I've been hanging around steam and Reddit for the last couple of days, and the one criticism I just can't agree with so far is regarding the companions.

The main things people say about them is that they are too evil. And this claim is super strange to me. There are a total of five party members so far. Let's go over them.

Layzel - Okey layzel is super evil, bitchy and angry. First of all I don't think it's so wrong to have one of those. Aside from that, I don't know what did you expect. I know almost nothing about the forgotten realms and the bit of knowledge I do have comes from bg1 and 2. And based on the githenki in bg2 Layzel is just right, scheming, evil, and follows a rigid code of honour to the letter. So she is not a good character, but she is not badly written.

Shadowheart - the reception for shadowheart is really confusing for me. Now based on her deity I assume she is an evil character, but in the game itself she doesn't really strikes me as particularly evil. She is selfish and secretive, but that's about it. In the part of the game we have she mostly cares about the tadpole, which is fair. Most of all she reminds me of Morrigan from Dragon Age Origins, but she is more subtle, less flirty and less over the top. Most of all, I see a lot of potential for growth with her.

Astorian - aside from the very flashy (and super buggy) introduction, Astorian strikes me as kind of a cool gay guy. The only evil thing he did in my playthrough was to try to feed on me, and afterwards he claimed that he usually only feeds on animals which is Eduard level good. He seems to me like chaotic neutral at the most.

Gail & Wyll - these two are good, not much room for speculation. I'll just say that all the companions are not "Jesus good" or "Lucifer bad", and all of them are more complexed than that, which is a good thing.

So to summarize - we have one evil party member, 2 who are possibly bad but the jury is out right now, and two good party members. and all of the characters are fun and interesting, even though we haven't seen much of them yet.

+1 I think Shadowheart gets flak because of the name.

Well Shadowheart has the tag 'Evil Cleric' so kinda sure she's not Good at least

I am actually very pleased to see that we got some evil companions from the start on.

Astarion- Creepy gay vampire that always tries to hit on you. He's not creepy as a vampire though, so I guess it evens out in the end?
Gale- Honestly I kinda like this companion. He's boring and stodgy, but those types exist and it makes him a believable wizard.
Lae'zel- I'd probably kill her to be honest, if I didn't need a melee character
Shadowheart- She bugged out on me so I'm not playing with her anymore. Terrible name, seems okish as a character. But to me, she has a weak personality and isn't much of a contender for a memorable character.
Wyll- No experience playing with him.

Yeah I feel like the only indication to her evilness is the character description (Shar sounds like an evil gal) but nothing in the game itself

Well Shar is, among other things, the Goddess of Secrets so it's probably a bit too early to judge

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Shar

Gale and Wyll are actually neutral. There is no good character at the moment in EA. It was stated by Swen during the panel from hell event.

I personally like the companions. I ditched Astarion, not because he wasn't well played, but because he was incompatible with my drow priestess. Touching my character was a death sentence for him.

Lae'zel is interesting. She's the bold villain type. I dig it. Gale as well, even if he's pompous, has some interesting lines. Shadowheart is the one my character gets the closest to, cause they are both selfish and consider evil to be a way of getting where they want to go.

I haven't played with Wyll much yet. I will get him into my party on my second playthrough.

Shar is the original Evil of the Forgotten Realms. She was there at the beginning with her sister Selune, and then got jealous after she and her sister created Chauntea... Chauntea wanted a sun to stay warm, so Selune obliged... Shar wasn't happy about that, and since then has plotted to end everything.

There is no real room for debate over Shar's alignment. She's NE.

Shadowheart, on the other hand, I haven't managed to work out. When the party comes across the broken statue of Selune, she has an odd moment - and my redemption arc senses tingled (maybe the PC can have some influence on her?). She does seem to have a softer side at times, but she tries to hide it behind her abrasiveness.

Lae'zel, on the other hand seems a typical Githyanki and so would definitely fall into the category of LE just from her attitude and stark pragmatism.

I AM disappointed that both female companions start out on the evil side of the alignment chart. I don't want to have a companion I need to "fix" in order earn their friendship or love. (I basically play only good characters, and there's been times with both of them I've been tempted to send them back to camp.)

What? the original evil? Wasn't Tharizdun that?

Don't worry, there'll be more NPCs in the future

Layzel has a superiority complex which irks me. I don't mind selfish, or hell, even sadistic characters, but since there's no other choice as a frontline, you kinda have to roll with her unless you're a fighter yourself. Also, for an uber-soldier as she describes herself, it's pretty pathetic to get caught and trapped by two greenhorn tieflings. I would honestly re-write that scenario to something more believable or in-line with her combat experience. Other than that, she's fine as a character - if she has the capacity to evolve and become more humble along the way, it would be perfect.


Shadowheart. The name is obviously imbecilic, not even 12 year old me would consider this "cool". Like said, she is an "evil" cleric but she's just mostly selfish and reserved, which is fine for a neutral character. I am not sure how feasable it is to change her name now (probably a very slim chance, as it would require re-recording a lot of dialogues) but I sense there could be a lot of room for growth once and if she starts opening up.


Astorian gave me a creepy vibe from the start, not because he's a vampire, but like, his whole demeanour is just out of place (given the circumstances) and wierd, plus my char is a rogue so no need for two. No experience, instantly delegated to the camp.


Gale - kinda boring to be honest. His comments are cringy but seems like a good guy.


Wyll - the cool Gale. He has one eye, a pact with a demon and is altruistic/repentent in a believable way. His interaction with the goblins is interesting, although kind of an unbelievable coincidence.

Shadowheart is a typical member of Shar clergy:
likes deception to deals with things,
doesn't like fighting heads on or starting fights,
hide her identity,
is secretive.

Shar clerics aren't "Mouahaha, lets kill everyone in gruesome murder" evil. They are subversive evil, they manipulate and corrupt to achieve their goals. Sometimes do assassination, but that's mostly reserved for people who went directly against Shar.

They have to hide and be secretive because the Church is outlawed in most of Faerun.

Tharizdun is more Greyhawk/Nentir Vale/Exandia, in FR his presence tends to be more indirect, he doesn't seem to have worshippers in realmspace.

