What comes with this post is possible spoilers, try to keep them to a spoiler tag if you must post them.

The point of this post is to put where you think the companions are in alignment I know it's still EA but give your thoughts. My opinion:
Shadowheart: Neutral (She has one goal in mind and will push everything aside to get to it but she also shows wanting for things to not fall to killing or violence)
Gale: Neutral Good (This is based on seeing him all the way through)
Wyll: Chaotic Good (Same as Gale, has no issue killing if he sees it as an evil being)
Astarion: Lawful Evil (He seems to keep his word but loves to see blood and insides getting spilled)
Lae'zel: Chaotic Evil (Doesn't seem to care what she has to do as long as she gets what she wants)

Laezel is not chaotic in my opinion.

She is devoutly loyal to her community and queen. Her priority, which is sane, is to avoid her and others becoming Mindflayers. If a the main character embraces the tadpole powers, she gets mad ... rightfully so !

She is evil in the sense that the lives of commoners or of anyone in the way is of little concern to her, but that is not chaotic, just callous/evil.

She can be somewhat flexible, so I would place her Neutral Evil, maybe Lawful Evil if she does not lie to her non-Gith allies.

Shadowheart is evil too. I would guess NE like her goddess.

I don't think that Shadowheart is really evil and the conversation with her upon resolving the Refugee/Goblin-problem in a good way shows this.

In my book:

Lae'zel - lawful evil. She has a code honor that all githyanki share. She's absolutely loyal to her lich queen Vlaakith. And she's not a liar. Hence her lawfulness.
Shadowheart - neutral evil.
Astarion - chaotic evil/neutral. I gave him neutral cause it's absolutely dependent on how you treat him. He's all about survival, living in the now and having some fun while at it. Also enjoys some blood shed.
Gale - true neutral/neutral good, possibly. Could be a stretch.
Wyll - chaotic good. Anything is justified for the greater good kind of character.

Just based on who reacts to what I'd put Wyll and Gale as good, with Gale having neutral tendencies, Shadowheart as on the evil/neutral line, and Astarion as evil. Lae'zel is neutral with some evil tendencies - She's definitely got more pride than is healthy and doesn't like being contradicted, but she generally doesn't disapprove when helping people nearly as much as Astarion and Shadowheart. YMMV though

Lae'zel is definitely Lawful Evil in my book, she's just not adhering to our particular societal expectations, but her own society's rules and structures. Could be Neutral Evil I suppose but I'd definitely go for Lawful.

I've seen very little indicators that Gale or Wyll are Good aligned, they could just as easily be Neutral. Wyll might seem to slip into good territory but I get the impression his "Folk Hero" act is more about his ego and about hiding his Warlock stuff in plain sight. He has a soft spot for kids I suppose but you don't have to be Good for that. That being said, I haven't explored their content much.

Astarion doesn't strike me as Lawful much, more Neutral or Chaotic Evil. He makes up a lot of excuses as to why he's not so bad but ultimately he's fickle and bloodthirsty, and disapproves when when you don't follow his personal whims. Chaotic Evil for sure in my opinion.

Shadowheart is a bit more tricky than the others I think. D&D 5th seems to have done away with the "cleric alignment needs to be one step from deity alignment" so she could technically be any alignment. I'd put her as Neutral Evil, she serves an evil god willingly and even if she's not the "murder and kill" type of evil just because she values subtlety, she very much much does not give a shit about the fate of an entire camp of refugees, civilians and children. We'll see if that holds when

Shadow Heart is truly neutral and adaptable to the player, at least in EA it is shown that way. I didn't see her worshiping Shar make her evil, maybe we'll see that in release, maybe not. It seems to me that she is little submissive and can become both neutral good and neutral evil depending on how the player influences her. This is not bad, many players will love it. She's such a sweetheart. And she cannot decide what she really wants, to understand herself.
I think she can even be made to worship Selune or become a big asshole if there is a great desire of MC.
Maybe she's law-neutral now, but not evil 100%. She has to make a choice with our help.

