I remember us having some interesting conversations, even if most of the particulars escape me. I do remember head canons coming up quite a bit before on the forum, there are two camps of crpg players that have very different expectations from their characters, and what constitutes customizability.

I think the tadpole is a perfectly valid reason for all of our disparate characters to want to journey together, it's why Tav is de facto leader where I have to eat my ludonarrative pease.

This evident intrigue around our condition is part of the mystery box that I was referring to earlier. The dynamics of the party and our MC might change drastically at the climax of Act 1, but as it is, most of us seem to be treating this thing as a tadpole we can remove, this becomes less and less the case as we draw closer to the Moonrise plot, but it still doesn't change that Tav problem.

There's a reason I hardly play BG 1 compared to BG2, the companions are mostly just memorable catchphrases that I projected a lot onto, so we can agree there. But I don't think you need to say its a trade off to have more companions or better companions. Not to mention all the speculation around having our roster locked in after Act I. Who knows, all the characters you kill or avoid meeting might end up at Moonrise anyway, similar to the end of DOSII, and we'd have less reason for them to subject themselves to our party in the interim.

Your murderhoboism makes my lawful stupid self apoplectic. :hihi:

dumb, pseudo-intellectual and polite homophobe