Larian Studios Forums Divinity General Discussion What races are planned for Divinity and party size? Expecting more or less?

I'm curious what races will be in Divinity and how they will fit into the new Divinity. Larian have not demonstrated yet info on this so I realize it's just guesses.

I'd love to see some of the common fantasy types not really fleshed out (at least in OS 2) . I'd love to see the introduction of gnome and halfling to their Human, Dwarf, Elf, Lizard) as well as 1/2 varients of all plus orcs.
Though I love the open skills-based abilities and imagine they will keep that going, there could be some benefits to each race as well.

1. Stealth (Gnome and Halfling)
2. Speed (elves)
3. Strength (Orcs/Lizards)
4. Persuasion (humans, elves)
etc.
etc.

They may get some starting benefits, but skills can be trained by any race. This may be unpopular by some who think all races should be mirror images of each other, but I think it adds interesting capabilities that will encourage people to try multiple types in their parties. Otherwise, if there is no difference why have different races at all (other than origin stories which of course is a good reason if only relying on that).

Party Size
Please at least have 5 characters instead of 4. It will allow you to have a custom character + enjoy the banter and origin stories of 4 characters in your party.
Also allows you to have one different character that brings unique but less used skills because if you only have 4 most people will simply train up Tank, Ranged, Magic, Rogue. We might with 5 have some wiggle room to have non standard builds that add flavor.

Well... Going from Divinity lore:

The 7 Gods who made mortal races in their image provide the following:

- Eternals (The race of the Gods)
- Humans (Created by Rhalic)
- Dwarves (Created by Duna)
- Elves (Created by Tir-Cendelius)
- Lizards (Created by Zori-Stissa)
- Orcs (Created by Vrogir)
- Imps (Created by Xantezza)
- Wizards (Worshippers of Amadia)

Though, technically "Wizard" isn't a race, they are a group made up of other races that have magical powers as Amadia didn't want to create her own race.

Outside of these races, there is note of others within existing games:

- Dragons (And Dragon-Elves)
- Goblins
- Trolls
- Halflings
- Ranaar (Weird blue aliens from another planet)

So far, we see most of the main races represented in DOS2 and the current trailer (Which depicts Orcs). With only Imps not being very prominent given the discrimination against them and their ties to Demons.

Dragons, Trolls and Ranaar are unlikely to be playable races for obvious reasons. Dragons are ridiculously OP and also pretty sizable. Trolls are massive too (And ridiculously stupid). Ranaar don't make sense in most Rivellon based stories.

Goblins and Halflings could be a thing. Though Goblins tend to be used as low level enemy fodder more so than a proper race to be accepted by main factions (And while yes, they did let you play as an Eternal in DOS2 it was under the context of you supposed to use the Faceripper or a hood to hide your face so as to not be attacked). Halflings would require a lot of work to write into the lore, they've been mentioned to exist but there has been otherwise no information about them and having them suddenly pop up and no-one batting an eye would be jarring.

Dragon-elves could maybe be a thing too. Though again it would be reliant on writing them into the lore sufficiently to make sense.


Ugh... Please no.

At this point I'm tired of half-races. Especially when it's always "Half-human" and often meaning we get some crappy humanized version of a race instead of the actual unique race with their unique culture and physiology.

It also doesn't make much sense biologically. Literally, these races are created from compltely unique origins. There's absolutely 0 reason why cross-breeding would exist.


Appearances?
Dialogue options?
NPC interactions?

There's a lot more to racial diversity than shoehorning in statistical differences that only really serve to limit creativity by pushing certain builds onto certain races.

So say nothing about having fixed statistical differences makes a mockery of the very nature of individuality. Literally in real life, humans aren't just one single statistical group. You get some people who are smarter, some people who are more charismatic, some people who are stronger etc.

The very nature of diversity means that you will get variations. Which would preclude all races having equal stats, then you as a player decide how to distribute things based on your specific character. Meaning you're not stuck because you wanted to make an Elf who was naturally hardier than most other elves but less agile because some random designer decided that literally no elf can ever be anything but frail and agile...


With that logic, why not a party of 6 so you can have 5 origin stories? Why not 100 so you can have 99 origin stories?

Personally, I'd err towards a lower limit. Like 3-4. As it opens up more balance oportunities for more options. Whereby going solo is more feasible or only taking 1 companion.

The higher the upper limit, the more the game balance revolves around having this large party and the less of an option it is to go with just 1-2 companions you really like - At least, without game warpingly OP perks like DOS2's Lone Wolf.

Also, a lower limit means more replayability. Since instead of just taking all however many Origin companions along with you all the time, you instead are limited so you have to play through multiple runs to see all their stories play out.

I'm generally not a big fan of the whole Pokemon-esk "Gotta Catch 'em All" approach to companions, where you just bring everyone along all the time, so that everyone has their impact watered down because they're only a fraction of the party.

I'd much rather have fewer party members, but each person has more impact on the game and story. More unique interactions with NPC's, more scenes where they take the spotlight, more specific inter-personal relations (Not just a few lines of banter here and there, but actual interactions like scenes where companions interact with each other, changes in how companions interact over time, effects of decisions they make in how other companions see them etc.)


