Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General "New"? Daisy ... POTENTIAL MAJOR SPOILERS!

I agree, I feel the need to resist and hurt the new version of Daisy, than I do about embracing them...

Sex and food are the only ways to get me to do something.

So, Daisy should be replaced with a giant talking pizza.

The thing I notice about Daisy, as she is now, is just how Western a concept of beauty her default appearance conforms to. Down to defaulting to blonde.

To be fair it's still a better beauty standard than whatever Ubisoft has in Fable III.

I can get why they might have changed some aspects of it. The 'sexy toga' look obviously isn't part of everyone's fantasy, and some people might want a seducer/seductress that wasn't resorting to sexual desire, but rebranding them as a paladin? IDK that really doesn't sound like for everyone. How do you RP your dream visitor if you are an underdark race or a gith wearing some sort of surfacer paladin getup? My daisy could be a Lolthsworn, or a Githyanki. In which case it would culturally seem like a bit of a fever dream.

Well, I just made a Daisy who was a purple dwarf with frizzy hair and beard (with green highlights).

But whatever you go for, you are making assumptions about the player that have a good chance of being completely wrong.

Honestly give us two or three outfit options and a male and female sexy voice and normal voice and you are all set. You can have some one all sexy appeal or all business or something in-between. I'd actually kinda like a seductress dressed as a paladin

Her (or his, or their) appearance still seems to be configurable, so it they end up looking like a cliche in our games it'll be our own fault Though a caveat that though I could certainly pick a race and gender for my new-style Daisy I didn't experiment further with their character creation and just went with the default.

I was interested in that Fextralife vid about classes that said

Ooh, and a bit more info on the new Daisy in the latest update, though left clearly intentionally vague:

I really hope they give more context when we're at the character creation screen, because as of right now I have no idea what I'm supposed to be making when it comes to this Guardian thing.

I think part of my problem with the whole Daisy/Guardian/whatever they're supposed to be, is that I'm making a pre-game choice in what they look like, when I have no concept of what they really represent, and if it's not until 30 hours in that I actually meet this person, all that time i've been forgetting about them, I have to wonder if 'building trust' as Larian puts it is going to be that much more difficult, and I won't just end up not caring about this person who's obviously supposed to be super important.

Now that sounds way more interesting than just "Guardian" alone! This makes me think that our Guardian will become a real character instead of just a hallucination. And the part of trusting another I also didn't expect. Maybe the guardian themselves is a bit unsure of our PC

Sure, and I was merely making an observation, neither + or -.

And maybe the feeling that she must be evil that the original Daisy gave off was wrong?

I'm assuming that we'll still (potentially) have contact with them in the first 30 hours, just not IRL.

But I am in full agreement that we could do with some sort of guidance to help us create a character that will work for our playthrough, and to understand our options. For example, if I headcanon my PC as having a pre-existing romantic partner or a sibling or other family member, could Daisy play that role or will they need to be a stranger?

Ah, got you! Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you might be concerned we were forced into a single look for Daisy.

Like you, I'm now wondering if my theories about the original Daisy were wrong, or at least my assumption that even if I headcanoned them as someone "real" my PC dreamt of, Daisy wasn't actually that character but something else that was using my PC's memories to masquerade as someone they trusted. Now I wonder if Daisy could really (optionally) be someone from our PC's past, which I think would be cool but tricky to pull off.

Of course, our original theories could have been right and Larian have just changed their mind. We may never be sure

If they're still connected to the tadpole usage, I played all of Act 1 (at least what was there in EA) and didn't meet them at all because I don't use tadpole powers. So that's easily 30 hours. So what happens then? Does the guardian pull a ignored Shadowheart and teleport out of nowhere and do a "TADA!!! It is ME, your fairy guardian! I've come to rescue you, lets be best friends" thing? If so..ugh.

Who knows though, I'm really hoping they've reworked how it all fits together, SH's weird scene was odd enough, I'm not sure I could stand more of them lol

edit: Also, that's an interesting point about the role the guardian will play, are they an advisor? Friend? Lover? Enemy? I wonder if that will all change depending on how the story goes? That's intriguing for sure if done well.

I would be shocked if they haven't accounted for that scenario. They probably have at least 3 different interactions when meeting Daisy, depending on how much or little tadpole usage has gone down, if it's even still a thing.

In b4 She goes full yandare

So if you play as a Dark Urge paladin you will have the tadpole, the urge, Daisy/guardian and the Oath-Breaker police all vying for your compliance to their way of doing things. Holy mental gymnastics, Batman.
It might be simpler to just play as Origin Astarion, create a custom party and roll with Curlylocks and the Three Bears.

Origen shadowheart has shar. Whoever is behind her glowy powers, the box, and daisy