Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by Leucrotta
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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by FrostyFardragon
Originally Posted by Nightmarian
the best ones make both you and themselves think about the weight of their actions and their motivations.
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".

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.

Last edited by Nightmarian; 06/07/23 05:39 PM.