Larian Studios
Posted By: odesseiron81 Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 01:02 PM
Greetings all. I was reading through the EA FAQ again and I noticed the last question from Jess from Larian.

Quote
Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.


I'm not sure how everyone else feels about this or even noticed it. Things move at a breakneck speed in these forums. I'm not sure I like this. At all. Now this is all baseless speculation at this point, so I don't want to be overly negative.

In DoS2, whichever 2 Origin members you didn't select to join your party became entirely unusable after a certain point. For the story of that game, it works. You're working with a very small party and each member is trying to attain godhood for their own particular reasons. It's a "shared" goal, but there can only be one. So it makes sense you might have to kill some people along the way (if that's how you play your version of the story out)

In BGIII, everyone is working towards the same goal. Get that tadpole out of your heads. They also have their own goals and motivations. But in BGI/II it was very much the same. Even though there was no camp per se, you could release a party member at any particular point and recruit someone else to see their story. A play through could be as long or as short as you wanted, depending on how many companions stories you got involved with.

Based on the wording from Larian, it leads me to believe that anyone who isn't with you at the end of Act 1 is going to die or otherwise become unavailable. We're then "forced" to complete the rest of the game with one party. Who knows. Maybe at the end of Act 1, you get some kind of delay for the tadpole removal in the Towers. Any members not with you will turn into Illithid. Yes, that's a very big assumption on my end. It's just a guess.

It also leads me to believe that there will not be all that many companions (if any) after Act 1. In BGI/II you met people everywhere. Meeting everyone in the same Act seems a bit too convenient.

If that happens, our ability to diversify our party based on needs will go out the window. Paired with the fact there are only 4 party members. I'm not saying you need 6, but 5 would be a nice happy median. You have that extra utility slot. But this post isn't about that. My concern is that it will get very stale dealing with the same party for another 60-80 hours, versus being able to keep things fresh with adding and removing party members at will.

For all I know though, this will fit in with the story they are weaving. I could also be entirely off base though. I just figured it would be worth bringing up. At the end of the day this is their game they are crafting and not ours and I 100% respect that, but some of that BG feel goes out the window if we have a set party locked. You can't please everyone. I'm happy either way in knowing I'll more than likely be getting a great game.
Posted By: Corren Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 01:11 PM
I agree that it would be nice to be able to meet more allies in the later acts of the game, rather than just at the beginning.
I like the idea of having a member of the group having just NO IDEA we have a tadpole in our head (Volo is kind of that guy, but I don't think he's meant to become a companion per se).
I wonder if the druid Halsin is meant to become a companion later on, or if he's supposed to be one as soon as act one but the gameplay for druids isn't ready yet so they didn't make him fully playable.

Anyway, my point is: companions are exciting, even more so than a new, powerful piece of gear for a slot you have never been able to fill up to that point. And I think getting a full party as soon as act one is a bit premature. It's always a nice surprise, it's exciting to feel like the game as more in store for you.
Posted By: Deveny Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 01:12 PM
I've read in various places that the party will be set at the end of Act I. I would prefer at least one more permanent party member if that's the case. But regardless, not being able to take everyone along at will adds replay value, at least for me. I expect I'll run more than one character through and possibly play one or more of the origins. Each time, I'll pick my optimal party based on my own PC's strengths and weaknesses. If you only expect to play this game one time, then I can see why you'd feel limited by suddenly having access to all the options removed. I personally don't have a problem with it.
Posted By: Slapstick Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 01:14 PM
I really hope we can pick up new companions along the way. It seems only natural that we'll meet someone different in each chapter, rather than magically finding a myriad of various characters who happens to be in this particular corner of the world - and then never again anyone willing to travel with us.

It was also one of the things in BG1+2 that made the world feel somewhat alive. It was not just a collection of fights, it was people everywhere who could join us, fight us, or just wanted a dimwit to go steal a bird for them.
Posted By: xMardeRx Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 01:18 PM
depends on how much they want to brake the DnD rules. There are only certain combinations you can make in a party that you absolutely need. If you are a warrior no toad girl. if you play a cleric no shadow heart. you are a mage? bye gale and wyll.
You dont have a choice or much choice at all in the game to begin with. bad choice, better to have the option to send them to inn or tell them to head to Baldurs Gate on there own once you clear a path. Maybe make it a chance that they make to it to baldurs gate depending if you give them any gear and money for there travel. Good gear and money chances are they make it, no gear no money most likely they die.
Posted By: odesseiron81 Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 01:24 PM
Oh it definitely adds replayability for sure. I always enjoy that in a game. But if it's corralled into one area of the game, that's not all that fun to me. Imagine playing through Act 1 repeatedly just to get to Act 2 with your different party members. Granted you could just make a separate save right before the end of Act 1.

At the start of ToB, you can summon all your various allies at a camp of sorts. At the end of ToB, you still find out what happened to all your members. It was a nice little bookend. If I never see my companions again after act 1, it would be disappointing. Again, that's a lot of speculation on my end, who knows where things will go.
Posted By: Mentor Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 02:30 PM
Hey yall, my first fourm post. I would just like to say that based on some of the story I do believe we will find more friends as we venture forth!

*****SPOILER AHEAD SPOILER AHEAD SPOILER AHEAD*****

Two instances I can think of
1. You save the Devil Girl she says you can find her later on somewhere...I don't recall exactly where she said you can find her.
2. If you manage to save the couple of archer dudes that are getting wrecked by the wolf apocalypse then they give you a secret message on a place you can go to meet them later.

Based on those two scenarios alone if everyone dies. Then I'm almost positive we will have access to more friends in the future should our current ones die.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 02:39 PM
I want to find all companions in Act 1, but then have them all around and available for the entire game. I dislike the idea of companions vanishing.
Posted By: Foxzilla Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 02:42 PM
Agree, i hope we get the chance to switch companions at any point and find new ones in later acts.
Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 02:45 PM
People that have datamined the game have found companion strings for 8 more characters.

It would be a very poor decision to limit new companions to just the first act.

In fact in real life, nobody has to commit to companions, and you always meet new people later in life. You don't have to commit to anything actually.

That reasoning seems very weak, and makes it seem as though the people that are making this game have never once in their whole lives stepped outside of their mother's basements.
Posted By: Mentor Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 02:49 PM
Firesnakearies,

I have one solution for this and one additional statement to follow. So instead of vanashing perhaps Larian could look into adding a bonus fight at your camp the next time you go back to it after finishing act 1, which is where you left them RP wise, and when you go back they all the ones not in your party just so happened to turn into mindflayers. Would this make it feel better than them just vanishing.

My statement would be how often are we actually making party changes. I know for me once i have a group together I really don't bother to make changes unless the story dictates such as needing Gythraki (however its spelled) lady to talk to Zorru(or whatever his name is). Maybe this is just me and if that is the case i completely understand where your coming from as to why it would be such a big game changer for them to just vanish.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 03:03 PM
Well that would certainly be interesting story-wise, but I would still feel disappointed.
Posted By: SecondAchaius Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 03:13 PM
What I think may happen is that you gotta commit to the tadpole companions? Maybe you gotta choose who is gonna get saved and then maybe we'll meet more companions that don't have tadpoles? Like we save Shadowheart and might meet some people under shar or selune. Who knows. I like the companions so far but we are lacking in what Dos2 had with interesting side characters that stick around (The halfdemon-elf, the necromancer, the kid who looks for stuff,) Then again this is only the first act and we don't know who is actually gonna stick around with us. Who knows.
Posted By: Khorvale Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
People that have datamined the game have found companion strings for 8 more characters.

It would be a very poor decision to limit new companions to just the first act.

In fact in real life, nobody has to commit to companions, and you always meet new people later in life. You don't have to commit to anything actually.

That reasoning seems very weak, and makes it seem as though the people that are making this game have never once in their whole lives stepped outside of their mother's basements.


Yeah, I've been wondering at how the whole "commit to party by end of Act I" fits together with the fact that we probably only have at most half of the total companions available now. I mean they could probably fit a couple more into the EA area without crowding it too much, and I suppose the rest would have to be added on the next leg of the main quest since that seems like it's the end of Act I.

As for the real life thing, I assumed they meant in a roleplaying group because otherwise yes, you're quite right, that's not how it works at all laugh
Posted By: golw Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 03:16 PM
I'm working under the assumption that we have met all five of the Origins characters, but there are still several more companions that we can recruit in later chapters, who lack the Mindflayer Tadpole Background.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 03:21 PM
I don't think there is any decent reason to kill companion after act1. Why should we commit to a definitive party? isn't that just an arbitrary limitation?
Posted By: Frumpkis Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 03:42 PM
I'm okay with the idea of committing to the party after Act 1, although it's going to be interesting to see how Larian manages to cram all the companions into that one act without it seeming forced. There are several reasons why I think it will work well:

I just finished Wasteland 3 which adds new companion choices all the way through the game, even up to around 75% of the game being finished. By that halfway point, I've already settled into combat strategies for my companions and it's hard to integrate a new one as a replacement. Especially if they're auto-leveled to match the current party, which may be a mix of skills and attributes you wouldn't choose for them.

Again using Wasteland 3 as an example, and other games work like this too -- you sometimes get a side-quest as you move through the game that's designed around one of the companions. You ideally want that one in your party to get the full dialog and best outcome. This can mean re-hiring one you've dismissed just for that quest, then dismissing them again afterwards.

This feels incredibly "gamey." If we have to commit to the party at the end of Act 1, Larian can just block off all the quests for companions you're not using. We'll never see those awkward notices about "be sure to have Companion XXX in your party" when receiving a new quest notice. Any companion quests will be smoothly integrated for just your current party.

So I'm not against the idea, I'm just wondering if Act 1 is large enough to allow trying out all the companions so we can make a decision at the end. Of course it's easier if you go into the game with a fixed idea of the kind of party you want, like a classic D&D holy trinity or whatever. That makes it easier to decide.
Posted By: Ramien Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 03:50 PM
Well, Shadowheart and Lae'zel could finally come to blows or have an argument and decide you have to choose between the two of them (Seriously, it's a pain just to get Shadowheart in the party oif Lae'zel's already there), and then Gale could stick with Shadowheart (Considering he started hitting on her in your first conversation) and Wyll could stick with Lae'zel on the basis of their idle dialogue - Wyll's the one person I've seen at least get some positive reaction from her while he was flirting with her. Choosing your companions doesn't have to be all doom and gloom!
Posted By: Mentor Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 03:56 PM
I agree with the fact of having to commit to a party would be pretty lame. I also agree with there being no real reason for companions to die at the END of Act 1; however, I do feel like the tadpoles need to feel like more of a big deal in the game as of right now they just kinda feel like they are there and have no real purpose other than to give you special powers. To make them feel more threatening they should turn one of your companions and I feel like the end of Act 1 is the best time for it to do so. If this isn't the case perhaps if we do actually get them removed(idk if this happens yet, idc if you spoil it doesn't matter I am going find out sometime anyway) someone dies during the operation.

People dying triggers an emotional effect on people whether it being anger and forcing pursuit for vengeance for that person or sadness that you lost a friend, either way its good for story progression. I think this should be something the DM(Larian in this case) has control over and not us. We just are not allowed to lose character created people and only being able to lose companions. I do not have a great solution and of course we are all spit-balling opinions so this is mine.
Posted By: kathi1212 Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 04:12 PM
I am totally fine with the fixed party after Act 1. So many RPGs that I have played have my character be the chosen one, a person with some authority and the companions are more or less under my command. But that's not like that here...
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 04:20 PM
Hey OP, this is issue has indeed come up previously. I myself brought it up right after that Update. And I agree with you in how I see things too.