I enjoy the companions quite a lot, I think one of the reasons why is the way they've handled the aligments.
I've got to commend Larian for avoiding the usual alignment pitfall, namely turning chaotic evil into chaotic stupid, or lawful good into lawful stupid.
With the above, and Oath system of 5e in mind, I am very much hyped for a Paladin companion. Hopefully we will get LN, or maybe a little bit more chaotic one.

Lae'zel can be bossy to the point of being annoying, but that's frankly her lawful part of the aligment. She sticks to the protocol, and what she was taught in martial obsessed society. Having done a bit of her quest, I hope she will evolve along the way.


Shadowheart I've disliked at first, but when she started warming up a little, I'm actually interested about the most.
Her aligment is probably NE ?


Gale is somewhat boring, his affliction aside. But it's good to have him around, to counteract the overall brooding mood of the party. Although I am unsure about his aligment. Strikes me as either CG or CN ?


Astarion I have not traveled with yet, but I've definitely enjoyed his conversations in the camp. Definitely Chaotic Evil aligment wise, which honestly is the high point of the BG3 alignment "system".


Wyll, he much like Astarion awaits for the second playthrough.

I'll admit this is genuinely the first RPG where I liked all the companions and didn't find one annoying and I'm including every RPG I've played over 20+ years from DOS1+2, the Fallouts, the Mass Effects and KoToRs. As far as it goes they all seem well written and the characters actually stick to their personalities and don't warp their opinions because the player choices/story needs them to.

I love these companions, and that is rare for me. Shale was the only companion I cared for in the entire Dragon Age series. I couldn’t care less for any Pillars of Eternity companions. DOS2’s companions never particularly gripped me. But I’m genuinely interested in all of these companions.

I’m still trying to figure out what Wyll’s actual alignment is. He feels utterly consistent as a character, but he doesn’t fit all that neatly into a box. His persona is a bit of a sham; he clearly wants to be seen as a hero, but that desire does motivate him to play the part. I’m still not all that far in, yet, so nobody spoil it.

I’m really digging this. Kudos to Larian’s writing staff. Ya’ll making BioWare (and I mean classic, KotoR / Mass Effect / DAO BioWare) look like a bunch of chumps.

I've enjoyed the companions and can't wait to see more of them. I like Gale's sense of humor. Lae'zel seems perfect to me, she's Githyanki through and through. I really thought I'd hate Astarion and would never have him in a party after his reveal but I immediately fell in love with his snarkiness and want to find out his whole story. He had me when he said "well we obviously dont travel in the same circles." LOL Even Shadowheart is ok, and Wyll, while I havent travelled with him much yet is Cute and seems to be a good guy. I can't wait for more companions to choose from if they are all as good as these 5.

So far my rating & ranking of companions:
- - - party
1. my character (sadly conversation checks are based only on main character stats)
2. Gale, Wizard, Pros: well made, good looking male, quite friendly and even funny, he can say no in a nice way -- Cons: he is a bit weird with his wizard stuff but that's his job I guess
3. Shadowheart, Cleric, Pros: she can be convinced with good arguments and turns friendly if given time -- Cons: she likely hides dark secrets, better watch your back
4. Laza'zel, Fighter, Pros: she is quite useful in a fight -- Cons: keep talks short and on subject with her, she is a very simple character, just a kill machine with rigid concepts about everything else, will take time to make her mind more open
- - -
5. Wyll, Warlock: Pros: he is helping those in need (at least at start, idk later yet) -- Cons: he isn't modest at all, could be a vampire based on some pics (I don't know yet if it is, but I don't like bad vampires, except the hot girl from Underworld movie because she wasn't evil), and mostly it is a Warlock which isn't the most needed class in my party comp limited to 4
6. Astarion, Rogue: Pros: if I ever need to sacrifice a companion, this is the perfect candidate, will gladly do it -- Cons: everything

Nope, not that one is a vampire. Unless there are two of them. And Shadowheart is cute, dark secrets or not.

Astarion gives of Dorian Gray or Vicomte de Valmont vibes. I love it.

I'm liking all the companions so far and I still hoping that alignment is introduced and characters are able to change alignments.

Shadowheart is evil but seems to having a crisis of faith and Wyll is good but is pretty clearly on path to damnation -- every time I let him choose how to resolve an issue he takes the low road.

There are things about the game I want to improve but, so far, the writing is good! (even if it doesn't really feel like BG )

I am too early in the content to judge now but my first impressions are excellent. In fact I can't say what my expectations were exactly only that I hoped I would like them enough to feel involved in their story and that was answered quickly. These are interesting characters with great dialogue. Also, I decided to break from my typical choices for D&D (dwarf cleric, human ranger) and RP as a Lolth Sworn Drow because I can and it seemed interesting. I may regret it later but so far its really cool. This is where the game diverges from past models and it will be interesting how I navigate when most people greet you with pleasantries based around the fact you trying to kill each other. I started very cool on the game but now I am feeling it. I have been avoiding any spoilers and will learn the ropes the hard way coming in a bit blind. It just leaves surprises. I am blown away so far. Count me among the Ya votes on NPCs. Everyone's opinion is valid I suppose but I can't help but wonder what the people complaining wanted or if they were just not paying attention to the conversations. There is a lot of nuance and subtlety which can be lost on people who maybe aren't readers or very literate.

I like them all except Astarion.. but that's only because of my selfishness for just not at all liking companions in games that my character can't be like. If I can't be a vampire then I don't want to run with a vampire... When the game is completed I will never ever have him in my party and will slay him out of spite.

I can't tell yet if they will be "good" on the long run, but I liked some of their starting points and I found most of the complaints about them being bad WAY too hasty, as some of the reasons for it fairly stupid.
Not everyone who doesn't want to suck you off from the first meeting is immediately "human garbage that should die on the spot and doesn't deserve to be called a companion" as some comments suggested.

The companions are all well written, although Shadowheart clearly is the most fleshed out of all of them, she has the most lines and interactions. According to her bio she's on a suicide mission but having a crisis of faith, so I'm guessing depending on our actions we might manage to make her stray from that path. Or she'll try to kill us eventually for it. We'll see.

That said, my main criticism is not that they're all leaning towards evil or neutral but that they're all trying to be edgy. It's like a freak show. It is not a bad thing, but more grounded and down to earth characters are needed to balance and even things out harmoniously.

