Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Are you dissapointed with companions variety?

So we got one (copypasted) character from previous games, that i liked then, but should have remained there.

A character having a redemption story attached to them is an entirely separate issue. For the purposes of our discussion here, what matters is how/where they start out. That's their default alignment, the alignment they have if you the players does nothing to engage with their so-called arc. So the default alignment for SH is clearly and obviously evil, since she's a Sharran priestess. She may end up having a redemption story, but her default is evil, and so it is eminently fair to place her in that box starting out. And for Gale and Wyll, their defaults are also clearly neutral at best and most certainly not 'good'. And my 'good' PC is not going to have a positive reaction to someone revealing that they made a pact with a devil, or that they tried to steal Mystra's power for themselves.

This is very much something I agree with. The concept behind DU I very much like. It's the first Larian gameplay innovation idea I can say I enthusiastically agree with, though it is badly implemented here in this game.

I'm rather happy with the available companions.
My only doubt is whether Jaheira is really a druid or another class?
I really enjoy all companions and I'm very interested and excited to discover their stories.
I would have liked a dwarf male bard companion with drums though, I think that would have been super cool.
Also maybe a reserved but subtly kind female sorcerer would have also been nice.
But all that being said, I really like what we have now.
Except for Karlach. I will behead her every single time.

Really? Karlach? Damn, what's your problem with her?

her face
her voice
her tone
she's a tiefling (I guess I'm a racist against devils/demons)

Huh. Those are all valid reasons to dislike her, I'm just shocked you jump straight to killing her rather than just, y'know, not recruiting her.

All of the origin characters are evil by definition. If they weren't evil they wouldnt have got a tadpole. Karlach might keep her evil better hidden than Shadowheart but she's got to be evil because that's the story structure Larian went for.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense

Not really.

Karlach, Halsin and Minsc are good aligned. Shadowheart, Wyll, Jaheira (I guess) and Gale are agreeable enough to work with any party. Astarion, Lae'zel can work with evil/neutralish party. Minthara is perfect for an evil run.

Classes: divine casters: druids (Jaheira & Halsin), clerics (SH); arcane casters: Gale and Wyll, potentially Astarion as a trickster, skill classes: Astarion; fighter classes: Minsc (ranger), Karlach (barb) & Lae'zel (fighter)

races: elves, half-elves, humans, tiefling, githiyanki, drow

There seems to be enough diversity IMHO

I have to admit I was disappointed when they only added Karlach as an origin character after saying they were doing the evil/neutral companions first and would do the good ones later because that set up an expectation that there would be multiple good origin characters added and we ended up with only one. Yes, there are other good companions, but they're all gated into the latter part of the game. Even Halsin is hard to get before at least fourth level.

At the same time, I don't like a large number of companions when you have an undersized party so you have to leave most of them behind anyway.

Here's something I want to throw out to add to the discussion here on companion variety. Re. the issue of two druid companions, it occurred to me given all the ridiculous ret-conning that WotC has been engaging in recently, that Jaheira's base class may actually turn out to be sorcerer rather than druid. She comes across more as a sorcerer than a druid in everything shown of her so far anyway, and her original class was fighter-druid which we know for sure is no longer the case. So why not drop druid altogether? That way the ten companions are each their own separate class, leaving only bard and monk unrepresented. Just my take on how I think Jaheira may come out.

Not really, I wasn't playing on doing Origin's anyway. The Dark Urge seems like a total joke, though.

What isn't making sense for you? Swen mentioned a few times in the panel from hell that the story was about handling your own dark nature and thats what ties it to BG 1 and 2 and its only from this angle the origin characters start to make sense. There are 8 of them, including no origin. Excepting Karlach if we look at the seven remaining we have four of them that are straight up stupid evil. Gale and Wyll were better camouflaged, but we've seen in the new description of Gale that he's got some serious darkness in his past.

Wyll was actually very well done for an evil character as he's driven by ego and his desire to be seen as a hero makes him look like he might actually be a flawed good character. But when you analyse him a bit more you see that he's always only doing what is most expedient and convenient for himself which is ultimately the core of being evil. Then even if you select no origin you have the dream sequences pushing you into accepting power consequences be damned.

With all that it doesn't make sense for Karlach to be the only exception based on a few snippets of dialogue, and there are plenty of seeds of evil in her backstory.

While I agree with most of the statement, I do not think Wyll is evil. He seems neutralish.

Neutral is the alignment of egoists really (Jack Sparrow being an epitome of CN, for example). Only when this egoism starts to cause extreme pain to the others, we go into the evil section. Unless his vengeance or ego is at stake, Wyll will definitely want to avoid all that. Not enough for me personally to consider him truly evil.

Honestly, I would put only Astarion, Lae'zel and Minthara in the "evil section". Shadowheart is a bit too secretive. Yet her deity and some of the things she supports hint towards her being 'evil', too.

P.S. All the origin characters have some darkness in them. It is up to the player if they succumb to it or not. So basically, all of them have a villainous and a heroic path. Their alignment is not set into stone, esp. when picked as a main character.

[Spoilers from EA/ hell panels]
Didn't read every reply, but..

Not disappointed in the slightest. There's a fair amount for good and evil. And, I intend to make use of that Hirelings feature for every run. Because I kind of want to kill off or not recruit the origin followers.. Not because I don't like them, but, this allows for way more roleplay and replay value. I really, really don't want all the companions in my camp in any playthrough, let alone the first.