I mean... That depends a whole lot on how the mechanics will play out.

DOS2 had a more freeform approach to roles. Mostly due to the shallowness of individual skill lines... Like even if you went "Tank" or "Ranged" or "Rogue" you'd max out your Warfare/Huntsman/Scoundrel lines pretty quickly and would end up picking up some magic skills for support (As well as access some split skill abilities)

To say nothing about how in BG3 the concept of "Roles" is largely irrelevant. Any party can function just fine. You don't need a "Tank" or a "Ranged" or a "Magic" or a "Rogue" and you'll rarely ever even notice if you lack any of them (Really the only thing I can recall off the top of my head is the Avatar of Myrkul fight, where having a tank to sit on the platform and get attacked by the bosses melee attacks can be preferable to him spamming his ranged AoE skills)

If combat isn't designed around having a specific set-up then there's no pressure on players to build for it outside them WANTING to do that.

There are halflings in Divinity lore? I hope, we can play as one. And wouldn't it be a great opportunity to give us the promised, but scratched from BG3 halfling companion, Larian?

The playable races should depend on the story. Some races may not make sense then. I don't know how an Imp would fit into it for example. If the trailer has a meaning and the uncommon concord of the races shown (Orcs were only enemies in earlier Divinity titles) does play a role in the story, all these races should be playable. Personally I need one playable race, Humans (although in DOS 2 I played as an Elf), but others might have much higher expectations.

It may be an unpopular sight, but I prefer a group of 4. It is more difficult to balance combat with bigger groups and it is for me, as single-player-only player, of course easier to learn and play 4 classes/roles than 5 or 6. In BG 3 I was not able despite several trials to get a satisfying gameplay with more than 4 chars in the party. It always felt too difficult or (mostly) too easy. In the end I played with 4 with the difficulty mods installed to justify 5 party members.

Theoretically, there's always the potential to use Origins as a way to enable some different races.

It would take a lot of work, basically making a new storyline for each race (At least initially, there might be a converging mid-point where all storylines merge).

But you could technically, create Origin characters that are customizable, but locked to a specific race. Thus they can enter the story in a way that makes sense. Having like a unique Prologue and Act 1 that sets them up.

Not too unlike Dragon Age: Origins prologues, which were unique based on race (Dwarves had their own pair of prologues) and class (Mages had their own prologue)

The more work put into such Origins and thus how much they diverge from the Blank Slate start will determine how unique the race will feel in the story.

Of course, the caveat is that you might upset Blank Slate enjoyers that want to play a certain race and headcanon something completely antithetical to the actual story, universe and overall lore...

But honestly, having a unique Origin story for many (If not all) races would be ideal, in order to provide more depth to characters. But I'm apparently strange in my like of characters that have ties to the world given Larian's constant use of the Blankest of Blank Slates for their games (With even their "Origin" characters going through the most generic possible starts because they all need to end up in your party 0.2 femtoseconds after the game begins)

The party size will undoubtedly stick with 4 characters.
Not because it's better. It's not.
Not because it's more interesting or compelling gameplay. It does the exact opposite.

Exclusively for the same reason they did it before, while refusing to admit it: because it's easier to map on a controller and Larian couldn't move out of their comfort zone to save their lives.

P.S. I can promise you it will use the "toilet chain" too.

I really hope at least for multiplayer they give us easy way to have more than 4 characters. I usually play solo, but when i do play with friends it can easily exceed 4 character limit so some of us can't play with others. Making party cap soft cap instead of hard cap would be fantastic, i think if you could toggle it as option with disclaimer that it may mess with balance and cause unexpected issues it would be fine. Even less polished experience with some issues here and there but with everyone being able to participate is more enjoyable than splitting the group or some of us not playing.

I would also prefer a party of four, and not a party of four supplemented by a gaggle of bench warmers back at camp, but four only. I'd rather get to know a smaller group of characters better and not to be fussed because there aren't enough "good" necklaces (or whatever) to go around.

IF they would do that, then no lizards please.
The Red Prince was probably one of the reasons I gave up on DOS2 fairly rapidly.
Nor wpuld I want a Jarjar Binks or anything similar forced into the party.

I didn't mean that there should only be four choices of companion, just that you would need to settle on four at some point. I thought it a bit unnecessary actually to kill off the others as in DOS 2, but I would prefer that at some point your choice would be final. Perhaps the available heroes would need to be divided into two groups to address different problems ... Members of the other group could even show up as non-companion NPCs later in the game. Anyway, I don't see the existence of a lizard companion (whom you might or might not want to include in your party) as depending on how many members a party normally has.

I'd advocate for the complete failure of that game.
I can hardly even conceive a WORSE idea that stucking a 100-hours long story-driven campaign to such a minuscle number of characters.
DOS 2 did it and it was entirely to its detriment.

Every time I play an Owlcat game (which to be fair come with their own separate set of issues, design wise) I'm reminded of all the areas where Larian titles fall short.

