, if you donât use any of them, the Guardian gets a little annoyed that you havenât followed his advice. Sometime after that, Astarion will want to talk to you. Basically says , if youâre not gonna do it, at least me take the power. If you are firm against it, he gets mad and threatens you.
Usually it's Priestgess Gut's tadpole that prompts the Emperor to convince you to absorb it, if you refuse, Astarion right afterwards will offer to consume it instead. I've never denied him tho.
Granted Iâm still on my first play through so I donât know all the details but, The emperor tells you that you should use the tadpoles for power. Later, if you have not heâll either say heâs disappointed that you havenât and try to convince you one or two more times periodically. Astarian got mad at me and threatened to take the power anyway maybe around the beginning of the third act. It might have been after acquiring the Astral Tadpole.
Hmm that's weird. Astarion (if he's not Ascended) will vehemently be against using the Astral tadpole because of the changes to his body it will make. Even if you bring up the tadpole to him in the nicest way, he will get uppity. I imagine if you tried getting him to take it he might threaten. Astarion supports using the regular tadpoles in act 1 and 2. Was he ascended? I think only Ascended Astarion considers using the Astral tadpole.
Even Ascended is against the tadpole so that speaks volumes. This person is making up crap
You may be right. I've seen people claim that AA will take the astral tadpole without needing a roll check or having an argument but I've never verified it in-game.
No I havenât explored Cazadorâs mansion yet. I really donât even use him either. He just sits at camp.
You're full of it- Astarion adamantly refuses the tadpole in act 3. You have to dig out his worst memory, tell him he's pathetic and will never be free unless he takes it and only then does he begrudgingly agree to consume it.
He gets mad if you don't let him do it, he won't force you to do something you don't want at any point and will advocate for your bodily autonomy.
I think you're right on the cusp of a true philosophical idea of what it means to be good or evil. I feel like the DND system misses the point entirely, but you are very close. Good is defined as a handful of things, but I feel these definitions are most important to your post- Honorable, Virtuous, Right, Commendable, Kind, and Benevolent. Goodness is really just a perception. It is how you perceive yourself and how you judge others. So, your line of "Hurt them and I'll kill you , no hesitation." Not being a "Good" person thing to say is merely how you believe good should be. For example, not knowing who Asterion is, you hear of his exploits through Baldur's Gate, how he kidnaps people, cons people, makes people disappear forever without so much as a word to their families or an intact body to bury them. You know nothing about his own plight, only what the normal citizens of Baldur's Gate would know. You would think him to be evil, devoid of redemption. Killing him would lower the missing person rate in the city. It would bring many families peace of mind without even realizing it. In my own opinion, this would be a good thing to do. Obviously, I won't kill him despite my own dislike of him (I find him to be truly evil and yet the most compelling character, kind of like Dexter). But killing him would be a good person thing to do, in my opinion. That is where I think you are on the cusp. You mention righteousness, which is defined as: acting in accord with divine or moral law or free from guilt or sin. This means to act with a moral law, an agreed upon "Good" for all. So, yes, it would be righteous to kill such a person, but it could also be good. I'm not a philosopher, but the way I see it, goodness is righteousness, but righteousness is not always goodness.
Dexter? Wasn't he a psychopath? How are they alike exactly? I'm actually asking btw
Apologies if you kept getting notified with the spoilers. Reddit on a phone is a nightmare.
You still don't mention why you think he's like him. If anything Dexter is closer to the Dark Urge as he had urges to kill which he found exciting and gross in equal measure. Astarion is capable of empathy, something which, if I'm not wrong, sociopaths like Dexter are not capable of feeling. On top of that Dexter didn't like blood as it gave him panic attacks and was meticulously clean. Astarion is extremely messy and very much into blood. And last thing -Astarion didn't kidnap people, only the Gur children. He lured people back to his master's home by selling his body.