But the question that remains is whether we are going to have any companions available to join us after Act 1? That's where there is confusion at present. If all your companions are from Act 1, and then any of them you don't have in your party get killed, leaving you party-locked for the rest of the game, that would be terrible game design. OTOH, if it is just these current five that are being referred to in that quote, and you save three of them and the other two die, and then once you get into Act 2 you meet a bunch more companions that can join your party, that would be fine with me.
Posted By: pill0ws Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 04:22 PM
Ok, if they do this, now more than ever I want to see a larger party size, for obvious reasons

+1 on OP post btw. All the companions from the entire story crammed into the first act leaves little to look forward too in terms of character stories. This may just be a side effect of making every companion in the game a potential main character. A few "purist companions" that are only available as party additions would be great (like the Zariel touched Tiefling you meet and eithehr help or kill).
Posted By: azarhal Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 04:44 PM
You can ask Shadowheart what she will do once the tadpole is removed and her answer is that she will go her own way and that she has people in Baldur's Gate.

Everyone in Act1 has things to do in Baldur's Gate. Even Auntie Ethel exchanges letters with people in the city. Baldur's Gate is clearly act 2 of the game.

My guess is that the "commit" post Act 1 is in regards to approval. Once the tadpole is dealt with, companions don't necessarily have reasons to stick with you unless they are your friend now (approval at medium+).

Also, I don't think the EA has all of act 1. Larian act concept is narrative based.

DOS1 act 1 is helping Cyseal against Braccus Rex, act 2 is investigating the forest and act 3 was getting to the final boss.
DOS2 act 1 is escape Fort Joy island, act 2 is awakening your powers (Reaper's Cost + Nameless Isle), act 3 is getting to the final boss.
BG3 act 1 is "remove the tadpole"...which can't be completed in the EA.

Posted By: dreambled Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 04:57 PM
I recall bringing this up on Reddit and it is definitely odd. They are basically half way there to having the same party system Dragon Age Origins had, complete with camp where you can chat up all recruitable members. I sincerely hope they either expand party size, allow us to keep all recruitable companions, or both (both? both is good), but who knows what Larian has planned (or can accomplish) for this besides Larian.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 06:09 PM
I feel like the way they handled companions in DOS2 was Larian's most stupid mistake, and based on what I read here I really fear they are on the way to making it again.

in a nutshell - it's like Larian forcefully tried to fix something that isn't broken.

this massage contains major spoilers for Divinity Original Sin 2

ever since throne of bhaal companions have their camp (ebon hawk, Normandy, etc) and you can go back, talk to them and take them to quests. It is a perfectly fine system that allows you flexibility with your party composition. But Larian for some stupid unknown reason decided that they kill all the companions that you didn't choose at the end of act 1 in DOS2. this could have been the end of it, but even narratively it failed miserably, since at the end of act 3 they return to fight you as skeletons. I can't stress how stupid this decision seems to me. why not keep them until the ending of act 3, and have the same conversation you have with the other companions (about whether they are gonna let you ascend)? It would have been perfect, since if you ignored them and left them on the ship for two acts they would fight you and if you cared for them they would side with you. The only reason I heard for this decision was "consequences", and I'm not convinced, since it is a super lame and cheep way to create artificial consequences, that require no effort from Larion.
BTW, if you play with mods and bring the whole party with you the game works exactly as I described.

The same is true for Bg3 - why create more than 5 companions if you plan to kill most of them off? it is just shooting yourself in the foot...
Posted By: Tiuva Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by odesseiron81
...
My concern is that it will get very stale dealing with the same party for another 60-80 hours, versus being able to keep things fresh with adding and removing party members at will.


I agree with this sentiment. I am one of those people that rarely commits to a party, I like to mix things up every once in a while.

As for the 'realism' aspect: in my mind, it is fine if companions decide to hang out in camp every once in a while (to "rest" or whatever), while my PC heads out with a smaller group to do stuff. The companions back in camp still know what is going on and are up to date with the happenings ingame, it's not like they are ever out of the loop. They are just as much a part of it as the currently active companions in my group, and react to ingame events accordingly when you speak to them back at camp.

I am all for player choice when it comes to companions, as in: give the player the option to boot / kill / otherwise dismiss companions that are unwelcome, either before or after they have been recruited. That alone makes for good replay value, because according to how you roleplay, you will always end up with a different set of companions anyway. If certain ingame events force the death / betrayal / [insert other reason for leaving] of single companions throughout the game, or even prevent their recruitment (due to your race/alignment etc), then so be it. I am actually all for it, because that should also be allowed to be part of a roleplay story, especially if it is tied in to decisions you make as a player.
But making half the companions inaccessible all at once at a certain point in the game just because it was decreed we shouldn't realistically be allowed access to them, seems a bit weak, and for me, personally, diminishes the experience (also because, if I want to know their stories, I will be forced to take them in a future playthrough). Like in DOS2, it would leave a bit of a sour taste and have me wondering why I even bothered with the now-gone companions in the first place.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 06:22 PM
Yeah, it's a head-scratcher of a decision.
Posted By: Khorvale Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 06:43 PM
I hope they go for a solution where you can potentially lose some companions based on your choices but others might stay available for your entire quest due to other choices, so you at least have the opportunity to switch things up a bit, and maybe kill a party member or two if they get too uppity laugh
Posted By: Frumpkis Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by Khorvale
I hope they go for a solution where you can potentially lose some companions based on your choices but others might stay available for your entire quest due to other choices, so you at least have the opportunity to switch things up a bit, and maybe kill a party member or two if they get too uppity laugh


That's an interesting point. If your party is locked in after Act 1, does that mean that however you treat your companions, they'll never leave the group because there are no longer any replacements?

Seems weird, but maybe DOS 2 worked that way too, I can't remember. There wasn't as much intra-party friction in that game.
Posted By: Darthmansour Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by Mentor
Hey yall, my first fourm post. I would just like to say that based on some of the story I do believe we will find more friends as we venture forth!

*****SPOILER AHEAD SPOILER AHEAD SPOILER AHEAD*****

Two instances I can think of
1. You save the Devil Girl she says you can find her later on somewhere...I don't recall exactly where she said you can find her.
2. If you manage to save the couple of archer dudes that are getting wrecked by the wolf apocalypse then they give you a secret message on a place you can go to meet them later.

Based on those two scenarios alone if everyone dies. Then I'm almost positive we will have access to more friends in the future should our current ones die.

If It is the "archer dudes" that I think your talking about, with all the fire and hyenas, there camp is already in ACT I
My Hint is thats its around the burning town
Posted By: Khorvale Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 07:12 PM
Originally Posted by Frumpkis
Originally Posted by Khorvale
I hope they go for a solution where you can potentially lose some companions based on your choices but others might stay available for your entire quest due to other choices, so you at least have the opportunity to switch things up a bit, and maybe kill a party member or two if they get too uppity laugh


That's an interesting point. If your party is locked in after Act 1, does that mean that however you treat your companions, they'll never leave the group because there are no longer any replacements?

Seems weird, but maybe DOS 2 worked that way too, I can't remember. There wasn't as much intra-party friction in that game.


I don't think your companions could actually leave in D:OS2, they'd just fuck you over in the endgame if they didn't like you.
But D:OS2 also had the option to hire mercenary (custom) characters, at least for multiplayer, so I guess that's one way might allow us to fill any holes in the party
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 07:23 PM
Originally Posted by Khorvale
I don't think your companions could actually leave in D:OS2, they'd just fuck you over in the endgame if they didn't like you.

Oh! That's even worse! I've never played D:OS2 so this is news to me.
Posted By: Khorvale Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 07:23 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Khorvale
I don't think your companions could actually leave in D:OS2, they'd just fuck you over in the endgame if they didn't like you.

Oh! That's even worse! I've never played D:OS2 so this is news to me.


Not sure though, I played it multiplayer mostly.
Posted By: Frumpkis Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:07 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Khorvale
I don't think your companions could actually leave in D:OS2, they'd just fuck you over in the endgame if they didn't like you.

Oh! That's even worse! I've never played D:OS2 so this is news to me.


The DOS2 endgame was about who got to ascend to Godhood, and it was made clear by the mid-game that only one in the party could do it. So there was a sort of background mechanic at work, where companions could secretly be working against you.
Posted By: BlueFlames Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:13 PM
Idk I did not hate it in DOS2 (was a bit surprised tho).
The other BG games had so many that you could find all over the world that I went for the ones I wanted and left the rest to their faith. I never changed the party ones I had the companions I wanted.

Only games I ever changed party was dragon age and that was mostly for story reasons.

However, I did not like the 'hiring' of companions in DOS2. Those were really boring.

I would like the option of changing companions tho or finding some new ones after act 1. Hopefully ones you don't have to 'hire' like in DOS2.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by BlueFlames
Idk I did not hate it in DOS2 (was a bit surprised tho).
The other BG games had so many that you could find all over the world that I went for the ones I wanted and left the rest to their faith. I never changed the party ones I had the companions I wanted.

Only games I ever changed party was dragon age and that was mostly for story reasons.

However, I did not like the 'hiring' of companions in DOS2. Those were really boring.

I would like the option of changing companions tho or finding some new ones after act 1. Hopefully ones you don't have to 'hire' like in DOS2.

I get that but shock value is never a good enough reason to do anything, deffinatly not repeatedly (which also makes it less shocking and thus just plain pointless).
Posted By: Relampago Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:18 PM
4 char slots and chars who are unavailable after act 1 forces multiple play throughs to experience all char quests, the key word here is forces. Look at PF:K i could do all char quests and storylines in 1 play through even though they couldnt be part of the party at the same time due to size limitations. Also yes this was brought up before in a very long thread.
Posted By: odesseiron81 Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:20 PM
It could just be like others said, after act 1, we do start running into more characters in later Acts. And those aren't Origin characters. Maybe there's only enough cure to go around for 4 individuals at the end of Act 1 to go around and that's the reason you lock your party (which I still think there's more to go, why would they abruptly end it at Moonrise Tower?) I think that's the true end, then after you get out of there and maybe? cure yourself, the bigger picture of the story will come in to play.

But anyway, what IF after the end of Act 1, we're locked into these companions, and I down the line don't like the route their story is going. Not as a player, but as my character. What if I don't agree with their ideas and want to dismiss them? Am I stuck with a 3 person party and a boring mercenary at that point? If so, yuck.

I realize this is ALL speculation and we could meet other folks after Act 1 and hopefully will. I realize they can't say certain things due to plot spoilers and whatnot. So why even make the mention of locking your party in the first place? All it does is lead to threads like this.
Posted By: BlueFlames Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Khorvale
I don't think your companions could actually leave in D:OS2, they'd just fuck you over in the endgame if they didn't like you.

Oh! That's even worse! I've never played D:OS2 so this is news to me.


Honestly it's not the only game where something like that happens. NWN2 or DA2 had the same thing if they did not like you. It mostly happens if you do not invest in their personal quest or generally make choices they don't like.
Posted By: Gray Ghost Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:27 PM
Another problem of committing to a set party in this game that doesn't come up in Divinity because of the way classes work is that you don't get to experience anywhere close to a wide variety of the available classes. Even ignoring the issue that a 4 person party severely limits viable party composition for a lot of players, at most you'll be able to experience 4 different playstyles and class quirks in one playthrough, which is a bummer because of the variety that the various classes offer. Plus from the point of view of someone who doesn't know D&D it's even worse because you won't get to see the full breadth of how classes play as they rise in level. Assuming act 1 ends with the characters at level 6-7, then you're just missing out on the opportunity to see how the majority of classes play at higher levels, making it harder for you to experiment and try riskier builds down the line.
Posted By: macadami Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:28 PM
The emphasis in act 1 is removing the tadpole. The emphasis in act 2 will be finding out why/who/what put them there in the first place. Maybe some of your companions are cool with just not having their skulls explode from the inside by a spaghetti of tentacles, while you and your selected group decide to figure out the what and why.

