To me, it seems like our companions only will progress in a friendship or "something more" with us if we only make decisions that THEY approve of.

It's always a one way relationship. It's like walking on eggshells being in an adventuring party with these folks as it is currently, making it hard to role play in this RPG.

I hope there's at least more dialogue options in the future that lead to us changing their minds or at least seeing our decisions from a different point of view, rather than us making one or two decisions that they don't like, and then they decide that they want nothing to with us.

The relationships are very Joker and Harley right now.

Thoughts?

Sounds like an RPG video game alright. It's the same old story ever since bg2. There have been some innovations in video game romances here and there but it basically boils down to do what they like and they might shag you. I generally judge a romance in video games by how much room to manoeuvre I get, but usually I don't get much. Anyway it's too early to tell one way or the other

I made an interesting test recently with Shadowheart. So when she's on a high appreciation level with you and you have your party with tieflings, there is the line getting to having a private moment with her and the drunken kiss afterwards.

As it happens, on my third playthrough, as a solo wizard, I have a bug which doesn't allow me to recruit her. But still, each time I talk to her at camp, I can have the approval system going higher. So as a test purpose, I decided to bring her to the highest level of approval, which is 'Exceptional' and talk to her at the party, exactly the same way I did in my previous playthrough. But here, there is no way to get to the intimate moment. So I don't know what to make of their relationship mechanics. Seems weird to say the least.

I think the way the mechanics work is not as straightforward as one might think. I can't really prove it without further study, but I think the amount of interactions you have with them, as well as the order in which you talk to them if more than one of them has an exclamation mark, affect how they treat you

I think Lez may prove more dynamic in this regard. I have a feeling she can be turned later. It is fairly obvious she is bound for disappointment and disillusionment in her personal quest. I have had a few exchanges where she has expressly disagreed with my decision but approved of my handling of situations. Despite the fact I cannot bring myself to play the villain in a video game (I am terribly in love with tragic heroes whose inherent flaws ultimately lead them to destruction), she and Shadowheart along with Wyll are whom I will be taking into Act 2 with me. I am sucker for redemption stories

I would say they become friendlier when you do what they ask for first - like going grove over creche for SH or Gale. Priorities.

I agree that it feels a bit like walking on eggshells, but luckily you need a lot more than one or two disapprovals for them to hate you.

It is only walking on eggshells because the game informs us of every little decision they don't like when we make it. In real life people are absolutely forming their opinion about you by observing how you behave and with who. They just don't announce it to the world when you trip up the disabled kid in the cafeteria for a quick laugh.

Astarion approves.

If they formed their opinions silently and we didn't know exactly what triggered their approval or disapproval I think it'd feel more natural. Then we can have a more immersive system where we have to ask them how they feel about us and the group and they'd give us a general idea of why they feel the way they do. Like Astarion telling us we're too much of a stick in the mud or Shadowheart saying we're a cruel bastard.

It could probably cost more, as characters are fully voiced, unless companion will repeat the same line (matched to their level of approval). But yeah, most of things could be done via talking. Companions give us enough hints every cutscene, to guess what type of actions they like or dislike.

It makes your companions one dimentional. What should happen if they are bothered by a choice is ask,

Q) "why did you do/say that"

A, 1) "I was lying to gain trust"
A, 2) "I have feelings and stuff and my feelings don't care about your facts"
A, 3) "It's a small angry guy called non-ya-business"
A, 4) "I robbed his wallet"

Because you always instantly know the motive behind someones actions right? Not so much.

On the contrary ... its quite easy to role play ... and you also get adequate reactions ...
Much better than in Dragon Age ... where you could practicaly murder whole village (just example), but Alistair will forgive you, if you give him 4 cakes afterwards. :-/

Ofc. you will not be allways loved by everyone, but that is just part of role.

The only companion progression in any RPG which impressed me even a little bit was Tharaêl in Enderal.

