Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Which companion(s) won't make it?

About Astarion: yeah, he is clearly evil, for reasons Sozz, Tuco and others have stated, but I also had one conversation with him where he stated 'Killing is fun'. That sounds pretty evil to me.

Every adventurerer in the realms must be evil then.

you said that the origin characters can stand aloof their destinies, because you take the place them, your soul enter the chosen origin character's body, and "help" him/her do the decisions in bg3.
or they will always be locked by their deadlock, until the end of their lives.

objectively, the origin characters could be have their legends, if non-origin player character -- tav is exist and help the npc origin characters, but the npc origin characters never have the qualifications to be a true savior.

astarion thinks that "kill innocent people is fun.".

Clearly they do have the qualifications because they CAN be the hero...and again, no canon, every possible ending with every possible character that reaches that ending whether origin character or not is equally valid. There is no pre-defined canon assigned "true savior"...any character the player can play could be the savior, or the worst villain of the story or anything in between and they are ALL equally valid. There are no such things as "true" anything in this game, not unless Larian officially declares certain possibilities to be canon, but they haven't and they probably never will...because that's the beauty of choice here. Also even if they were to eventually declare a "canon" it would be wise not to assume the best good aligned ending must be it...there have been other games in the past that declared bad endings or even failed states as the "canon" for their sequels...so whatever mega heroic best ending you might have had in the previous game didn't count for anything canonically.

Hes chaotic, sure but he was the only one pointing out the hypocrisy of slaughtering the goblin village as being "good".

He also resisted the necromancy of thsy telling him to kill thr party

Yes.

Is that important though? I think saying that someone "is" good or evil reveals a too static viewpoint. People very rarely "are" good or evil, they usually do some things that are regarded as good and some that are regarded as evil, and many that are regarded as morally irrelevant, by varying collectives of people. And people's reaction to other people's actions often depend much more on the specifics of that action rather than a general disposition of the person responsible for it, especially since you can't see that. There's no such thing as "Detect Evil". In fantasy worlds with devils and demons, maybe, but even then it can't plausibly be applied to people. You'd find that everyone lights up if you take it at face value, because there is some evil in everyone, and if you interpret it as "detect pure evil" it would be triggered by almost no one.

So I think it's great that BG3 dispenses with alignments, since it now allows us to focus more on the specifics of character's actions. But what do people talk about? Whether someone "is" evil or not..... I don't understand that.

Also, morality is about action. If Astarion speaks casually about killing, that doesn't necessarily bother me much. Just as Viconia talking about her might-makes-right view of the world in BG2 did not bother me. It might depending on the specifics - such as Lae'zel's racial supremacism because it might get you killed - but people say a lot of stuff in a day. I recall saying about someone who had not killed, raped or mutilated anyone that they deserve to be shot, and I probably would say that again about a type of people who number in the tens of thousands, and have likewise not killed, raped or mutilated anyone. Doesn't mean that I go out and kill anyone.

Guys, guys...
I am not an Astarion simp but I have loved more than a bad boy in my 2 decades spent in different fandoms!
It's okay to go "uwu he's a cinnamon roll who did nothing wrong"
But it's a lot better to admit he's absolutely trash and that you love him anyway. Don't make excuses, don't try to say they're not 'evil' lmao. You CAN probably fix him in this game anyway so Larian has your back.

as for me, the real question is: could Gortash be an actual ally/party member? That's a bad boy I am really curious about (and would be sad to kill)!

I'm inclined to think neither of the avatars of the dead three can become companions, even if it makes me a bit sad because I'd always be recruiting Orin as a companion.

Now Larian did tweet this yesterday through the official BG3 twitter account in relation to Orin: "No, you can’t fix her. But… do try! What could go wrong? 🙂"
I'm guessing the same applies to Gortash. But damn it I will try everything I can to recruit Orin.

I would say he's an arrogant asshole who mostly doesn't care about anything but himself. But in my view, that's a very different statement than to say he's evil. I don't think it is appropriate to put "good" or "evil" tags on people in the first place. At least, not as a rule.

Astarion a 200-year-old vampire and corrupt magistrate in Baldur's Gate. I'm curious how Minsc and Jahreira / the Harfner didn't notice that at the time of the Bhaalspawn saga... And also Astarion should reveal many of his observations in this regard in banter with Jahreira.... Let's see if this was taken into account...

What hypocrisy? What *village*? It's a FOB for the Absolute's forces. The Gobbos are looking to kill the Druid Grove, eating roasted Dwarf until they do.

+1
I wouldn't exactly tag it "good", but this is an outpost of an enemy army bent on destruction and/or conquest, they're clearly acceptable targets. That they spend their free time having sex and fun like other people does not change that.

we can see the origin characters are "advanced mode". if we play them as the player character, they will have more difficult paths, because of their deadlock backgrounds.

yes, they should be able to find the true path, because your soul is in their bodies.

but still, they will have the limitation, because of the deadlocks.
and will be leaded to the bad ends easy because of the deadlocks.

such as a sorcerer tav can gain mystra's love easily.
but this is impossible for gale, somethings pass can not return again.

just because astarion fears lae'zel, astarion feel his feet are weak...

Exactly this. An adventurer will be forced to kill along the way but Astarion enjoys to kill innocents

Sarevok was recruitable and redeemable in bg2, that's the only thing that gives me a glimmer of hope ahaha.

Oh, they can *all* be 'redeemed', ie. Follow the 'Good' path. Astarion in particular will tick that box for the ladies. He fits that 'he will change for me and then he's perfect' fantasy perfectly.

By 'all' I mean the Origin characters. I doubt you can lead Minsc unto an evil path, or Minthara on a good one.

Actually Minthara becomes very vulnerable to the player if you sleep with her in act 1, and if you manage to save her from execution and break her out of jail she'll be a bit of an outcast from the cult of the absolute...at that point it's just her and her massive crush on your character. I don't doubt she could be turned if you were so inclined...much as you can turn shadowheart to evil, you can probably turn Minthara to at least neutral if not good.

I don't think any reasons were actually stated. It all seemed to be foregone conclusion and presumption of motivation.

The dialogue shown was something that could, at best, be read into. Astarion says you didn't do anything to save Arabella. Okay. He's pointing out your inaction, somewhat ribbing your conscience. It's also a game environment where there's a meta aspect. In normal life, you could reply, "You didn't do anything either!" But obviously Astarion couldn't do anything being under Tav's control.

As for the drinking blood stuff, Astarion doesn't actually drink your blood without your consent. He clearly intended to, but he didn't. Regardless, given all the context and history, I don't see how that marks him definitively as evil.