I really hope they don’t use the same twist that you have to fight your companions....post ceremorphesis or not....it was fun but not really that surprising in DoS2...Here it would just be a Larian trope. If they can write out the companions using some other plot device that makes sense, great.

What I really think that post is saying, is that all of your companions are found in Act 1, so when you leave, whomever you didn’t recruit is gone for good since there is no returning to that particular area.
Posted By: BlueFlames Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by BlueFlames
Idk I did not hate it in DOS2 (was a bit surprised tho).
The other BG games had so many that you could find all over the world that I went for the ones I wanted and left the rest to their faith. I never changed the party ones I had the companions I wanted.

Only games I ever changed party was dragon age and that was mostly for story reasons.

However, I did not like the 'hiring' of companions in DOS2. Those were really boring.

I would like the option of changing companions tho or finding some new ones after act 1. Hopefully ones you don't have to 'hire' like in DOS2.

I get that but shock value is never a good enough reason to do anything, deffinatly not repeatedly (which also makes it less shocking and thus just plain pointless).


I don't think is good or bad because of chock value. What I meant was that I did not mind it because at that point I was already invested in the party I had. Besides changing your party in DOS2 was not easy. There was no campfire or menu where they wait till you show up. they were all over ford joy. It simply did not matter to me at that point in act2.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 09:02 PM
Originally Posted by BlueFlames
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Khorvale
I don't think your companions could actually leave in D:OS2, they'd just fuck you over in the endgame if they didn't like you.

Oh! That's even worse! I've never played D:OS2 so this is news to me.


Honestly it's not the only game where something like that happens. NWN2 or DA2 had the same thing if they did not like you. It mostly happens if you do not invest in their personal quest or generally make choices they don't like.

Yeah but in those games you have a pretty good idea where things are headed with your companions before you get to the end-game. But it seemed, from what I was reading here, that in D:OS2 you got effectively blindsided. But regardless, it's a tangent and not really to the point of the thread. smile
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 09:04 PM
Guys, I highly doubt that removing the tadpoles is "that easy".

My bet is... we won't get it removed until the end. Like look at Astarion's quest - he wants to kill Cazador, how could he possibly accomplish that without the tadpole in his head? And it's so damn clear that once we are in the city of Baldur's Gate that we will actually get to resolve that problem for our little vampire friend, Shadowheart also has something to do in the city, also what happens to Gale if we leave him behind? Especially considering his little personal problem.... Not every companion quest is as intrinsically tied to the tadpoles, like I said. You guys just think too simple. Don't take it as an insult either, please. There are all these little breadcrumbs spread all over the place that removing OUR specific tadpoles is gonna be real hard. To me it's at least clear that Larian is trying to step away from their own cliches. I could be wrong of course, but something tells me... that we just got to wait.
Posted By: Thrythlind Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 09:11 PM
This is a neutral one for me. I'm going to tend to only a set party anyway. This is just going to eliminate the guilt I feel over leaving them waiting perpetually at camp.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 09:46 PM
I really, really don't like this and I've commented on it a couple of times already. Limitations to party should come from story reasons (like disagreements etc.), not handwaved "rocks fall, everyone dies" or the like. There are so many problems to this approach.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 10:14 PM
Yeah, my prediction is . . . tadpoles definitely not coming out at the end of Act 1.
Posted By: DirgeNovak Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 14/10/20 10:45 PM
I was fine with this in Divinity 2, because you can choose the class of every companion when you meet them and everyone stays really customizable until the end so you can balance your party however you wanted, but I'll be honest this is a terrible fucking idea for Baldur's Gate 3 with characters having predetermined classes. I can't get rid of Shadowheart at the end of Act 1 and be without a healer for the rest of the game, but I don't necessarily always need her with me all the time. If I fight a boss that uses antimagic field or is resistant to nonmagical attacks, I want to be able to switch out the characters rendered useless by the boss' abilities. I want to do sidequests with the characters I don't always use. I want to learn more about Wyll despite playing a warlock and not really having a use for him in my active party. This is an awful choice and I really hope Larian changes their mind about this.
Posted By: ArmouredHedgehog Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 12:02 AM
If the party splits...
Then what happens with the characters not following the others? If it makes sense for all of them to pursue a similar path because of their condition then why split?
All of the charcters we have met so far suffer from the same 'condition'. If it made sense to team up in the first place then I do not see why the group should split
Posted By: Frumpkis Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 12:21 AM
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
I really, really don't like this and I've commented on it a couple of times already. Limitations to party should come from story reasons (like disagreements etc.), not handwaved "rocks fall, everyone dies" or the like. There are so many problems to this approach.


True, but it does solve one big problem in game design. It can eliminate running across quest triggers for companions you don't have in your party. They just don't exist, so you don't get into that mode where "Oh, I have to trade this one out for a while and pick up that other one to do this side quest."

That also means you're not seeing all the content in the game in one playthrough, but personally I don't mind. It's like the branching storyline in Witcher 2; you have to commit to one branch and will only see the alternate reality with a second play-through. I'd rather have this, than run across side quests I can't do because I don't have the right companions in my party.
Posted By: Ixal Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 12:29 AM
If this is true then I wonder if Larian will really add more companions. There are only so many NPCs you can introduce in a single act.
Posted By: ArmouredHedgehog Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 12:34 AM
They can set up a new camp and introduce new companions in Act 2. Someone not suffering from the 'condition' of the others would be interesting. They have all the time in the multiverse while the others have more urgent needs.
The most important thing seems to be that there is a reason for reducing party size. The fact that the whole Mindflayer problem creates a strong shared goal makes a split hard to explain.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 12:46 AM
Originally Posted by macadami
The emphasis in act 1 is removing the tadpole. The emphasis in act 2 will be finding out why/who/what put them there in the first place. Maybe some of your companions are cool with just not having their skulls explode from the inside by a spaghetti of tentacles, while you and your selected group decide to figure out the what and why.

I really hope they don’t use the same twist that you have to fight your companions....post ceremorphesis or not....it was fun but not really that surprising in DoS2...Here it would just be a Larian trope. If they can write out the companions using some other plot device that makes sense, great.

What I really think that post is saying, is that all of your companions are found in Act 1, so when you leave, whomever you didn’t recruit is gone for good since there is no returning to that particular area.

Not to dwell on it too much, but I think in divinity original sin 2 it was very poorly executed, but the idea behind it was great and made sense with the narrative. here there is zero sense to it. unless we will discover there is a competition between True souls on some prize (which may be interesting and fitting with the Baldur's Gate saga, but still kinda lame after dos 2).
Posted By: xMardeRx Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 01:23 AM
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by macadami
The emphasis in act 1 is removing the tadpole. The emphasis in act 2 will be finding out why/who/what put them there in the first place. Maybe some of your companions are cool with just not having their skulls explode from the inside by a spaghetti of tentacles, while you and your selected group decide to figure out the what and why.

I really hope they don’t use the same twist that you have to fight your companions....post ceremorphesis or not....it was fun but not really that surprising in DoS2...Here it would just be a Larian trope. If they can write out the companions using some other plot device that makes sense, great.

What I really think that post is saying, is that all of your companions are found in Act 1, so when you leave, whomever you didn’t recruit is gone for good since there is no returning to that particular area.

Not to dwell on it too much, but I think in divinity original sin 2 it was very poorly executed, but the idea behind it was great and made sense with the narrative. here there is zero sense to it. unless we will discover there is a competition between True souls on some prize (which may be interesting and fitting with the Baldur's Gate saga, but still kinda lame after dos 2).


You get a set of glowing eyes and flying triangle then you can subjugate the other realms and they have to call you a god.
Posted By: BrianDavion Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 01:52 AM
yeah forceing us to "Commit" seems lame, differant classes can fill differant roles. I'm already party swapping, my play through is on a fighter, and one time when I knew I'd be satging a "direct assault" I left astaeron at home to take Laz'eal as another fighter, because I knew her durability would be the better choice.
Posted By: Khorvale Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 12:01 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Guys, I highly doubt that removing the tadpoles is "that easy".

My bet is... we won't get it removed until the end. Like look at Astarion's quest - he wants to kill Cazador, how could he possibly accomplish that without the tadpole in his head? And it's so damn clear that once we are in the city of Baldur's Gate that we will actually get to resolve that problem for our little vampire friend, Shadowheart also has something to do in the city, also what happens to Gale if we leave him behind? Especially considering his little personal problem.... Not every companion quest is as intrinsically tied to the tadpoles, like I said. You guys just think too simple. Don't take it as an insult either, please. There are all these little breadcrumbs spread all over the place that removing OUR specific tadpoles is gonna be real hard. To me it's at least clear that Larian is trying to step away from their own cliches. I could be wrong of course, but something tells me... that we just got to wait.


You're likely right, all the avenues for healing that we are provided with in EA turns out to be wild goose chases, after all. Party is going to be Sourcerers-eh I mean...Tadpolers? until the end-game
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 04:19 PM
Originally Posted by Khorvale
You're likely right, all the avenues for healing that we are provided with in EA turns out to be wild goose chases, after all. Party is going to be Sourcerers-eh I mean...Tadpolers? until the end-game


To me, the entire story of BG3 really stinks of BG2's Bhaals essence, or at least taking heavy inspirations from that... so it's the reason why I deducted that the resolution of the tadpole problem won't come until very late.. what makes me wonder though is: if people not using the powers at all will get some recognition for their restraint in the end? And how losing access to some of our companions will play out? It has to make some logical sense that I'm really not seeing as of now.

For example - in BG1/2, if your reputation was too high or too low, some companions would ditch you, or get so annoyed with you they'd attack you and obviously perish. You could let Viconia get slaughtered by the Flaming Fist enforcer, in BG2 you could let her die to the angry mob, like there were so many logical permutations of losing companions permanently. Hell,even in our BG3 EA you could straight up murder some of our current companions upon meeting them, or you could yeet them out of the group/camp by simply being angry that they kept some nasty secrets from you. For example: Astarion's vampirism, Shadow's Shar beliefs, Gale's timebomb, Wyll will get mad at us helping gobbos + we can be nasty about the source of his warlock powers, haven't really found a way to yeet Lae'zel once you recruit her tho... well, okay, there is a way if you use the tadpole powers.

Hmm, actually, now that I think of the logic behind losing some of our companions... the ones we didn't commit to... well, onboard of the nautiloid there was this pod with Kelly Chambers (Mass Effect 2 reference - but that chick does look a lot like Kelly..) going through an instant ceremorphosis upon the use of the lever... and since all the breadcrumbs lead to the Moonrise Towers being the seat of who/whatever is responsible for our tadpoles being dormant, maaaaaaaaaaybe, and it's a big stretch, but maybe that thing (let's call it the Absolute, since it's how it's referred to in the game) will be so displeased with us not submitting to their will that they lash out at us and do an instant ceremorphosis on those who aren't in our current party? Maybe I am reading too much into this, I dunno. Maybe I am entirely wrong and we get to lose the taddies at the end of act 1. Also, I like the term 'tadpolers'. laugh
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 04:36 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Khorvale
You're likely right, all the avenues for healing that we are provided with in EA turns out to be wild goose chases, after all. Party is going to be Sourcerers-eh I mean...Tadpolers? until the end-game


To me, the entire story of BG3 really stinks of BG2's Bhaals essence, or at least taking heavy inspirations from that... so it's the reason why I deducted that the resolution of the tadpole problem won't come until very late.. what makes me wonder though is: if people not using the powers at all will get some recognition for their restraint in the end? And how losing access to some of our companions will play out? It has to make some logical sense that I'm really not seeing as of now.