In my opinion it is an example of character development in an RPG done well. It is still very limited, compared to what would in my opinion be the gold standard for character development (2 way approval system, which no RPGs implement because it would explode dialogue almost exponentially), but it is still a lot better than any comparisons I can think of. Tharaêl also illustrates that you can explore character development very well without at all touching on romance, which is something I feel many RPGs fail at.

It is perfectly reasonable to forgive a person if they bring you no less than four cakes. With extra frosting, that's a given.

Leliana heard an animal (Astarion, I am looking at you).

From EA perspective companions are fixated on getting into PC pants. But I hope it won't be another GoT drama at the end of this road.

let me just hire a companion which is possible and Larian also did this in DoS. No emotional nonsense to deal with just build-a-companion and I’m good to go.

Keep in mind, Larian has confirmed that these are only the neutral and evil companions, so if you are playing a mostly good character...

Lae'zel propositioned me when, as far as I knew, I had done nothing to express any interest or attempt to gain her approval. Doesn't seem all that one-way to me.

KOTOR 2 was great in that regard.

If I remember correctly, in that game the companions' alignments progressed to match the player's.

I want to be able to grow them pumpkins. If Stardew Valley has taught me anything it's that the secret to a long term relationship is to give girls expensive pumpkins.

I fail to see how it's a one-way relationship because they approve or not what you're doing. Aren't you supposed to do the same? I was kinda liking Wyll in my first playthrough, he seemed a little dumb but funny and good hearted. Then i took him with me for the gobelin quests and let him do what he wanted. Okay..; That's how far you'd go to achieve your goal? And you burst into anger whenever it's not going your way? Maybe i'll just let you deal with your problems...

So far i'm not able to predict each time if one choice will be approved or disapproved, but i also know i don't have to be 'perfect' in their eyes for them to like me, or not. That leave room for my own bad habits but theirs too. Like when Wyll disapprove you don't healp Auntie Ethel against the two brothers. Dude, i know you're thick, but they call her hag, and she really fit the description.

In my experience you really have to commit to what they despise for them to not want to have anything to do with you. Except Lae'zel, but they despise you fromo the start anyway so... :p Some just want the see the world bow before them i guess^^

Please just give me mercenary type characters or allow me to create my own party.. I have no interest in these companions or their hateful personalities. I have enough hate in my life i don't need more in my video gaming.

Thanks.

I kinda like that they dont do a big deal about sex ...

Much more than Mass Effect for example: "Since day one we know we are on suicide mission, and anyone of us could die thousand times every single planet we met ... yet we will wait til the end, to have strictly one romantic moment."
Rly? Who does this? :-/

Small excerpt taken from an interview wit Swen at https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/h...he-definitive-dungeons-and-dragons-video-game

It seems that many people did not get the message that they were releasing these companions first with all the complaining about their attitudes that goes on in this forum.

I've seen the same hints, and I really do hope that the writers would make Lae'zel malleable to a degree, she is practical anyway, and if she sees that "the good approach" works sometimes much better, that would be a good start for her character to get rid of tunnel world view she got due to her upbringing.

I don't have nothing against sex and romances, just don't want to hold corpse at the end for sake of making it more dramatic. It is dramatic already, with tadpoles and if hells want to succ BG as they did with Elturel I would like my PC having at least one quiet bay.

To play the devil's advocate I don't think you should expect all of your players to also have read all the interviews, news articles and pre-release blogs/news posts before they start playing the game.
I don't really have a problem with the current companions' personalities, but I can see why they might turn some people off.

They seem like a bunch of goodie 2 shoes to me - one of them already abandoned me after 1 action he disapproved of.

Got to say:



Sorry, Larian, but no. That's not an excuse.

Evil and neutral characters do not have to be utterly unlikable - you chose to make them that way.

There is a Very Strong reason why, in the vast majority of video games like this that involve companions of variable moral stances and alignments, the games almost invariably introduce you to the good characters first, and the pink-to-red aligned ones later. There's a reason they all do this (or present you with all of them at the same time, ala NW1); it's not arbitrary.