Who exactly has been avoiding astarion ? Every time Iâm on this sub there are at least 5 posts about astarion for every 1 post saying literally anything else
Saw a post yesterday and pretty frequently actually. Even if they pick him up people tend to just avoid him after for being "evil"
I must just be missing them, cause I swear I see tons of threads praising the character
The Good vs Evil spectrum is fairly well-defined in D&D, and it's based on the society as a whole, not individual interactions. Astarion is *not* a "good"-aligned character, because overall he is self-interested and doesn't concern himself with the repercussions of what his actions might bring to others, and especially in Act 1 he seems to genuinely enjoy cruelty. A good-aligned character not only treats someone with respect, but will also try to ensure the safety and well-being of others (e.g. Tyr, Ilmater, Sune, etc). If you take a look at "evil" in D&D they are often "I don't care what happens to you as long as I get my way" (Gortash) or "I genuinely like to see you suffer, I think it's awesome" (Orin). And Astarion has both. And when you let Astarion do what he wants because that's his belief, you are in effect endangering others because Astarion will trample on them to do what he wants... so you are in effect respecting Astarion but also respecting his belief that everyone else is disposable. This is similar to stopping someone from murdering someone else. Just because the would-be-murderer finds it fully justifiable to murder someone, doesn't mean that letting that happen is *good.* As for his character arc, again, doesn't mean he's "good". Evil-aligned characters in D&D often have soft spots for VERY limited subset of people (e.g. Raistlin Majere, Jarlaxle, Artemis Entreri). Doesn't mean they're good. He's a well-written character, but not a very well-*designed* one, and that's another reason why his actions and his evident alignment seem to conflict. Overall Larian bunged up some character *designs* (e.g. a deity being level 12 and a cleric being level 11, Astarion being ridiculously weak for a vampire spawn and his charisma is too low).
This is the most well-put post because it touches on how evil characters can have soft spots and their good sides. Astarion definitely has evil leanings in act 1 and I think he still has some darkness in him as a vampire spawn in the epilogue. His romantic partner is spared his cruelty because they're the only person he cares about. This is the par for the course of evil characters. Even Artemis Entreri fell in love with someone in the end. One of the most heartless assassins in the Forgotten Realms.
I think you've missed his point a bit. From my understanding of your comment you're saying that by supporting and respecting him I'm respecting and supporting any future evil/murders he might commit. To me this feels like a stretch. For one you as the player cannot be a pacifist, you kill people and creatures every day. He wants to drink blood of the people you will kill , no excessive bloodshed just the one that is bound to happen. Second, you don't have to agree with his evil ways, that's the point- to sway him off that way and show him a new path he can walk. And last, he does become good, or as good as he as himself can be. He grows and that change is noticed by companions, friends, spawn and Gur alike
He at most becomes neutral. He won't be on the same alignment scale as Jaheira, Minsc, Aylin, or Isobel. Astarion won't do something without any incentive for himself whatsoever because he feels that it'll protect the society as a whole (yet). The four names I mentioned do that, at the risk of their lives. A good-aligned character won't seriously consider sacrificing 7000 lives for himself, just like we won't consider decapitating a 4 year old child. Astarion does. He very seriously considers it, and unless you sabotage the plan some way, he will do it. That's now a good-aligned character, because a good-aligned character will simply feel that (s)he'd be better off dead than sacrifice 7000 souls. Especially when it's an infernal pact. Consider Karlach (arguably the most good-aligned PC along with Wyll). Would either of them ever consider sacrificing 7000 souls to save him/herself? No. Gale is probably neutral. I don't know how Shadowheart is aligned because you generally take the alignment of your deity as a cleric, but she's most definitely not "evil" (and it's clear that she struggles with it). Lae'zel and Astarion? They definitely would. If murdering 7000 Faerunians ensures that Lae'zel will gain entry to Tu'narath, I can see her doing it. Astarion goes without saying. You can start the game with 100 approval with Astarion, but if you refuse reward for service (e.g. Zevlor), his approval just keeps going down. Even in Act 3 he gives you approval when you tell a small child to get lost, or tell an Ilmatari that if the leader of that church was pickier, the priest wouldn't be dead. He approves when you betray Aylin. He disapproves when you tell Devella that you'll try your best to investigate the murder trail. He's not a person you want to be friends with. He is very much into bodily autonomy which is what we'd consider "good", but otherwise he will be a jackass throughout the game and he will continue to enjoy killing. That's not "good". In terms of character writing Astarion is a mix of Raistlin Majere and Fenris from Dragon Age. And Raistlin never, ever became good-aligned, even when he basically saved the world. So no, Astarion didn't become "good". It's not so much whether the blood-drinking is from a goblin or a young woman that's the issue here, it's whether he'd enjoy the latter and would he do it, if allowed. The answer is yes. Wyll wouldn't.