Having a group of four and the rest of the companions sitting around in camp felt a bit weird in BG 3. Especially if the companion stories were closely related to main story events. I always felt a bit uncomfortable to not have certain companions with me at certain stages, although I actually did not want to have them in my group. Lae'zel, Karlach or Wyll for example.

I hope for a bit less condensed and hasted story in Divinity, so that companion stories could be a kind of side story, without you feeling that you absolutely waste time to do this and that instead of pushing the main task. The companions not in the group then could be imagined to do their things, and the whole bunch meets in camp to share experiences. Maybe one or two further companions could accompany the party for some of the tasks of the personal story, without being playable. That's also easier to balance.

I am hoping for anywhere between four and six party members active on the field, with additional characters tagging along and setting up camp who can be swapped in and out as needed.

As far as actual characters are concerned, I hope for a healthy balance between the conventional, traditional options and the more unusual. The most popular combination for gamers in almost every fantasy game is a male human with a sword. To some that may be boring, though to others it is a key element to enjoyment.

I don't care for the male human with a sword ( though I liked Wyll), I think, it's time to break some traditions honestly.

I want a dwarf companion, a halfling ( that we were robbed of in BG3 - I will never shut up about Helia) and a lizard - all with interesting backstories and not with romances in mind. I feel the need to repeat myself from the other thread, but I didn't do that when BG3 was in development and let the horny fancrowds have their saying and it resulted in dumbed down character development, a horny druid companion with no quest but a pretty graphic romance scene and a half finished drow companion.
This is no hate for Halsin and Minthara, but they could have done with a bit more character development honestly.

Oh and of course I don't want to loose my none active party. I love switching out and coming back to camp to have some interesting conversations. And I know, we won't get it, but I would love a party limit of six.

Party size will be four total. I think Swen confirmed it (well... maybe just mentioned it) either in his last video interview or AMA reddit thingy.

Regardless, of course... things can change if we ask for it enough?

Personally, I have no dog in this fight though... no preference either way.

Oh no.

I will probably play as human female, and a human male with a sword (and some brain) as companion would be very welcomed, as well as some human and elven females. They could also wield a sword btw. Judging from Larian experience, they will also all be broken enough to be not that boring.


So don't defy tradition. Just add enough of the uglier race options as companions, to grant diversity and especially more race-based lore.

I prefer the party of 4 also out of laziness. It's a turn-based game, so you don't play your char but all chars of the party. You don't even have the chance to turn difficulty down and let the AI do the companions. 4 is interesting and manageable enough, for my taste.

Play, what you want, no one is stopping you and I never said, people can't play, what they want, but yes, it is time to break traditions with companions and BG3 did at least something right with giving us a female gith warrior instead of the traditional male human fighter or paladin. Lae'zel did give us insight into a culture, that isn't as well known and done to death like the more common DnD cultures and races, she also is one of the best written companions with a great character development, personal story and ties to the main story.
In this case, making the warrior in your group something else than the cliche human fighter payed off.
I'm not generally against that trope: Alistair in DAO worked well and because of the depicted society, he had to be male and human for his backstory to make sense. The same is not true in the world of Faerun, which is much less patriarchal and human centered.
I don't know enough about Divinity yet, but I like to shake things up. Alistair worked in his setting, Lae'zel worked in her setting and maybe, Divinity finds it's own spin on an original warrior character.

I don't like the same tropes repeated to death. I feel that a lot of companies are stuck repeating the same tropes over and over again. This is an RPG, so I hope, that they come up with some more unique characters and stories.



I won't address your comment about uglier races, since that is just unnecessarily rude.

Having companions acting as bench warmers at camp is always very awkward (Even more so when they have stupid telepathic capabilities that allow them to know exactly what you've experienced. BG3 using the Tadpoles to justify this doesn't make it any better)

Not just in BG3 but most party based games, be it DA:O, BG, Pathfinder, even Outer Worlds...

It's one of my gripes about how companions are handled and their lack of autonomy. They all have these important personal tasks and are roped in to following you to complete the major story task but are content to just sit on their hands and do nothing while you're out adventuring...

Though, I'm not a fan of extra large party sizes, so having every companion in the same party just doesn't work for me (It's one of the things I didn't like about Wartales, you were highly incentivised to have a party of at least 9 in order to be able to perform each crafting action). For reasons that include:

- Balance issues. Having large max parties pushes the balance to higher party sizes. Meaning that there is more restriction for those who wish to do smaller parties. For example, my first playthough of DOS2 I did with Lone Wolf and just me an Lohse, the only companion I initially liked. An option only facilitated due to the Lone Wolf feat even though the game was balanced around a party of 4, let alone higher.

- Gearing issues. Often it can be hard to properly gear up a party of 4 if even 2 characters share common gear. This is exacerbated the more members you have and thus the more overlap in gear you face (This was a major thing in Wartales, given the lack of diversity between characters).