Players who are coming into a game intending to play a red-aligned play through as a dark, evil or selfish character generally come into it expecting to meet resistance from theri companions; to a certain extent, it helps validate and lend credibility to their character's evil. By meeting the goodly companions first, they gain this immediate counterpoint, and for evil playthroughs, that resistance is a good thing (experientially speaking). They can then meet the more morally similar characters later, when they feel established in their personal set up - and if they swiftly backstab their former good companions in favour of these other like-minded individuals, then that's further playing into their character and affirming it.

If a player comes into a game intending to play an evil character, and all they meet initially are other evil characters, it either deflates their sense of initial character development, or it forces them to feel like they need to act supremely cartoonishly, game-destructively evil just to top them.

On the other hand, if a player comes into a game intending to play a more or less good or heroic character, and they meet the like-minded characters first, this has the opposite effect; it reaffirms and reinforces their choice to be good and sets them up with allies they feel they can trust and who will support them, which are usually important things for good character playthroughs. Meeting the darker characters after this is easier and smoother because the darker characters are more clearly outliers - being met after the good characters generally enhances their darker character traits, so they don't need to act like completely unlikable arseholes and rub everyone the wrong way just to assert their character.

If, however, a player comes into a game intending to play a more or less good or heroic character, and they meet all of the evil bastards first, they're put in a position where everyone that surrounds them reacts negatively to their efforts, right from the get-go, and risks making the characters feel like they're being treated as the bad guy, for no legitimate reason - which for someone aiming to play a more or less goodly aligned character is less likely to be enjoyed, and may even be discouraging or disheartening.

There is a reason that you generally are presented with the opportunity to hook up with the good characters earlier than the dark ones. It's actually a fairly nuanced thing, and Larian are shooting themselves in several vital organs by arbitrarily bucking that practice, when they don't appear to understand it in the first place.

This is true but I thought we are supposed to be testers first and players second.


I disagree that they are unlikable, they just need the player to have an open mind.

When the game is released, it will have all the companions. Maybe they should have made the Early Access part more clear?

Are the other companions going to be available simultaneously or prior to these ones? No? Then the comment stands.

Let me rephrase: they didn't have to make a character literally do nothing at all in conversations for the first *long* stretch of your time knowing them, except condescend, insult, belittle, demean and insinuate inferiority upon the player character, just to illustrate that she was an evil aligned character. If they felt they needed to do that to show she was evil, well that's just abominably bad writing. They chose to do that on their own. They said "Hey, let's make this character insult abuse and belittle the character just for talking to them, and make them ramp it up if they try to learn anything about them", and then they said "Let's make it even better, by setting them up to be the first character you run into after the intro, that's sure to leave players feeling good about playing our game".

Does that make her unlikable, okay, perhaps not: if you secretly enjoy or get off on being abused and belittled by people you're supposed to be relying on in dangerous situations, then by all means. Most people don't. It doesn't *matter* how deep or compelling her story supposedly is, or how much reason and motivation she supposedly has for acting that way; I've no interest in putting myself through that kind of behaviour to find out, because when I do, it still won't justify or excuse the behaviour.

That pretty much sums up my impression, and it was very surprising too because I loved the writing in the previous Larian games. Yes, I saw the interviews beforehand about the "evil" companions coming in first, but I wasn't expecting this. Companions being stressed out doesn't count as an excuse either because heck, my main character also was abducted and had a tadpole shoved into her skull, and nobody is cutting her any slack. These people need me as much as I need them, and so far I have very little incentive to take them along. There is no real reason why I should trust any of them - Astarion even murdered me one night in camp, so why would I bother with him?

For me, I honestly have no interest in the romance portion as of yet. I think our characters have a bit more to be concerned with than just getting laid, but that's just me. :P I really don't care whether they like what I say or not. It's apparent that I am the party leader. If you don't like what I do, then you are more than welcome to leave and find your own way. My characters main concern is getting the tadpole out/controlled/destroyed, whichever of those 3 seems the most appropriate. Keeping options opened. Now after this is taken care of... Then we'll see who might have has been the most supportive and helpful under that dire situation. :P

Well, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with . . . pretty much this whole post.