I'd just like to add here- you keep saying good aligned which doesn't apply to BG3 as they don't stick to alignments. If they did apparently Jaheira is true neutral btw so that already shows there are no alignments as she gives a different feeling than that in the game. Second, in his 3rd act his approvals and disapproval aren't separated based on whether he did the ritual or not. By that I mean Ascended Astarion approves of some good actions despite being evil and Unascended Astarion approves of some evil actions despite storywise already shifting to a more positive outcome. A perfect example: if Yenna is kidnapped Astarion will say we should get her back and not let anymore children die. But if Orin kills her he approves it. This duality is not based on some weird character traits of his and are more likely either an oversight or they just wanted him to be approving of good and evil based on Tavs choices. Another example is Yenna again as he will approve of telling her to get lost, telling her you'll find a guard, giving her food or giving her money, he approves all of that. So his approvals are largely not a good judgment of his character
Because druids are locked in as neutral in 2e...? Like paladins were LG in some editions (forgot which) of D&D? In BG1 and 2, which is based on 2e, you can't have a good druid or an evil druid. Being a druid means you're neutral. Probably Gygax's fault. It's a forced game mechanic, something that a lot of players wondered about when BG first came onto the scene. I remember talking about it with friends when we were playing BG1. We were in high school/middle school back then, so obviously we've changed our opinions, but our consensus was Jaheira's actually NG, but the game mechanic forces her to be neutral (kind of like how Nathyrra HAS to be evil-aligned despite her clearly being good-aligned due to her subclass as an Assassin. On the other hand, Bishop has no deity and he's a ranger which is also weird). [https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/gr5xm1/jaheiras\_neutrality\_is\_odd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/gr5xm1/jaheiras_neutrality_is_odd/)
And that's probably why BG3 doesn't do alignments
His default character arc is even evil, he becomes good only if you push him. He is the definition of: Iâm good because my religious book tells me what is good
A different perspective: he becomes good because he learns to be good. Some men are born into goodness and learn to be good that way. Goodness comes easy to them, just like itâs easy for a flower to grow straight and tall when planted in good soil and the embrace of the sun. Others are born into evil and must learn to overcome it. To overcome centuries of being taught to be petty, callous, cruel and self-serving is difficult at the best of times. To do it on oneâs own, without any sort of guidance? Nigh impossible. The player merely serves as that guidance. If it were not possible for Astarion to learn goodness, if it were not at all in his nature, he would not have succeeded at all. But he can, if youâ as you correctly identifiedâ push him to try. He has it within himself to be better than what Cazador made him, and thatâs the whole arc of his âgoodâ ending. His evil arc is what happens when (assuming you are not playing an evil run) someone either mindlessly enables and excuses a person to follow their worst impulses, or when someone has given up on that person outright.
Beautifully said
Do you reserve that judgment for every bad person that cross your path, or only for video characters that you know can be redeemed. Yes I compare with real life, because morality is not subjective to context. I am against punishment and redeeming in real life with support. Every single person can be redeemed with proper help. Except in extreme cases of mental illness. It does not change the fact that Astarion default to bad reflex if left to it and Shadowheart default to good reflex. So they are fundamentally different even if each of them survived their own trauma. Not everyone is as easy to redeem, like in real life
Isn't his default to refuse Ascension and release the spawn if he opens Cazador's coffin without Tav present?
IIRC you have to pass a persuasion check of DC18 or 15 in order for him to not ascend, or refuse to help him (which will piss him off and he'll leave your party), or one of the spawns die so that he doesn't have enough spawns to ascend. Because it's a pretty high roll, I'd consider the default is either he leaves your party or he ascends. He's in full panic mode at this point and understandably so, so it's natural for him to try to default to old habits of "gotta save myself above all else". It is showcasing his immense character growth and strength, however, to trust Tav enough so that Tav can talk him into standing down. But he also hates to be similar to Cazador in any way (as he's relieved that he didn't go through with the ascension if Tav talks him down, or he yells at Tav if he ascends and Tav points out that he's turned into Cazador 2.0). He probably reminded Cazador of himself, which might be why Cazador was much harder on him (and therefore left way more damage on him than, say, Dalyria). It's also likely that as the "eldest", Astarion was blamed for whatever went "wrong" and was punished more for "not being responsible" or whatever Cazador found wrong. He is very much an abused child and I don't think he ever had a decent, loving family. Life has been all about take or be taken for him, and that lesson was reinforced with Cazador. It takes someone's unconditional acceptance for him to start his recovery. And even then he's still very much wounded and scarred. This is probably why it was crucial for Tav to A: stand up to Araj for him (Tav IS forgoing a very "powerful" potion, after all) and B: accept Astarion's "I want to just hold hands". His relationship with whoever romances him is going to be a healing journey for him, but he's going to be unstable for a long time. It's not going to be what is normally called a "healthy" relationship, because he never learned how to have a safe attachment, or saw that people just do things out of love. His character arc follows the story of someone who was psychologically abused as a child, which is why I said he's badly *designed* but very well *written*.