- Lack of spotlight. Already with parties of 4 we don't see many characters getting a chance to be in the spotlight. Like, there's a few times in DOS2 where Sebille will take the initiative (I.e. Murder someone to death before you can talk to them) or where someone like Beast will pipe up. The more people in a party the less chances there are to implement such things because there would be more competing characters (For example, in DOS2 both Sebille and Ifan ben-Mezd want to talk to Roost).

- General combat design. Turn based combat is baseline a fairly time consuming thing given the nature of how slowly things progress when you make each action from each individual a singular turn. Larian already pushes things further with their love of high numbers of enemies. Adding more party members means further making things take EVEN longer as well as pushing for more enemy combatants to make up for the large party size. To say nothing about the awkwardness that comes with times you face 1 powerful foe and then you have to struggle to get all your melee characters in range to hit them (Even before you account for friendly fire)

Of course, this doesn't mean that the only solution is DOS2's "You only get 4 people and everyone else dies because reasons" stuff.

There could still be the potential to recruit a bunch of companions, allowing you to change up your active party (For example if you were tackling specific enemies where a change in party composition makes sense. I.e. Ditching your Fire Mages when going through the Cavern of Fire Elementals Who Heal When Hit By Fire Damage)

All that would need to happen is that non-active (As well as non-recruited) companions could still be doing stuff in the world. Pushing towards their own personal goals (Either their personal quests or their own quirks - Such as a scholar character exploring libraries and ruins). Meaning you can run across them while your party is adventuring. Also, this could then lead to conversations back at camp as you talk about what each other has been up to (And they could apply more pressure on you to help them with their personal quest instead of just standing around until you decide to do it)

If we get imps as a playable race or an imp companion I will squeal!

Ideally I will be able to build a party with a dwarf, lizard, imp and orc. A perfect happy little family.

When you demand the tradition to be abandoned you seem to imply that companions should be constructed differently, as you like it. Then perhaps many people would not be able to play as they want. Not great. If you wanted to say that uncommon companions should be added, that would be a different matter. More options are great. You sounded as if you wanted options removed, perhaps a misunderstanding on my part.

To the rude tone, I think that those (fantasy ...) races are ugly and I also think, as lizards or orcs are no legal subjects who can be insulted, that lovers of orcs and lizards should be able to live with such opinions. At least in my country such a statement would also be backed by constitutional law.

I never said, I want options removed, I even gave examples, where the stereotypical white male fighter worked. I just don't think, that every game needs the same formula and that it is ok to sometimes do things differently. Like women being the fighters and men the healers, like a halfling bring a barbarian and a half orc being a bard - the first example we had in BG3 and I think it worked well. Now for going against race stereotypes, that would be another way to shake things up .
And no, I didn't say, we shouldn't have an elf or human companion, but that they shouldn't make the bulk of the group, with having all the other ( non ugly) races.

The ugly statement: I wrote a reply, but honestly, I'm not interested to discuss that.

If a game is to be truly successful, then the classic tropes need to be present and at the forefront. Those who enjoy niche tropes tend to be very vocal about their preferences, though it does not really translate into engagement.

Deliberate subversion has become very boring. I do not want the classic male knight in shining armour to be cast aside in favour of a character like Karlach. You can make a point that both could be available as companions as a compromise and I'd begrudgingly agree, though if such things come at the complete expense of the classic tropes? Then no, thank you.

I could be wrong, but I think, BG3 was mildly successful despite not having the male white knight in shining armor

And Karlach somewhat of a fan favourite, so I think this supposed 'niche' worked out quite well for Larian. Hopefully it makes them more comfortable in going different ways.

It seems this discussion has gone in a particularly strange direction.

In terms of tropes, Divinity already eschews tropes with their entire concept of elves. Rather than reusing the trope of elves just being "Pretty humans with pointy ears" they're more differenitated physically with elongated features.

As such, sticking to tropes is not in the cards by default. (Also, we have precedent in DOS2 where each companion could be anything. You'd assign them an initial class via dialogue where they comment on how good they are at whatever you ask of them)

Secondly, the bringing in of gender seems off-tangent for a topic about races. Not only that, but female warriors are in of themselves a trope, one that is rather popular (Especially to those whom are into Muscle Mommy's). Karlach doesn't buck any tropes, she very much embodies one. What would be subversion of the trope would be a warrior who was not physically imposing (Regardless of gender) and/or who disliked confrontation entirely. Not some musclebound meathead who loves to axe first and ask questions later.

Thirdly, human knight is not the defacto trope. It's normally the Dwarf race that gets the "Fighter" archetype, while Elves are given the "Mage" archetype and Humans get the "Ranger" archetype (On occasion Elf and Human archetypes are reversed. It depends on whether writers are more Legolas or Strider pilled).

As far as overall companion design goes... Ideally there's be at least 1 companion of each race (Well, technically, 2, one for good path and one for evil path) though this sort of design can often lead to underdeveloped "Token" characters that only exist to tick the box of having someone with a particular race (Or alignment... *Glares at Minthara*).