Gale: Netutal Good

Wyll: Chaotic Good

Astarion: Neutral Evil

Lae'zel a big mystery for me, because unfortunately I did not take her to the party due to inattention.
But she is definitely not a chaotic evil that kills everything in its path, it is difficult to say that this is an evil character, difficult to good, and definitely not neutral like SH
Moreover, the Gityans are at war with the main law-evil - mind flayers

Quoting my post from another thread (about current and potential new companions):

Naaa. I think you mixed some of them, especially the chaotic/lawful.

Gale : I dunno, would say Neutral good like Imoen was as well. Good at heart character.
Wyll : I'm not so sure for this one . I think he is Loyal good, he is a hero, ''smooth looking'' . Not the kind that'd just hit anyone like minsc or anything. Just the textbook hero play. He also has a patron he is loyal to (forcefully) so...
Astarion : Chaotic evil . He isn't loyal to his master, he wants to break away from him. He tries to bite you in your sleep. He tries to kill you by surprise when you meet him. This is not the attitude of a lawful one.
Lae'Zel : Lawful evil . lawful to her code, lawful to her queen, lawful to her crèche, lawful to the githyanki, basically a fanatic warrior. She always follow the githyanki code.
Shadowheart : Neutral evil. Shar adept are always evil, aren't they?
Karlach : Chaotic evil or Chaotic neutral. Can't be loyal because she broke away of her master and betrayed him. She basically spent years (centuries even? ) slaying demons in the blood wars, I hardly imagine a good character doing that. Seeing as she is very conflict oriented, I'd say she is probably Chaotic.

Unlike many people I see positing on the forums, I kinda agree with this. She is somewhat neutral, though I wouldn't say she is good. Despite that, she does have a "Shar-and-me-first" attitude, which means she doesn't balk at some evil deeds, though she may not be fond of them. This is why I put her at NE, like Shar, but the softer side she starts showing if you build up reputation with her does suggest that she could also be True Neutral. That said, I'd say she is probably NE if we are likely to get a druid companion.

Wyll is neutral, not good. He cares very much about people thinking that he is a hero, but there are several opportunities in the game to witness how this is a facade.

I agree that this is a facade, but at the same time we don't get to see much of will beside this facade and his reputation.
I'm not sure if vengeance put him out of the good range. If you look at anomen quest , seeking vengeance made him broke his oath, but it was because he broke the human law. Does it applies to a vile gobelins, that is per say a enemy of humanity that any paladin would slaughter? I mean, Paladin DO smite evil foes when they have to, without looking back. This is why I'm hesitating for Will, its a big ambiguous.
At the same time, he is kinda linked to a demon, which no Loyal good character would do. So maybe he is Loyal neutral.

True neutral character don't really care about anything (like druid) and can take either side, so I doubt he is that.

Shadowheart just with all its appearance asks "give me a quest in which I will determine who I am"
Priestess Shar cannot be truly neutral, or not?
Nees have to do something about this, and make her Alignment depends, after the quest where Selune and Shar will be in conflict seems the best solution.

She can be disappointed in the Shar and become good, or she can become a bitch, or remain as she is, if the player likes "neither fish nor fowl".

The main thing is that this "neither fish nor fowl" does not become the only possible option, the potential to make from SH exactly what the player wants to see is optionally very large

He might be Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Good?

Shadowheart: Neutral evil but with a slight tendency towards chaotic neutral. She wants to conquer but has a playful side and sometime feels compassion.
Gale: Neutral
Wyll: Chaotic Good
Astarion: Neutral Evil
Lae'zel: Righteous Evil She wants power and believes in discipline. She does seem to care deeply for her people and her indifference to much of what is happening to others could be due to her being a stranger in Farun. This place is not her home and she is too focused on the Mindflayer threat to care much about anything else. She likes a good fight. I can see her develop to a truly evil character or towards a neutral one in the course of the game. She is not as devoid of a moral system as is Astarion. He delights in evil acts, Lae'zel delights in battle.