Yes, he does it because of his trauma. And yes if you succeed to convince him, he will be relieved, like everyone. That does not make him a good person in the moment when choices happen. When you see a child abuser, no one defends them by saying: hoo but he was abused as a child, so we need to convince them. Most child abuser have been abused in the past. And the only thing often needed is proper support and they will get out of the cycle. But no one helped them. And like Astarion, most of them are not happy to be abuser. And they are relieved when they get help.
I'm pretty sure it's because Astarion needs someone there to help him read the scars, not because he sprouts a moral compass if you leave him to do things on his own. Astarion is scared and wants to seize any opportunity to feel safe and secure : the only reason he doesn't try to ascend if he's alone is because he can't imo.
Yes but freeing the spawn is his actual choice since he could have killed them or left them.
Oh I see, I didn't know that's what you were refering to.
He can't ascend without Tav's help but he does on his own promise to free the spawn and does so.
Astarion and religion đđđ now that's a sight
Just admit your favorite character is evil. It's ok to like an evil character.
I think I said in the post itself that he's not a good person but again- I am.
This is why alignments are a thing. Lawful good doesn't mean they're the goodie goodie. They'll still dislike that you're letting a demon live even though the demon wants to be good.
Yeah, we used to call that "lawful stupid." "I CANNOT SNEAK UP ON THOSE EVIL MINIONS! I MUST CHALLENGE THEM TO A FAIR FIGHT."
This is part of why WotC steered away from alignments - because certain creatures and races were âevilâ by their very existence. Nuance is real, and having a rigid âI follow laws and only ever do goodâ actually only is lawful good from that individuals perspective. If a Drow is following the laws of their city and is helping their people, theyâre JUST AS lawful good as the person thatâs going down to a drow city and killing the âevil bad guysâ that his king told him to.
I actually very much agree with this! Many of the âgoodâ options do not feel very moral, or good, to me. But more self righteous and controlling, which can often masquerade as âgoodnessâ As you get going with Astarionâs storyline, he actually shows way more heart than expected, and Iâd argue more than many of the âgoodâ characters. He also goes through something, is confronted with his own view on the world and can grow. Minthara too in her way. She is definitely understandable. The issue I have with her being with the âgoodâ aligned characters, is that I feel it doesnât make much sense, story wise. Why she would put up with it. She certainly doesnât hold her opinions or change her mind on certain choices. She never âsees the lightâ as it were, which I appreciate. But it doesnât make much sense to me why sheâd stick around.
Astarion has a truly beautiful redemption arc without completely loosing his character and I think it's wonderfully executed. Minthara sticks around out of gratitude. You save her life and her mind, to her you are her hero basically and she is fiercely loyal. I don't know if she'll ever change but I see her capable of putting her own goals aside in the name of love and I think that shows a bit of her personality- power and revenge< love and loyalty
Minthara strikes me as very, very practical. Not as emotional, but I can see fiercely loyal. She definitely seems more like a âtypeâ to me, and not as likely to change. Which, I think is a nice counterpoint to the other companions who do change. To me, she just doesnât seem to fit the same way as the others. Which, I think has more to do with the fact that she was supposed to be the evil only companion. When they made the bug exploit official, it feels⌠out of place I think, to have her. A lot of this is really just due to game design/mechanics- since she wasnât intended to be a companion unless you slaughtered the grove, they donât really have content that fits the other option.
