Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Companions

Baldurs Gate 3 companions are adequate. The voice acting is excellent, their back stories are interesting, they look great and are well animated. They are just not any fun. I would ditch any one of them because I have no love or loyalty towards any of them.

In the past, I would keep companions just because I liked having them around, even though I might have made my party more "powerful" with a different, min-max lineup.

I will list companions that I kept around in my previous play throughs as an example.
Of course, Minsc. Imoen.
Aerie.
Deekin Scalesinger.
Khelgar Ironfist. Neeshka.
Jolee Bindo. HK-47!

I would argue there is just no one worth keeping around just for fun in BGIII. I'm sure it's way too late to get any better personality from companions at this point, but I find myself missing it in BGIII.

All of the characters you listed are excellent supporting characters, but would never function well as stand-alone protagonists. All of the companions in the game are designed with the Origin System in mind, meaning any of them must be not only a companion, but also a stand-alone protagonist. This approach seems to restrict the avenues they can take each companion, given they are not only companions, but also competing protagonists. Add that to the fact that we only have a very limited amount of options, and there just isn't space for what you're talking about, given the direction of the game and its inspirations. I agree with you, but I think Larian is aware of the problem, but just see it as something to be sacrificed before the altar of their predetermined vision.

in my view, companions can never be the protagonist, because the companions are not the player character, they are npcs.

the companions might have their own legends, but they don't have the destiny, and even they are not a candidate of the destiny.

the destiny of BG3 only can be decided by the player character, and depending on the player character's decisions that can bring on some of the companions' legends finally or strangle some of the companions' legends in the midway.

From what was going around this forum when the game was first released, we have been given a small subset of the companions to deal with right now. At release time you're going to get a bunch more companions that you will be able to play as. Googling for it, I did find one article at least stating as much:

https://www.vg247.com/baldurs-gate-3-early-access-companions

The BG3 problem: four protagonists competing for the spotlight will not make a good cast. Choosing to play as an Origin character will not do anything to fix that. A Tav is just a mechanical variation to that, shallow of content in comparison.

The dynamic of a PC protagonist with companions for supporting cast has worked great for all party based RPG's before, but of course Larian had to reinvent the wheel. Thinking outside the box is great, but you need to see what actually works and what doesn't.

It's the competing aspect that I think really messes things up. You can have an ensemble story where all the companions are of equal importance and their dynamics are a major part of the appeal and drama of the story. BG3 instead is giving us a story that's constructed to only have one protagonist, but the story doesn't know for sure who that protagonist is.

I'd be pretty damn surprised if the final game turns out to have much more than then two (and half?) additional companions that were datamined at some point in the beginning of EA.

I too would be (positively) surprised if we have strictly more than 8 companions. I would also be disappointed if we only have only 8. I feel there should rather be 10-12 companions.

Every time there is a thread about companions, I get a load of deja vu. I do not believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that anyone on this forum is satisfied or has ever been satisfied with the number of companions and their corresponding quality/depth, or the direction datamining indicates Larian is going. 12 classes, 9 races, and 5 companions, with the only information that we have indicating it could go up to 8. That's not even enough to cover all the races, let alone the classes (which are the categories that define play-style and utility in this game). So... we fill it with custom companions who likely won't have any personality whatsoever? And the story companions we get are all crafted with protagonistization in mind, making them rather uninteresting (not to mention that two of them are the same race). I hate the DOS3 jokes, but this approach ain't Baldur's Gate at all. In fact, it is aggressively ANTI-Baldur's Gate.

The right number of companions is AT LEAST between 9 and 12, with at least an attempt to cover all but one race, or all but two classes. I've seen an idea floating around that some companions might be able to have their class changed upon recruitment. I hate this idea with a passion. It is immersion-breaking and lazy to its core. Are we to accept that Gale, whose entire plot and characterization is built upon being a wizard, can easily switch to a Sorcerer or Cleric of Mystra? Is Lae'zel also a Barbarian? Karlach and Shadowheart Paladins? It's lazy! Wyll's entire Act 1 story up to this point deals with his Fiend Patron... what else is he supposed to be, if not Warlock? Make Astarion a druid while you're at it!

I also hate, and this is a passionate hate, that all companions in this game must be origin characters because... reasons. The Origin System seems to have a pigeonhole effect on character-writing, keeping deep motivations and morals of characters just vague enough so that they can conceivably be the hero or villain of the story, while casting "Characters" as a race or class, and only as that race or class, just in case someone wants to play AS them. There's the multiplayer argument, but I'd be fine playing a multiplayer game where we recruit someone that we cannot play as a PC. Also, I don't buy for one second that we have only been given a "small subset of companions." That sounds like a Cover-Your-Ass if I've ever heard one.

I don't understand why they would shoot the property in the foot like this.

