Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Camp followers for evil players

There are so many ways they could implement good camp followers for an evil route. Off the top of my head, they literally gave every potential player character a tadpole capable of manipulating the minds of others along with the potential for enhanced psionic abilities. Why not let the evil route let you be a more powerful Shadow Prince? Use the tadpole to alter the personalities and natures of other characters to force them to your side. This way later evil camp companions could be drawn from any pool of characters, provided they can be affected by the tadpole. (This mostly makes sense for bending/breaking followers of the Absolute, but who knows where Larian is taking the newfound psionic abilities. Maybe each good/neutral companion/follower can have an evil tadpole-ized version). It would also provide for a non-murderhobo kind of evil. It also lets evil characters recruit followers to camp that would otherwise be murdered, saving the evil route from the content plague. Perhaps in a neutral playthrough you could turn evil characters to good like:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrainwashingForTheGreaterGood

I also think there's potential for Glut to be a camp follower, if you can persuade it before/after killing Spaw/Duergar that it will be better off sticking with your party. An expansionist myconid follower could be really cool. (Though that might just be my interest in strange and unique concepts. I'd just as soon pick up a Kenku or Warforged follower). Or if when you do all 3 major favors for Spaw, one of his myconids begins to follow your camp (think that's good route though).

(Also I'm getting really nervous about the prospect of being forced to choose between characters (Lae'zel vs. Shadowheart) when Larian is already giving us so few companions relative to ALL other major RPGs out there. It worked in Baldur's Gate 2 because you had many viable, interesting, and talkative alternatives when you were forced to make a choice. That won't work here. Bit of nonsense if you ask me.)

yes, this makes our each companion has a profound character.

our party members depend on which path(good, grey, evil) our player character pick.

but, there are powerful magics can bind your companions in rare critical conditions, it makes things not so absolutely, you may bind an evil character to be a grey, even a good path party members, and vice versa.

and "the binding system" should be the true powerful for companions' loyalty compares with "the relationship system".

I like the idea with tadpole a lot!

i agree your opinion.

but I suppose the binding is so powerful , you could have only one companion to bind permanently(maybe add the other in later stage).

so like Lae'zel vs. Shadowheart or Wyll vs Mizora, you might still have to choose only one to keep in your party.

the binding might be from tadpole that your player character masters it much more than other party members or other rare powerful magic artifacts.

I should change my words, I partial agree your idea. because your player character don't have unparalleled powers.

if you desire to bind a companion, your player character ought to pay a heavy price for binding and maintain the binding permanently.

so if you won't see the companion as your player character's lover, you shouldn't pay such heavy price to bind the NPC, no matter the NPC's alignment is compatible your party or not.

I'm not sure what the point of camp followers is. If they turn out being useful or interesting then I guess it would be nice to have someone like Sazza.

Like, I get having a blacksmith in the camp. Someone who can produce something of value. I get having pets. I suppose a sage makes some small sense. But if it's just an NPC sitting around saying the same line over and over again...

*

I don't like any of this binding stuff that's entered the discussion. Truly out in left field, in my opinion.

Stevelin7, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by binding and how that relates to the tadpole. I think having it beyond the tadpole is a bit out of left field writing-wise, especially making it a new mechanic, as JandK says. My suggestion was just enhancing use of the Illithid abilities we've already got to allow for a sensible way of turning otherwise rabid evil characters to your side in the long run. Could you explain what you mean by binding?

Just like the Lady Vengeance offered you a team of people to work with between adventures, I think the camp followers present the same idea/opportunity, except more customizable/decision-dependent and interactive. Or in DA:O where helpful sorts could join your camp. I'd like to see a mix of the two with a bit more interactivity and variety in dialogue. Each camp follower can have different skills/means of helping or assisting your team, different banter, different knowledge about the world. For example, Halsin is a knowledgeable and wise Druid who can fight and give advice based on the world. Volo is a storyteller and a bard who can relay your exploits or tell you about his experience with the world (while being a bit flexible with the truth); he's also comic relief. Having these types of followers shouldn't just be for the good route. That's why I brought up the Illithid powers as a means of recycling some content with evil flair, or making that content more readily available by recruiting hesitant characters.

Also, I say more interactive and varied because we are going to be visiting the camp more in a single act of BG3 than visiting the Lady Vengeance in the entirety of DOS2.

I see.

but your suggestion the tadpole effects won't be permanent, your have to "concentrate" on the companions, or once the psionic abilities break, the companions will wake up, ...and then your will get hatred from them in return.

does this you want to see?

or a binding system, just extreme powerful as "true name" in the final stage of "neverwinter nights hordes of the underdark". but of course, the price will be much far higher then gold.

a binding will let you get a permanent spiritual connection that don't require your "concentration" in psionic abilities, but require a ritual with heavy price that you have to pay for equal price.

because "The country is easy to change, the nature is difficult to change", a villain can not really change his alignment to other alignment.

That's a really good point, stevelin7. Concentration definitely would be an issue in keeping people loyal to you with the tadpole. At the moment, we have no idea how far Larian intends to take psionic abilities. We need a system that can give valuable evil followers to the party without forcing you to be a servant of the Absolute, unless Larian intends the evil route to involve being subordinate to the Absolute (A bit derivative relative to the God King situation in DOS2, if you ask me. Also, what about prideful evil types?). Will Sazza stay loyal if you remain evil but choose to betray the Absolute? I think not. Same with someone like Minthara, unless you can somehow reveal to all of them that it is a Mindflayer/Netherese/Shadow plot in which they are mere pawns. There needs to be some mechanic that gives you greater customization for evil party composition, along with some mechanic for turning evil NPCs to be loyal to your party specifically, as opposed to slaves of what will probably a major antagonist for the overall plot. I think your binding idea combined with the tadpole is a good way to allow for that.

I do understand JandK's anxiety about it, however. Up until this point, we don't have a full reason to require a binding system. But there is a problem with the evil route Larian is offering, requiring us to join up with easily manipulated cultists interested in mass slaughter. There are other brands of evil! Sometimes evil can manifest in disdain for free will, which is a huge aspect of why the Illithid persuasion operates the way it does in the game. Evil isn't just murderous, or thieving, or cruel, or torturous. We can look back to Immanuel Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, in that goodness is when the rational agent is treated as an end in itself rather than a means. Certainly someone who goes through life solely seeing others as tools and means for their own ends would be a type of evil. David Hume argued that goodness comes from what is useful and what is useful is what is praiseworthy. Someone who is only willing to make themselves useful for their own ends regardless of the needs of others could be a different type of evil. In DOS2, and the choices for being evil should be more than, "I'm a mustache-twirling VILLAIN" or "I kill anyone who gets in my way," or, "I just like committing mass murder in exchange for wealth and power." Some villains have ends which they can convince themselves to be virtuous, having chosen dark means to achieve them. There is a content plague for customization, companions, followers, and the evil route, and binding could be a solution.

I think your description of evil more likely toward neutral, not the dark evil.

and I suggest the game should unlock the true end for both the neutral route and the good route in specific conditions.

the evil route in BG3 is obvious for corrupting everything, the player character once chooses this way that means fail the trial from the God of the gods AO-- a destiny candidate fails his/her destiny trial.


and I agree your argument, you supplement the words that I haven't organized, that is also I want to express