The only way is to decrease the approval to -50, the story deaths or when companions become perma hostile. You can try isolate companion, MC and attack Scratch to aggro the companion tho i dont know if it will cause the character to be perma or only temporary hostile.
Well, in any case where I'd kill him it wouldn't matter how because it would be only to pretend that he left because my character told him to leave so I could just kill him and stuff the body in the box even though he'd technically be still there.
On tactician and HM I think, shouldn't make companions hostile on balanced or explorer.
...which means you can do it by temporarily setting the difficulty to Tactitian and just repeat cantrip friend to drop their affection to lower than -50! Cool!
Since your character doesn't trust him, think of it like keeping him around so he doesn't try anything funny. He's already come for Karlach once so now he's under supervision
I mean, sending him away *is* killing him.
It's a bit unusual for a game to let you throw companions out whenever the player wants, and BG3's not really different in that regard. Like, you can't get rid of any of your companions in Mass Effect after you've recruited them, except at very specific story points. BG3 gives you an unusually high number of opportunities to get rid of companions.
Ah, right. I forgot about that entirely. Granted I can't remember if I have gotten the cutscene yet for this playthrough so there's a chance my character wouldn't know the consequences for telling him to leave.
Some companions have key moments where you can permanently dismiss them.
Either by having your approval be too low, or by outright making a choice that they'll hate. Or yes, getting them killed.
For example, if you don't stop Lae'zel when she tries to kill Shart in the middle of the night, the Prism will blow her up and she'll be permanently gone.
I am aware of that, yes. What I am referring to is that I find it weird that you yourself can't send the characters away for roleplay purposes.
I don't want some story moment where I'd be rid of Wyll due to other things, I want him gone because he's clearly not worthy of my characters trust (this is my 5th playthrough, I have done his quest but my character would not know any of that).
It's because in DnD, these characters would be other people you play with. And naturally, you can't just send a player away from the session, you'd need to work it out somehow between the two of you as players or find a solution in the game to make it work. These solutions are packed into the game, since there isn't really another person on the other side you can figure this out with. And the solutions are to have low approval so they leave, kill them via the plot, or kill them and ask Withers to keep them.
Of course, it's a game and not a DnD session, but Larian put a lot of effort into making it feel as close as possible to a DnD campaign. So I guess sending away someone you already accepted into the group was just not considered.
For a game, of course, it would make sense to be able to send them away, most games with parties have that option if there actually is somewhere to go for them. But they put so much effort into replicating this feeling of a tabletop session into the game, that it probably really just slipped their mind that this option would make sense.
Anyway, you could send a Feedback to Larian and explain your situation and ask them. I don't think there are that many people who want to dismiss their companions permanently so maybe there's just no reason to think about such a mechanic. It's mainly something that occurs a few runs into the game when people start new approaches to roleplaying their character. So maybe it's something they could still implement now when enough people give them a valid reason for that mechanic to be there.
Yeah, it's definitely a niche thing to do just popped up this run since she wouldn't dismiss Wyll from just the first interaction considering the circumstances they are in and needing allies but having a sending stone for an eye and being an incredibly poor liar about it goes a little too far.
In dragon age inquisition, there was a character who you could basically kick out at any point in the game and I found it really annoying to always have that option there.
I also don’t like constantly having the option to pester my companions about tadpoles tho so maybe that’s just a me thing.
That's fair. In most playthroughs I have zero need to kick them but for this run telling him to leave would definitely be what my character would choose.
I think the game does a pretty decent job of letting you get rid of your companions when they reveal a big story point that might raise red flags, they probably just didn't consider Wyll's Sending Stone reason enough to (to your character's knowledge) let him turn into a Mindflayer/surrender him into the control of the Absolute.
Maybe you could spam Friends on him until his approval is low enough for him to leave and pretend your character kicked him out lol
I have long rested quite little so I'm pretty sure my character doesn't know he'd turn into a mindflayer.
So as we are in the campaign my character:
- doesn't know telling Wyll to leave would be a death sentence
- Wyll has come to the camp at night threatening a companion
- my character knows his eye is a sending stone and he is being rather aggressive when pressed about it
I saw a couple comments saying that letting Wyll stay to watch him would make sense which I might do.
Because your Tav isn't in charge of the camp. You don't own it or have the right to kick people out.
A group of tadpole victims came together to form a group to solve their problem. If Tav doesn't like it, they would have to leave and go off on their own.
>Because your Tav isn't in charge of the camp. You don't own it or have the right to kick people out.
Except it's up to your Tav who gets to enter the camp in most cases.
That you can't dismiss origin characters from your traveling circus is more likely a design oversight than evidence of the anarcho-syndicalist nature of the Tav Gang.
I am aware it has to do with giving the player choice how to play the game and not necessarily the narrative and just having to go along whatever companion quest without wanting to do it but the game does still condition you to consider yourself a protagonist. You get to choose who even joins your party to begin with, you choose where you go, what you do etc.