Though the very least there should be some level of diversity. Not just like 5 humans or 5 elves and then 1-2 other races. Even if you do proper origins so for example your Lizard PC starts in a Lizard town and has Lizard friends who follow them on their journey, you'd still want to have more diversity than that (For example, 3 of your race and then 5 of other races as potential allies)

Companions are a way to provide insight into other races. As not only do you get to see their interactions based on their race and how NPC's of various factions address them, but you also have dialogues where you can dive into their history and experiences. If all the companions are just bland humans who have no noteworthy interactions because everyone just likes humans in every setting because they're the bestest ever race to ever exist in the entire universe... Then you miss out on a lot of potential exposition in the lore for what? Maybe a few terrible sex scenes from a shallow "Romance" path that was shoehorned in because such things are popular?

The success was not without controversy and whilst Karlach's fans are extremely vocal, the reaction to her was very mixed. Quite a lot of us, particularly legitimate gay men, are pretty tired of female characters being given the physique, attitude and role of a male character in modern RPG's at the expense of male characters taking up that spot in a group.

Oh, totally agree, I just hope, they give us more diversity in companions and stick to their more unique take on elves and lizards.
People seem to have taken issue with me and others wanting some more diverse races and class combos in the companions. I want more interesting stories and personalities and don't really care about romances.
I don't honestly care, if the warrior in the group is male or female or non binary, as long as the character is interesting and exploring a new path/ story/ faction.

And quite a lot of people are pretty tired of female characters being relegated to being physically weak, timid and shy characters.

It's a bit laughable to say that there's a lack of strong male characters when that's the majority of gaming. Even in modern RPG's, the vast majority of strong roles are taken by men.

Meanwhile, there's PLENTY of support for strong female characters and timid male characters (Femboys are all the rage right now). Even though they still only make up a minority of characters.

It kind of feels like these "Legitimate gay men" are just sulking now that modern RPG's are finally actually having diversity rather than exclusively catering to their tastes.

I disagree. I think it became very clear that certain demographics sought to throw gay men under the bus at the first opportunity so that they can focus on pushing their niche fetishes into the mainstream, particularly those that are subversive.

My use of 'legitimate gay men' is to describe those who are not actually male or gay yet insist on speaking on our behalf. I will not go too deep into the matter here to avoid dragging the thread too far off topic but the term 'fujoshi' is relevant. I think it's strange that you're implying that many RPG's are 'catering to our tastes' when so few RPG's have ever made the conventionally attractive handsome men into romance options in the first place.

As an example, for as much as the Dragon Age games sought to be 'progressive', Alistair, Cullen and Sebastian were not romance options for male player characters.

Femboys are also very niche and bereft of masculinity. They tend to be what women obsessed with gay men tend to project onto hoping to engage in some twisted form of conversion therapy, whereas some gay men in denial like to convince themselves that if a guy is feminine or androgynous enough then it does not count as 'gay' which is in itself another form of erasure.

At any rate, we can simply agree to disagree - or take it to private messages, I suppose, if you genuinely want a debate on the subject.

And yet, masculine men that this subsection of gay men are attracted to are continually the main characters in almost every video game ever made.

Ignoring the fact that gay men aren't of one unified taste. Where some do prefer the more effeminate types of men. Or even the types that like the "Ugly" men.

Gay men, like literally anyone else, is not a single category. Even within the group of "Gay men" there would be a desire for diversity. Not just musclebound hunks.

Further to that, there are many other groups of people. Each with their own diversity of tastes.

That these diverse tastes are now being explored, isn't a slight at gay men. It's the opposite, it's trying to be inclusive to all those other groups, including those aforementioned other gay men who like different types of men.


So your argument is that people who aren't gay men are tired of seeing this specific gay preference replaced by other depicitons?

So... Why do we care? If they're not the target audience (As they are not male or gay) then why would anyone care if they get upset that this is happening?


So few RPG's even have romance options in the first place.

Given that such things are very much not a priority for developers. It was only relatively recently with Bioware that it actually became a thing (But it's still very much shallow and underdeveloped)

Meanwhile, most games - of every single genre - will be predominantly filled with conventionally attractive handsome men.

Most protagonists, are conventionally attractive handsome men.

All the while, there have been continual attacks against developers for actually including conventionally attractive beautiful women. Like, literally many studios have been affected by "Feminists" raging about the constant portrayal of conventinallly attractive beautiful women in video games, to the point where development has been affected (For example, the upcoming Fable reboot intentionally sabotaged the appearance of its female characters because of this. While woke developers produce garbage like Concord with its ugly female characters)

With conventionally attractive handsome men not being affected in the same way at all. No-one has been raging about their inclusion. No-one cares if they are "Objectified" like characters such as Kratos who go around half naked while having "Unreasonable standards for beauty" like what female characters get attacked for. Even though these are by far the most popular characters across video games.


And yet, the characters themselves are designed in a way that appeals to this particular crowd of gay men.

In terms of design, they are still catering to this desire for the strong male type you desire. Even if their characters aren't designed to be gay (Though Dragon Age: Origins did have Zevran who was exclusively gay).

Romances in more recent times have been more progressive (Or rather, even more shallow) allowing more characters to be playersexual (At the cost of individuality)


Projecting much?