For example - in BG1/2, if your reputation was too high or too low, some companions would ditch you, or get so annoyed with you they'd attack you and obviously perish. You could let Viconia get slaughtered by the Flaming Fist enforcer, in BG2 you could let her die to the angry mob, like there were so many logical permutations of losing companions permanently. Hell,even in our BG3 EA you could straight up murder some of our current companions upon meeting them, or you could yeet them out of the group/camp by simply being angry that they kept some nasty secrets from you. For example: Astarion's vampirism, Shadow's Shar beliefs, Gale's timebomb, Wyll will get mad at us helping gobbos + we can be nasty about the source of his warlock powers, haven't really found a way to yeet Lae'zel once you recruit her tho... well, okay, there is a way if you use the tadpole powers.

Hmm, actually, now that I think of the logic behind losing some of our companions... the ones we didn't commit to... well, onboard of the nautiloid there was this pod with Kelly Chambers (Mass Effect 2 reference - but that chick does look a lot like Kelly..) going through an instant ceremorphosis upon the use of the lever... and since all the breadcrumbs lead to the Moonrise Towers being the seat of who/whatever is responsible for our tadpoles being dormant, maaaaaaaaaaybe, and it's a big stretch, but maybe that thing (let's call it the Absolute, since it's how it's referred to in the game) will be so displeased with us not submitting to their will that they lash out at us and do an instant ceremorphosis on those who aren't in our current party? Maybe I am reading too much into this, I dunno. Maybe I am entirely wrong and we get to lose the taddies at the end of act 1. Also, I like the term 'tadpolers'. laugh

I get what you are saying and it's not even a terrible story bit, the problem is with how cheep and arbitrary it is, not to mention a repeat of the terrible choice from dos2. It is just bad writing barely concealing a bad game design choice. Larian just arbitrarily decided they don't want you to have more than X companions ( I really don't get why. It's such a silly decision to invest so much in so many companions only to get rid of them after third of the game) so they pull some bullshit story reasons for it. Same old same old.
Posted By: nation Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 05:09 PM
hey all! - new here and been reading thru the forum discussions. i had posted the below in another similar thread but wanted to also add those thoughts here for consideration...

'having your available origin companions 'lock' after a certain point in of itself i dont necessarily think is a bad thing, i just dont think the way larian is planning on implementing it is the best approach ie. locking in the party at the end of Act 1

(as an aside - i also dont think im a fan of 'act maps' - i would like being able to travel back to the druid grove or ruins after i have progressed the story a bit if i missed somethings initially, in the og bg among the seven chapters you could explore the world as you wanted [solo, or with any number of party slots filled, including 4/6 or 6/6] with some time sensitive plot points true, but overall you could make and take the story at your own pace, further cementing it as a story about your pc. having act maps seems just another odd system design limiting character choice and agency - unless there is a strong story/plot element, which frankly, im not really getting with the ea play so far as (spoilers) it seems you either decimate the druids or goblins and go from there but i may be mistaken. while i think the tadpole plot is a interesting dynamic to explore, i dont necessarily feel all that special if all my recruitable act 1 companions and multiple other npcs also have the tadpoles and makes me see the pc currently just as just another guy. furthermore, and maybe i may just not have run into this yet in ea, but if we are so concerned about this tadpole eating our brain why are we able to cheese long rests?...just some tangential rambling)

if they still want to lock the companions i actually think larian would be better served implementing a party lock later on during the story as the first act seems too soon in the narrative in that we wont be able to really explore these origin characters larian spent so much time/resources to create to make an informed decision as to what we want our party to be like for the remaining acts, especially when it sounds like the origin stories really wont be explored until we get to BG. Personally, i think for inspiration larian should look more towards how character choice impacted the party and gameplay as it was done in ME/ME2 or some other rpgs (currently locking after Act1 feels very dos2 - hesitant to say that, bc while i enjoyed dos2 i felt that feature was one of the weaker points).

idk if this is taboo to talk about, but specifically for ME/ME2, you were given the chance to learn and work more with your companions (while also recruiting a good number of them over the course of the whole game) to build that rapport that would give more weight/impact to tough decisions you made more towards the ends of the game. also, i think its just another odd game decision to lock your origin companions so early when larian expounds on how much effort/resources are put into creating these characters only for us to essentially lock us out part of the story early on - idk, seems like not the best use of resources, but thats just my interpretation. and while i understand some ppl may say its for replayability, i just dont see that connection as you could still choose to hold off on any origin character content you didnt want to experience until future playthroughs with out mandating that players have to essentially opt out of certain gameplay. and frankly if i want to do another playthrough id say is more bc i want to fire up a new player character and that trying new origin companion content should just be supplemental to a new player character play through at that point, but i also think that the concept of an origin character in of itself doesnt really mesh well with a bg game where the player created character is supposed to shine as the star. to add to that, i dont necessarily feel all that connected to these origin characters when they just sit back and let a mind flayer eat my brain, but thats another topical discussion (and for those of you who say that you didnt have a pc in ME you had shep, while true, it was also your own shep whose backstory, gender, look, and decisions you decided on during the game. added benefit that shep had their own VO also makes me wish this was a feature implemented in bg3 - kinda a let down to almost never hear the pc's actually voice selection during dialogue)

tbh, the more i play the more i scratch my head on how the systems in this bg game seem to limit player agency/choice more than give us options (ie limiting the party after act1/no optional party size, limitations in character creation options - ex. full customization options regardless & y no alignment? [unless your a cleric?? and i cant be an evil elven cleric of the archeart that pulls some Altmer elder scrolls inspiration?], no current choice to roll for stats or selecting standard array/point buy. optional first level feat, the option to just leave or attack for every dialogue encounter, choosing starting equipment - all these would increase player choice, and i get some of these will likely be covered by mods, but i think letting larian know there is a demand/market for such functions will only work to improve the game)

just my thoughts - thx!'
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 05:27 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
I get what you are saying and it's not even a terrible story bit, the problem is with how cheep and arbitrary it is, not to mention a repeat of the terrible choice from dos2. It is just bad writing barely concealing a bad game design choice. Larian just arbitrarily decided they don't want you to have more than X companions ( I really don't get why. It's such a silly decision to invest so much in so many companions only to get rid of them after third of the game) so they pull some bullshit story reasons for it. Same old same old.


Yes, I agree. I also want to keep them all and don't get these design decisions really. All I was doing was pure speculation, I also hated that you lose companions in DOS2 as well and how it was executed, bad game design. And I agree, it's cheap and arbitrary. Just like you, I see absolutely no reason to kill off nearly half of our group in some weird catastrophe. Like I want Larian to be original in their writing, to not repeat the same tropes that they love to do.. like for example: starting stranded on a beach after the ''ship'' got ''wrecked'', like literally it's the beginning of all their modern games published in the last 10 years, Dos1? Start on a beach, Dos2? Beach again. BG3? Oh wait, yea, totally a beach again. I get it, it's their 'new signature' just like the Elder Scrolls series always start with you being a prisoner, at least since Morrowind (or was already in Daggerfall? Never played the first 2 TES games so I don't know and can't be arsed googling it). And I'm hoping Larian will break their tendencies in story writing, take a risk basically, instead of sitting in their 'comfort zone'.
Posted By: ArmouredHedgehog Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 05:27 PM
Originally Posted by nation


y no alignment? [unless your a cleric?? and i cant be an evil elven cleric of the archeart that pulls some Altmer elder scrolls inspiration?], n



I have read somewhere that WotC wanted Larian to abandon the alignment system for this game. Strange
Posted By: Choosen of KEK Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 05:34 PM
Locking the party will mean you will have to do multiple runs to explore all origin stories. Also, if you pick the warlock guy you will have to go without one of the 4 standard roles through the entire game, which is sub-optimal. Gale/Shadowheart/LAE'ZEL/Astarion provide a well balanced party. Replacing one of them with a warlock make it less ideal.
Posted By: Frumpkis Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
To me, the entire story of BG3 really stinks of BG2's Bhaals essence, or at least taking heavy inspirations from that... so it's the reason why I deducted that the resolution of the tadpole problem won't come until very late.. what makes me wonder though is: if people not using the powers at all will get some recognition for their restraint in the end?


I have a feeling the tadpoles will be with us throughout the game. I just posted this text from BG3's Steam Store page on another thread for a different reason, but look closely at what they're saying here:

Quote
Mysterious abilities are awakening inside you, drawn from a Mind Flayer parasite planted in your brain. Resist, and turn darkness against itself. Or embrace corruption, and become ultimate evil.


Maybe they're talking just about Act 1 there, but it sounds like they're describing the main plot driver; whether you go to the Dark Side or the Light Side of the tadpole powers you've been given. It's not a bad plot mechanic.


Posted By: Khorvale Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Khorvale
You're likely right, all the avenues for healing that we are provided with in EA turns out to be wild goose chases, after all. Party is going to be Sourcerers-eh I mean...Tadpolers? until the end-game


To me, the entire story of BG3 really stinks of BG2's Bhaals essence, or at least taking heavy inspirations from that... so it's the reason why I deducted that the resolution of the tadpole problem won't come until very late.. what makes me wonder though is: if people not using the powers at all will get some recognition for their restraint in the end? And how losing access to some of our companions will play out? It has to make some logical sense that I'm really not seeing as of now.

For example - in BG1/2, if your reputation was too high or too low, some companions would ditch you, or get so annoyed with you they'd attack you and obviously perish. You could let Viconia get slaughtered by the Flaming Fist enforcer, in BG2 you could let her die to the angry mob, like there were so many logical permutations of losing companions permanently. Hell,even in our BG3 EA you could straight up murder some of our current companions upon meeting them, or you could yeet them out of the group/camp by simply being angry that they kept some nasty secrets from you. For example: Astarion's vampirism, Shadow's Shar beliefs, Gale's timebomb, Wyll will get mad at us helping gobbos + we can be nasty about the source of his warlock powers, haven't really found a way to yeet Lae'zel once you recruit her tho... well, okay, there is a way if you use the tadpole powers.

Hmm, actually, now that I think of the logic behind losing some of our companions... the ones we didn't commit to... well, onboard of the nautiloid there was this pod with Kelly Chambers (Mass Effect 2 reference - but that chick does look a lot like Kelly..) going through an instant ceremorphosis upon the use of the lever... and since all the breadcrumbs lead to the Moonrise Towers being the seat of who/whatever is responsible for our tadpoles being dormant, maaaaaaaaaaybe, and it's a big stretch, but maybe that thing (let's call it the Absolute, since it's how it's referred to in the game) will be so displeased with us not submitting to their will that they lash out at us and do an instant ceremorphosis on those who aren't in our current party? Maybe I am reading too much into this, I dunno. Maybe I am entirely wrong and we get to lose the taddies at the end of act 1. Also, I like the term 'tadpolers'. laugh


It's true, the whole "dreams calling you to a promise of power" is straight out of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. YMMW but I feel like it's a decent enough callback, though I'm a bit worried that BG 3 is going to suffer a fair bit from recycling of concepts from D:OS2 as well, making it seem too much like they're just mashing old Divinity and BG bits together instead of creating something original.

