Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General who do you think the new origin character will be?

There is no good or evil characters by dictate from WotC, who are desperately trying to kill the concept of alignment, since the 20th century American midwestern values it was based upon don't travel well. Larian got a bit confused early on, but now they have adjusted.

I mean, just because alignment isn't a defined mechanic doesn't mean you can't define good or evil characters. I think Kanisatha is a bit too morally rigid regarding Gale and Wyll in particular (actually, I cant quite recall his stance on Gale) but otherwise, Shadowheart is evil by dint of being a Shar worshipper (just because we haven't seen her do anything evil doesn't mean the priestess of the very evil goddess isn't evil. She's recognised enough that Shar deemed her worthy of granting her spells, which should tell you something). Astarion is obviously evil and would be if left to his own devices. Same with Lae'zel. And even though I think he's too hard on Wyll, I don't think you can put Wyll any closer to good than neutral at this point, but he wants to be good, which to me counts for something. Gale meanwhile is the one closest to being uncomplicatedly good, and I still get the distinct impression he's manipulating us at least somewhat.

I feel ya.

I think a lot of people were expecting a traditional paragon party option (which used to be the standard).

Now I am grateful for the addition of Jaheira and Minsk . At least they threw me a well chewed bone, but definitely not even one "feminine female romance option".

Lets not conflate 'edgy' or 'conflicted' with evil. By Larian's own words, Wyll is heroic, and Gale is not one of the 'evil companions' but rather one of the others that had enough work finished on him that they could get him in as well. Shadowheart has a very-telegraphed redemption arc. Really only Lae'zel, Asterion, (and Minthara) are evil as far as we know.

The only good morality litmus test for the party members so far in BG III EA is 'will you leave my party if I side with the goblins'. In which case Asterion and Lae'zel are evil, Shadowheart and Gale are neutral (since they object, but will stay, or can be persuaded to stay in the case of Gale)

The majority of companions revealed so far seem to be good/neutral, honestly. No way in hell Minsc, Halsin or Jaheria will side with you, and datamines indicate Karlach won't either.

The whole thing about there not being enough companions to build a good-aligned party never held much weight and has shifted further and further as EA has advanced and more details have emerged. The reverse is much more of a problem. At least planning a good party you'll have the *option* of recruiting evil party members into your roster.

Good news, because unless Larian lied to us the mystery origin character(s) is indeed good-aligned. I'm pretty sure they're going to be half-orc or dragonborn, but I guess they could just throw out gnome or dwarf for some reason... kinda weird to hold this one close to chest for the dragonborn/half-orc and monk reveal PFH though after just tossing Karlach out into the open like she means nothing.

As for duplication... uh, I mean, not even similar roles? What does that mean, because every class is pretty different, unless you're planning on just running you and one caster. If you're including everything like fighter, paladin, and ranger as the party's one and done 'melee warrior,' then by that same definition, you can only have one caster and maybe if you want to split hairs a support caster cleric/bard but they're still really just casters.


This is false, and I'm both disappointed and shocked people still have this mentality. Coming from, oh, I don't know, every other narrative space ever in existence besides DnD, many of it comprising much better fantasy settings and characterization, good writing doesn't require you to slap a "I'm a good boy" or a "I'm Mr. Evil" on the tin of a character, and generally, the best ones make both you and themselves think about the weight of their actions and their motivations. Like christ, we already roll our eyes when the bad guys have to do some token bad thing like break a puppie's neck just to highlight they're bad people. Actually listing them as evil is just silly.

DnD's alignment system was always terrible and worthless and far too constrained to ever be realistic. Morality is never that simple and dnd is better off forcing DMs and players to actually think about their choices, or, you know, maybe continue doing that instead of sighing and going, "Well, I'm Chaotic Evil, so uh... I kick that kid in the shins I guess just to make sure everyone knows it."

Many evil characters don't even consider themselves evil, and in just as many cases, from their perspective, they aren't. At least, not any more so than the "hero" party. This lack of nuance makes for shallower characters, trust me. If you read some of the more beloved fantasy novels, you'll find yourself begrudgingly respecting or being enthralled by the villains just as much as the heroes even if you still hate them and/or what they've done. Especially these days when it's no longer just some dark lord trying to conquer the world for unspecified reasons.

Part of my problem is that I've already had Minsc and Jaheria in my party. I want something different. Also, when are they joining us? At level 6+? I like building my party up from low levels, by the time I meet them, I'm going to already have an established party/playstyle. The companions we 'start' with lean heavily towards evil/selfish.

That said, this is Larian's game, and they love their Larian-esk characters, so it is what it is. My best case scenario is that characters can change alignment (or whatever you want to call it) depending on how you treat them/act/choices you make. I'd love to see Lae'zel become disillusioned with her upbringing, or have the ability to have Wyll give in completely to his more evil side, or see Shadowheart go either way depending on the story goes. The worst case is having 3 "good" companions, 3 "evil" companions, and you simply have to choose one group, which essentially removes half of your choices.