I'm glad to see there is a nice discussion here, I'm used to the shitstorm of steam. A few more comments-

Astarion is quite awesome. I don't know whether they made him intentionally gay or if they were just trying to create a flamboyant cool dude. Either way he is very cool and I really like him. Still think he is closer to good than evil.

About Shadowheart - I stand by what I said. She might be super choutic evil in disguise, but I highly doubt it. From here on out SPOILERS:

I don't get this repeated nonsense.

Wyll and Gale are the good characters except Wyll sold his soul to the devil.

Lae'zal isnt necessarily evil, she us simply in character for what a githyanki would be like.

Then you have two evil characters, a vampire rogue and evil cleric, except the latter is still mostly nice, just very secretive.

The assumption that every companion should be your bestie right from the start is ridiculous, people sound like they actually want to play as a mindflayer and force everyone to love you and be good.

Lestat, my man, lestat.

Astarion does the Lord Byron underlook.

I like all the companions. I think it was inevitable that there would be a storm of complaints at the beginning. In a month the chatter will have died down. In a few years people will be nostalgic about the companions.

I was so negative to Astarion from promotional material.

A non straight white haired vampire who can walk in sunlight, has a dark backstory AND is an elf!?! What teenage girl fanfic writer thought this guy up?

*Sigh*

Then I met him while playing and he's possibly the sexiest and least pretentious character I've seen in video games outside of the companion cube from portal. My gay heart would die for him. Same thing with "Shadowheart" and Wyll, seemed immature and edgy at first... Turn out to be really deep and believable characters. Big respect and credit to the writers.

Oh! Lae'zel is obviously 10/10.

I think all of these have great potential for a story arc where they turn to a different point of view.

I mean, you are allowed to enjoy characters that come off as an edgy 12 year old's first character if you want :O

I run D&D for middle school kids (or did, pre-covid; sigh) so maybe I'm just used to it

For anyone truly role-playing a good-aligned PC ...

Characters who are a vampire or a Sharan priestess are indisputably evil. There is no possible counterargument. You can try to spin these two characters this way or that, but you cannot escape the fact that they are evil. In the Forgotten Realms setting, there is no such things as a "good" vampire spawn or a "good" priestess of Shar.

Now, it is absolutely possible that their story arc will eventually lead to some form of change or redemption thing. But as the PC, in the present, you don't know that. So, short of meta-gaming, if your PC is good-aligned, there is no way to justify keeping a vampire or a Sharan as your party companions. Your response to this may then be: Okay, so I won't be a good-aligned PC. Fair enough. But for anyone who does want to play "good," and that is exclusively the ONLY way I would ever play, there is no way to spin or justify (if you are going to truly role-play being a good-aligned PC) having those two companions in your party.

Next up, Wyll and the githyanki. These companions may well be neutral or even good (Wyll). But again from a role-playing standpoint, if you are playing a good PC, I don't see how you can have them in your party either. The githyanki character constantly expresses offense at any good actions the PC takes. So at some point there has to be a falling out with her. And Wyll may be "good" all he wants, but he made a pact with a devil and that too for the most superficial of reasons. How can that be justified?

That leaves only Gail as a companion that any good-aligned PC can reasonably and legitimately justify having in their party from among this first group of companions. And that really sucks.

Quite the contrary, WoTC is purposefully moving away from identifying any faction/race/class as indisputably good or evil.
That's why they pressed Larian about not making alignment a thing in the game, to begin with.

Hahaha. Fair :P

But we are not talking about a faction, race or class. We are talking about characters. And 5e does have alignment for characters. And the Forgotten Realms setting does have "good" and "evil" as very real things. Shar is an "evil" deity, for example. There is no question about this.

One fun thing I've noticed about Shadowheart:

Based on what we knew about the companions before the EA I fully expected to hate Astarion and like Wyll. Oh how wrong I was. I ended up absolutely loving Astarion and feeling quite meh about Wyll (I can see how others would like him tho). Shadowheart and Gale were also 10/10 in my books. Lae'zel was doing the gith thing well. My only worry is that some of the more evil companions will end up having a Sebille kind of 180 during their personal storyline instead of remaining their own characters (Shadowheart esspecially), but only time will tell how that's going to go.

As for them feeling like edgy teenagers first characters... I wish my first DnD characters had been this good :'D

Evil doesn't necessarily mean ax-crazy evil ala Joker tho. There is evil like Mr Freeze, or Talia al Ghul,

Haha yeah, my first character was Hector. He was a cleric, he had a mace, he went into dungeons, that was about his level of detail

The game does /seem/ to lack some traditional BG style good companions atm. In a couple of ways:
1) there is nowhere near enough party interaction, BG2 did party interaction very well so seeing more of that would be ideal.
2) literally, no "good" companions in the sense of alignment, lots of neutrals and at least one evil, possibly two depending on point of view for them. Complex isn't a bad thing, but "proper" good characters are painfully under represented in the game right now. Which is odd as most pnp groups I've played with have tended toward "good" on some level. It needs someone like Minsc, good and nothing but good. Or Aerie's innocent good or Imoens peppy good, i'd even go for a Kivan style Good but on a vengeance path good companion honestly. Maybe a Paladin of Devotion, dedicated to an unsual "good" deity would be a good addition.

Personally right now, none of the companions really do it for me, it's not that they're necessarily bad characters, but a "good" main character arguably wouldn't want to travel with most of them other than the fact the game literally isn't setup to allow you to not travel with them. Gail is a solid maybe, although personality wise he comes across a bit like Edwin, arrogant and egotistical, which is irksome if you're playing a PC who does indeed have skills that should mean he can talk on a similar intellectual level.

I also really don't like the whole origin characters as companions thing either, I'm not a huge fan of it in D:OS2 either, make them interesting companions, don't make them premade PCs that get more effort put into them than the custom made PC. Because in D:OS2, they're all pretty horrible too and it's irksome how little love the game gives a custom main character by comparison, so I really hope we don't get the same here..

Yes good and evil exist on a metaphysical level in FR, but that doesn't mean that a good character can't be thrown into a situation where they might have to work with evil people in order to survive.

which is true, but there should be some good choices, in this it doesn't really feel like it right now. Choose from a bunch of questionable people, which isn't at all how things work in real life, and is typically something many GMs try to disuade at the table, usually groups tend to make PCs that are fairly compatible, perhaps with one player deciding to be edgy or awkward and going beyond that.

