Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General What else do you think Larian is keeping a secret?

To be fair, Gale has a very good reason to show off that much power considering his lore.

What else do you think Larian is keeping a secret? - By all that Sharranism obviously Viconia De'Vir.

Unlikely, unless they treat her possible death at the end of throne of bhaal as non cannon xD. Plus Viconia wasn't that popular. Hell I'd love a Edwin cameo, but he is likely long dead seeing he was a mere human. Of the bg companions only the people of elven or dwarven descent are quite possibly alive.

There are rumors about Edwin and if its true we have way too much humans from the past... I have a big problem with the fact that there are too many humans (currently 2-3) from the predecessors: Will mean coincidentally several humans (confirmed are Volo & Minsk, unconfirmed Edwin) from the Bhaalspawn saga, coincidentally 100 years after the events in the same future / present of our adventure, coincidentally live in Baldur's Gate and surroundings, in addition to the other non-humans (confirmed Jaheira and probably some others?). These are a few too many coincidences at once.

About this theory, if this proves to be true, I would hope that Larian studies the lore of the Realms (not just the source books but also the FR novels) very closely and thoroughly and handles this properly and not in a cliched way. The deal that all the gods agreed to with Ao was that they could freely compete with each other for the devotion of people but this was subject to people's free will. So no god, let alone a good god like Selune, will tolerate Shar stealing their devoted against their will by brainwashing them. If Shar can do that and get away with it, then pretty soon there will be no worshippers left for any of the good gods. So the only way SH got "brainwahsed" would be if she allowed herself to be brainwahsed or opened herself upto such brainwashing, for example by her faith in Selune being weak or compromised in some way. And in that case, she still FULLY bears responsibility for her own "brainwashing" and for any and all actions she may have undertaken while "brainwashed." So her "redemption," such as it is, MUST include her being subject to judgment for her culpability in going over to Shar's side. And my GOOD PC will ALWAYS judge her very harshly in this regard.

Hmmm I think some companions have been made to seem a bit too important than they were in the original series anyway. I mean Jaheira was likely only popular because you met her so early on in the story. As for humans somehow bridging a 140 year gap, aside from Minsc (who was petrified for 100ish years), would be a bit much. Only way I see edwin making a comeback if he managed to become a Lich or something. I already think two characters from the OG series is enough. And they largely serve the role of: LOOK THE GAME IS CONNECTED TO THE OTHERS!. Mind you if Jim cummings voices Minsc again I will be fine with it.

I'd rather see some more focus being given to how they address some of the more key aspects of the DnD ruleset, such as class restrictions on learning spells from scrolls. Reactions I would like to see something on as well. Not necessarily copy paste from solasta, but in a manner that we have more control over how reactions come into play. Having spells like shield and counter spell are quite useful in engagements with spellcasters and such, so for me 5e without those would be weird.
I mean I guess flying has already been confirmed now I suppose, but I expect it will be more of a traversal method rather than a combat tactic in BG3. I like BG3 for other reasons than I like let's say Solasta, but would love to see a more purist implementation of the ruleset here and there.

I mean 8ish months seems like a lot, but the way time flies these days, it will be August before we know it and I expect a lot of the community is waiting with baited breath on the elephants in the room when it comes to their concerns, and how and if they are being addressed by Larian at this point.

My expectation is that AT MOST there will be only eight party companions in total: two evil, three neutral, and two good, plus one more (SH) who starts out evil but eventually becomes good. So the remaining three companions to be revealed will be: Minsc (good), Jaheira (neutral), and one more good companion.

When I did read this, a "good" companion immediately came to mind: Just kidding!

that would be in line with divinity 2 I guess. I expect 8 origin characters myself whom you will meet in act I and maybe some (temporary) none origin characters whom you will meet in Baldur's Gate proper. I expect jaheira to be a NPC or maybe a temporary companions for a part of the questline. I wonder if Jaheira mellowed out in her stance of: If someone cuts down a tree down in the forest, I will kill the bastard who dunnit (or whatever her quote was xD). Based on what we have of act one I see only one more origin character (karlach I guess) who will join you at some point. Although she currently states only to join you once she gets her pursuers off her back.