Larian don't need an "excuse". The game is not out yet, this is an unfinished preview. They don't owe the customers anything yet.

The companions currently in the game are not "unlikable". YOU just don't like them. Tons of people do, though, which is why the subreddit is flooded with piles of fan art for these companions already.

A character doesn't have to be nice to my character, for me to like that character. These characters are acting appropriately for their backgrounds and roles in the world. Lae'zel acts like a Githyanki. Shadowheart acts like a Priest of Shar. Astarion acts like a Vampire.

I don't think that "in the vast majority of video games like this that involve companions of variable moral stances and alignments, the games almost invariably introduce you to the good characters first" is even factually accurate. In Baldur's Gate, other than the companion that you start with because she's your sister, the first two companions you meet, on the first map, are both hella evil. In Tyranny, the first companion you meet is a bloodthirsty murder-bandit. In Kingmaker, the second companion you meet is literally one of the main villains of the game, and the third is a bloodthirsty berserker who despises the weak. In Dragon Age Origins, the first companion you meet besides the automatic mandatory Grey Warden is Morrigan, a witch who is decidedly not good. There's no "vast majority" here.

And this moral ambiguity is what makes them interesting. Well, beside being well written.

Well, until I saw this post I did not know we only got the neutral / evil companions. I see this as a breakdown in communication. If Larian does not tell us stuff, how the heck are we suppose to know if this is how they expect things to be working. When I have alpha tested software in the past, there are expectation notes given to the testers. I would love that and a known bug list that you could check.

It sure doesn't seem one sided with Lae'zel, especially when about an hour ago she approached my guy out of no where and tried to proposition him. Also the thing is this I went out of my way to show zero interest in her and I also went out of my way not to get approval from her. Yet as I mentioned she approached my character out of no where and tried to proposition him, so I would say that for her it is not one sided.

Githyanki approach sex and relationships differently from other races. They are oviparous and grow up in hidden creches without much knowledge of other races as they are Gith supremacist. They have no father, and their "mother" is Lich Vlaakith. So Laezel's behavior is nothing strange from the point of view of her species that does not form a romantic bond. Your approval with her means nothing (for the beginning at least).

She is not like this because she is "evil". She is like this because this is how she was raised, also because she is thrown in an unfamiliar situation and doesn't know how to deal with it. The game maybe should do a better job of explaining this.

Just like in real life, different cultures come across strangely to someone not exposed to them, once you take the time to understand that culture then everything makes sense. Stressed out people will snap at others and act in much more negative ways, this is expected considering most people do not have experience in regulating or suppressing their emotions.

Certainly - They've already got my money, after all. I do, however, expect them to show signs of delivering on what they've promised, and I'm offering feedback to that extent, same as you are. I'm going to be nonplussed if they make commentary that shows signs of them willfully misrepresenting their audience along with very little sign of feedback being taken on board.

Notice how in each of your examples except one, you had to put a caveat or an exclusion on them? How you had to first discount a prior companion before you could reference the dark one(s)? It more illustrates my point than counters it, overall.

As a case in point - Tartucio (who joins you, surprise surprise, AFTER Linzi, the brightest beacon of good in the whole game) is almost comically evil. He's a selfish bastard, twisted by many unpleasant and unfair details in his past, and once you know the full picture there is something to be pitied there... And you get to that point because despite all of that, he actually isn't intolerable to work with, during the short time you do so... Shadow, on the other side, is only tolerable if you never speak to her. Otherwise she's just downright unpleasant.

That aside, I don't need you to agree with me... I'm just pointing out a convention based in tested psychology. They can buck it if they want to, at their peril. Some games can do that well, sure, if the characters are presented well enough to not cause the negative effects I mentioned. So far, these ones are not, and do not.



Yeah, art... they sure are *pretty*. Not a lot of fan-fiction yet though. Funny that. I've seen lots of people fawn over Shadow's visuals... haven't seen much in the way of people talking about what they like about Shadow herself though.