Canon dragonborn names are more dragon style, meaning overtly long with lots of j and x

Not sure if its a dragonborn. The head looks too round for that.
It looks like horns which is why I guessed a tiefling. But as others pointed put, if you look close enough it could also be a fedora

But "judging someone by their actions" is not alignment in old-school D&D terms. If we consider "siding with the goblins" to be evil, then all the origin character are evil, because they can all be the player character, and the player character can always choose to side with the goblins. Likewise, they are all "good" because they can all choose not to side with the goblins.

When we work with other people, they will likely make some decisions we approve of, and some decisions we do not approve of. That does not make them good, that does not make them evil, unless your definition of good is "agrees with me" and evil "doesn't agree with me".

To me, it looks like a portrait of a fairly standard humanoid head, grayed out and with two big black scratches obscuring it. In other words, even if the image were in perfect focus, it still wouldn't reveal anything.

I wonder if that will turn out to be the case. I can't imagine making that choice as Wyll. Hopefully that would have well-designed, interesting consequences

Doc Indiana Jones?

That's pretty much my position. As for the last sentence maybe the companions all have to face some sort major decision or have some sort of epiphany. Was there a hint of this in the way Lae'zel was treated by the dragon-rider Gith? Am I correct in thinking that there has been 2 or 3 encounters with evidence of Sharrian activity? Maybe, eventually, one of these will eventually give Shadders pause for thought. I've never really listened to Gale's witterings so I can't say anything on him. He's not team evil anyway. I've never had Asterion or Wyll in my party.

Actually there's evidence of a horrific Sharran ritual in grymforge and Shadowheart expresses nothing resembling remorse or unease. If my memory is correct she has an ambient chatter basically challenging us to speak out against it. So yeah, I think she's all aboard the Shar train even if she's not all for rampant slaughter. The sense I get from what I've read is that Sharrans aren't generally for rampant, chaotic cruelty and murder anyway. They kill for reasons beyond enjoyment, typically targetted. Their bag is more about corruption and tyrannical control, so there's nothing that would stop them from being uneasy about wholesale slaughter for the sake of slaughter.

Based on Larian, we already know it's basically going to be 2 evil, 3 neutral, and 2 good. Lazael and Astarion are evil, Gale, Shadowheart, and Wyll are neutral on a gradient, and Karlach and Mystery Character are good. The non-origin companions can imo be far looser with alignment balances but also basically seem split down the middle meaning there are problem more evil ones we haven't seen yet since to my knowledge none of them are recruitable and we only got the 'good' two because they're famous from previous games while the other two were probably announced since we've already met them.

So that means there are probably two more evil counterpart companions, possibly one or more neutral ones too.


That's fine, but you answered your own issue. YOU COULD consider siding with the goblins to be evil (and yes, it would be seen as such by many beneath general morality). Some of the companions literally don't care, maybe some do care and you talk them into it anyway. As I said, serial killers literally have young girls writing them love letters in prison, and many of the most monstrous cult leaders have convinced people to do horrible things through charismatic force.

We've seen no indication that these choices won't come back to bite you later or that at some point characters will draw a line in the sand just like real people. When I call these characters good or evil, I mean loosely based on broad concepts of good and evil. Laezel's entire race is evil, but I don't see her going around murder hoboing everyone or torturing babies. Immo approving or disapproving should have more to do with a character's personality than just their moral compass.

There was a beautiful example of this in Owlcat's Wrath of the Righteous. I don't remember the exact situation, but an elven child was burned at the stake by a paladin who genuinely thought he was doing good and there was a preexisting basis for that. She was saved by another paladin who suddenly and strangely sprang to save her after she didn't burn right away, and he died instead. She asks who was good and righteous in that situation, then says she believes they both were, and harbored neither one more gratitude than the other hatred. She is considered a good character, but it's a very unique form of a good-hearted person. She was a child sage wise beyond her years and decided goodness through overarching reason most of the time. Imo there is a whole lot of flexibility in what it means to be good or evil.

Given the face pic is just a siloutte, the name is likely just a code for the actual name, but one that hints at the actual identity.

The name seem like The Red (or Devil) Sage, which given Sylvira Savikas was one of the datamined origins, suggests she is the one who survived.

The only way it could be something like a Fedora is if its Jaralxe. And the sweep of the horns looks like Sylvira Savikas.

The good or evil origin thing really only applies to using them as companions, your playing the character you get to chose that alignment, big difference.

Yeah i think you are right it probably says the devil sage and we are getting a tiefling bard

Some people think its actually going to be the Dragonborn Sorcerer serial killer revealed in the Blood in Baldur's Gate game, but that seems more likely to be the final Archvillian, she or he fits with the Bhaal vibes.


I still think its more likely to be Sylvira Savikas.

pack it up guys, we may have the final answer:

the final origin is...



Edgy Mc Edgington. Dragonborn serial killer.

So we get another "evil" companion and Helia the werewolf halfing died to quench the thirst of the Halsin simps out there.

That was my initial impression but Karlach is right next to his image and I can't see there being two tieflings.
I could see the name being 'The Devil Sage' though.

Note to self: Just wait until the PFH.