Shar is one of the most evil gods in the D&D pantheon. Way worse than even Lolth. So anyone worshiping Shar should automatically draw a sharp negative reaction from any good-aligned person, such as any PC I play. I don't ultimately care what Shadowheart's in-game alignment is, though I suspect she is evil-aligned. All that will matter is that the moment my PC learns she worships Shar I will seriously go off on her. Then she can react however she wants, and we can take it from there. I doubt she will have the chance to "change" in any of my playthroughs.

If anything, it is Lae'zal that I see as possibly neutral rather than SH. Also, I don't see how Wyll can be good-aligned in any way. I see him being CN. Only Gale I can see being good-aligned. Then among the other three, only Minsc is going to be good.

So 2-3 evil-aligned companions, 3-4 neutral, and 2 good.

Setting aside the rest of what you say (some of which has merit, especially the last line), this is absolutely not true. Shar and Lolth are both evil deities; Shar is a Neutral Evil greater deity (the goddess of darkness) while Lolth is a Chaotic Evil lesser deity (the Queen of Spiders and goddess of the Drow, and once the elven goddess of destiny). You cannot directly compare how evil they are; but Lolth has certainly perpetrated much more evil as the tyrannical ruler of the Underdark.

Also note the following definitions as per the Player Hand Book:
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Honestly, if I were forced to pick which was the "more evil" alignment, I'd pick CE.

And honestly, Lae'zel is the very definition of Lawful Evil.
PHB: Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Seems like you don't know FR lore that well. My comment has nothing to do with NE v. CE. Those definitions matter only in the cases of players playing the PnP game. In FR lore, the authors of that lore don't really care about "NE v. CE." Lolth has done a lot of really nasty things, but the impact of what she does is actually very limited, generally limited to only the Underdark of the Realms and not even to the Realms overall. By contrast, Shar's singular goal is to destroy the entire multiverse, to end ALL life in the multiverse. There is just no comparison. Shar is the greatest evil in the D&D pantheon. Heck even Bane, who is LE, has a much greater impact with his evil ways than Lolth. So whether they're chaotic, neutral, or lawful does not matter that much. From an FR lore standpoint, what matters is the extent to which each individual god's evil ways impact the setting. And there, Shar is the worst hands-down.

I think you're the one who is in the dark about FR lore. Your argument is incorrect on two fronts.

1. Saying that Lolth is less evil because the consequences of her actions affect fewer people is like saying that a serial killer is less evil than an embezzler. It's not a valid comparison, simply because Shar is far more powerful than Lolth, and plays on a very different stage.

2. Shar's goal is NOT to destroy the multiverse, and she is definitely not the most evil god in the multiverse. To begin with, she is a conqueror, not a destroyer. Her primary goals are to let darkness overtake light (i.e. defeat Selune and take over her followers) and the related goal of gaining control of all magic (to which end she built the Shadow Weave and attempts to corrupt the Weave). Her carelessness in how she went about this has led to drastic consequences such as the Spellplague, which is a big part of why she is reviled. But she does not actively seek to destroy the world; rather, she was one of its creators and even helped save it by aligning with Selune and the other gods during the Dawn War. Even her war with Selune stems from Selune's creation of the Sun, which led to theor original conflict, which in turn ended with the creation of many of the other gods and the banishment of Shar.

Not saying I agree with her actions, but she is far from the most evil god in the pantheon, although she is probably the most powerful of all the evil gods.

Nope. You are wrong about Shar. And your point #1 doesn't even make any sense because I never said anything about one's evil acts being more or less severe than the other. I said given both are evil, one's evil acts affect far more lives than the the other's. So the correct analogy is a serial killer who killed ten people and one who killed a billion. And that you chose to distort this means I've no further interest in this discussion.