Agreed. Shadow just really goes that extra unnecessary mile of insult, abuse and belittlement... What about her do you like, if I might ask? Sell me on a good reason why I should voluntarily subject myself to several hours and multiple conversations filled with nothing but abuse, condescension, belittlement and insults; that's not something I enjoy, personally, so sell it to me: what is it about her that makes that a rewarding, enjoyable experience for you? (I am, in all honesty, curious here, with no ill intention or raised ire)




They do. Funny thing is, I tried that... I tried to take the time to understand her, multiple times, as I progressed through the act. All it ever got me was abuse, insults and threats. Conversely, I can easily count the number of times she tried to understand me, in any way at all, during that time. It's zero. Zero times.

So me and some friends are doing NaNoWriMo this year, as we often do. For those that don't know that is a writing competition of sorts in which you write 50,000 words in a month.

One of them has been writing BG3 fanfiction pretty much non-stop because of how much she adores the characters.

Okay, mostly I like Shadowheart because she reminds me a lot of real people that I have been friends with and dated. She comes across to me as a wounded, damaged person who is trying to cover up her pain and uncertainty with a brittle outer shell of standoffishness and lies. I have a iot of sympathy for people like that, because underneath their rudeness and duplicity is just another vulnerable human being who wants to feel safe. I think she's a subtle, layered character. To me, it seems clear that she is performing her "evilness", that it makes her uncomfortable, that really she just loves animals and wants to belong somewhere. Have you done the scene with her after the party where you share a bottle of wine and she opens up some? She seems so lonely, because she's been recruited into this deeply evil cult who demand that their members give up everything about themselves, all of their hopes and dreams. They wiped her memory, so she doesn't even know who she was before, and I feel like she's torn between having to PERFORM as a "cleric of Shar" and be cold and tough and devious, and feeling empty and heartbroken and unsure inside, because she knows she's lost something, she's lost herself, and she doesn't know if it was worth it.

Now, she doesn't outright say all of these things. A lot of that is me reading between the lines, and some of it could be projection on my part. But the fact that the character is written and performed well enough to even make me think those things is pretty compelling, even if I'm not right about everything. But if you haven't seen the post-party "romance" scene with her (it doesn't have to be romantic per se, it could just be friend bonding), you should try to check that out, because it definitely makes her a more sympathetic character.

Astarion and Lae'zel are also very amoral, often rude and hostile, so I can see how people might dislike one or both of them. One guy who was watching my stream said that he HATED Astarion, just based on observing a few interactions. I've seen plenty of people online complain about how terrible Lae'zel is, with no redeeming qualities according to many. But to me, I think they're quite appropriate, given what they've been through. They're both victims, too.

Lae'zel is classic Githyanki, raised in an almost unimaginably awful and twisted culture that literally worships a lich queen who consumes their souls. She has never had a chance to find out how "normal" people behave until now, never been exposed to genuine human decency and kindness. She was raised to project absolute, unflinching, brutal strength at all times. To survive her upbringing, she HAD to become like this. I think, given time around better people, she can come to see how fucked up her culture is, and can begin to make her own choices about who she wishes to be in this world. I'm willing to give her time to do that.

Astarion might have been a dick even before becoming a vampire, there are hints that he was. So maybe of all of them, he could be the most insufferable and irredeemable. But even so, there is room for sympathy here. He was abducted and enslaved against his will, turned into a literal monster, and had his whole life and identity stolen from him. For apparently hundreds of years, he's been living as a slave, under the harsh, cruel thumb of his vampire master. That would twist anyone. From where would he find inspiration to be kind, to value human life, in such circumstances? Now that he's (temporarily) free, he doesn't know what to do with himself. More than any of the others, he is a lost soul, and I think he very much knows this. He hates himself and what he has become, and he is terrified of being taken back to his master and forced into that sinister blood-fueled slavery once again. How long has it been since he had any kind of positive human relationship with anyone? Centuries, perhaps? He clearly just doesn't know HOW to behave at this point. But I think that he, too, can be swayed by a kind influence.

That's my take on the evil companions, anyway.

Are you secretly in my head or something? This was all the things I want to say about them but I am no good at writing things.