Nah, femboys are popular. Many gay men like them.

Yes, they are bereft of masculinity... That's the point. If they weren't they wouldn't be "Femboys" they'd just be "Boys".

As I've mentioned, many gay men like this type of man. Just like many lesbians like the "Butch" and "Manly" type of woman.

People are diverse and have diverse interests. Not everyone of the same grouping likes the same thing.

At no point did I suggest that tastes do not differ, I am simply highlighting what it is considered to be overwhelmingly popular and considered to be conventionally attractive. Which is anything on the spectrum ranging from classically handsome men to average looking men and ruggedly handsome men.

There's also something to be said about addiction to adult content, which warps desires and tastes - which is why those who could be considered 'terminally online' gravitate towards the likes of 'femboys' and 'muscle mommies' even as both see very little discussion, acknowledgement or desire in the real world beyond a scant few exceptions.

Though this is getting a bit too off-topic and spicy for this forum, I imagine, so let us end the discussion there.

Larian has statistics what races are most popular. I think it was half-elves, but I'm too lazy to look it up . What I do remember is a statement from Swen Vincke , long ago, saying something like " we gave you horns and tails, use them". But despite this encouragement for players to immerse in tailed and horned characters, it didn't really seem to have worked. Elves and half-elves and humans remained the preferred races;

So yea, I guess the majority prefers to play a hero that looks somewhat human. I know I do. Actually I think I played mostly drow and half-drow. But I also played a Duergar and a halfling. But never a dragonborn , gnome or a tiefling.

While this may be true... One does have to factor in how well they were implemented and how interesting they were.

Many of these races were made "Humanized" so they weren't interesting and there's a lot of "Why would I play weird malformed human when I could play human?"

Then of course there's actual implementation of them. Dragonborn are ugly and weird. Tieflings tails clip horribly with everything. Small races are proportioned weird.

With finally, the last nail in the coffin... Many of these other races simply have fewer options. Races like gnome and halfling feel that they have much less available compared to elf or human.

So while yes, the prevailing trend will always be towards human and humelf (As Divinities more distinct elves were less popular as I recall) due to most people like playing characters they find sexy or are more easily self-insertable. The way Larian handled other races didn't do them any favours. Of course, Ixal would also bring up the point that the majority of players are gooners brought in by goonerbait marketing so they will play characters that they prefer in sex scenes in much the same way the cast of companions are all sex scene compliant (With the one potential companion to go against that being cut).

I can't believe we are still discussing gender roles in a fantasy game. Dudeguy is spamming every thread with his agenda and people are discussing an upcoming adventure RPG as if it is a dating sim.

The point of having companions of different races is to get a different insight into another culture. Especially if players only play human and elves, this is important for lore and storytelling. Lae'zel was interesting in that regard, because she gave us background about gith, which became important later. Given how important the Ironhand gnomes are, Barcus should have been a companion too.
This is what I mean: try to include the different races and factions in the companions, to get a full picture.
I don't play a romance game, I play an adventure that can include romance, but where romance shouldn't be the main focus. The romance and sex scenes in BG3 are minor compared to everything else.

Apparently J.R.R Tolkien included four hobbits and a dwarf because of "niche fetishes" and the story would havve been much better and more popular if he had made them elves and humans who fuck instead

Yeah, according to one person here at least. Nevermind that two hobbits actually saved the day and all the elves, humans and wizards would have failed miserably, if Sam hadn't faced his fears and basically dragged his friend to Mount Doom and Frodo hadn't volunteered in the first place.
Not to mention, Merry an Pippin who established a dialogue with an old and forgotten race ( but I guess, Ents are niche fetishes too)

Then again, being unbable to get a compelling character out of a white knight in shiny armor is just a limit of incompetent writers.
Tropes are tools, not marks of shame. Every story can be ultimately reduced to a series of more or less popular tropes in the end.
Consequently no trope is inherently bad and even the stereotypical "Paragon of virtue" can be great and even inspiring character in the hands of a good writer.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that and even had examples, where it worked and actually made sense.
The person I replied to was not looking for a compelling story though, but a character, they find attractive for romance.

Every character can be interesting, if it fits the story and narrative, but having a male human warrior just because ' attractive option ' is not enough. We had that with a certain male druid elf, who basically was just a romance without story.
Imo Wyll filled the knight in shining armor trope, with the twist that he actually is a fiendlock. We can discuss his rewrite, but in general I actually like him.

Honestly, even IF someone plays other races, companions are still important for diving into other cultures.

What with the whole schtick of having blank slate player characters that have no background and only generic dialogue options.

Like even if they do include every race as playable and someone actually does play those races... They will still be heavily reliant on a companion of said race to actually learn about its culture and the minutiae about life as one of those races. Thanks to Larian's heavy focus on blank slates and lack of proper Origins.

This is the reason I personally advocate for actual Origins. So that people who pick a race can experience the game through the unique lens of that race, with a proper background and unique prologue whereby the character is living in the culture of their race before events cause them to get sucked into the Act 1 main story (But will still have lasting alterations in NPC interactions based on their unique background).