Oh no.. PLEASE NO HEYA, IT IS ME IMOEN! I could only kinda stomach her in BG2 because she became less annoying xD. I'd rather have Jan with his Turnip fetish than a Imoen type eww.

Yeah I can somewhat agree and see to my argument about his "condition" being rather weak.

One of the reasons those reactions and actions bear no cost is Gale being a companion, not a MC. This overlaps with another topic - the group leadership. BG3 has a MC-centric leadership system (which I don't like), where companions in 90% situations submit to the player's actions. But if we put this intersection aside (which is not healthy for the analysis, but whatever), that also brings in the reverse logic argument. If one hasn't yet established his personality fully, how can you state that they are neutral? Neutral does not equal "did nothing substantial" or "beared no heavy cost to one's actions". I made the analysis - the list, from a standpoint of the limited data we have from the EA, datamined materials excluded. With the info we have, Gale definately reaches for the Good rather than Neutral. Unless you have some strong argument regarding his actions that I haven't noticed.

Edwina *ahem* would be a great cameo lol. I still suspect they is Gale =)

I don't know about strong argument but in my opinion, the approval system doesn't indicate what the companion would do, but simply what that they approve or disapprove of.

So, Gale might appreciate that our Tav is a kind soul and doing good things without striving to do the same himself.


I mean, don't get me wrong, I like Gale and I don't think he's a villain for what he did. He is a relatable human character. But I wouldn't really color him good...not just yet. That being said, if he's Neutral, I do agree that Gale has a stronger tendency toward good. He even recognized that what he did was wrong.

But hey, at the end of the day, alignements are not just based on actions but also the "true" intention behind them (you did "good", "nothing" or "bad"...but why?). So, it can be tricky to put people in boxes based on that.

I whole heartedly agree. This was not my intention to divide them into categories, I got carried away a little.
I even wrote that alignments may shift, which is normal in dnd sessions if your DM is ok with it.

Oh don't worry, I wasn't pointing fingers 😅 I can fully understand wanting to theorize on characters alignement !
You did provide interesting points

I was only sharing my stance on the matter.

Sure, Gale might exhibit many more Good tendencies as we continue through the story and see more of his thoughts/desires/actions. Or, because of companion passivity in BG3, we might never be able to witness enough actions by him to make a conclusion about his alignment that ~everyone agrees on. And of course, while Alignments may have specific God/Plane-tied definitions in 5e, determining an individual's alignment is much more tricky and subjective unless they're cartoonishly Evil/Good/etc. I agree that Gale is closer to Good than Evil, but I don't really have any more arguments besides what I and others have presented so far.

First impressions are VERY important to me and I'm betting a lot of other players. To this day, I despise Astarion simply because I am unable to meet him without feeling like a buffoon because the game forces me to let him 'trick' me. In addition, Gale immediately comes across as arrogant and borderline "oh, you're an idiot, that's okay :)" to the player character. That was part of why it was so obvious SH (and the box) are meant to be so important. Larian actively started to tone her personality down, to the point where she'll actually say "hey, thanks for saving me on the ship" now instead of just the snarky "whatever" attitude she previously had. They realized that they needed to make it easier for the player to like her.

That all said, and I've said this over and over again, I'm simply not convinced Larian was being totally honest when they said that we have the evil/neutral party now and we'll get the good companions later. This is the main party, like it or not.

I can totally see you being right about this. Like I've said repeatedly, anyone wanting to play with a good party is being given the shaft. And the way Larian is doing this is by hiding behind the 'it doesn't matter because nobody has any alignment in 5e' BS line. Being "good" versus being "evil" does matter in a D&D game, and it will always matter.

Edwin returns as an unhappy lich? YEAH! Just imagine all the hilarious things he could whine and complain about.

You mean Edwina returns as an unhappy barmaid...