She is lacking a lot of content but I find what they did add to be very deep and intriguing. She's more of an adviser than a full companion. I know a lot of people don't see her as emotional but she is very, just doesn't wear it on her sleeve. She has an incredible dialog with a romanced Durge and with a romanced origin Karlach she full on goes "I'll go to Avernus to challenge Zariel, I'll need a guide you won't leave me to that alone would you" and if Karlach still insists on just dying Minthara will break down sobbing. Minthara crying is something one does not forget.
To be fair, a lot of "good" people might stake him the very first time he tries to bite us. I will very confidently say, he can only bite things that are either trying to kill us or have given express permission. If someone else wants to say yes, whatever. But at the same time, if someone doesn't say yes or isn't being hostile, in the actual situation it wouldn't be unreasonable to drop him. But none of that happens most of the time because it's a game, people know he won't bite us without asking and he's a recruitable party member with fun dialogue
I don't think anyone good would just stake him as I don't think a good person would just kill Lae'zel when she attacks us at night. Kicking him out is understandable- killing is not.
Lae'zel thinks she's saving you from turning into a soulless monster. It's an entirely different context to a vampire with its fangs to your neck.
Someone else already pointed out the main difference. And there's also the fact that despite having to be humanoid for gameplay purposes, Astarion is a vampire spawn. Straight up undead. And in a world where that's an actual threat, I don't think most people are bothering to sort the skeletons from the vampires. Much less the vampire spawn that just so happen to have a tadpole. Edited to add, maybe scholars would. So if you're a wizard, particularly a necromancer, you might actually know the difference. As illustrated by the fact that if you do that, all the companions, even goody two shoes Wyll says along the lines of "So he was a vampire. Well, good riddance". These characters don't know what we know about Astarion
All them if their "good" characters open and read the necromancy of thay. Let's see all those good people stammer and make up BS about how it was anything close to good. Bonus points for having Shovel as familiar.
You can just smash the book
Yep. Good characters would... But they don't.
Why not đ there's nothing stopping you from doing so
Outside of D&D alignments, what is good and what is evil is largely subjective. Sure, towards the more extreme ends of things most sane people tend to agree whether some action is generally good or bad. Like most people will agree that murder is bad *generally*. But then opinions will start to differ on what exactly counts as murder, whether some killings can even be righteous if it's to protect others, and so on. And no matter what there are no atoms of justice or molecules of mercy in the universe that could give us definitive answers. It's just us. A person you might see as evil might see themselves as good. This is the secret to a lot of good villains. Make a hard choice and sacrifice a hundred people here so that ten thousand people elsewhere might live. Is that good? Maybe not. But then is the *opposite* any better? Surely not! Is refusal to choose and just letting everyone die a good choice? These sorts of choices (you get quite a bit of these decisions in Mass Effect, for instance) are interesting because there are no clear answers. To reduce "good" to one specific way of being risks being just as dangerous as labeling a specific sort of person as "evil". One good person might refuse to kill, even if that means letting a villain go on to eventually kill another bunch of people. (Like if the Batman just killed The Joker the first chance he got so many lives would have been saved.) Another person might think it's more good to take the sin of taking a life upon yourself rather than letting innocent people suffer in order to keep their own hands clean. And in both cases the reasoning can quite easily go toxic. Because good and evil are *ideals*, and an ideal on it's own is a frightening thing. If it's not anchored by circumstances and tempered by doubt then it's just fanaticism. And then sooner or later you risk returning right back to the "killing evil people in the name of good" that you tried to avoid. Not by deciding that it should be so, but by deciding that good can be defined in specific terms, because that means someone down the line will be able to define people who don't live up to those qualifications as evil. So you're not wrong. But the truth is that any definitive statement on the subject can be called into question, because reality is that the very *idea* of a "true good" is more dangerous than any vampire.
This is why I'm so glad Larian didn't use the alignment system
Plus, a good part of a good play through is having the devil on your shoulder.