As such a thing will bring more insight into the race, its culture and overall place in the world than if you can just randomly pick some exotic race and you just play the same blank slate game as if you were just a cardboard cutout...

Lae'zel is an excellent example as you say where her race has relevance to her character and the overall story, which makes it so interesting to have a gith companion.

As an example of the opposite for comparison, Astarion and Shadowheart are high-elves / half high-elf. But being a high elf has literally no relevance or impact on them as characters. They are only high elf because they are supposed to be pretty and elf is pretty. You can swap either of them to halfling and you wouldn't have to change a single line in their entire story. This is the pretty human with pointy ears stereotype, where the pointy ears are just there as decoration and it is entirely irrelevant that they are elves in every other regard.

To be fair, the same is true for all of BG3's cast besides Lae'zel. (Karlach's being a Tiefling is only relevant in that it gives a reason why she could survive in Avernus and the burning heat of her Infernal Engine heart - Beyond that, she could be anything).

Heck, even the Emperor being an Illithid feels kind of phoned in, even if it makes it into story it doesn't have any real relevance to the character (Especially given his stance of not being interested in becoming human again, so it's not as if his transformation has given him something to overcome...). Like, they could have literally have kept him as your Guardian throughout the entire game and nothing would really change for his characterization (If anything it might have improved things because then the choice between Emperor and Orpheus would be less ridiculously one sided, because instead of being a decision between Mr Evily McEvilface and Mary Sue, one of the characters is just a plain old adventurer who helped you out instead of an evil mastermind manipulating you for their own purposes)

It's one of the disappointing aspects of BG3's writing.

Though, DOS2 was much better in that regard. Fane being an Eternal, The Red Prince being a Lizard, Beast being a Dwarf and Sebille being an Elf were much more integral to their characters and stories (Of course, Lohse and Ifan both being human was, as is typical, completely irrelevant)

So it's not as if Larian cannot write race relevancy into characters. They just opted not to for BG3 outside of Lae'zel.

There are some minor relevances to for example Wyll being human because Ravengard is already established as a noble house of humans and Halsin and Minthara provide some lore relevant interactions to their race, but they are generally so underdeveloped that it doesn't add much.

When you eventually arrive in Baldur's Gate together, he's maybe a bit like Sandy Cheeks, out of his element but still part of the gang. Most druids would even suffer debuffs, if staying in urban areas for too long. In the first two acts he is quite heavily involved in the story, though.

I'm looking forward to Larian's take on scaly folk. If I remember correctly, Dragonborn were introduced into D&D during 4e, with no context given and a description saying they just happen to resemble the dragons to whom they are not related, however. Typical WotC-slop. The continent/scenario they came from only existed in 4th edition and was apparently completely retconned away for 5e. There were several draconic races in 2e and earlier, even ones available as player races, but they weren't native to Faerûn. So, while I did enjoy some of the dragonborn NPCs on the humorous side, I'm quite glad they weren't overdone in BG3. Now I hope the BMG brings back puzzles!

Just being in a city is no explanation why his character boils down to "fondly remembering being a drow sex slave".
He was never intended to be a companion and go into act 3, but EA players thirsted for him, so Larian gave them what they wanted.

Dragonborn came from 3E were they were humanoids transformed into dragonborn by the god of good dragons as holy warriors against evil dragons, then got retconned into dudes that sometimes got born from dragons because reasons, which got retconned into something something dragon servitor race.

But WotC stopped caring about that anyway as their new main target group are people that came because of Stranger Things and Critical Roll who do not care at all about story and role playing. Which is why WotC now introduces a Marvel like multiverse so they can justify anything they want and ignore any established lore. And Larian didn't care much either about D&D or BG lore.
The slop only gets sloppier.

Thanks for the context! I played with the blinds down, so I wasn't aware of the retcons made to him. Sure, it would have made sense for a druid to stay behind in Reithwin to make sure everything returns to natural balance. I was still glad to have him around for Act III. I mean, you don't have to drag him along, do you?

I also didn't know dragonborn went back that far! If they originated in a different campaign setting, it does make more sense that their Torilian pendants felt forced and being their own bubble. They sound a bit like a simplified version of Dragonlance's Draconians, which were created from the eggs of dragons by the followers of Takhisis/Tiamat. In the original lore they're usually evil-aligned and not available as a player race.

The only not Forgotten Realms specific information was dragonborn being literally born from dragons.

In the FR they had the transformed holy warriors and went directly to dragon servitor race that arrived with the spellplague in 4E.

Well, for dragonborn I only had the information from BG3, I think.


They do have their fans, so fair game. I'm just glad they were as rare as they were.

Thats also something WotC flip-flopped on. From mimicking dragon colors, to mostly brown as all colors merged together, back to dragon colors again.

I prefer to have the ability to choose the number of party members: from just me to the number of the Fellowship of the Ring. Solo mode for building up an outstanding character, "Fellowship" to have great banters at the expense of having high level characters.
As for races, I don't expect more than what we had in DoS1&2.