I'm glad you agree with my amateur assessments. I don't know how to write either, I just flail at the keyboard for a long time until I see a lot of words on the screen, and assume that no one will read them.

The only one i truly can't stand is Astarion. Hell, i can even see the damaged person thing going on, but how am i supposed to care about the far-off redemption arc when the only way to access it is by being as much of a stupid evil sob as he is? Compare to SH and Lae'zel, but mostly SH, whose approval can go up even by being the 'good guy'. That much, if nothing else, at least speaks of layers. The guy only wants every evil choice, usually stupid ones, hates any kind of good choice, usually sensible ones, and just whines and bitches a whole playthrough if one doesn't roll that way.

Only good thing is that they give you the choice early on to ship him off to his old master, which ironically he'd approve of if it wasn't done to him.

Astarion's VA is good and annoying at same time; too arrogant, fancy and flirty. Gladly PC will take his roguish spot.
For Shadowheart, beside all emotional things Firesnakearies wrote about, I like her for being pragmatic. Snarky, witty and pragmatic. Perfect, but I was fan of Morrigan too (and she was way more dirty than SH). Guess everybody have their types.
Funny that I rather will trust Shar's priestess than good boy Gale. And Wyll is too boring (also as class, blast it all). Laezel for teh lulz.

+1
Many of the companions currently available have some very pragmatic personalities and have their own clear goals in mind. I think a lot of the people complaining about the companions just are misunderstanding them. Their lack of compliance for going with whatever you might do is not necessarily the same as the companions being outright hostile towards you.

Morrigan gave me reasons to take her along and actually her arrogance was based on knowledge and skill. Shadowheart feels like just another priest, nothing special about her until her magic thing popped up. But at the same time between mister vampire, volk hero, superior race princess and mr. god-lover-timebomb her glowing hand isn't even special enough to really notice. Shadowheart is bland as hell and has an arrogance that she can't back up in any way. If she wasn't a cleric and there wasn't a lack for who else you can take along I simply wouldn't. I don't want to put up with her fake mystery and insults while she brings nothing to the party except for demands what I should do.

The sad part is, none of the characters managed to peak my interest because of their personalities. I don't care about their fates and still feel like I know where they will end up - except for Wyll because in my game I couldn't recruit him when I was at the grove and just had him join up after the goblin camp was burned resulting in no conversations with him).

I also read and agree 100% with your assessments.

One thing with Shadowheart, Astarion, and Lae'zel is that how friendly or insulting their dialogue is GREATLY depends on what and how you speak to them. In the very beginning SH says she wishes to remain private (when asked why she was on the nautiloid). This is a HINT that you shouldn't pry into her affairs/background. Most of her nasty comments are when players ignore this and ask her all the questions. If you just give her time she opens up to you and will respond to questions. Lae'zel is also like this . . . waste time asking about random crap and she gets pissed off . . . she wants to deal with the tadpole and anything not directly furthering that end she doesn't have time for.

Larian provides us with lots of dialogue options . . . but unlike many other RPG games where we are conditioned to 'ask all the questions', ie select all options on the left before progressing, this isn't the case with Baldur's Gate 3. It's important to be preceptive and approach your companions in ways they will respond well to (assuming you want to foster a good relationship). You know, kinda like people you meet in real life! 😉 Actually Larian does this in all aspects of the game (gives us lots of options to get ourselves into trouble!)

And I love this about the game!

OK, I buy into that, but at the same time they should give me some reason to interact with them. I honestly couldn't tell if the dialogs were bugged, there was nothing more coming or if I pissed NPCs off to the point they didn't want to share. Adding to that that none of them seems to really connect with a big part of the audience, well at least with me, makes me hope I will be able to create a fully custom party because I, for the first time in any party-rpg, have no interest taking along any of the presented companions.

I'm far more interested in the random tieflings and Haslin than any of those 5. I don't even want to bother with their over the top questlines that have nothing to do with my story and they don't even feel like companion quest from other games because they feel far bigger and more important than your own character.