I agree, and I did not say anything in my post to suggest otherwise.

Sure. Absolutely. But that argument goes only so far. It cannot be the basis for party composition and companion interactions for the whole game, or even for a good chunk of the game. For example, I can see this argument at play for the short bit at the beginning when the PC is stranded in Hell and facing some potentially very dangerous conditions. But the moment the PC returns to Faerun that situation *should* end. And if the game then, somehow, continues to insist that the PC has to stick with companions they despise because of "survival," that would clearly be railroading the player.

+1

Honestly while I don't like most of their characters (as in if I met them in real life I would not associate with them) there are very few things that annoy me about the writing of the characters.

The main thing that bothers me is that for some reason you can't tell Gale to stuff it when he goes "oh yeah, I trust you, now I need you to trust me and not ask any questions and promise to help... HOW DARE YOU not trust me when I have revealed absolutely nothing about myself thus far?"

That guy is either the most arrogant manipulative turd you've ever laid eyes on (thinking you don't have the basic intellect to question what he wants) or that entire section should be rewritten. Yeah, you eat magic items, big deal, you don't need me to pinky promise to help you, ask for it...

Edit for clarity, first post was a mess

I love all of them, but Shadowheart is absolutely my favorite.

She's just entertaining and her snide remarks are hilarious as hell. Overall, she seems rather reasonable enough in her judgement.

Lae'zel reminds me quite a bit of Jaheira, but more out of sheer pride rather than the naturally stoic nature of a harper. Jaheira was stern, but she wasn't quite as harsh as Lae'Zel can be. I don't hate Lae'Zel, but she's probably my least favorite companion.

Gale is freakin' great. There's not much more to say about that, especially without avoiding spoilers.

Wyll's pretty cool so far. I think he's awesome based off first impressions, but I just met him in my second playthrough where I actually managed to keep him alive. That said, my main character is a Warlock, so I'll probably save his party space for my Ranger when I get around playing her.

Astarion's cool. I was mildly turned off of him at first, but he grew on me rather fast. Still don't like him quite as much as Shadowheart, Gale, or even Wyll, but I fully expect to enjoy a playthrough with him in my party.

Overall, Shadowheart > Gale > Wyll > Astarion > Lae'Zel

That's my personal ranking based off what I've played. It's hard to compare them to the NPCs of the original series, but people have to remember that aside from the obvious standouts, there was a lot of NPCs across both games that were quite bland and didn't have a lot to them. I have no doubt in my mind that Shadowheart, Gale, and Astarion will prove worthwhile companions that can stand the test of time alongside the likes of Imoen, Khalid, Jaheira, Kivan, Edwin, etc.

Obviously not Minsc, but he's a special case. Not even my favorite of the companions, but I don't think there's a single other character who's name is as synonymous with "Baldur's Gate".

I don't really get this. A good-aligned character can still treat the situation as a daunting, but necessary alliance, even if only temporary. Even while they're in your party, the game gives you plenty of room to not be on friendly terms with them.

The only archetype where that would be an issue is the case of a Paladin-type character or something to that extent. Even then, Keldorn would tolerate the likes of Viconia for an extended period of time before the two inevitably came to blows.

I do understand the desire for variance among the playable party members.

I honestly have already settled on my three favorites based on their personalities. I haven't delved much into the lore of Forgotten Realm in a very long time so this is strictly from what I've seen so far.

Astarion: Not a huge fan of this one. He's not a flat character but the fact that he starts off putting a knife to my character's throat, I don't bring him along on the adventures. He can't be trusted.
Shadowheart: Her only redeeming feature is the fact that she can cast healing spells and even that makes it tough to justify keeping her in the party longer than I need to. Her banter with Lae'zel can be pretty humorous at times and it's nice to see her get verbally slapped but, she comes off as a pain through and through. She's rude, insulting and kind of weak in a fight. Her healing is her only pro feature.
Lae'zel: Lae'zel is a realist and a self-preservationist but I would not say she's evil. She sees a threat and is rushing to take care of it by any means and, she's actually pretty open-minded compared to most githyanki that I've read about. They'd rather slit your throat than work with you so I wouldn't say she's evil so far, more like she's just trying to make best of a bad situation.
Wyll: I just found this guy and I'm already loving him so far. His sense of justice matches up very well with my characters and they tend to agree across the board. I mean, he doesn't have a bit of a secret that gets spoiled by the loading screens but, who doesn't expect that from a warlock anymore?
Gale: By far, my favorite character, no holds barred. He's humorous, conceited and hiding a few nifty little secrets of his own. Honestly, they did an amazing job with Gale's secret and makes me a little sad that they didn't give Wyll the same treatment because finding out Gale's secret was pretty shocking and almost caused me to get my whole party killed without realizing the cause.

The Forgotten Realms' creation myth starts with Selune and Shar floating in darkness. The two were presumably created by Ao. Tharizdun is one of many interloper gods in the Realms, and didn't have anything to do with the creation of Toril. He's from Oerth originally.



I keep seeing this assertion, but I haven't been able to find any more information about them. If there are more NPCs, they must be incidental since they're going all out with the Origin characters in the marketing. (IIRC DOS2 only had companions that were origin characters (or self created mercenaries with no story/personality), and the only romances were with the origin characters.)

Z.

Of the five, here's my take. As an overview, I don't like the trend of D&D and gaming culture shifting further and further into extremes, edgelords, and characters with whom it is impossible to identify. I like grounded characters, and in Forgotten Realms, I really like grounded characters moreso. Now I'm aware that ever since 3rd edition (and Pathfinder really did a lot of damage here), there has been a steady march into characters that resemble MMO's moreso than Tolkien inspired fantasy. That isn't the end of the world, as long as there is moderation. For every Drizzt, you need a dozen grounded characters of the classical races. So on and so forth. That's just my opinion of course, and I am well aware of how many people disagree with me. With that out of the way, here's my one or two sentence view of each character.

Lae'Zel is voiced well and seems like a decent representation of a Githyanki. I don't have a problem with Lae'Zel as a companion due to the direct tie into the opening sequence, it is perfectly well explained why there's a Githyanki wandering the material plane and joining you.