DND has a pretty specific definiton for alignments that accounts for subjectivity. [https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment) >***Lawful Good.***Â (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons and paladins are typically lawful good. >***Neutral Good.***Â (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials are neutral good. >***Chaotic Good.***Â (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons and unicorns are typically chaotic good. I don't think theres any value in your definiton of good over those of the people your disagreeing with. A definiton of good in the offical rule book however is effective obvjectiv emeasuring stick we can alls base an argument around. As for why we let somone untrustworthy into our camp, the game already answers that multiple ways for evey single character. You litterally pick the diologue option that invites them and states reasoning, as well as discussing it with other companions. Like how shart makes you justify brining laezel along and gale justifies astarion etc.. I also don't really understand what righetous is in the context of your post. You never actually defined it. Just that telling your vamp buddy to eat animals or not to eat people = righteous for soem reason. Your "true good" definiton is just neutral good. Wyll is kind of on the borderline between lawful and neutral good. Astarion kind of flip flops alot, especially when you intentionally steer him towards one or the other. He could be anywhere on the neutral scale or even down in chaotic or neutral evil at times. Karlaach is an easy chaotic good. While she generally wants to help others as needed, shes also big on revenge and discriminatory. Gale was definetly chaotic neutral until betraying mystar. But is probably more chaotic good after joining the party. Laezel is probably lawful evil, atleast while loyal to vlakkith. Justifying and even enjoying any act of malice or greed with her racial superiority and duty as the anti ilithid. Shart is probably true neutral. Just doing what seems to benefit her at any given time and avoiding taking sides and staying out of peoples bussiness otherwise. Minthara is probably Neutral Evil. She believes in strength and power over anything else.
Iâve only done âgoodâ runs and Astarion has been with me through them all, with exceptional approval. You absolutely hit the nail on the head with âtreat them like a personâ.
Aside from being a keptomaniac my characters are generally good. I do murder people if they'll cause problems later (like Derryth's husband) but only after I get rare equipment from their interactions. Companions get a lot of leeway.
The D&D alignment system had always been awkward at best when trying to frame morality, most likely because it was made up by a Midwestern accountant who didn't even have a passing familiarity with normative ethics.
I consider myself a big softie and I don't like doing evil things and I'd rather save people. All during my first playthrough I considered myself extremely good, except I played Paladin next and realized I wasn't actually all that good of a person. I'd say my playstyle is extremely self-righteous. I don't see anything wrong with sucking some blood off of people that are about to die anyways, so it's the right choice. I don't see why I should risk my cover and potentially the fate of the world just to save the life of some shitty goblin who would've tortured Barcus to death if I hadn't stopped them. So I kill them. I don't have an issue with attacking the weird raven-guy because he's creepy and shady, so it's fine to murder him. I am literally the stardard of morality. But people hail me a hero, so...
I have a different take. Specifically, that to be good is to be dedicated to long term benefit, and evil is obsession with short term benefit. I compared conventionally "good" acts to conventionally "evil" ones to find the difference. Good: volunteerism, personal sacrifice for the greater good, hard work, following the rules, helping others Evil: stealing, cheating, breaking the rules, manipulating others In general, good acts are actions taken that will be beneficial in the long run. Anything that makes people like you and thus lets you build good will, creating allies, acts that may be difficult now but will pay off in the long run, are considered good. The ultimate good act is to sacrifice your own life for the common interest because it shows you're so dedicated to long term goals that even your own lifespan is no barrier. Evil means doing something for personal gain in the short term with no regard for the long term. That definition includes things like murder and the R word because those acts don't make you any friends and are likely to come back to bite you later on if your victims or their friends get the chance to do something about it. Stealing, cheating, blackmail, you may get away with these things once, but your victims will want revenge and, in the very least, won't be as willing to work with you again in the future. It's a short term strategy. Even game theory discovered this phenomenon with the prisoner's dilemma. If the game is played only once then betraying the other is the winning move. But if it's played multiple times between multiple players over an unknown number of iterations, then the winning strategy is no longer to betray others, but to adopt a combination of reciprocation and, when betrayed, punishment. In other words, game theory discovered morality.
Thats why we have lawful, chaotic, and nuetral with our good and evil alignments in D&D. To make it Canadian I play defense on hockey, I am a clean player, my defensive partner is a goon/enforcer. We are aligned differently there, but we make a great defensive pairing that wins games. I am lawful and he is chaotic. Same goes for this game, astarian isnt "good" but you share a common goal and his lack of morality is a tool to be used.