Chop off Gale's hand, and on your next playthrough you don't know *anything* about Gale's story yet. Kill/Excommunicate Astarion for trying to bite you and on my next run, Astarion feels brand new. Never recruit Wyl, and maybe next time pick his origin. Or kill either him or Karlach - have them both tag along in the next run. This way, you don't get to see everything from the get-go and you save some for later - but also the interactions between them, new combinations offer new things too.

Third reason is normalcy. I really like normalcy, but all of the Origin characters are rather special. I like special if it's uncommon, not if everyone in the party has a world-altering secret. Have some regular non-secretive people around that just do their job feels more natural to me. Having just a normal human fighter along that fights and shuts up tones it down a bit.

Fourth is focus: I remember Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2, or KotOR, or god forbid both Pathfinder games, where talking to everyone in the camp/castle/ship felt like a chore after a while. I much prefer to be invested in but a few for a playthrough; especially when multiple characters are flirty. But, if I *have* them in the camp, I am compelled to talk to them. It's just how I am. Much better to not have the option. The hireling way ensures the banter and relationships you build have more impact.

Fourth: I'll never play on easy mode, I dislike respeccing with a passion...Yet I want to pick my party for RP purposes. Having someone that augments that perfectly is nice. At the same time: I really want to play around with an optimized Half Orc Barbarian, but I don't like a dumb brute with no non-combat skills as my protagonist. Having one just for combat and dress-up is excellent. If I'm playing an evil Shadowheart / Astarion / Urge, I really want a custom, silent, creepy Necromancer along. And, every party needs a Dwarf. It's just the rules. If I'm not one, I'm renting one.

Lastly, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more companions to be found [They may even have said that? I don't remember], and if I am to guess - Viconia is one. IP wise, it makes all the sense that Jaheira and Minsc are there; but story wise Viconia is a much better fit. Also, if they include a legacy character for the Good runs, they probably did at least one the Evil runs. Two Druids on one end, two Drow on the other? I like it.

Very disappointed. The small selection is amplified by everyone trying too hard to be extra special.

Jaheira and Minsc should never be companions for a low level party some hundred years after Throne of Bhaal. They should have been high level NPC's with cameos where they save the day or nudge you forward in your quest. Larian really messed this one up. They are ruining these characters instead of doing any kind of service for old players who know them. Just to be able to say old companions are returning? They didn't have to be back AS companions.

The way he is presented in game, Halsin should also be a higher level NPC rather than a companion. But the intense focus on romance and cyber sex in this game demanded he become a companion you can bonk in your camp. You could also romance NPC's you know. A "difficult" romance where an NPC can't go with you would have been more impactful storytelling. In real life you can't always get what you want and it would have been a much better reflection of that. A real immersive world instead of one where the player gets anything they want.

Why do we get two Druid companions when the selection is already really small? There are too many races and classes that are not represented at all. And it's not like it's a choice between an evil Shadow Druid and a good druid. They're both on the heroic side of things. This needed to be a choice between Kagha and Nettie, if there had to be one. Again, the craving for cyber romance in a video game and marketing by rehashing old characters trumps all sensibility of offering interesting gameplay choices with different party compositions.

A party based RPG needs twice the number of companions so you can actually make a party you want. Cut their content in half if necessary. I don't like being told "our 5 characters are all amazing and you will like them in your party every time".

I'm very annoyed Larian's decisions are driven more by making BG3 a dating sim than offering deep and diverse gameplay and replayability. Is this really what players want in 2023? The focus of the gameplay showcase was: dating Karlach, Astarion and Halsin having sex, and the trailer was mostly showcasing diverse couples together. It's good to have romance be a part of storytelling, but this is going way too far.

I am fine with it. The mind flayers kidnapped who they kidnapped. It would be weird if they kidnapped an exact character from every demographic and if mysteriously I got on with everyone that happened to be kidnapped and implanted with a tadpole.
Characters can be multiclassed if you don't like their class and you can always sack them all (or just kill them all) and just hire mercenaries if you want to too just build your own party. Or go it alone. Thats the thing I really like about this game is that all choices (however insane) can be valid ones.

I don't think you can justify a lacking cast with "that's the story". Especially when it's about mind control that works on everyone just the same, including undead characters (which makes zero sense btw, they just wanted a vampire character to cater to Twilight fans and ignored all inconvenient logic).

It would actually make more sense to tadpole good characters that would 100% oppose you otherwise for a bigger power shift. Neutral and evil characters like Astarion, Wyll or Gale could be bought in exchange for fixing their situations, with no tadpoles required at all. Bit of a misstep right there, Larian. Lae'zel would do anything to impress Vlaakith, no tadpole required.

Larian went too far in making everyone so extra special and connected to the story. They completely omitted the backbone of any cast, the knight in shining armor, without any extravagant backstory or major condition. The down to earth good character that would have put all the evil and morally grey characters in context. The Ajantis or Edér of BG3. Or the light hearted adventurer who helps people they come across. The Coran of BG3, completely missing. Or how about the mercenary type who's not heavily invested in anything who's just trying to make their way, like Safana. A normal character who is cool simply because they are. There is no frame of reference. There's just a weird cast of edgy unusual characters who are competing who's the most edgy. With all of them being heavily involved in the story somehow against all odds.

And then of course the re-hashing of two old "good" companions from BG2. Which is a complete failure as well. The best way of doing justice to those characters would have been to NOT make them low level companions, again.

Decades of CRPGs sure have cemented a cliché cast of characters in some player brain. Next you are going to ask for a miner dwarf who hates elves, a bard who spends all of his or her time flirting or drinking and tries too hard to be the epitome of charisma, a timid and innocent female cleric healer and a human paladin with two neurons both being dedicated to fight evil.