Shadowheart's name is terrible and made me groan until the first time I met her and I had the option of actually pointing out in-character that her name was weird, this won me over. Shadowheart manages (so far in the EA) to come across as a relatively believable evil cleric in the realms, having views that don't always revolve around carnage, chaos, and generally being a monster, which is a flaw of most western RPGs, including the classics.

Astarion is a pretty cliche pouty snob boy, but I feel he's performed well enough that it doesn't bother me much. In fact, the character sometimes wins me over despite my overall dislike of the entire design. We've already goth a Githyanki and Gale's deal, why did we also need a vampire spawn? Why did the vampire spawn also have to be an elf? This is a human character that was made into an elf, who never displays any elven qualities. It's added unnecessary templates onto a character.

Gale, and his aforementioned 'deal' are a lot of fun to me, and are quirky and original without being edgelordy and without me feeling as though the setting is losing its grounding. Gale seems like the most well done character concept, although his design, in appearance and voice choices is somewhat forgettable. Fortunately, his actual scenes are among the more memorable I can recall in western RPG's for a while.

Wyll has a lot of potential I think, but he's a bit more annoying than I thought he would be. He is definitely well grounded in the lore, and his opening quests are very low-stakes, and plunge into low level D&D, which is always the best form of D&D. I suspect he will become more endearing as the game goes on, with more exposure to his cocksure style.

I don't think we're going to see 1 of every class, as that'd be quite a large number of big personalities to develop and voice. Hoping that we get solid prototypical dwarf dwarf and halfling still. Though given what I've seen, we'll probably end up with a dwarf like Grimgnaw again.

I feel like we are in Pirates of the Caribbean and some if you try to stick to a code that is more of a guidelines than actual rules. I don't presume to be an expert on DND, I know of DND only from Playing BG 1 and 2 and some NWN. But I have eyes and ears and I from what I see and hear the characters are not categorically evil or good. I don't care what it means in DND when a character is following Shar, I can only judge the action Shadowheart makes during the game, not some hypothetical things she supposed to do based on her faith.. Same with Astarion.

Just the woman are evil and selfish, as in they disprove every time that you make a decision that shows you are still a human being.

Lae'zel is very well written and she makes sense as a Gith. Shadowheart is in my group because she is handy in battle, but I find her, personality-wise, the most pointless of all characters (unless your evil).

I will replace Shadowheart with a hireling cleric as soon as I find one...hey, I gave her a try.


Lae'zel is an awesome fighter, but she is sitting in camp in favor of Wyll. Even though she makes sense as a character, she doesn't fit in with my party's ideals...she is on the chopping block.

Gale and Wyll are both great characters...Gale does love himself, but surprisingly has room in his heart for others. Wyll is also unselfish and will go to war for others.


Future characters:

My gut says the bard becomes an option.

Guessing one of the druids.

It would be nice to have female cleric that is actual pleasant company. Clerics are so handy to have, so this would make sense for Larian to round things out. The reason being that most people who don't want Shadowheart, but want a cleric, will choose a hireling over a voiced character. Half-elf or wood-elf make sense (stat-wise) for cleric, perhaps a Harper with an Elvin patron.

I totally agree with your statement. 100% Even though I never played Pathfinder, it's been on my possible games to play in the future list.


Now it's time to interject some of my opinions on the entire cast we got in EA.

Lae'zel - she's an overzealous githyanki, what a unique concept (mind the sarcasm please). Really reminds me of all the githyanki that I've fought in NWN2. Still, she's like golw stated a decent representation of a githyanki, nothing more or less. I still don't really like her, but it has to do with me pretty much always playing lawful good, chaotic good at worst. Let's just say that Lae is absolutely incompatible with do-gooders. She will bitch, she will moan, and she will hate you. I swear, if she wasn't the only fighter available, she would've gotten sent to the camp immediately. At the end of EA, my relationship with her was at 'moderate' and it was neutral the entire time up until her personal quest completion.

Shadowheart - I've got little experience with her, mostly because I played a cleric myself (so she got yeeted off to the camp), but my 2nd playthrough is gonna be dedicated to learning about the companions I haven't taken with me the first time around. But her being a priestess of Shar already puts me off, not gonna lie, cause again, nothing against her as a character, but I'm pretty sure a priestess of Shar is rather incompatible with do-gooders, although, from my first playthrough I noticed that she approves of a lot of actions normally considered to be good, so I dunno. Shall see. She's at least not as blood thirsty as Lae'zel.

Wyll - another character I yeeted off to the camp upon meeting him, but from what I've seen from his conversations, he seems a nice enough chap, deffo a hero-wannabe with a dark secret. I think on my 2nd playthrough I will end up being besties with him, cause he and Gale seem to be the most decent of the lot.

Gale - now there is a character I like, quite a lot really, basically a much nicer Edwin.

And at last, my personal favorite - Astarion. I know, I know, he's a vamp spawn, therefore he should be evil. With the emphasis on should be. He technically should be absolutely incompatible with good characters, right? Well, kinda. Totally depends how you handle him. I said it before and I will say it again - he really, really reminds me of Gann from NWN2, MotB (I do hope that there are some of you that played that game, that expansion is real good, 10/10 in my books), another seemingly selfish self-obsessed pretty boy and also he reminds me of Haer'Dalis a little bit as well, the entire shtick of 'living in the now', now what do Gann and Haer'Dalis have in common? They're both chaotic neutral. So, personally, I'm not really sure where I would place Astarion, cause he's not really as evil as I thought he was gonna be, I would peg him as chaotic neutral and maybe chaotic evil, totally depending on how you handle him. And I thought he would absolutely disapprove of everything my good cleric did, but surprisingly, if you just let him be himself, without calling him a monster and try to understand where he's coming from, he's quite endearing. There were quite a lot of things any good character would do that he approved of. Took me quite by surprise. Of course, I still don't see how a good aligned cleric would get along with Astarion, well, being a vampire and good clerics having sworn to destroy the undead, but then again, I generally play clerics very rarely, so I guess I haven't roleplayed my cleric correctly when it came to Astarion, not that I care, I was quite curious... for future playthroughs of course. My fav classes are sadly unavailable right now - sorcerer and bard. But also, like golw I don't quite understand why Larian chose to make him an elf. like he displays 0 elfiness in the entire EA. None. He might just as well have been a human or a half-elf and nothing would change.