Considering that you need to rest inbetween every dialogue use of the tadpole I never used it much and as such triggered the later content so late in my playthrough that I never got to use it. I think if Larian wants us to play with the tadpole powers they should remove/relax the resting requirement (or give us more reason to rest).
As for your read on what happens at Moonrise Towers, it sounds like a pretty good guess smile

Originally Posted by Frumpkis

Mysterious abilities are awakening inside you, drawn from a Mind Flayer parasite planted in your brain. Resist, and turn darkness against itself. Or embrace corruption, and become ultimate evil.

Maybe they're talking just about Act 1 there, but it sounds like they're describing the main plot driver; whether you go to the Dark Side or the Light Side of the tadpole powers you've been given. It's not a bad plot mechanic.


I look forward to when the game lore will inform my character of this potential for Ultimate Evil (I assume it comes with Ultimate Power, too) laugh
Posted By: nation Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Originally Posted by nation


y no alignment? [unless your a cleric?? and i cant be an evil elven cleric of the archeart that pulls some Altmer elder scrolls inspiration?], n



I have read somewhere that WotC wanted Larian to abandon the alignment system for this game. Strange

ya ive heard that too and i agree that it is strange and i dont really understand the rationale or the decision dynamic behind it, as in if it was a firm decision by wotc? tbh i just dont agree with removing alignment, but i also think alignment could be revamped (id prefer selfish v selfless instead of evil v good, but thats just me).

i feel like this and the party locking after Act1 are examples of what i has been mixed messaging from larian regarding their vision for the game as bg3. like, you want to remove the alignment system, but also want to preload EA with all 'evil' characters and encourage us to have an 'evil' playthrough so you can collect 'data' - i feel like those two perspectives dont reconcile? and if we are removing alignment, then why are there still good/neutral/evil cleric tags? i think adding alignment as part of the tagging system (which i also think should be heavily expanded on to include things like alignment, background/profession, hometown, diety for all characters, maybe some pc specific past decision tags that would impact your playthrough - like DAorigins origin stories etc.) would only work to immerse yourself more in the world and your player character and enhance your playthrough experience. as it stands now i feel like the player character is really underwhelming compared to the origin characters (which i am seeing more and more now as dmpcs not npcs) who we will need to decide after one act whether we want to carry the rest of the way (before we even reach the city that is the games namesake where these origin stories are really supposed to pick up) - just my thoughts

i want to be able to gather my party before venturing forth - and having limitations on who and when i can select companions for my party seems overly restrictive. that being said, larian very well could have solutions or additional content post ea that compensates or builds on our act 1 decisions, but as it stands now we will just have to wait and see
Posted By: Imryll Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 06:24 PM
I think that your conversations with the Hooded Skeleton, who later turns up in camp to provide resurrection services, offer pretty heavy foreshadowing. He wants to know what value the PC places on a mortal life and if the PC says it depends on the life wonders on what basis you will choose. To me that suggests that the player will be making significant judgments, possibly concerning which companions survive, perhaps in another context (the new Jergal?)

I'm personally OK with not all companions surviving the first act, since I really dislike having unused companions sitting around waiting for me to call on them. Never knowing whether the entire camp will need to rally to an effort like the defense of Denerim, I feel like they need to be equipped, carry healing potions, and have their skills leveled, even if I'm not actively using them. Since reputation matters, I also need to chat them up. On the other hand I don't want to discover too late that I no longer have access to a needed skill set (for instance will my ranger continue to provide more or less adequate lock-picking). To me, having a bit of party turnover (as companions die, decide they don't like you, or just have agendas they want to pursue on their own once the tadpole issue is resolved), seems entirely natural. Meeting possible new companions in Baldur's Gate is something to look forward to. Being forced to group with companions your character might not normally choose after the crash is true to the situation, and I consider the first act companions to be well enough designed that having to rely on them isn't really a hardship.

Having now played a bit of the game, I still think six companions would be too many--a balancing and pathing problem--but five might be nice.
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 15/10/20 06:24 PM
Originally Posted by Frumpkis
Originally Posted by Nicottia
To me, the entire story of BG3 really stinks of BG2's Bhaals essence, or at least taking heavy inspirations from that... so it's the reason why I deducted that the resolution of the tadpole problem won't come until very late.. what makes me wonder though is: if people not using the powers at all will get some recognition for their restraint in the end?


I have a feeling the tadpoles will be with us throughout the game. I just posted this text from BG3's Steam Store page on another thread for a different reason, but look closely at what they're saying here:

Quote
Mysterious abilities are awakening inside you, drawn from a Mind Flayer parasite planted in your brain. Resist, and turn darkness against itself. Or embrace corruption, and become ultimate evil.


Maybe they're talking just about Act 1 there, but it sounds like they're describing the main plot driver; whether you go to the Dark Side or the Light Side of the tadpole powers you've been given. It's not a bad plot mechanic.


Oh yes, it's one of the reasons I made now 2 characters that entirely reject the tadpole and never use it. Never. I did reload an earlier save just to see how all these dream sequences play out and how heartbreaking it is that because of the PC deciding to bypass an encounter with the tadpole mind control the entire party suffers. I get it, but I don't like it, which is why come full release I won't ever use the tadpole options. Also, I hate how there is absolutely 0 recognition in the game as of now when it comes to our restraint. 0. No dreams, nothing. In BG1/2 all the dreams varied on your reputation/alignment. I do hope Larian will rectify that. Like we don't need to get all these enticing dreams promising us power that we get if we use the tadpole, but give us SOMETHING.

Originally Posted by Khorvale
It's true, the whole "dreams calling you to a promise of power" is straight out of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. YMMW but I feel like it's a decent enough callback, though I'm a bit worried that BG 3 is going to suffer a fair bit from recycling of concepts from D:OS2 as well, making it seem too much like they're just mashing old Divinity and BG bits together instead of creating something original.

Considering that you need to rest inbetween every dialogue use of the tadpole I never used it much and as such triggered the later content so late in my playthrough that I never got to use it. I think if Larian wants us to play with the tadpole powers they should remove/relax the resting requirement (or give us more reason to rest).
As for your read on what happens at Moonrise Towers, it sounds like a pretty good guess smile


What I don't like, and I have said/written it quite a lot of times (and I hate repeating myself) is that there needs to be more permutations of these dreams. You use the tadpole, you get a dream. You don't use the tadpole, you get no dreams, like what?! Give us dreams too, goddammit! Clearly different ones than you get when you let yourself be corrupted. But there has to be something, I understand why you get special tadpole powers and whatnot when you use the thing, those of us that reject the thing don't need any extra powers, just give us something. Anything.

As to resting triggering some extra content, you have no idea how that irritates me. BG1 had a crapload of flaws, but the fact that you got your dreams after finishing certain main story quests was a good design. I also hate how many companion cutscenes are just completely skippable or you have to go through a lot of extra hoops and effort to get them. Legit, I'm at the end of my 2nd playthough and I still have not had the Weave scene trigger with Gale, like wot m8? I feed you magic man. Imho I guess it's what EA is for, for feedback on these things (and I swear, once I'm done with this playthough I am legit gonna write a book of a feedback of things like that that need improvement asap + bugs). But basically, some of the camp cutscenes should be directly tied as to what you do and how long you hang out with certain party members. I hate the 'timed missions' and 'timed content in games' but in the case of BG3 it might be the only solution.

Originally Posted by Imryll
I think that your conversations with the Hooded Skeleton, who later turns up in camp to provide resurrection services, offer pretty heavy foreshadowing. He wants to know what value the PC places on a mortal life and if the PC says it depends on the life wonders on what basis you will choose. To me that suggests that the player will be making significant judgments, possibly concerning which companions survive, perhaps in another context (the new Jergal?)

I'm personally OK with not all companions surviving the first act, since I really dislike having unused companions sitting around waiting for me to call on them. Never knowing whether the entire camp will need to rally to an effort like the defense of Denerim, I feel like they need to be equipped, carry healing potions, and have their skills leveled, even if I'm not actively using them. Since reputation matters, I also need to chat them up. On the other hand I don't want to discover too late that I no longer have access to a needed skill set (for instance will my ranger continue to provide more or less adequate lock-picking). To me, having a bit of party turnover (as companions die, decide they don't like you, or just have agendas they want to pursue on their own once the tadpole issue is resolved), seems entirely natural. Meeting possible new companions in Baldur's Gate is something to look forward to. Being forced to group with companions your character might not normally choose after the crash is true to the situation, and I consider the first act companions to be well enough designed that having to rely on them isn't really a hardship.

Having now played a bit of the game, I still think six companions would be too many--a balancing and pathing problem--but five might be nice.


Speaking of the hooded skeleton guy, well. If you play a cleric, you can actually 'detect' that he's got a crapload of divine power oozing out of him and you can actually question him about it. Obviously, he's dodging the questions pretty well, but basically the conclusion was that he was some sort of chosen of Jergal. Also, I have not had this same line trigger on my wizard.. so it's very class specific. Also, that line of questioning him is locked behind an absurdly high skill check, which took me 10mins of save scumming to actually get him to speak about it.

I personally would prefer to keep all companions, but I won't be complaining too much if there is a good story reason behind it. I dunno, like them deciding to swap sides and backstab us maybe? Eh, as long as it's properly written. But yes, 5 companions would be nice...
Posted By: DirgeNovak Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 16/10/20 09:57 PM
Kevin Vanord has mentioned on Twitch that this "decision" is far from being set in stone when I mentioned it in his chat, so let's keep that debate alive!
Posted By: BrianDavion Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 16/10/20 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Originally Posted by nation


y no alignment? [unless your a cleric?? and i cant be an evil elven cleric of the archeart that pulls some Altmer elder scrolls inspiration?], n



I have read somewhere that WotC wanted Larian to abandon the alignment system for this game. Strange


not really, WOTC's been moving away from alignment for awhile now, 4th edition tried to (nonsensicly) shave off several alignments, and while 5E keeps alignments it really feels like something just there to appease old time fans given absolutely nothing in the game triggers off alignment anymore (detect evil, smite evil etc now are about he subtype not the alignment)
Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 16/10/20 11:38 PM
Alignments have been such a huge part of D&D to the point of people applying them to their real life personalities as well. Its a very strange decision to have fully removed them, as opposed to having a shifting good / evil and law / chaos axis that changes based on your decisions.
Posted By: nation Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 12:06 AM
Originally Posted by BrianDavion
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Originally Posted by nation


y no alignment? [unless your a cleric?? and i cant be an evil elven cleric of the archeart that pulls some Altmer elder scrolls inspiration?], n



I have read somewhere that WotC wanted Larian to abandon the alignment system for this game. Strange


not really, WOTC's been moving away from alignment for awhile now, 4th edition tried to (nonsensicly) shave off several alignments, and while 5E keeps alignments it really feels like something just there to appease old time fans given absolutely nothing in the game triggers off alignment anymore (detect evil, smite evil etc now are about he subtype not the alignment)
dont those subtypes have alignments tho? i think you should play/dm whatever works for your group, but i think the inclusion of selecting an alignment (and being unaligned) in 5e isnt in itself a bad game system, its just how/if you use it as part of your gane, and relating back to bg3 i think it would only work to improve the game if alignment was more fleshed out as i think only clerics (and i would assume paladins at the minimum on launch) really have any related alignment gameplay mechanics so far in ea? idk, i may have missed that part of the ea content.

i like alignments as i feel it gives players more character options and story ideas, and the more player agency the better imo, but i also dont know if 30 counts as being an old time fan so i could be in the minority here
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 12:15 AM
There is nothing WotC or Larian can do to keep players from playing THEIR game THEIR way. So if someone wants to play the game with alignments, they can. Even without the labels, one can identify certain actions as good and others as evil. So, for example, I don't need Larian to tell me Shadowheart is evil. If I as the player find her to be evil, then she is evil. All that matters is whether Larian has set up biased roadblocks within the game to try and prevent me from treating Shadowheart as evil.
Posted By: ArmouredHedgehog Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by DirgeNovak
Kevin Vanord has mentioned on Twitch that this "decision" is far from being set in stone when I mentioned it in his chat, so let's keep that debate alive!

