I don't see the need for all alignments, classes or races to be represented. Just enough to get a good balance. I would think having contrasting morality as well as personalities makes for better role-playing than potentially playing with a hive-mind. So I really hope we don't get too many companions. The added selection inevitably will come at the cost of how deep all the characters are anyway and I'm the go deep, not broad kind of guy. Besides, I'm not sure shared morality necessarily equates to shared chemistry as long as the divergent alignments doesn't go to extremes.
Yeah, most companions are on the edgy side. Reasonably I'd only trust Gale in my party and kick everyone else out, starting with Shadowheart. 'You can call me Shadowheart' NOPE. Bye girl.
Hopefully we'll get more variation, the party still needs a jester! A playful chaotic good type of character.
Interesting how different subjective impressions can be. There's a whole thread dedicated to ragging on how boring and generic all the companions seem to be.
What's everyone's beef with Shadowheart anyway? Even the name is enough to trigger some people. She resembles Viconia of BG2 quite a bit, this may lead to a similar dynamic path to redemption. Given the several ruined temples of Selune in the gameplay videos, Shadowheart worshipping the twin sister and enemy Shar, might be tied into the story on a deeper level that I'm personally keen to explore. But yeah, a Minsc type of comic relief would be welcome as well. Though I do think Larian is a bit concerned about striking the proper balance between paying homage to the original series, yet not following the original formula too closely so as to make BG3 feel like a Baldur's Gate-game, yet be its own creation.