Also, where da hell do y'all get the notion that Astarion is gay? Cause of the way he dresses? His overall demeanor of being a shameless flirt?
Like I said, he's not the first 'pretty boy' character in D&D lore, like hell there are examples of 'selfish pricks' who care about their looks all over the place, who also happen to be into women. Should I remind y'all of Anomen (aka Annoyman) from BG2? Do we really need to revisit that nightmare?
Sorry to break y'alls bubbles, but all the companions of BG3 are kinda gay, kinda straight, they're all bi. Do I wish Larian took a page off of Bioware and made some characters strictly gay, straight or bi? Helm yes. Would there have been a massive outcry of 'why can't I romance x? this game sucks'? Helm... yes, sadly... so I understand why they did it the way they did.

But I agree with the overall notion that we do indeed more companions and good aligned ones with some shades of gray thrown in for good measure (which I bet will come with more classes added). Now imagine the cluster-f*** of a scenario where you get a paladin companion and keep Astarion around... *cue evil laughter* now that would be something to see.

This has been addressed several times already, but I'll repeat myself again here. Yes I do agree that the player can be expected, temporarily, to tolerate companions they consider to be unsavory for the sake of one's own survival. But that rationale cannot be used by the game to force a player to play with companions they dislike for the whole game or even for a good chunk of the game. The whole point of a party-based game is to put together a party of companions that you LIKE and whom you ENJOY adventuring with. But because Larian is so very one-dimensional with all of their companion characters (i.e. they are all morally-questionable, unlikable, edgy, flamboyant, and comfortable doing evil things), then if you are a player who wants to very seriously ROLE-PLAY being good-aligned, you don't have a viable party (and NO, generic mercs do not count).

If you're going to start talking about rules and alignment, you're wrong on both counts. Forgotten Realms has had both good/neutral vampire spawn (Jander Sunstar), and priests of evil gods can be neutral so long as their alignment is no more than one step away from their god.

I'm talking about both FR lore and rules. Jander Sunstar was created as a character to precisely be an exception to the rules. And FR lore is very clear about the kind of control Shar exerts over her clergy. So the only way you could argue this is to claim that all of the BG3 companions are *special* exceptions to FR lore and rules. And if that is the case, then we would have a whole other huge complaint about the game.

talking of Jander, I wonder if he might appear in this, considering his appearance in descent into avernus

I think they have potential to change their ways. It's not a new thing, even in bg2 companions could change alignments. Vioconia was really bad initially. This is a character I remember when I got her thinking what the hell but you could keep her even if you were good and eventually she becomes neutral. So I don't see why shadowheart can't. Spoilers from here - so far I learned that she loves Shar but one significant detail (that is even written in the journal entry) is the fact that she gave up some of her memories. My guess is that those memories will factor in her "alignment shift". I don't see what's wrong with it if it is well written.

Funny enough, Viconia switch to worship Shar from Loth (she is a terribly written cleric of Shar by the way) and her alignment shift is kinda bullshit. It's there because of people like you, who wants to keep a cool looking char in the party, but can't stand they complains all the time when the party reputation reach 20...


Shadowheart is already more "true neutral" than "neutral evil" anyway. She's more annoyed about breaking neutrality than good vs evil choices. And she is a properly written Shar cleric (they are a very secretive bunch).

Again, as someone who is not versed in forgotten realms lore I judge characters based on what they do in the game, not what they're supposed to do based on rules of imaginary universe. I get why for some people the original lore is important, I suppose it's for the same reason it's important to a Harry potter book fan who sees the movie. However, I think a game should stand on its own and the characters should be evaluated based on the quality of their writing. I wouldn't care that a character is written faithfully to the lore if it is a lame character. But it's also why I disagree with the notion that we should judge the characters based on what their character description says.

On a more personal note, I don't think I kept vioconia because she looked cool or some stupid shit like that, and I think it's really pretentious of you to assume to know how I play video games

So why did you keep Viconia around if she was evil and you were not? There are other healers and clerics options to pick from in the games. She's not the most interesting one storywise. I don't think she's good written in either BG1 or BG2 (but that goes for most of the characters in those games really). She has a good voice actress, but there isn't much VO.

Eh, I'm a straight woman and to be honest, from what I've seen on YT, Viconia's romance IS THE BEST WRITTEN one out of all of the original BG2 companions. Like what do women get? Ah, right, Annoyman. I always wished Haer'Dalis was romancable (I know Bioware had plans to make him romancable, but ran out of time). And honestly, there are ways to make Viconia useful in combat, her natural magical resistance perhaps? Maybe some people like the idea of a drow? Like there are countless reasons to keep her in neutral/good parties.

I liked Viconia and her story. She is not my favorite, and not part of my heancanon party, but I think she was cool and I never found any problems with her story arc.

Again, I'm liking all the party members but it's essential that we have more good companions and that alignment is properly implemented. Protection from evil should work against any evil doers, not just devils and the like.

And yes, Viconia was my favorite romance -- I liked the redemption theme and I think Shadowheart is on the same path.

Unlike others I'm kinda lukewarm on Gale:

1) Like the DOS2 origin characters, he steals the spotlight from my wizard and my cleric of Mystra.



2) I think he 'negged' my toon. "Go to hell" Yeah, same to you Gale and don't try and tell me that you were musing on an everyday expression. You were using pick up artist techniques and it's not working. Astarian also starts harsh with a knife to my throat but at the time he thought I was in working for the mind flayers. Gale is just being a jerk to someone who helped him.

I'm glad they started with the custom characters -- one thing they need to do is to make the custom backgrounds count more. If I have a background as a sage I should be acting like a sage, urchins need to have a store of stories about how they became streetwise etc. Keep "tell my story" but also give me options like "there was this time in chapel when we were supposed to be entirely silent . . ."

