So, can we kill companions for they're tadpoles?

[The Bunny In the Bush]

... Need me them worms yo

[Agony_Aunt]

I'd guess only if you dismiss them from your party and then later on, maybe you can meet them again and kill them.

I told Astarion to bugger off as soon as i met him, but so far, not met him in game. If i do though, he's a goner.

[Blood of Kerensky]

I don't understand your topic. Your companions are not tadpoles, they have them inside of them.

[terror923]

Originally posted by Blood of Kerensky:

I don't understand your topic. Your companions are not tadpoles, they have them inside of them.

when you kill a true soul you get their tadpole.
OP was asking if killing his party members who also have tadpoles drop it so he can use it.

[Blood of Kerensky]

Originally posted by terror923:

Originally posted by Blood of Kerensky:

I don't understand your topic. Your companions are not tadpoles, they have them inside of them.

when you kill a true soul you get their tadpole.
OP was asking if killing his party members who also have tadpoles drop it so he can use it.

Aaaaaah, I understand it now. People not knowing the difference of their, there and they're make it hard to communicate with each other.

On topic: Depends on the stage of the story, I think I got one when one companion killed the other.

[HereIsPlenty]

Communication is about a meaning being clear. I saw the grammatical mistake but still understood the meaning - why couldnt you?

[KocLobster]

Originally posted by HereIsPlenty:

Communication is about a meaning being clear. I saw the grammatical mistake but still understood the meaning - why couldnt you?

Agreed. It isn't much of a leap going from they're to their lol

[CoffeeBro]

Originally posted by Blood of Kerensky:

Originally posted by terror923:

when you kill a true soul you get their tadpole.
OP was asking if killing his party members who also have tadpoles drop it so he can use it.

Aaaaaah, I understand it now. People not knowing the difference of their, there and they're make it hard to communicate with each other.

On topic: Depends on the stage of the story, I think I got one when one companion killed the other.

Sorta like Karen and karen.

[Crewarke]

i tried killing one of them to test it out. no tadpole in the body. but i'm some way through the game already, idk if you get tadpoles if you kill them the first time you meet.

[trippint82]

Honestly not sure why they don't have tadpoles I killed them thinking you could just harvest them.....I mean they do carry them....idk maybe its a balance thing...story wise makes zero sense tho...

[Lur Nen Rue]

Iirc all your companion (and you) tadpoles are special and protected by plot armor

[The Bunny In the Bush]

shame, wanted to slaughter them on my dark urge run for early game power

[Mathias Giovanni]

Aren't the ones you munch on the enemy tadpoles? The knowledge your tadpoles have from the ship are all in the same boat. Pun intended. The tadpoles you consume from the other enemies like the leaders are part of the main story "enemy" if you will. So they have a connection and different experience to things than yours and your companions.

But I do like the dark urge of the player here to think outside the box.

[momonami5]

Originally posted by HereIsPlenty:

Communication is about a meaning being clear. I saw the grammatical mistake but still understood the meaning - why couldnt you?

Deductive reasoning is part of IQ some people can't put things together without further explaination.

[Eqqsquizitine Buble-Schwinslow]

Originally posted by HereIsPlenty:

Communication is about a meaning being clear. I saw the grammatical mistake but still understood the meaning - why couldnt you?

Shaming someone by asking them "why can't you understand bad grammar" is at least as bad as not understanding it, and if you don't understand why you should probably sit down and think things through.

Every single excuse for bad grammar can also apply to the person failing to understand bad grammar, be it dyslexia, a lack of experience, the given language being a second language, being a child, etc. etc.

So what exactly is the point of your remark?

Kerensky wasn't even remotely rude, so it can't reasonably be that you were trying to defend someone from an attack that never occured, unless you too fail to infer meaning from context, which invalidates your right to judge.


Learning proper grammar is 100% a positive.
Providing those who are able with excuses not to learn valuable skills is 100% a negative.

[Sadorath]

Originally posted by Eqqsquizitine Buble-Schwinslow:

Originally posted by HereIsPlenty:

Communication is about a meaning being clear. I saw the grammatical mistake but still understood the meaning - why couldnt you?

Shaming someone by asking them "why can't you understand bad grammar" is at least as bad as not understanding it, and if you don't understand why you should probably sit down and think things through.

Every single excuse for bad grammar can also apply to the person failing to understand bad grammar, be it dyslexia, a lack of experience, the given language being a second language, being a child, etc. etc.

So what exactly is the point of your remark?

Kerensky wasn't even remotely rude, so it can't reasonably be that you were trying to defend someone from an attack that never occured, unless you too fail to infer meaning from context, which invalidates your right to judge.


Learning proper grammar is 100% a positive.
Providing those who are able with excuses not to learn valuable skills is 100% a negative.

Off topic... Save your reprimanding their use of language they're going to continue to be the way they want. It's neither here nor there. This line of communication is affecting the thread I to would like to know if I can harvest my companions brain worms.