The decision to abandon alignment or the one to make the party permanent?
Posted By: vyvexthorne Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 01:28 AM
Right now I'm still wondering how any of this will work with a Paladin. Even if they add "good" characters later a Paladins rigidity can piss off just about anybody at different times. What if you piss off companions enough for them to want to leave the party after ACT 1? .. Or are they just going to remove that possibility all together taking any of those types of fun consequences away from us?
Posted By: nation Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
If I as the player find her to be evil, then she is evil.

lol, sry this just reminded me of the anakin quote from episode three

i actually dont think i disagree with your overall sentiment - i just think that alignment should be a working function of a bg3 game based on 5e. if larian includes/improves it where it impacts the gameplay in a meaningful way that, as you said doesnt set up biased roadblocks within the game preventing you from treating SH as evil, i think it will be real successful - i just want to see it first.
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 04:24 AM
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by kanisatha
If I as the player find her to be evil, then she is evil.

lol, sry this just reminded me of the anakin quote from episode three

i actually dont think i disagree with your overall sentiment - i just think that alignment should be a working function of a bg3 game based on 5e. if larian includes/improves it where it impacts the gameplay in a meaningful way that, as you said doesnt set up biased roadblocks within the game preventing you from treating SH as evil, i think it will be real successful - i just want to see it first.


Alignment has virtually no rules in 5th edition. It is barely a thing at all. There are no spells or abilities that have anything to do with alignment, and there are a tiny handful of legendary items that can change your alignment. Outside of those, alignment has been functionally removed from D&D.

Now it is more a feature of the lore than anything else.
Posted By: Heraclea Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 05:09 AM
Originally Posted by Choosen of KEK
Locking the party will mean you will have to do multiple runs to explore all origin stories. Also, if you pick the warlock guy you will have to go without one of the 4 standard roles through the entire game, which is sub-optimal. Gale/Shadowheart/LAE'ZEL/Astarion provide a well balanced party. Replacing one of them with a warlock make it less ideal.


This is one of the things that concerns me. Also, Heraclea has a historical tendency throughout these games to prefer an all female party. She is willing to forego or tolerate a wide variety of ethical perspectives to achieve this makeup. Right now. since I rolled a cleric PC, Shadowheart is redundant, and worse, there are only male NPCs to fulfil the 'mage' and 'rogue' roles in the party. Would very much like to see female characters be able to take on those roles even if they aren't in the first chapter.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 06:42 AM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
There is nothing WotC or Larian can do to keep players from playing THEIR game THEIR way. So if someone wants to play the game with alignments, they can. Even without the labels, one can identify certain actions as good and others as evil. So, for example, I don't need Larian to tell me Shadowheart is evil. If I as the player find her to be evil, then she is evil. All that matters is whether Larian has set up biased roadblocks within the game to try and prevent me from treating Shadowheart as evil.

What do you consider biased roadblocks? Characters shouldn't act only of their alignment. If Shadowheart does good things and likes if you are nice in some situations, this to me makes her have more depth. Same thing with a good character, they should have moments where they aren't so nice. None of this should prevent you from forming an opinion about any character and treating them accordingly but it should make you think a bit.

I am kind of glad they are not obsessing over alignment and wish they would take out the cleric tag for it as well. A lot of players jump to instant conclusions about a character once they find out the alignment and this is just stupid. Even players often limit themselves to acting only within a certain alignment if forced to pick at character selection instead of freely doing whatever they feel is right at the time.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 09:14 AM
At best alingments could be a starting point for a character. but you can't arbitrarily decide what a character is. is a baby goblin has to be evil? and what if he was raised in a Paladin Tample? what about characters like Jaime Lennister or Theon Grayjoy? Does a baby who was raised by Shar but never got out to the world, and only now learns of its complexities cannot be redeemed and must automatically be killed by a band of Paladin irrespective of his actual deeds? how does it make the Paladins good, and not a bunch of fanatic zealots?
Originally Posted by Zarna

What do you consider biased roadblocks? Characters shouldn't act only of their alignment. If Shadowheart does good things and likes if you are nice in some situations, this to me makes her have more depth. Same thing with a good character, they should have moments where they aren't so nice. None of this should prevent you from forming an opinion about any character and treating them accordingly but it should make you think a bit.

I am kind of glad they are not obsessing over alignment and wish they would take out the cleric tag for it as well. A lot of players jump to instant conclusions about a character once they find out the alignment and this is just stupid. Even players often limit themselves to acting only within a certain alignment if forced to pick at character selection instead of freely doing whatever they feel is right at the time.

totally agree. I'm sure there are characters who are unambiguously evil or good (after some time with BG3 I can safely say Astarion), but some characters have potential to change and grow.

final question - is Darth Vader Evil? and if he is, was he evil as a boy, and more importantly, was he evil when he killed the emparor?
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 09:35 AM
Originally Posted by Abits

totally agree. I'm sure there are characters who are unambiguously evil or good (after some time with BG3 I can safely say Astarion), but some characters have potential to change and grow.

final question - is Darth Vader Evil? and if he is, was he evil as a boy, and more importantly, was he evil when he killed the emparor?


In my book Astarion isn't awfully evil tho, it totally depends on how you treat him, like how can you explain my ''good'' cleric having ''very high'' approval with him despite doing all the ''goody-two-shoe'' things and my wizard is ''exceptional'' with all - Astarion, Shadow and Wyll. And again I went the ''goody-two-shoe'' route with a bit more chaotic/neutral options thrown in. Obviously if you treat Astarion like a monster, he will become one. So I can already foresee a ton of topics like these getting derailed into discussing finer points of moralities of our ''supporting'' cast. I think Larian did a great job at creating these types of polarizing characters. It will keep the game and forums alive for years to come.

As to Darth Vader, no, when he was Anakin Skywalker he was just a child, an innocent child who's lost too much at certain point. A child born into slavery basically, so he knew how bad it would get. Then the Emperor was slowly spinning his web of dark seduction to him, Emperor was the one responsible for the visions Anakin got of his mother in peril, and he acted out on that, what was the first strand towards falling into the clutches of the dark side. Then he got visions about Padme dying, but what he didn't realize was that he'd be the one who was responsible for that. She, quite poetically, died of heartbreak, she refused to live beyond giving birth to her children. When Anakin was the Darth Vader, he was truly evil, but meeting his son and stopping the Emperor from killing his last link to Amidala, was born out of love, which made him swap again from evil to good. Mind you, when he was evil, he thought he had lost everything, since the Emperor lied to him the entire time. So, basically, yes and no. Anakin has been both good and evil throughout his life. Just as any person is capable of both. Also, as you might've guessed - I love redemption stories.

Edit: Broken freaking quotes lol.
Posted By: Azarielle Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 10:11 AM
Maybe the party is only going to be locked in for Moonrise Towers as it has been for Spellhold and and you'll meet the others again in Baldur's Gates or something? If you had to sacrifice them that would really kinda suck (well except for Lae'zal I could sacrifice her anytime I guess)
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 10:34 AM
Originally Posted by Azarielle
Maybe the party is only going to be locked in for Moonrise Towers as it has been for Spellhold and and you'll meet the others again in Baldur's Gates or something? If you had to sacrifice them that would really kinda suck (well except for Lae'zal I could sacrifice her anytime I guess)


That would make sense, yes. Kinda forgot you couldn't swap out party members at Spellhold (I never tried doing that anyway).
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 10:35 AM
Originally Posted by Nicottia


As to Darth Vader, no, when he was Anakin Skywalker he was just a child, an innocent child who's lost too much at certain point. A child born into slavery basically, so he knew how bad it would get. Then the Emperor was slowly spinning his web of dark seduction to him, Emperor was the one responsible for the visions Anakin got of his mother in peril, and he acted out on that, what was the first strand towards falling into the clutches of the dark side. Then he got visions about Padme dying, but what he didn't realize was that he'd be the one who was responsible for that. She, quite poetically, died of heartbreak, she refused to live beyond giving birth to her children. When Anakin was the Darth Vader, he was truly evil, but meeting his son and stopping the Emperor from killing his last link to Amidala, was born out of love, which made him swap again from evil to good. Mind you, when he was evil, he thought he had lost everything, since the Emperor lied to him the entire time. So, basically, yes and no. Anakin has been both good and evil throughout his life. Just as any person is capable of both. Also, as you might've guessed - I love redemption stories.

Edit: Broken freaking quotes lol.

A very long way to prove my point - it's more complicated than simply putting characters into categories
Posted By: VincentNZ Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 11:02 AM
The alignment system really only worked for the Pen and Paper, and I would like it if Larian left it out for a system more rooted in the real world. I mean everybody generally falls in the same category, where he is "good" and abides to the rules until the conditions make him break out of it. Some just do it earlier than others. People living totally outside of the social norms are really rare.

As far as the permanent party I do not know. I mean they have this camp mechanic, where most interactions happen, similar to the Normandy in Mass Effect or the campsite in Dragon Age, so it makes little sense to just remove a significant portion of the NPCs and therefore interactions.
It also narrows the possible choices for the casual players, that have not extensive knowledge of the game mechanics, so they will just stick to the basic with no experiments. So rogue, fighter, cleric, caster (most likely the mage). So the hybrids and specialists are most likely to be left out.
Now what I find more likely is that certain origin characters drop out, for whatever reason they come up with. And I would not mind that at all, since all of them are so edgy and have a story to tell that makes me roll my eyes constantly. I bet they all are the Chosen One in some way. I would very much rather have "normal" people as my companions. Mercenaries, wandering minstrels, a ranger trying to slay evil, and so forth. Stories attached to the real world and therefore drawing their personality instead of secret heirs to thrones, possessed by a demon, vampire lord or whatelse they dream up. These are not really deep characters, they are just shallow characters with a main quest attached, like any PC.
So if two of them are gone, I would not mind, as long as I get other people to join me, that I can phase in and out and try new builds on. I am also not a fan of replayability through locking content, I do more playthroughs with often the same character where the general playthrough only changes in nuances. I very much more like the game making me sink 80 hours in one playthrough, than making me spend 40 hours in two playthroughs.
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 11:45 AM
Originally Posted by Abits

A very long way to prove my point - it's more complicated than simply putting characters into categories


Eh, if you tried really hard you could put Anakin into lawful good and Darth Vader into lawful evil categories tho. Your idea that the alignment system is stupid is a bit overreaching? You can make all the alignments as nuanced or shallow as you want. It's up to you as a player. What I personally hated about the original BG1/2 is that your alignment could only switch to evil, never from neutral or evil to good (without mods anyway). Now that was unrealistic. Like in my opinion, NWN1/2 had it perfect. You pick an alignment, but the actions you took could heavily change it. You could realistically speaking start with a paladin, murder innocents, become one greedy chaotic force of evil and your alignment would reflect that over time. Or you could play a rogue who becomes an assassin (in D&D 3-3.5e assassins could only be taken by evil alignments btw) and then have a change of heart and slowly become good. The possibilities were endless.