It's quite possible I don't understand where this thread went, but I wasn't looking for revamped companion system. I think the companions could have had some eccentricities and still had the same role they currently have in BGIII.

They actually have eccentricities, just not fun or interesting ones to my sensibilities. Shadowheart's sour, jilted lover act; Lae'zel's constant growl, and Astarion's over-the-top "sexual charm" are all tiresome. The Loviatar priest's "dear one" is less creepy than Astarion's "darling".

I posted this right before I read the post above. I forgot that the companions can, eventually, be played as a main character. I guess that limits the fun. All the same, I would have preferred to forgo that game play dynamic to have better, more humorous companions. Sorry if I rehashed old territory, I did a search but couldn't find anything in the recent past regarding companion personalities.

So it's just a writing issue for you? What would you suggest?

Yeah, mostly. I don't think I've laughed once from anything in BGIII yet. I'd argue that was one of the greatest strengths and one of the things I remember most from my previous experience with earlier, especially Obsidian, CRPG'S.
There's probably nothing to suggest. The writing and the voice work are most likely complete at this point. I just think Larian missed one element that made the original Baldurs Gate so beloved.

Have you played the Original Sin games? 'Cause that's the sense of humor we're probably going to get.

I did. I couldn't make it through Original Sin 1 and I had to get the gift box Original Sin 2 so that I could abuse the plant growing mod to get enough money to equip my party for survival.
I was kinda hoping Larian in their professed love for Baldurs Gate would make a less "Larian" game this time.

+1 but I doubt it.

I have to be honest, I played through basically all of Original Sin 1 (only played the first hour or two of OS2. I've tried a couple times but just cannot get into it) and I never realized it was supposed to be an overall funny game. I took it all entirely seriously and never picked up that it was supposed to be funnier than your average fantasy game. The jokes and things must have just sailed over my head entirely.

I think it's far too early to judge their personalities because it is only the first act, which isn't even fully available to us, and all of them are complete strangers with the only mutual goal of getting rid of the tadpole that seems to be binding them. So naturally their personalities right now are impossible to judge because they're untrustworthy, distanced and don't even plan on sticking around once they get the tadpole out. Obviously this is just the surface of their personality, but I have no doubt they will vastly improve as we go through the game.

Personally so far I really enjoy Shadowheart and Lae'zel, both funny in their own ways. Wyll and Gale are interesting too, but Astarion is a mixed bag for me and I'll need to see more before I can say whether I like him or not.


I thought the same. I found DOS1 light in tone, but never a funny comedy as some people try to describe it. As for DOS2 for me overall it was quite serious, but naturally with light moments here and there. Overall I found the setting and mood of the games fitting.

DOS1 was more silly/goofy as opposed to funny.

I think the big difference between the BG3 companions to say, BG2 companions, is strictly character agency.

For example, Imoen and Aerie both have enough backstories and potential character arcs to play the role of a protagonist - it's just that the original games gives them less agency to drive those things forward, for better or for worst. Their personal goals are basically "help CHARname" and narratively only breaks from the player at extreme reputations or special cases. For example Aerie if your reputation drops too low, or potentially if you have Korgan/Haer'dalis. Though Imoen AFAIK is always loyal.

It definitely smooths out the narrative and makes them more agreeable as they are subservient and basically "working for you" as long as you play within the safe-zone. It places the focus of the story and agency strictly on the player, but at the cost of probably making them a bit less compelling as characters.

Whereas the characters in BG3 will push and grind against your intentions with their own from the very start. They never really feel subservient and are clearly more focused on their own goals, which makes them livelier, but can be frustrating if you're trying to run a smooth ship because they all pull you in different directions. Conflict/friction basically can't really be avoided.

In bg2 I was going to make a evil playthrew, but couldnt bring my self to leave minsc and jaheera locked in cages..
I think I could leave shadow heart no problem. Or push lazel off the nautaloid, iv killer her in her cage thrown astarian off a cliff, aoed wyll as he shouted here comes the blade of frontier, and didnt really feel anything.

Only creature iv felt bad about killing was the owlbear mum, I wanted her to be my ally and the owl bear cub was cute

Id like to yeet the tiefling thief children off a cliff too but sadly they are immortal

Last time I played I killed all the grove and the goblins, helsin was not impressed, i killed him too

It was all just kinda silly it didnt really feel emotional like evil stupid playthrew because i could murder hobo i did

In games/films things that make me feel emotional is actually seeing people hurt or feel loss. Even the tiefling girl dieing didnt feel like it hit the right emotions

Losing a child is the worst thing a person can ever go threw it deserves to be handeled well, the acting scene and time should be taken to show the parents loss, and make it feel real, I let the mum take revenge every time for her lost child, but sadly i think larian has missed the mark on the grief and loss they actually would be feeling