The origin characters all feel like the player characters that most DMs dread - far too big background stories with far too much happening for level 1 characters AND on top of that they are all solitary (evil) edgelords... and that filling spills over into the main game, drowning the player's character own story and putting him/her into a place where you need to be gracious the companions share something with you because you have no story of your own.


Never the less the obersation in the quote is a good point on how they are written and that this would be an interesting new way to develop characters (though other games had it as well, but maybe to a lesser extend communicating more clearly to the players when to interact).

I don't know.. isn't that how friendships and relationships are? Some people are least likely to hook up or befriend someone who does a lot of things they entirely disagree with. Tolerate, sure, but disagree with?

Usually with these sorts of games, I look up guides to see what the one I want to court will approve of (Cullen FTW), however I've just been playing the way my character would and not minding the approved/disapproved rating. It hasn't exactly been fleshed out yet for me to notice a difference in our friendship status the way it would in Dragon Age. Or at least not a difference that makes me care much. I've never gotten so much disapproval that they've walked out on me yet.

Really interesting, insightful, and informative input and points of view on this thread folks. I just wanna say I appreciate all of it

Well, you can play an evil character. In that case, redemption isn't an issue. Sensible/not sensible still is, of course.

Well, you're kind of stuck with at least some of them. Unless you'd prefer to have people in your party and not interact with them?

This is true! Good points.

I am not so sure about certain characters or if they are now sooooo deep or sooooo shallow. Neither do I care.

But what is making me a little depressed is that we have little to choose from when it comes to play an evil character.
Shadowsheart is kind of a b*tch yeah.
Yet she often shows logical twitches not agreeable with being evil.

Lae'zel is just a Yautja... eh I mean a Githyanki Xenophobe that feels out of place. ^^
And the most evil Dude is Astarion ironically but only because of his bloodlust.

No one of them feels like a true Ally for my evil Drowess I currently want to try out.
They feel like a "consolation evil group" at best.

The point is, in the real world, people and the relationships they enter into are complicated. I worked with a guy for some 10 years - I tend toward the liberal end, and he was a self-declared right wing tea-partier, and Trump fanatic. Some might call him "evil", yet he would (and did) give the shirt off his back to anyone in need. He took on parenting for some related children that were not his, because it needed to be done. He was pro LGBTQ, anti-abortion, hard on crime, but yoyoed on immigration. We had some rollicking arguments over the years, and also a ton of laughs. Sadly, he passed away a year ago. The Origin characters so far might not be 100% perfect in their interactions, but they certainly have complex backgrounds and motivations. Hopefully, a year or so of EA will allow them to be further tuned, and latter Acts will expand on what we see in Act 1.

What Firesnake and trengilly said. I'll sum up my own opinion regarding the companions below:

Shadowheart - at first I liked her. She seemed reasonable and the fact that she wasn't pissed at me for failing to get her out of the pod (she was even grateful!) made me happy. I noticed her somewhat drawn back character, and soon I noticed that each time I talked to her - she got hostile even though I didn't exactly try to converse with her, I was simply checking if she had any new lines without digging into the stuff like "We should get to know each other!" since she quite she made it quite clear that she valued her privacy - I thought I'd just check in on her time to time and leave her be. But she grew increasingly hostile to a point where I really started to dislike her - either I cared too much, or not enough - like some type of weird abusive partner. I really started wonder what the F her problem is - and so, as I was digging around on these forums (which I enjoy doing a little bit too much for my own good) - I came across the datamining thread... And well, without spoiling it for those who dislike spoilers - her behavior made sense. Much cause of what Firesnake stated above. So now, I realize her character isn't poorly written and that she isn't trying to be an abusive girlfriend - she is just confused and hurt, and sometimes that barrier comes crashing down (like the celebration after the goblin slaughter xD) - but only for moments at the time.

I would find it extremely unreasonable for someone as confused as SH to just let us in during Act 1 - that would be completely out of character, as far as I can judge. What she'll be like when/if we actually grow a bit closer remains unsaid.