It's that type of alignment people want and I agree with them. Anyone and everyone is capable of change, for good or bad. But I also recall you saying in this topic or in another one that you never really played much D&D, so I can understand why the entire idea is so alien to you and you dislike it. But truth be told? It's not as restrictive as you think it is.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 11:50 AM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Abits

A very long way to prove my point - it's more complicated than simply putting characters into categories


Eh, if you tried really hard you could put Anakin into lawful good and Darth Vader into lawful evil categories tho. Your idea that the alignment system is stupid is a bit overreaching? You can make all the alignments as nuanced or shallow as you want. It's up to you as a player. What I personally hated about the original BG1/2 is that your alignment could only switch to evil, never from neutral or evil to good (without mods anyway). Now that was unrealistic. Like in my opinion, NWN1/2 had it perfect. You pick an alignment, but the actions you took could heavily change it. You could realistically speaking start with a paladin, murder innocents, become one greedy chaotic force of evil and your alignment would reflect that over time. Or you could play a rogue who becomes an assassin (in D&D 3-3.5e assassins could only be taken by evil alignments btw) and then have a change of heart and slowly become good. The possibilities were endless.

It's that type of alignment people want and I agree with them. Anyone and everyone is capable of change, for good or bad. But I also recall you saying in this topic or in another one that you never really played much D&D, so I can understand why the entire idea is so alien to you and you dislike it. But truth be told? It's not as restrictive as you think it is.

I have nothing against alignments if it is the way you describe it. But I've seen in a lot of places how people don't intend to play it in the way you describe, but in the opposite way - a player who is lawful good will never take shadowheart simply because she is a priestess of Shar. It doesn't matter to him what she says and does, from his lawful good perspective she is evil period
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 12:05 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
I have nothing against alignments if it is the way you describe it. But I've seen in a lot of places how people don't intend to play it in the way you describe, but in the opposite way - a player who is lawful good will never take shadowheart simply because she is a priestess of Shar. It doesn't matter to him what she says and does, from his lawful good perspective she is evil period


Like I said, it's all up for interpretation. Some people don't really roleplay but metagame, so they come into conclusion long before they give a character a chance. Technically speaking, from the get go they don't know that Shadowheart is a cleric of Shar, that's a revelation that comes later. They don't know whether or not she's evil (and I say fuck those character tags 'evil cleric' pfft), now after she comes clean it would a roleplaying moment to either stick to the 'lawful good purge all evil shtick' (commonly referred as 'lawful stupid' btw.) or give her a chance, and make it your life's mission to influence her away from the darkness.

People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way and I say let them. It's a video game after all. I'm totally not affected by the way other people are playing it, am I now? wink

PS: Btw. on final release I honestly would take Shadowheart over Lae'zel, even though I always play lawful/neutral/chaotic good (I'm one of those players willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, you don't 'defeat' evil by murdering all you perceive as evil on sight, you try to reason with it make it see the error of it's ways - at least it's how I love playing it). I just really don't like Lae'zel's personality, like I will recruit her but she's just gonna be a standing statue at my camp, part of the scenery. Of all the characters, she's got the least amount of layers honestly. I understand why she's the way she is, but I don't like her regardless. She's just a well written githyanki through and through.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Abits
I have nothing against alignments if it is the way you describe it. But I've seen in a lot of places how people don't intend to play it in the way you describe, but in the opposite way - a player who is lawful good will never take shadowheart simply because she is a priestess of Shar. It doesn't matter to him what she says and does, from his lawful good perspective she is evil period


Like I said, it's all up for interpretation. Some people don't really roleplay but metagame, so they come into conclusion long before they give a character a chance. Technically speaking, from the get go they don't know that Shadowheart is a cleric of Shar, that's a revelation that comes later. They don't know whether or not she's evil (and I say fuck those character tags 'evil cleric' pfft), now after she comes clean it would a roleplaying moment to either stick to the 'lawful good purge all evil shtick' (commonly referred as 'lawful stupid' btw.) or give her a chance, and make it your life's mission to influence her away from the darkness.

People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way and I say let them. It's a video game after all. I'm totally not affected by the way other people are playing it, am I now? wink

PS: Btw. on final release I honestly would take Shadowheart over Lae'zel, even though I always play lawful/neutral/chaotic good (I'm one of those players willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, you don't 'defeat' evil by murdering all you perceive as evil on sight, you try to reason with it make it see the error of it's ways - at least it's how I love playing it). I just really don't like Lae'zel's personality, like I will recruit her but she's just gonna be a standing statue at my camp, part of the scenery. Of all the characters, she's got the least amount of layers honestly. I understand why she's the way she is, but I don't like her regardless. She's just a well written githyanki through and through.

yeah alright I agree with everything you said
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 02:13 PM
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by kanisatha
If I as the player find her to be evil, then she is evil.

lol, sry this just reminded me of the anakin quote from episode three

i actually dont think i disagree with your overall sentiment - i just think that alignment should be a working function of a bg3 game based on 5e. if larian includes/improves it where it impacts the gameplay in a meaningful way that, as you said doesnt set up biased roadblocks within the game preventing you from treating SH as evil, i think it will be real successful - i just want to see it first.


Alignment has virtually no rules in 5th edition. It is barely a thing at all. There are no spells or abilities that have anything to do with alignment, and there are a tiny handful of legendary items that can change your alignment. Outside of those, alignment has been functionally removed from D&D.

Now it is more a feature of the lore than anything else.

Yes I agree. It is no longer a feature in the rules because it is left up to DMs and players to determine them. But in D&D/FR lore it is very much still a thing, and justifiably so. And a video game like BG3 is not just about the rules and mechanics but also about the lore. And Swen has repeatedly said BG3 will be faithful to FR lore.
Originally Posted by Zarna
What do you consider biased roadblocks? Characters shouldn't act only of their alignment. If Shadowheart does good things and likes if you are nice in some situations, this to me makes her have more depth. Same thing with a good character, they should have moments where they aren't so nice. None of this should prevent you from forming an opinion about any character and treating them accordingly but it should make you think a bit.

Actually I agree with this. But at the same time the game should also honor FR lore, and specifically in this case lore about Shar. Choosing to be a priestess of a god and faithfully following that god's dictates is not some casual thing a person takes on for themselves. It says something fundamental about a person. It's not in the same category as behaviors like choosing to pet a puppy or kick a beggar.
Originally Posted by Abits
a player who is lawful good will never take shadowheart simply because she is a priestess of Shar. It doesn't matter to him what she says and does, from his lawful good perspective she is evil period

In SH's case, yes. Because being a priestess of an evil god is not something casually done. Becoming a priestess is the result of some deepseated commitment you have made to that god, which includes fully accepting that god's ways, and you have spent years building yourself up in that role. So yes, someone says they are a priestess of Shar, I would absolutely write them off. If someone kicks a beggar, however, I would not write them off as evil and will instead look for ways to get them to behave differently. There are clear qualitative differences.
Originally Posted by Nicottia
People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way

Way to kill your credibility. Anyone who doesn't do things your way is ignorant and shallow. What a load of bull.
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 02:42 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Originally Posted by Nicottia
People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way

Way to kill your credibility. Anyone who doesn't do things your way is ignorant and shallow. What a load of bull.


I might've worded it better, english being about my 4th language learned. But still, it's up to the person to roleplay how they see fit, I'm not here to pass judgement on people 'not doing things my way', hell it wasn't even the intention of my post, but it also shows quite a bit of your character that you grasp at anything possibly perceived as negative/offensive to try to insult someone. All I was doing was trying to explain it to Abits that there are different ways of playing with alignments, more nuanced or less so.

To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't. Astarion doesn't introduce himself as 'hi there, I'm Astarion, a vamp spawn and I'd like to suck your blood' or Shadow doesn't say 'I'm Shadowheart, priestess of Shar' it's up to your character to figure that out. Altho, I still think the name 'Shadowheart' is such a stupid name. And on top of that, she doesn't really act like a classic priestess of Shar, you can tell she's quite conflicted inside. My prediction is, if you let her live and don't murder or toss her away for being a Shar priestess, that she might somewhere down the line be swayed to the light.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Originally Posted by Nicottia
People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way

Way to kill your credibility. Anyone who doesn't do things your way is ignorant and shallow. What a load of bull.


I might've worded it better, english being about my 4th language learned. But still, it's up to the person to roleplay how they see fit, I'm not here to pass judgement on people 'not doing things my way', hell it wasn't even the intention of my post, but it also shows quite a bit of your character that you grasp at anything possibly perceived as negative/offensive to try to insult someone. All I was doing was trying to explain it to Abits that there are different ways of playing with alignments, more nuanced or less so.

To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't. Astarion doesn't introduce himself as 'hi there, I'm Astarion, a vamp spawn and I'd like to suck your blood' or Shadow doesn't say 'I'm Shadowheart, priestess of Shar' it's up to your character to figure that out. Altho, I still think the name 'Shadowheart' is such a stupid name. And on top of that, she doesn't really act like a classic priestess of Shar, you can tell she's quite conflicted inside. My prediction is, if you let her live and don't murder or toss her away for being a Shar priestess, that she might somewhere down the line be swayed to the light.

from the way she intreduces herself I'm pretty sure it's not her real name. The game itself heavily implies it when it let you have the dialog option "what is this name".

about alignments and shit - I stand by what I said before, It might be a very good system if we are starting a game and want to summarise what a character did before. but once the game starts it is kinda hard to predict what will happen to a character. By the way I agree with you about what you said about BG not enabling players the option to start bad and become good, while to opposite is possible.
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
from the way she intreduces herself I'm pretty sure it's not her real name. The game itself heavily implies it when it let you have the dialog option "what is this name".


Oh yes, if I recall correctly, Shar's priests go through some weird rite giving them amnesia, but they usually do it when they get old and senile, they give up their memories to Shar. So it could be the reason why she might've entirely forgotten herself, name included. What puzzles me, is that Shadowheart seems to be a too young to have gone through that particular rite. Maybe she knew too much? I dunno.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Abits
from the way she intreduces herself I'm pretty sure it's not her real name. The game itself heavily implies it when it let you have the dialog option "what is this name".


Oh yes, if I recall correctly, Shar's priests go through some weird rite giving them amnesia, but they usually do it when they get old and senile, they give up their memories to Shar. So it could be the reason why she might've entirely forgotten herself, name included. What puzzles me, is that Shadowheart seems to be a too young to have gone through that particular rite. Maybe she knew too much? I dunno.

She says Shar is her mother but It doesn't seem like she means it figuratively. She says "she took me in". it could be figurative but I'm not 100% sure. perhaps she was adopted into a tample or something like that
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 03:24 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Abits
from the way she intreduces herself I'm pretty sure it's not her real name. The game itself heavily implies it when it let you have the dialog option "what is this name".


Oh yes, if I recall correctly, Shar's priests go through some weird rite giving them amnesia, but they usually do it when they get old and senile, they give up their memories to Shar. So it could be the reason why she might've entirely forgotten herself, name included. What puzzles me, is that Shadowheart seems to be a too young to have gone through that particular rite. Maybe she knew too much? I dunno.

She says Shar is her mother but It doesn't seem like she means it figuratively. She says "she took me in". it could be figurative but I'm not 100% sure. perhaps she was adopted into a tample or something like that


I always assumed it was figuratively, her being an urchin makes sense that some Shar clergy saw the potential in her and took her in. Also, in FR lore, there was that sect that thought that Selune and Shar are just two sides of the same goddess, two sides of the same coin. I wonder if that will play some part in the story. Especially with the temple of Selune being abandoned... and there are quite a lot of texts pointing that Selune's clergy has gone weird some time before our main characters capture by the mind flayers.
Posted By: Sharet Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 03:52 PM
Personally, I was never so disappointed in a game as when I discovered half of my party was gone in DOS2. Just like that.
Even if I'm going to replay the game no matter what, I find really annoying to cut half of your party just to "force" you to replay. Maybe I have not the time to play an 80+ hours game more than once or maybe I just like to explore the personal quest of all my companions with the same character.
I understand that Larian can't please everyone, so my preferences are inconsequential. At least I hope they are going to make the separation from half of your party sensible and credible, not like in DOS2.

