Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Are the EA companions the only companions?

I haven't played much at all with a full custom party to see how this works with the cinematics, but I would think that since this is possible then modded companions would be no issue. It might be harder to create quests for them though.

I'm going to guess most of the time they'll just stand there idle in the background without doing or saying anything.
Which is what story companions do as well 90% of the time, anyway.

I am inclined to be even more cynical and say their intent is ultimately to release only evil or neutral companions, with just one TOKEN good companion who, because he is high-profile, makes people feel (falsely) like there is balance between the evil and good sides.

Bottom line for me: if my choices are playing with an evil party or playing with a custom party (with no personality or say about anything), then I will do neither and simply not play at all, because both those options are equally intolerable and unacceptable to me.

One of the things I'm most confident about is that Larian will be releasing multiple good companions (or at least, good-leaning). Their stated reason - that they wanted the most feedback on evil companions - definitely makes sense if you look at their evil route. The evil route, which to be fair is probably harder to write than good routes, is fairly shallow atm. So Larian being worried about their evil companions being shallow/too CE is understandable.

Okay? I realized that, which is why I provided an explanation for this particular Larian reason being believable.

Do you think that BG3's evil path is well done? If you don't, then do you disagree that it's reasonable Larian would be similarly worried about evil companions?

Writing evil companions is probably a similar skill as writing an evil storyline. At the very least, evil storylines contain evil NPCs, which means you have to write evil characters for both. In each, you have to balance 'evilness' while still making the companion/storyline enjoyable. The problem with Larian's evil path is that there is little reason to join Minthara besides liking murder and sex. One big worry Larian probably had is that it'd be too off-putting and no one would want to play it.

A possible problem with evil companions is that they'd be too over-the-top cartoonishly evil, where their entire goals were murder. Or act like jerks and no one would want them in their party.

I think their reason is quite believable cause likeable Evil companions can be really hard to write, and making them consistent moreso. And notably they rewrote Shadowheart based on the feedback that she was almost too standoffish, and they likely will rewrite her a little more with how not secretive she is with her secret.

Astarion and Laezel seem to easily fit Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil respectfully and I think were done fairly well. Gale seems to be somewhere neutral and so does Shadowheart (despite worshiping an evil god). And Wyll I'd put between Neutral and Good with being consumed with ideas of revenge and making a deal with a devil but wanting out of that deal. And overall all of them seem hard to write. Laezel is a gith, which is already a unique perspective, but you have to somehow fit her in the group and account for her interactions without making her absolutely hateable. Shadowheart has to appear secretive and standoffish but not an entirely bad person but serving an evil god and having ulterior motives. Astarion needs to appear both very human but also as a bloodsucking monster of the night. Wyll needs to appear like he could be a hero but also desparate enough to commit atrocities and driven tor evenge and getting out of a devil's deal. And Gale needs to seem likeable but with a bit of a dark edge under him with being controlling and the whole needs magic items thing.

They are all difficult characters to write and it makes sense they'd want feedback really early on so they could rewrite them to make better to ensure they succeed at that challenge for at least a majority of players.

By comparison the (suspected datamined) three other companions seem far easier from my perspective. One is a werewolf and likely will touch upon the common elements of dealing with the fact that you have a beast lurking inside threatening to takeover and change you into something you are not. One is a paladin who escaped the hells and wants to escape the bloodwar forever cause she was essentially held hostage. And the last is a fan favorite who is just good and loveable. From my perspective, those would be easier to write cause only the werewolf really has much to hide and they are all conventionally good with two of them having clear cut issues to resolve.

Minsc will be interesting for me as a test of how Larian will rework an old character because I never really liked him that much in the originals.

Will they manage to turn him into a character I can be interested in or amp up his memetic factor and make it completely insufferable for me?

I just can't see how Minsc is going to interact with our current companions lol. Minsc: "Watch out boo!! Angry ladies!" Shadowheart: "whatever.." Lae'zel: "i will shove your rodent down your throat until you choke on it!"

It's going to be painful. Either they have to change him dramatically or he's just not going to fit the group at all.

Since the tone is very different than the originals, I suspect it will be worse.

Plus now you can talk to Boo, which will likely make it much worse.

On a different note, Minsc being in is sort of confirmation that we’d be getting combat lines eventually. A big part of him wouldn’t work if he’s not going to shout at Boo to go for the eyes in a fight.