As for me, I expect Larian to follow its standardized route now, no proper innovations or risks on their part are to be expected. That's the third game they made with the same settings while before they used to change.

I'm not so sure.

Literally their tagline for the game is:

"Larian Studios unchains its ambitions to bring you an RPG with greater breadth & depth than ever before."

The whole thing is mentioned how this will be "The game they always wanted to make" and how much more grand its scope is.

It very much sounds like they'll be pushing the envelope a bit with the title.

Probably not so much in terms of innovation (As they've not really shown any desire in prior titles to really innovate besides their signature Surface mechanics). But I'd imagine they'd do some risks, much like how they made risks with BG3 with full nudity, sex scenes and of course the whole marketing stunt of showing off the bear sex as advertisment.

That they got away with it, probably inspires them to push even more "Taboo" - Such as dark themes and violence which are often neutered in video games because "Won't somebody think of the children?", things they've hinted at in past titles (Such as DOS2's Fort Joy and especially Kniles)

As well as doubling down on non-standard races. People ended up enjoying Lae'zel and her alienness as well as Karlach (Also, Mizora is fairly popular too). So they can be more confident that atypical races would be given a chance.

Well, that's called marketing. They clearly chose to follow the marketing campaign of any big studio. Plus, it has been said that they'll stay with TB settings, so their word is even weaker that way. If they'd say we go for a RTS, or back to ARPG to concurrence Diablo one more time (which would give your quote some sense => why did they start with a Diablo-like if their dream was a TB game? And make then another one, then Divinity II and then Dragon Commander... that's nonsensical), or a concurrent to Witcher, Fallout, TES... Overall, their statements don't make much sense those last years. Since Tencent is in, they behave like any other major studio.
Considering how pornography and sex sell worldwide, there was no risks taken including those. Quite the opposite. The fact that the industry isn't much into sex so far is a sane thing overall, it isn't that polluted by society's standards that much yet. As for races, it's not like we could already play non-standards races in other D&D titles. I'd say they could have bring a lot more. Gith being playable makes sense considering Gith play a major role in the game. I find Dragonborn a more interesting choice, and they used it in a clever way overall, especially with Gith.

Because that was popular at the time.

Same reason they made BG3 despite not being interested in D&D.

The goal was to make money, so that they could have more freedom to make what they wanted.


Sex sells, yes. But actual nudity is very much considered taboo in video games.

Several countries heavily censor nudity (Japan is noteworthy for their need to censor even their pornography)

Nudity is very much avoided in video games, due to how it gets vilified and how it impacts age ratings (And thus sales). Even in gacha games which are driven entirely by selling sexy waifus, there is no nudity and only risque outfits (And bikinis... Gotta make those premium bikini outfits to sell for $100 each!)

Which is ironic when TV and movies have plenty of nudity and they are just fine.


Yeah, but other D&D titles are irrelevant because Larian didn't make them.

Larian previously did Divinity games. Their data showed that non-human races saw relatively little play. They would have also had data about which companions were most popular (Though I'm not sure the exact numbers of that)

This likely had an impact on their decision to make the majority of BG3's companions humans (With a half-elf and a full elf whom look very humanlike). With only 2 companions being something more distinct.

BG3 has numbers that show Lae'zel and Karlach being very popular characters, thus it's more likely that Larian will entertain non-human companions rather than giving us a new batch of humans to "Play it safe"

I can't help but wonder how much of Lae'zel's popularity comes from Devora Wilde's voice acting. If she had spoken like  Ghustil Stornugoss, or quartemaster  A'jak'nir Jeera, that might have reduced the attractiveness, IMO. Her voice and facial movment are really well done. I WANT to go talk with her because she's fun.
And Karlach, despite the tail and the horns, her face is really beautiful. And her humor , sadness and genral way of being make her very likable and "human".

Were they pushed to really alien manners of speech and manners in general, my guess is that they would be far less popular.

It's almost certainly a factor. A voice can either enhance or detract from a specific character. Not just in terms of the quality of the voice acting, but how often you hear the same voice actor or actress in a role.

I really like Jennifer English and Ben Starr, for example, though at the same time I dislike how present they are due to their success. As talented as they are, it's immersion breaking when the protagonists in multiple games basically end up with the exact same voice that is quite obviously 'them'.

This is also the case with visual acting in movies and TV shows. Certain actors and actresses can be near unrecognisable across different roles in their career, whereas others end up essentially just playing the same character over and over again.

I also think some voice actors and voice actresses do not do themselves any favours by embracing the more parasocial elements of any given fanbase, especially when weighing in on controversial and divisive issues.

Thats also a point.
Apart from her two big attributes people like Karlach because she sounds like you just met her on NY street basketball court and not like a veteran devil soldier.

I was surprised to find out that Devora Wilde voiced Clea in Expedition 33. Only after knowing this and listening attentively could I recognise some intonations from Lae'zel, but without knowing I'd never have gusessed. She really gets into the skin of the character she's playing.
Jennifer plays well also, but the voice of Maëlle is just ... Shadowheart.