For example, in the first Mass Effect, you need to choose between Kaidan and Ashley. It breaks my heart every single time but at least is a good scene, not just a message "You are changing zone, are you sure you want to keep this party? You may not be able to change it for a while".
Posted By: ArmouredHedgehog Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia


To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't.


Considering the events of the day with an abduction by mindflayers and a little trip to avernus? My character is really not in the mood to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
My mage has studied the arcane and the various gods and their symbols. Why would it be metagaming for him to recognize the sharran symbolism on Shadowhearts armor?
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 04:06 PM
fair enough. it's called roleplaying for a reason I guess.
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 04:32 PM
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Originally Posted by Nicottia


To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't.


Considering the events of the day with an abduction by mindflayers and a little trip to avernus? My character is really not in the mood to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
My mage has studied the arcane and the various gods and their symbols. Why would it be metagaming for him to recognize the sharran symbolism on Shadowhearts armor?


You can choose to play the suspicious type of person, all the more power to you. You are free to play however you wish. All I said was my reasoning behind my decisions. wink But to be honest, there should be some arcane/religion/other skill checks to figure out Shadowheart, Astarion and Wyll (mkay in Wyll's case if you are playing a warlock yourself you can confront him about it) long before they open their mouths about their secrets.
Posted By: Abits Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 04:38 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Originally Posted by Nicottia


To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't.


Considering the events of the day with an abduction by mindflayers and a little trip to avernus? My character is really not in the mood to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
My mage has studied the arcane and the various gods and their symbols. Why would it be metagaming for him to recognize the sharran symbolism on Shadowhearts armor?


You can choose to play the suspicious type of person, all the more power to you. You are free to play however you wish. All I said was my reasoning behind my decisions. wink But to be honest, there should be some arcane/religion/other skill checks to figure out Shadowheart, Astarion and Wyll (mkay in Wyll's case if you are playing a warlock yourself you can confront him about it) long before they open their mouths about their secrets.

I think this is more a problem of marketing and the origin character concept than a problem with the game itself. In the game itself all these details about our companions played out like some mystery that gets revealed as the game progresses (true for all the companions, but especially true in the case of shadowheart, Wyll and Astarion). But the marketing spoiled them completely and when the game treats these revelations as big surprises it's just jarring
Posted By: Ocece Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 04:44 PM
I'm fine with the party being set in stone, somewhat as if it was an actual tabletop campaign (with players you can count on). It will be a difficult choice but I don't mind it at all.
Posted By: nation Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 07:49 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by kanisatha
If I as the player find her to be evil, then she is evil.

lol, sry this just reminded me of the anakin quote from episode three

i actually dont think i disagree with your overall sentiment - i just think that alignment should be a working function of a bg3 game based on 5e. if larian includes/improves it where it impacts the gameplay in a meaningful way that, as you said doesnt set up biased roadblocks within the game preventing you from treating SH as evil, i think it will be real successful - i just want to see it first.


Alignment has virtually no rules in 5th edition. It is barely a thing at all. There are no spells or abilities that have anything to do with alignment, and there are a tiny handful of legendary items that can change your alignment. Outside of those, alignment has been functionally removed from D&D.

Now it is more a feature of the lore than anything else.

Yes I agree. It is no longer a feature in the rules because it is left up to DMs and players to determine them.
i dont want to make the alignment discussion derail op's original intent for this thread - i actually am not opposed to a more permanent 6person party after the first act, im just concerned with how larian is going to pull it off and want to provide feedback as part of ea (ex. i hope they draw more inspiration from ME1&2 than dos2 for this specific topic) - but there is actually what i find to be a pretty good u tube video by Web DM about alignment in 5e (Nov. 1,2017) that ppl may find interesting via a quick web search (id post the link but being new to the forums i dont want to break any rules...yet wink ). the vid is ~27min but i think their discussion hits on alot of the points also made here about alignment's place and function in a dnd game and wanted to share for any interested.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Originally Posted by Nicottia
People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way

Way to kill your credibility. Anyone who doesn't do things your way is ignorant and shallow. What a load of bull.


I might've worded it better, english being about my 4th language learned. But still, it's up to the person to roleplay how they see fit, I'm not here to pass judgement on people 'not doing things my way', hell it wasn't even the intention of my post, but it also shows quite a bit of your character that you grasp at anything possibly perceived as negative/offensive to try to insult someone. All I was doing was trying to explain it to Abits that there are different ways of playing with alignments, more nuanced or less so.

To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't. Astarion doesn't introduce himself as 'hi there, I'm Astarion, a vamp spawn and I'd like to suck your blood' or Shadow doesn't say 'I'm Shadowheart, priestess of Shar' it's up to your character to figure that out. Altho, I still think the name 'Shadowheart' is such a stupid name. And on top of that, she doesn't really act like a classic priestess of Shar, you can tell she's quite conflicted inside. My prediction is, if you let her live and don't murder or toss her away for being a Shar priestess, that she might somewhere down the line be swayed to the light.

Seriously? You insulted people like me as ignorant and shallow, and then you want to try and turn it around on me? I have said nothing to insult you. In fact, I have gone the extra mile to not insult you. In an earlier post you said that redemption stories are your thing. I consider redemption stories to be the silliest of RPG tropes. Furthermore, I believe some things that you do (like pledging yourself to a god like Shar) are so terrible that they make you ineligible for any sort of redemption. Nevertheless, at no point did I attack or insult you for having your preference for redemption stories. Because that's just not my way. You should play your game in whatever way makes you happy, redemption stories and all. As should I. So don't try and turn this on me. You are the one who insulted anyone who decides they want to role-play good-alignment as it has long been defined in D&D history and FR lore.

As for these specific characters, I have never said I would react a certain way based on meta knowledge. I have actually posted in several threads against role-playing based on meta knowledge. So if, upon first meeting any of these characters, I don't have enough information to identify what they are, I will just keep role-playing my very good aligned character. But, and specifically in SH's case, the moment I do find out she's a Sharan, I'm done with her at that point (unless she renounces Shar right then and there). By contrast, I can see myself being willing to keep open a relationship with the likes of Astarion and Lae'zal until such time as my exclusively good actions come into conflict with them, because I would be open to seeing exactly what kind of vampire/githyanki they are (the good kind, perhaps?). But someone who says she stands by Shar? No benefit of the doubt can be extended to such a person.
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Permanent party after Act 1 - 17/10/20 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Originally Posted by Nicottia
People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way

Way to kill your credibility. Anyone who doesn't do things your way is ignorant and shallow. What a load of bull.


I might've worded it better, english being about my 4th language learned. But still, it's up to the person to roleplay how they see fit, I'm not here to pass judgement on people 'not doing things my way', hell it wasn't even the intention of my post, but it also shows quite a bit of your character that you grasp at anything possibly perceived as negative/offensive to try to insult someone. All I was doing was trying to explain it to Abits that there are different ways of playing with alignments, more nuanced or less so.

To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't. Astarion doesn't introduce himself as 'hi there, I'm Astarion, a vamp spawn and I'd like to suck your blood' or Shadow doesn't say 'I'm Shadowheart, priestess of Shar' it's up to your character to figure that out. Altho, I still think the name 'Shadowheart' is such a stupid name. And on top of that, she doesn't really act like a classic priestess of Shar, you can tell she's quite conflicted inside. My prediction is, if you let her live and don't murder or toss her away for being a Shar priestess, that she might somewhere down the line be swayed to the light.

Seriously? You insulted people like me as ignorant and shallow, and then you want to try and turn it around on me? I have said nothing to insult you. In fact, I have gone the extra mile to not insult you. In an earlier post you said that redemption stories are your thing. I consider redemption stories to be the silliest of RPG tropes. Furthermore, I believe some things that you do (like pledging yourself to a god like Shar) are so terrible that they make you ineligible for any sort of redemption. Nevertheless, at no point did I attack or insult you for having your preference for redemption stories. Because that's just not my way. You should play your game in whatever way makes you happy, redemption stories and all. As should I. So don't try and turn this on me. You are the one who insulted anyone who decides they want to role-play good-alignment as it has long been defined in D&D history and FR lore.

As for these specific characters, I have never said I would react a certain way based on meta knowledge. I have actually posted in several threads against role-playing based on meta knowledge. So if, upon first meeting any of these characters, I don't have enough information to identify what they are, I will just keep role-playing my very good aligned character. But, and specifically in SH's case, the moment I do find out she's a Sharan, I'm done with her at that point (unless she renounces Shar right then and there). By contrast, I can see myself being willing to keep open a relationship with the likes of Astarion and Lae'zal until such time as my exclusively good actions come into conflict with them, because I would be open to seeing exactly what kind of vampire/githyanki they are (the good kind, perhaps?). But someone who says she stands by Shar? No benefit of the doubt can be extended to such a person.



"You are the one who insulted anyone who decides they want to role-play good-alignment as it has long been defined in D&D history and FR lore."

Just nope. Ever heard of nuance? It's easy to write a paladin of Tyr for example, it's hard to write a fleshed out one, their reasoning as to why they follow Tyr (why not Helm? Torm? Illmater?), their struggles, their past, their family situation. What could possibly corrupt such a person? Take a look at Aribeth de Tylmarande from NWN, in base game she was an alright paladin but seemed to have fallen to darkness too easily, that's an example of bad writing, but the expansion HotU seems to have fleshed out her fall out of grace. Also your line of thinking about alignment is a bit too rigid. There are so many ways to interpret different situations.

''You insulted people like me as ignorant and shallow, and then you want to try and turn it around on me?''

I'm not the one who immediately went ahead and snapped on a complete stranger because of two simple words that were given as an example. But ...if out of my entire post about different ways of roleplaying the only bad thing you seem to have cherry picked is ''shallow and ignorant" and your feelings got hurt because of it, then I'm sorry, like I wrote earlier: I didn't mean to offend anyone by that. But don't pretend that you didn't try to insult me by calling my line of thinking 'an utter bull', I understand, I unknowingly offended you and you lashed out, it's fine. But a little advice for the future: don't be so easily offended by what someone across the globe writes about something you both enjoy. Different cultures, different ways of expressing one's thoughts. Also, if I expected anyone to get offended over something, it'd be the 'lawful stupid' line.

You don't like my 'naive and nice to everyone' way of playing, you don't like 'redemption stories' either, that's totally fine by me. I don't enjoy playing an overzealous character who's ready to dump/murder someone unless they renounce their ways. We're different people, different playstyles. Also, the only way I would justify doing what you'd do to Shadow is if I played a cleric of Selune (obviously Shadow would clash with that character eventually) or a paladin. But something like a chaotic good sorcerer or a neutral good wizard, I really don't think they'd care as much and would be willing to give her the benefit of doubt, they might judge her negatively or distrust her, sure, I think they don't really care as much for the "petty" squabbles between gods. Ooh, also I heard that if you play cleric of Selune and keep Shadow around, you might actually get Shadow to hate Selunians less and slowly change her outlook. So I dunno, you do you boo.

As much as we may disagree, I think it's time we'd agree to disagree... and agree to one thing: we should stop derailing this topic further.
© Larian Studios forums