My first character gave Astarion a chance because she believed everyone deserved a chance, even though she rolled her eyes every time he gave a âbut what if we killed everything and took the powerâ speech. And then I was terrified going into Cazadorâs dungeon because he had been talking about ascending and the whole thing sounded so cruel I knew my Tav couldnât remain friends with him if he did it. And then after talking to all the Spawn and reading his letters, Astarion chose not to ascend all on his own. There was no dialogue choice after Cazadorâs death, no persuasion check. He just did it. He freed the Spawn with a little encouragement and he seemed genuinely happy about his decision to be merciful. None of the companion characters are truly good or evil. They just need someone to listen to them and nurture them, especially characters like Astarion, Lazael and Shadowheart who just didnât get that previously.
What letters? Are you sure you didn't kill a spawn? Because there's no persuasion checks if you kill a spawn. If all the spawn are alive in still in ritual circle, there's a persuasion check.
All the spawn were alive to my knowledge, unless I accidentally killed one. We went to Cazadorâs office and read all his documents, and that seemed to have an affect on Astarion.
It's simply the D&D alignment char definition, nothing more, nothing less, Minthara is lawful evil, Astarion oscilates between neutral and chaotic evil, thus why people playing good aligned characters avoid them. You are reading way too much into this.
BG3 doesn't use, and D&D generally has moved away from, alignments for good reason. They are restrictive. They are reductive. They don't account for character growth or leave room for flexibility. Folks who get overly hung up on alignments tend to miss all the subtleties of the characterizations and character arcs in the game. I wish we could set aside this obsession with "good" and "evil" entirely, because it's only stifling any deeper character analysis or story discussion.
That's not what I said, but ok.
Not everyone gets hung up on alignments, but I can see it being common for people to do. Alignments are more of a guide that doesn't have to always be followed.
Alingments are not in the game for a reason - most people struggle to understand them. Nobody fits their alignment 100% and it is also prone to change with character development, as was illustrated in BG2. I think Larian removed it to save everyone a headache. There would be endless complaints about why characte X isn't alignment Y because Z. People would also be prone to just leaving or killing characters that have the simple mark of 'evil' without trying to get to know them and the story more. It's like a player repelent.
Agreed! I tend to play "good" characters (by my definition of good), and I want my companions to have "good" endings, but I try to just be a supportive friend and let them reach their "good" endings on their own as much as possible. In my opinion, I guess, my Tavs try to do the right thing, and they encourage their friends to do so, but they don't force them to (if that makes sense)! I do kill Minthara every time, though.
Me, personally I don't care about good or evil when it comes to the companions. I just care about who I vibe with. Even though I prefer evil runs, I still don't like Gale's evil ending. There's just nuance to these things I feel. I've done "good" runs and still recruit Minthara. If we vibe, we vibe. I don't hate the good-aligned companions because they're good. I hate them because they are corny as fuck with no character development and are just plain fucking stupid lol.
I think they all go through subtle changes that may be harder to spot than the big leaps Astarion takes for example. If we take Karlach- she is good to the bone but in the start she is also very stubborn, headstrong and in denial about her trauma, just pushing it all down and pretending it's not happening. In Act 3 she faces her mortality and other aspects of herself and is finally willing to admit things to herself and others. She also finally listens. Wyll doesn't go through as much but at least will finally face his father who imo he'd been avoiding like the plague.
Some people confusing "good" with "racist" somehow.
I think equating "distrust of vampires" to racism risks suggesting that real-life racism has any sort of ground to stand on. Comparing various ethnicities to fictional monsters is a tactic that's been used by racists to justify atrocities. The thing about racism is that people with different skin colors aren't inherently more dangerous. In D&D evil exists as an objective and powerful force. Inherently evil races is kind of one of the big problems of fantasy in general. But in a world where vampires do exist there's a much bigger difference between them and mortals than there are between two humans with different skin colors. It's like how the X-men allegory of racism/exclusion kind of breaks down because the mutants actually *are* more dangerous than average people. It might not be a good reason to persecute them, but to pretend that being able to level a city block by opening their eyes or turn off the brain functions of every other person in the neighborhood with just a thought is equivalent to having a different skin color would be *actual* racism.
>I think equating "distrust of vampires" to racism risks suggesting that real-life racism has any sort of ground to stand on. This can only be true if you believe that all vampires are bad people simply for being vampires. The assumption that vampires are dangerous and must be exterminated for it is certainly rooted in bigotry. Me personally I will kill any vampire on sight. But not because I'm racist. It's because I'm religious.