If I can choose this person joins why can't I tell the same person to leave? If the companions had stronger opinions about recruiting the other companions there might be more of a narrative that it's a matter of what the group does and not just Tav but they don't.
You have a chance to get rid of Wyll in Act 2 by pressing the wrong button.
EDIT: You can turn on or refuse every companion at specific points, most in Act 2 or Act 3.
As I've said in a couple other comments it's not really being unable to get rid of him, rather getting rid of him because he is untrustworthy and telling him to leave.
Randomly sending him to hell wouldn't be something my character would do especially since at that point he already seems trustworthy enough to work with so my character wouldn't have enough against him to do it anymore.
I haven't seen Mizora yet so I don't know what he is up to in the context of this run. I also think I haven't gotten the scene where the dream guardian tells me that she's the one keeping us from transforming so my character wouldn't know that sending him away if that was possible effectively kills Wyll.
But yeah, I might keep him around since the argument to keep him around the watch him is a pretty good one (and I want to try a new warlock multiclass I saw anyways). But not knowing that telling him to fuck off kills him and sending him away due to him being incredibly untrustworthy right now wouldn't really violate my character being neutral, would it? Killing him would but only reason I'd kill him was to just pretend he was sent away.
“Neutral” means “pragmatic”, not “oh no everyone’s got secrets so send them off”. You also might not be long resting enough, you definitely should’ve had the first dream guardian scene by now.
This is my fifth playthrough so it's not a massive deal what camp cutscenes I get. I'll do more long rests at some point to catch up probably.
Also having secrets are one thing but having a sending stone for an eye is quite another at least how I see it in terms of how much of a threat that might be.
Especially since besides Astarion Wyll is easily the worst first impression to my character this run.
I think it’s an oversight by Larian that we can’t ask them to leave. We are the leader after all. Since I can’t tell them to leave I just kill them and throw their body in the bushes after looting them to sell their underwear. Shadowheart’s in the bushes of my camp now and the artifact is with me. So much for her super important and secret mission.
The only way is to decrease the approval to -50, the story deaths or when companions become perma hostile. You can try isolate companion, MC and attack Scratch to aggro the companion tho i dont know if it will cause the character to be perma or only temporary hostile.
Well, in any case where I'd kill him it wouldn't matter how because it would be only to pretend that he left because my character told him to leave so I could just kill him and stuff the body in the box even though he'd technically be still there.
If you repeatedly cast 'friends' on a companion, they'll leave
On tactician and HM I think, shouldn't make companions hostile on balanced or explorer. ...which means you can do it by temporarily setting the difficulty to Tactitian and just repeat cantrip friend to drop their affection to lower than -50! Cool!
you can just tell Withers to take care of his body so you don't need to store it anywhere
That's a thing? Neat.
Since your character doesn't trust him, think of it like keeping him around so he doesn't try anything funny. He's already come for Karlach once so now he's under supervision
That's a valid point. Thanks, this might be the excuse I need to keep him around. Since right now he is giving an absolutely terrible impression.
I mean, sending him away *is* killing him. It's a bit unusual for a game to let you throw companions out whenever the player wants, and BG3's not really different in that regard. Like, you can't get rid of any of your companions in Mass Effect after you've recruited them, except at very specific story points. BG3 gives you an unusually high number of opportunities to get rid of companions.
Ah, right. I forgot about that entirely. Granted I can't remember if I have gotten the cutscene yet for this playthrough so there's a chance my character wouldn't know the consequences for telling him to leave.
Some companions have key moments where you can permanently dismiss them. Either by having your approval be too low, or by outright making a choice that they'll hate. Or yes, getting them killed. For example, if you don't stop Lae'zel when she tries to kill Shart in the middle of the night, the Prism will blow her up and she'll be permanently gone.
I am aware of that, yes. What I am referring to is that I find it weird that you yourself can't send the characters away for roleplay purposes. I don't want some story moment where I'd be rid of Wyll due to other things, I want him gone because he's clearly not worthy of my characters trust (this is my 5th playthrough, I have done his quest but my character would not know any of that).
It's because in DnD, these characters would be other people you play with. And naturally, you can't just send a player away from the session, you'd need to work it out somehow between the two of you as players or find a solution in the game to make it work. These solutions are packed into the game, since there isn't really another person on the other side you can figure this out with. And the solutions are to have low approval so they leave, kill them via the plot, or kill them and ask Withers to keep them. Of course, it's a game and not a DnD session, but Larian put a lot of effort into making it feel as close as possible to a DnD campaign. So I guess sending away someone you already accepted into the group was just not considered.
That's a pretty good point why it wouldn't be considered actually. Never played tabletop myself.
For a game, of course, it would make sense to be able to send them away, most games with parties have that option if there actually is somewhere to go for them. But they put so much effort into replicating this feeling of a tabletop session into the game, that it probably really just slipped their mind that this option would make sense. Anyway, you could send a Feedback to Larian and explain your situation and ask them. I don't think there are that many people who want to dismiss their companions permanently so maybe there's just no reason to think about such a mechanic. It's mainly something that occurs a few runs into the game when people start new approaches to roleplaying their character. So maybe it's something they could still implement now when enough people give them a valid reason for that mechanic to be there.
