OK. There have been some threads on this already, but this one is maybe slightly different (granted, I haven't read all the similar threads so I don't know how different it'll really be).
It's been said that for Act 2, Larian is going to lock us into a party of 4 companions. This I will NEVER like. If they do this, I will be pretty upset. I want MORE companion options and a party of 6, not less companion options and stuck with a party of the same 4 characters for the entire rest of the game. That would totally suck.
That said, what I would understand is if YOUR choices - YOU THE PLAYER - determine if companions leave or not. So, in a sense, it's similar.
For example, in Pathfinder: Kingmaker, you choose a certain path and you get different companions, right from the very beginning. One path grants you the halfling and the fighter, and the other path grants you the undead elf lady and the dwarf.
This could work for BG3 as well, and it would make sense from a story perspective.
So, here's how: Lae'zel's personal quest is to get the tadpole removed from her head, and she's dying to get to her creche to do that. Each long rest that you take that you didn't do something to move towards that goal, like interrogate Zorru or just go to the Gith Patrol or whatever, you lose relationship points with her. Ignore her and not go to the patrol at all, and eventually Lae'zel's relationship reaches the level that she decides to leave you permanently.
Wyll is another example. He is dying to get you to kill the three goblin bosses. Every day that you ignore this quest and go around doing other things and you lose points with Wyll. Eventually, ignore him enough and Wyll leaves the party, frustrated that you are ignoring his desires and his ultimate objectives. "You and I simply do not share the same priorities," he says, and he leaves.
Of course, there would be warnings in between, with a final warning before they exit. "Either we do something today, or I'm out of here," on the morning that is your last chance. So you either start to do things to further their quest that day or they are gone.
So, just to be clear, there would be plenty of opportunities to keep them in your party and further their quest. Going to the windmill and confronting the goblin captain there with Wyll in your party would increase his relationship back up and make him happy enough to stay in the group. Interrogating Zorru would make Lae'zel happy and increase your relationship with her so she remains in the group, etc.
And, of course, situations that make sense from a story perspective should remain. If I help Minthara, it makes sense that at least Gale and Wyll would leave; at least based on what I know about them. If I help the tieflings/druids, no one should leave because no one would feel that strongly about it that they'd be angry that we helped them as opposed to killed them. So this currently makes a lot of sense that they've done already. I wouldn't want them to change that.
And, if in the future of the game, they also have such a moral dilemma that it would cause people to leave the party, that makes perfect sense too. So let's say they allow you to travel with Halsin, but you killed his grove, Halsin would refuse, and if you are traveling with him and you later butcher a bunch of druids or animals, he might leave you at that point too. Or if Shadowheart is with you and you kill a bunch of Dark Justiciars, she might leave you (provided she hasn't converted to Selune by that point).
But I'm just saying, I think there should be more consequences for player actions in terms of party members staying than there are currently. If you aren't aligning with the character's personal quest, you should lose relationship points with them. If you don't give Gale items to consume, he starts using his own, and your relationship suffers. If you don't keep working towards helping Astarion get free of Cazador, he'll eventually leave. Things like that.
And, did I mention... I want MORE companion choices. Minthara, Sazza, Halsin, Karlach, etc. Don't take away our companion options, PLEASE!
Let's be honest, limiting the number of companions is probably Larian's least popular decision. This is so unpopular that I doubt the idea will survive until the premiere, but that doesn't mean we can't complain about it (just to be sure).
Just for the sake of explaining how it worked at Kingsmaker.
At the end of the prologue, you had a short dialogue and which companion was joining you depended on choosing one of the options.
This was a bit of a problem because you actually had a choice between a priest / tank and a bard / inquisitor.
Those who didn't join you in the prologue still do it after 2-3 hours.
I'm not sure if that's what you mean.
Personally, I would prefer whether the companions stay or go depends on my choices. Unfortunately, many games do this in an extremely stupid way.
An example would be Kingsmaker in which you had to complete the companions' quest in one particular way, otherwise the character would die.
It would be nice if your companions actually react to our actions, not like when you are a deadly demon and some goddamn paladin in your party doesn't care (guess game)
As for leaving the character from the party. If you think about it, evil characters should not leave the group. As long as you murder the village, it makes sense to offend a good character, but what about evil characters?
The evil character (unless it's a comic book level of evil) shouldn't care if we save the village or not as long as it pays off. Due to the fact that good behavior most often pays off in games, there really is very little sense in letting a character leave the group.
Baldur's Gate may have been a good game, but the reputation system there didn't make sense. While it can be understood that a character was leaving the party due to a low reputation, it made absolutely no sense that bad characters were leaving the game group's reputation was too high. It was so much fun that maintaining a high reputation actually made the most sense in terms of the big profits.