Initially I wasn't that impressed with the companions. They seemed shallow and just unnecessarily mean, but they grew on me as I got to know them. Interesting questlines and nice fleshing out of their personalities as you progress. My favorite so far is Astarion with his aloof attitude, ironic sense of humor and vulnerability. Wyll is just likeable so far should be interesting to see how he and Astarion develop Monster/Hunter. Gale ..hmmm, Shadowheart is really difficult to gauge and Lae'zel has been pissed at me for a while now but since she is stuck frozen in camp I can't fix that. Still haven't developed that emotional connection to any of them though, whether friendship or romance and I like that. Seems more realistic to see it develop slowly. Well done larian

I wonder if there's a way for Character Creator to let us select a few memories? Like a list of "what were the most defining events in your life" (Sorcerer/Wizard Example Choice: "That time I accidently exploded my sister's cat"). Rather than having to code for all variations and background minutia, which devs claimed was too much (understandably), several preset "short stories" could be selected and then brought up in dialogue. These could be mixed and matched depending on background, and would help with the feeling I got that the "conversations" I had with companions weren't simply monologues for them to talk about, well, themselves. Which is fine, because they're all way cooler and more interesting than my character, who couldn't even share how/why she became a warlock to Diet Cthulu.

I don't need to be the Chosen One/Gorion's Ward or anything--but it's hard not to feel like I won't be missing out by not playing as a companion. Whom are all, so far, a little *too* special?
How did my character get grouped in these folks? Why are they listening to anything I say when it's seems one of them should be the leader?? Why are they agreeing to go back to my camp and just trusting me to get stuff done? There's no compelling reason for them to follow me, even if we're all seeking the same thing.

I adore Gale (and all the other companions except Lae'zel, whom I'm going to give another shot), but it is true that my character Blanky Tav McBlanderson feels out of her league given all her travel companions have interesting backstories/secrets/superpowers. The only thing my character had that made her unique (other than my unacknowledged backstory for her) was being the only tiefling in the camp, which I'm sure will change once more companions are introduced and a there's a "more special" tiefling.

As much as I love the companions and their writing . . . it is wearying to feel so constantly overshadowed. If Larian can't make my custom character special . . . can I at least have another rando to commiserate with? Maybe a bartender from The Blushing Mermaid who is equally unnerved by our head worm and travelling partners. Because if the rest of the companions are also suuuuper unique, I could see myself quickly becoming exasperated with a well-written crew whom I'd otherwise love.

That's a great idea. Keep "tell your story but allow for some pre chosen responses as well. And yes, put Tav McBlanderson at the same level as the other characters -- in 5th E you are supposed to have a bond, a flaw and such and it would nice to see those implemented in an interesting way.

Even better if it could be edited by the player -- in BG you could rewrite your biography to fit your own head cannon story. Which was primitive compared to what would be needed here but it would be nice to have something that captures that spirit.

If there are going to be "redemption" arcs for non-LG/NG/CG companions, can we also have "corruption" arcs for non-LE/NE/CE ones? Some of them appear to be in desperate need of spiritual liberation.

My guess is that Wyll is on such an arc. Here's what happens when I let him take over conversations:



Wyll's a bit more concerned with looking good than acting good -- that's the flaw that could be his undoing.

That does sound interesting, I didn't get to play with him much this past week.

wow I missed a lot of stuff... I should bring him along the next playthrough.

azarhal - why bring viconia along? because I played multiple playthroughs, so I wanted to change the party I usually play, to see her abuse Aerie, I don't know, it's interesting. I don't play BG with set goals.

This 100%. It's a HUGE issue with D:OS2 as well IMO, the origin characters have a load of work put into them, and if you make your own, you're a pretty blank slate by comparison. IMO They really need to drop the origin character thing, make these true NPCs (they can keep their crazy backstories) then have custom character have a far more central and important role to the actual main plot than they do. Again, doesn't need to be quite on the BG level of child of a god etc, but make the protagonist feel like a protagonist without playing someone elses pretty horrible character..

Yeeees. This is why I love Wyll so much. His sense of morality is so much more interesting than most NPCs in most games. He does good and righteous acts but is driven by a selfish desire for adulation. It is great.

yes. Ditch the concept of companions main characters and make some origins for your main (like in DAO, but less extensive).

Well the problem with any "redemption" story arcs is that that is meta-gaming. If you don't engage in meta-gaming, then you should be role-playing your character in the here and now, and reacting to the things your companions say and do in the here and now. And in that role-playing I don't see how a good-aligned PC can justify continuing to adventure with a vampire or a Sharan beyond the necessity of the first bit of the game. It's not like Volo comes to you tells you: Hey, don't be concerned. These companions can become nicer/good later on the game if you keep at it with them.

As for the game following FR lore, Swen himself as well as the lead writer have said on multiple occasions that the game is going to be very faithful to FR lore. So being faithful to FR lore does matter and is a valid basis for judging the game.

The compannions are a weak spot for the game. All of them are so immensely uncharismatic.

I hate them.

My characters hate them.

I kind of want to see them turn into mind flayers. The devs (my blanket name for anyone working on the game) are really pounding on the theme of introducing tension between the party. But right now I just hate the party.

Yes you are right but in my head my wizard is thinking that she sees the good in shadowheart and is secretly hoping to bring her into the light. Likewise my cleric believes that if Astarian can get free of his master then he can be resurrected and redeemed. (which, from memory, was one of the possible outcomes of the original Strahd module). I don't have high hopes on the second.

But I do agree that we need a full, good party. I'm liking the "misfits thrown together" trope, hoping we can also get a well written variant of the hero's journey trope.

Would love this. Companions only as NPCs and a more fleshed out custom character experience, less overshadowed by the flashy characters of the devs.
Most of them i find quite interesting. Quite jealous of their backstories if my main is a blank state who didn't have a life before the game..

This exactly. I would love to see Astarion's master dying and Astarion possibly turning our PC into a vamp spawn. Also, another idea, give us a goody-two-shoe paladin a'la Aribeth and given the right conditions - corrupt the paladin to become a blackguard, just like it had happened in NWN1, but not an exact replica of course. But something along these lines.

After reading through this thread, I think I will say something here.
Dungeons and Dragons, is a unique thing, but its also takes from actual folk lore and some of this folk lore actually hurt innocent peoples or people actually got killed because of it. So d&d draws from that and though it is interesitng they use it for a fun storytelling dice game. The actual reality is they have used real life superstiions that really do get people killed. They use what these people believed about them to place them under alignments. This the basis for the alignments of the lycanthropes and vampires for example. But the way its done with werewolves is discrimatory to actual animals because of the lore on this. In fact the lore seems to suggest they are not are not evil because of the curse they are evil or treated that way because wolves were considered evil thus this makes werewolves evil. Rats carry disease so wererats are evil. Werebears I think them being good aligned had something to do with a certain bear shifter in some other genre. The game was designed for being a hero saving the day slaying the monster, alignment used as to justify killing the monsters as murder hobos without taking in any considation for it.