Astarion - I actually love the guy (not romantically though - he is not fit at all for my character). He is very charismatic and as a player I've had plenty of laughs at his remarks and comments. My character is less amused though, but his behavior makes sense as long as you're aware of the *not-so-secret-fact* that he is a vampire. It makes even more sense if you've been digging around the datamining thread to see more bits and pieces of his past. Even though I am struggling to see why my character would keep him around, from a roleplaying perspective, I'll try to find a reason to keep him around because 1) I like having a competent thief in the party and 2) I REALLY wanna see how his story turns out.

Lae'zel - I honestly don't even know how people can dislike her as much as some people seem to do. She is not even throwing that many insults, even when she is mad. Even for someone completely unfamiliar to the gith culture (such as myself) - her characteristics makes perfect sense. And, once again, if you don't mind spoilers and visit the datamining thread, you'll find a lot of reasons why she is the way she is. And a lot of interesting theories on her development.

Wyll - ... ... Probably the person I like second least. He seems to be covering up his narcissism with heroic deeds. Now, I know that a lot of people reason that because Wyll got his powers from his mistress, all of his actions are automatically neutral at best - but never "good". I disagree with this logic - I do not know as much about Wyll as I know about Astarion and SH, or even Lae'zel - but as far as I do know (from just playing the game and a liiiiiittle bit of datamining *cough* mirror *cough*) - I can safely say that I do not, personally, deem the bargain in the first place out of hand. Then the fact that it escalated to the point where he got himself is an entirely different point. I consider him somewhat of an power-addict; it started off as wanting to do good and bring those who done wrong to justice, but ended up with him just wanting to grow more powerful for the sake of... Well, being more powerful. As long as he keeps aiming at bad folks, the actions are reasonably justified (but up for discussion), but I am not so sure that he'd stop even if all evil was wiped out. Not if it costs him the title "hero". Soooo, no. He is a big no for me.

Gale - actually the individual I like the least. And that is NOT cause he is a poorly written character, quite the opposite. I just believe there are several reasons to be cautious of him (and that is not just from data mining, there are loads of speculation threads regarding Gale's nature based on ingame information only). I'll put a spoiler tag here, just in case. Do not read if you don't mind INGAME spoilers about Gale (not sharing datamined information).

I was more pointing out the fact that most people expect all of those characters to grow/mellow out, and yet the only way for Astarion's approval to grow is to be as stupidly evil as he is. Former doesn't make any sense with the latter.

It is interesting how a game takes those characters seriously considering the circumstances they are in and it somehow seems over the top, compared to the usual fantasy tropes of "the human player without flaws, except that one flaw to make the character authentic".

So far, every character seems interesting enough for people to disagree on them. They are off putting in the beginning but its just their evil costume, they are all human-esque underneath their skin, a bloody mess.

All companions had their already illusionary rug pulled from under their feet but of course they are totally in charge and their past experiences are the most important ones, with gale even knowing pretty much everything about our current state (banter).

Great job writing those characters, they actually feel like their age.


Other than this, whatever firesnake said

I was thinking about that, too. I mean, we're not even sure if redemption arcs are going to happen though, right? It's only something people hope for, as far as I've seen? I think most of the evil-aligned companions in BG1 and 2 didn't have redemption arcs either (although one of them you can sway from evil to neutral, so it has happened). It seems to me like you have the ability to grow close to ex. Astarion and Lae'zel; the former responds positively when you're kind to him when he opens up to you, and so on.

But even with that, there is nothing that indicates that he/they will start caring about the greater good or become better people in general. Maybe the fact that they might have potential to care for the PC will spark some bigger change, and that'd lead to a sort-of redemtion arc (as in, they start to care about someone other than themselves or change their worldview a bit), but I just don't see either of them changing morals or becoming good people and I'm not sure I personally want that either, even though I'm all for character development and personal growth so long as it makes sense.

I don't see them all having true redemption arcs, either, but more like partial redemption. Astarion and Lae'zel are probably not going to become good, as you say. But they might at least bond with the PC and be willing to fight against the greater evil that the PC will likely end up opposing. Shadowheart, though, I think will probably have an actual redemption arc. It seems like they're setting her up for that, to me.