Shar is the first evil. *The* disagreement that started the divine battle was the creation of the sun. Selune made the sun at the request of Chantea. Shar attacked Selune at the slight and tried to blot out the sun. But that was then -- extinguishing the sun and all life that sprung from its creation is just the start. Once she was happy to maintain the balance between light and dark but now she wants to return everything to time before Selune existed -- when even Shar herself was simply "the void". She wants to bring an end to all things and the destruction of the weave is just one part of her secret agenda.

I don't know if Shar is the most evil but evil was her creation.

It's funny you think I distorted the argument. Let's see your original comment:


You originally argued that Shar is more evil than Lolth because Lolth's actions have a more limited impact, and all I did was call BS on that argument.

That said, this is getting too "he said she said" for my liking, so I'm done with this discussion.

“Saying that Lolth is less evil because the consequences of her actions affect fewer people is like saying that a serial killer is less evil than an embezzler. It's not a valid comparison, simply because Shar is far more powerful than Lolth, and plays on a very different stage.“

I just want to point out that this is actually the invalid comparison.

Kanisatha was comparing orders of magnitude of the same thing (being evil) using a moral Utilitarianism approach. This is quantitative

Comparing the actions of a serial killer to an embezzler is qualitative, as you are now comparing different kinds of evil. It is completely outside the scope of his argument, so it doesn’t function as an analogy.

It's actually not. Lolth is a tyrant and Shar is corruptor and subverter. Their actions are completely different to begin with. My argument from the beginning has simply been that you cannot compare how evil the two are based on the results of their actions; given how different their actions are, this analogy is actually quite apt.

Thank you.

I am not sure about the alignments of the companions, and quite frankly I'm not sure they matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. Larian has chosen not to use alignments in their game - which is fair enough (alignments are overly simplified form of morality/ethics, and as such not terribly useful).

Having said that... The current companions are mostly iffy in my mind. My characters tend towards selflessness, kindness, and compassion, and none of the companions seem to be particularly inclined that way. Which I find disappointing, to be quite honest.

As for Shar - Shar is a nihilist. She wants to go back to the way things were before Chauntea was created, and her goal is absolutely to destroy everything to that end. Non "evil" people are drawn to her, because she is the goddess of loss, and there are examples of orders dedicated to her that are more "neutral" than "evil"... However Shadowheart does not seem like one of them, while she shows some vulnerability and softness at times, she's more like the more run of the mill Shar cultist. Just look at her reactions to anything Selune related (though that could just be a case of the lady protesting too much), and also her response to the dreams.

Z.

Just saw this video over at the tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpIaJkLR84

Its a conversation with Shadowheart after siding with the Goblins. Never did so myself, so I never had this convo. Quite interesting for those wondering about Shadowhearts alignment.

The current companions are all chaotic and evil shifted. The good ones are coming later. Lae'zel is definitely evil Shadowheart is neutral evil. They are adding an alignment choice but a shallow implementation mostly for the RP aspect. Which makes me wonder about fallen paladins and the like.

Shadowheart struggles with her religion. I guess the players actions will decide which way she turns.

I don't see anything redeeming of her in that bit of dialogue at all. If anything, what I take from that video is Larian not providing any dialogue options in which the PC can rebuke her for being a Sharan. Seems like Larian is fixing the path they want the PC to take with her (and perhaps other companions as well).

Paladins aren't alignment restricted in 5e, they have to follow their Oath (it comes with the archetypes they pick at level 3). The Oath of Devotion is like the "classic" paladin, where playing it evil should make you an Oathbreaker if Larian implements that. But Oath of Vengeance and Oath of the Ancient support neutral and evil actions as long as it follow their Oath's limits.

I felt like Lae'zel's "evil" is mostly from her upbringing -- she says in one dialog that stealing is wrong, but murder culls the weak. This is Githyanki culture. The encounter with the other Githyanki hints that she has a possible path to becoming disenchanted with that culture where it doesn't live up to her ideals. I'm kind of imagining Arnold in the Terminator 2 where the kid tries to convince him to not just randomly kill everyone please. I like her toughness; I can see her learning to be a solid lawful good or neutral good.