Examples of how D&d does things that are not only unrealistic it basically is saying because this person is this or that. They are are defined under this.
Chromantic dragons are based on legends of dragons burning down villages, Metallics are based upon more noble dragons seen in more asian folklore I think. The point is D&D has done what I would call sterotypical placing, which hinders actual interesting stories. Because its a red dragon its default Chaotic evil because its a red dragon. If its a Gold Dragon its lawful good because of its color.
Now Lycanthropes I mentioned this up above. Lycanthropes have a curse that turns them into a beastial hybrid of man and whatever subtype they are. They vary some are born and have control others do not. Now if thye become that most of the time they say oh, they are always this alignment because it was believed in real life or in the setting that wolves are evil and thus this lycanthrope is evil based on that belief.

I see Wizards moving away from that a good thing and all of these companions what or who they are does not define them. Each one of them has free will. One of them regained free will. They have the path to choose, to a more redeeming path for themselves or a darker path. Our interactions and our way of doing things may infuence them and their outcomes. Who you pick and what race you are maybe even class does seem to matter on their opinion of you. For my Drow cleric of Eilistraee I made, Shadowheart seemed ruder and not as trusting. But with my Tiefling ranger, she seemed not nearly as supicious and more friendly. So just because you experiance something on one character does not mean that will be the same on another. So each unique playthrough should be interesting and that is even how they react to you it seems.


Shadowheart and Astarion, are what I would consider to be more morally ambiguous.
Shadowheart as a Cleric of Shar, I think is conflicted not sure about her choices and our interactions may impact if she goes full on evil cleric or maybe redeems herself and turn away from the Goddess.
Astarion was a vampire spawn who was forced to do evil things from his evil master. Like Jandar Sunstar and he does seem to have that struggle. I don't think he was as morally good as Jander. He is also at a turning point and I think our own actions will actually either redeem him or make him become true monster.

So I think each character is more complex then just a label. They are intentionally doing this by the way, and Wizards asked them not to define them by alignement. Larian was going to do a lot with alignment. But Wizards said no that is why the characters are more like this. To be honest maybe its a good thing if they don't do an alignment system.

tbh, i dont think this is the best choice for a BG game to remove alignment and id personally want to see it still included in the game, even if it wasnt that important to the gameplay just for roleplaying purposes, but its just another head scratching decision in a rather long list by wotc if you ask me, even outside of BG3. like, if alignment isnt important, why so much emphasis by larian to start ea with evil characters and do evil playthroughs? and why were there 'evil cleric' tags in earlier game updates? even tho they seem to have been removed or hidden now. it just comes across as an unfinished system and conflicted messages for the player base so i hope larian takes feedback during ea to improve on the dynamics as i think alignment (and expansion of the character tag system in general) would go a long way in enhancing the overall gaming experience

Larian has since said alignment IS in the game now. And I think saying WotC was against having an alignment system in the game is an exaggeration.

Fine I guess... But at least to me as a none dnd player, alignments seems stupid and restrictive.

It's only restrictive if you let it guide your choices instead of the other way around.

The alignment debate is interesting to have but it loses something when you have actual gods and devils to peg morality.

My template for well done companions is still Shadows of Amn, but there were some serious shortcoming. Some of the highlights for me in BG:2 Anomen and Viconia, where you could influence them to undergo some serious character changes, but even here you see the limitations, such as gating serious involvement with character arcs to romance plotlines. And speaking of romance, the trope of "say what they want to hear to make them like you" is both reinforced and refuted depending on the character in BG:2.

So far I like how much more assertive the personalities in BG:3 appear to be, so I'm interested in seeing how these relationships will develop.

Unlike in a lot of games where you have to play the min/maxing approval game, I'm not afraid a character's story will just end because I didn't massage their ego enough. so kudos

I would have preferred the option to create/hire custom companions.

In general I would agree with you. However, D&D is a game system, and a pretty vast one at that. And within that system you are going to need to have some guidelines for stories and characters and lore where you're not having to repeat descriptions again and again. What I mean, for example, is let's say you are going to print a book on all the gods of D&D. To repeat detailed descriptions again and again for each entry about what kind of a god each one is would be very cumbersome. Much easier and more easily understood to be able to say: X is LN, Y is CE, Z is NG, etc., where people have some understanding of what each of those labels means.

If you're talking about their alignment, it's too soon to tell as we only have access to the first act. Based on what I have seen so far, I don't think your companions are completely evil but I do think they have a lot of skeletons in their closet.

Shdowheart is the first one I meet and since I tried to help her on the ship, she was not a mean as when I didn't. She was a lot nicer. I think she's very misunderstood and if you talk to her about her devotion to her Goddess and you seem like you really want to know. She likes you even more and is also nicer. For now I think she's Neutral Evil.

My third companion is Gale. He's a loyal companion and especially after how angry he gets for what Nettie does to you. I felt flattered that he cared about my character's well-being. I think he's good and I would place him at chaotic good with his eating artifacts.

Then I met Astarion, he is a very big flirt. I wonder is that is part of his vampirism. I also think he's not 100% evil and I do feel bad for him when he describes his master and how he's a slave to him. Astarion to me is Chaotic Neutral.

Afterwards I bumped into Lae'zel, she's a tough one to read and I think she's very into her own beliefs. She believes in everything her race does but there is a scene where I do feel bad for her, the way she was treated by her kind. I would say she's Lawfully Evil.

Finally we have Wyll. There something about him that doesn't sit well with me. Apparently he's connected to a certain demoness. He also has skeletons in his closet. I would place him at Chaotic Good.

I Like all the character. I hope they have several layer that I can peel that make them memorable. Will might be a bit bland at time, though, not as edgy as I'd expect from a warlock.

Not trying to start a fight, just giving an alternative understanding

For me without alignment it's not really D&D -- we saw how fans reacted when alignment was eliminated in 4th ed, WotC was forced to bring it back. Without alignment Faerun seems less magical -- it just seems like some variant on / analogue to our world. I like fantasy -- the idea that that there is a spiritual battle for souls between Selune and Shar and that our actions on the material plane tip the balance towards one side or the other makes the world that much more interesting.