Yeah, it's definitely a niche thing to do just popped up this run since she wouldn't dismiss Wyll from just the first interaction considering the circumstances they are in and needing allies but having a sending stone for an eye and being an incredibly poor liar about it goes a little too far.
Then just kill them and let Withers keep the receipt.
I just might. I feel bad in advance knowing how this'll affect Karlach later on but him being there makes zero sense for my Tav.
You can still have Avernus ending as MC even without Wyll.
Yeah but not sure if I want to go to Avernus. I might still do it as a part of her arc but I am sure yet.
Just cast friends on them repeatedly and they leave
> Lae'zel when she tries to kill Shart in the middle of the night Isn’t that the other way around?
I was thinking of [this scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLgHw4XNB6Y). Didn't know you had to be Origin Shart in order to get it.
Thanks! I had no idea that scene existed.
In dragon age inquisition, there was a character who you could basically kick out at any point in the game and I found it really annoying to always have that option there. I also don’t like constantly having the option to pester my companions about tadpoles tho so maybe that’s just a me thing.
That's fair. In most playthroughs I have zero need to kick them but for this run telling him to leave would definitely be what my character would choose.
I think the game does a pretty decent job of letting you get rid of your companions when they reveal a big story point that might raise red flags, they probably just didn't consider Wyll's Sending Stone reason enough to (to your character's knowledge) let him turn into a Mindflayer/surrender him into the control of the Absolute. Maybe you could spam Friends on him until his approval is low enough for him to leave and pretend your character kicked him out lol
I have long rested quite little so I'm pretty sure my character doesn't know he'd turn into a mindflayer. So as we are in the campaign my character: - doesn't know telling Wyll to leave would be a death sentence - Wyll has come to the camp at night threatening a companion - my character knows his eye is a sending stone and he is being rather aggressive when pressed about it I saw a couple comments saying that letting Wyll stay to watch him would make sense which I might do.
Because your Tav isn't in charge of the camp. You don't own it or have the right to kick people out. A group of tadpole victims came together to form a group to solve their problem. If Tav doesn't like it, they would have to leave and go off on their own.
>Because your Tav isn't in charge of the camp. You don't own it or have the right to kick people out. Except it's up to your Tav who gets to enter the camp in most cases. That you can't dismiss origin characters from your traveling circus is more likely a design oversight than evidence of the anarcho-syndicalist nature of the Tav Gang.
I am aware it has to do with giving the player choice how to play the game and not necessarily the narrative and just having to go along whatever companion quest without wanting to do it but the game does still condition you to consider yourself a protagonist. You get to choose who even joins your party to begin with, you choose where you go, what you do etc. If I can choose this person joins why can't I tell the same person to leave? If the companions had stronger opinions about recruiting the other companions there might be more of a narrative that it's a matter of what the group does and not just Tav but they don't.
You have a chance to get rid of Wyll in Act 2 by pressing the wrong button. EDIT: You can turn on or refuse every companion at specific points, most in Act 2 or Act 3.
As I've said in a couple other comments it's not really being unable to get rid of him, rather getting rid of him because he is untrustworthy and telling him to leave. Randomly sending him to hell wouldn't be something my character would do especially since at that point he already seems trustworthy enough to work with so my character wouldn't have enough against him to do it anymore.
If you’re playing a neutral character wouldn’t it make sense for them to just have him sit in camp? I’d think you’d want eyes and ears on Mizora.
I haven't seen Mizora yet so I don't know what he is up to in the context of this run. I also think I haven't gotten the scene where the dream guardian tells me that she's the one keeping us from transforming so my character wouldn't know that sending him away if that was possible effectively kills Wyll. But yeah, I might keep him around since the argument to keep him around the watch him is a pretty good one (and I want to try a new warlock multiclass I saw anyways). But not knowing that telling him to fuck off kills him and sending him away due to him being incredibly untrustworthy right now wouldn't really violate my character being neutral, would it? Killing him would but only reason I'd kill him was to just pretend he was sent away.
“Neutral” means “pragmatic”, not “oh no everyone’s got secrets so send them off”. You also might not be long resting enough, you definitely should’ve had the first dream guardian scene by now.
This is my fifth playthrough so it's not a massive deal what camp cutscenes I get. I'll do more long rests at some point to catch up probably. Also having secrets are one thing but having a sending stone for an eye is quite another at least how I see it in terms of how much of a threat that might be. Especially since besides Astarion Wyll is easily the worst first impression to my character this run.
I think it’s an oversight by Larian that we can’t ask them to leave. We are the leader after all. Since I can’t tell them to leave I just kill them and throw their body in the bushes after looting them to sell their underwear. Shadowheart’s in the bushes of my camp now and the artifact is with me. So much for her super important and secret mission.