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

Most people i know would trade their soul for a donut.

But thats may be part of the reason ... cant it? This world is rotten to the core ... at least our fantasy can seem to remain pure.

Im with you ... it sucks ...
But it also make sense, doesnt it?

I mean ... if you would want to start cult ... who would you recruit?
Charles Menson, or Mothee Teresa?

Possible. The last origin in DOS2, Fane, was also something special.
Its possible that the last origin in BG3 is the goblin who instead of just using face masks, lets us mind control basically anyone in the game and use them as vehicle.

Or the dragonborn is fixed and we have more of a master-blaster situation.

If i was someone evil id have much more fun corrupting a good person

What sort of donut? I don't like filled donuts, I only like sugared ring donuts.

I personally want goody-two-shoes as companion because I play goody-two-shoes MC.
I have nothing against Larian writing - they are writing extremely nuanced characters and that's simply definition of good writing, but why it can't be nuanced good character.

Like Gale or Wyll for example?

I'm not particularly invested in this "good vs evil" debate, but one thing I will surely agree with Gray Ghost in this thread is that this tired notion that any "Paragon" character has to be necessarily a dull one is a failing of a lot of unimaginative writers and not a factual statement about storytelling.

You can write excellent stories and arcs around the struggles of virtuous characters.

I can even provide examples. From Dragon Age Inquisition we have Cassandra, whose story arc centres around her belief in the organisation she's a part of. She remains Righteous throughout but her big conflict is in reconciling the ideals she swore herself to with the fact of the corruption within the order she's part of, and deciding if organisation is even worth trying to salvage. She remains true to her ideals in the end but she still has to grapple with the morality of the system she's been a part of.

A version of that in BG3 could have Ben great. Imagine a paladin whose order has been infiltrated by the absolute, corrupted and twisted into a dark mirror of itself. The paladin has to grapple with whether her loyalty to the order trumps her loyalty to the ideals of the order, and what that means now that the two are separate. She could stay with the corrupted order and the dark beliefs they now stand for, become totally disillusioned and abandon any semblance of idealism or belief in anything, or she could choose to stand for her ideals even if means abandoning the people she has trusted and loved for years, possibly even her whole life. That's a level of nuance that I've yet to see in any of the companions frankly.

With regard to Wyll and Gale Nepro, I think calling Gale good but flawed is valid, but I think as soon as Wyll showed himself willing to torture an innocent man with frankly very little push, he moved from "Good but flawed" to "evil but wanting to be good." I think torture is one of those lines that once crossed really means something heavy. Not that I think it makes any sense for him to have done that, I hate the scene and what to does to his character, but it exists and we have to take it into account.

On the other hand its kinda funny ...

Do you know "Who am i?" game?
Im companion from Baldur's Gate 3, im humanoid in size and shape, i have dark secret that i will tell nobody (except for main character after they do two or three things i like), im a danger to everyone in party and shouldnt be trusted.
Who am i?

Everyone in the party besides Lae'zel. She actually has no secret, dark or otherwise. Or if she does have one then it's at least not telegraphed from the very beginning.

The cross long predates Christianity.

Yes, she is very direct and brutally honest. My characters might not agree with Lae'zel, but at least they always know where they stand with her 😄


That sounds interesting, I'd like that.

(There's much more I'd like to write regarding this discussion, but I am currently at work and my break is over)

I don't understand the whole "bad vs good" debate concerning companions. Since most are origins, I believe that they can be either very nice persons or complete psychopaths depending on player actions. I don't think they will be railroaded into a set path. So having a "good" party will be entierly dependant on how you play the game.

Then you aren't really taking Karlach are you.

Well she is a bit scrawny to be a barbarian anyway, so she doesn't really fit the role.

Excellent example using one of my favourite game characters. She remains loyal to her religion while recognising that the church needs reform (in DA:I).

Cassandra is a religious fanatic. Not what I would consider a likable or admirable character.

Usually, I'm not much interested in playing origin characters, but in BG3, I could imagine playing as one (after playing my own characters, that is), this could be interesting. I don't think they will be railroaded into a set path, either.

For this reason, I think that maybe the "companion-versions" of these characters could also take different paths, depending on our actions and interactions with them - I'd like that. Maybe to a degree, most likely they won't have a complete change of heart - but who knows?

I'm very curious how many different paths are possible in this game. But I am sure the replayability is high enough to keep me busy for another couple of years 😄

You may find the 'fan imperative for good' to be weird.

I find this post weird.