I do hope you get companions that you like, but I can say for me that having neutral/evil companions is a refreshing and needed change. Most of the games I play with companions/followers assume that you will be good or neutralish good no matter how much you find it ridiculous in certain circumstances.

I see them as mostly separate entities too, but usually people tend to take along companions with similar views to their own character. They did say that they wanted the evil route tested and also that they were releasing the not good companions first so it seems they assumed this connection as well.

They should recruit people who tend to play neutral or evil in games to help them rather than assuming it means murdering everything. More people play the not so good path in games than is often thought (or admitted). I agree with you about the current evil path, it is like they thought only horny preteens and people who think evil must be stupid would take that route. I am definitely glad they don't have the stupid cartoon evil so far with these companions. That crap needs to stay in the past where it belongs.

I found him completely ridiculous and insufferable from the little I played of BG1. Even when I started as chaotic good (I usually play neutral). I hope for those who like him that they keep him as they remember, but he will be one character that will never ever be in my party.

My thoughts aswell.

I should say that prospective writers or those interested in evil companions in general should be taking notes from the upcoming Wrath of the Righteous evil companions.

Turns out evil companions are A LOT more compelling when they don't go into stupid chaotic asshole territory, because some should be more cunning than they are, and evil companions ARE allowed to have goals that aren't completely selfish. You should find yourself agreeing with some of what they do or propose in some way, even if it's for reasons you disagree with. The Hellknight in particular is introduced doing something that would be unquestionably evil - BUT given the context of the situation, he definitely saved more lives in that moment than the alternative otherwise. He basically adds a 'practicality above all' viewpoint to the overall WotR companion cast, constantly butting heads with the more idealistic Paladin companion, and mildly calling out everyone else that's in the party for largely personal reasons instead of being wholly dedicated to fighting the demons.

He's probably my most favorite evil companion ever from a writing standpoint, even though I can never really fit him into my main combat party and I generally hate most hellknight-type characters otherwise.

(There’s also another evil companion in the game who is probably my most hated evil character in all of gaming, but that’s because their entire shtick is chaotic asshole that’s probably a professional liar on top of that. Though my hatred of them isn’t because they’re badly written by any means either, because they work to the point where most of the rest of the party dislikes them too.)

I don't see Shadowheart as being neutral and only as evil. Likewise, there's nothing good about Wyll; he is just neutral.

As for the remaining three, I don't see how a werewolf can be any sort of good companion. Neutral at most, but good? No.

I just can't stand Larian's penchant for taking what are evil things in longstanding D&D/Forgotten Realms lore, i.e. vampires, werewolves, Sharites, etc., and somehow trying to make them not really evil. For Larian, and seemingly many of their fans, this shows "depth" in character writing. For me, it is the exact opposite; I see it as silly and pathetic and a sign of very poor and trite writing. I see the whole "we need to understand and empathize with the bad guy" shtick as the greatest cliche of all.

Yeah, I'm with you on this. Feel the same way about Minsc.

There is a problem with Shadowheart that even aside from all datamining, there is literally nothing in the game to indicate that she is an evil character.
Just because she worships Shar would I put her neutral.
For the rest of the characters, it's quite simple. Due to the fact that Larian said there are no good characters at the start of EA.

I completely get this, which is why I am very strictly NOT advocating for more good companions at the expense of the evil ones. Precisely because I am bitterly disappointed when what I want in this game is left out, I don't want to impose that same feeling on anyone else. I want a BG3 that the whole range of fans of the franchise can enjoy. And for me that means being able to play with a strictly good party.

Having said this, yet another reason why party size matters is that if I had a party of six rather than four, I would be willing to take along one unconventional (for me) companion in the mix, for example someone like Shadowheart, just to see how things play out with her character. I often do this with Viconia in my BG1/2 playthroughs. It is especially interesting to me to see what happens if I take an "evil" companions along with me, expose and subject them to a continuous stream of good actions and words, chastise them when they try to be evil even in the slightest, and see how they react (which is to say, see how "deep" that character's writing truly is). But with a party of only four, I will sadly have no choice but to play only with very standard and conventional (for me) party configurations.

In longstanding Forgotten Realms lore, clerics of Shar are evil. Period.

I'm not sure how you can say that being a worshiper of a neutral evil diety doesn't indicate your own alignment.

"A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves."

That pretty much sums up every one of our companions.