Larian Studios
Posted By: Dez What kind of companions would you like to see? - 19/11/20 11:22 PM
Did someone make a thread like this already? I couldn't find one, but maybe I just suck at looking. :x

If we for a moment forget all about what Larian has said and what is reasonable to wish for and what is not - what kind of companion(s) would you want for your character, and why? laugh

Personally, the current companions does not suit my character(s) at all (which might make them a great band of misfits!) - and there are pleeeeeeeenty of characteristics I'd love to see in the future, one way or another. So, let's dream away for a moment - if you had the chance to make some companions for *YOUR* favorite character, what would you want to see?

Here is my list:

* Ifan! Ifan made a great match for my character because he is basically everything that my own character usually is. Outdoor person, comfortable with ranged weapons and overall very stereotypical (yes, I like stereotypical c: ). I absolutely adore his voice actor and everything with Ifan is amazing! laugh I don't even mind whenever it is a human, elf, half-elf, dwarf or w/e - I just want to have my character(s) have a friend that is relatable for them and not just polar opposites. Alternatively, I wouldn't say no to a Andronikos Revel-type (SWTOR) either, if I cannot have the nature-part. c:

* Elder veteran type - frontline-ish, hardned combat veteran - someone who'll gladly take the shots and be a little bossy about it, someone who'll start off by shrugging off your character (if you're young-ish) as an annoying child with no actual experience of reality - but overtime can grow fond of having you around. Similar to Warmaster Forgal Kernsson (GW2) - for those familiar with him. OOOOOR, the very stereotypical Gandalf-type of mage - sure, "young" handsome mages are fun and all - but... Yeah. Could some some more elder folks to offer wisdom and guidance. laugh

* Now, Astarion fills this role in many ways - but something similar to Diablo 3 scoundrel would be lovely. I always bring him along just to listen to his rabble. Same with Astarion - he is definitely not the type of person that my character would associate unless it is out of necessarity, but damn - I can't help but love their snarky and witty comments. Perhaps a lady version? laugh

* Evil lady sorceresses ? laugh Please? Not for my ranger in particular (cause she would probably kill them on sight) - but I want a matching companion for my evil spell-caster type later. Someone who is not evil cause "EEEVIIIILLL", but rather... Selfish. Yeah, just selfish and self-preserved. Like... Evil Jaesa Willsaam (SWTOR) or Risha (also SWTOR).

* Please give me a funny dwarf companion! I love the general stereotypes with dwarfs, they are so charismatic. And dwarfs make for great companions for elves. laugh Everybody knows that! I don't even care about class or anything, if you give me a good hearted dwarf with witty comments, I'll make room in the party for him/her no matter what. X'D Imagine listening to *witty good-hearted dwarf* and Astarion / Scoundrel-like companion having a go at each other! I love it already! :'D !!
I'd assume there has been half a dozen threads about this already, but one might have to dig a bit.

If we forget about all the things that Larian has publicly said (if somebody has the complete records of this somewhere, I'm in, I mostly know about the community updates), and all the things that people have been speculating, with upper bounds because how much work Larian wants to put in each companion ... meaning if we forget about companions having to be Origins (tadpole-infected, playable as PC), then ...

- A bard. Say, Alfira.
- A druid. Say, Halsin.
- A tiefling of Rolan, Lia and Cal's group
- A boasting punk. Say, Sazza.
- An evil character that maybe we could turn away from the masters she serves. Say, Minthara. (She'd still be quite evil though.)

I might be slightly focused on the characters we have met already. But Larian still have 3 Origins companions still to release. So they can be hoped to be everything else : a Paladin, a Ranger, Dwarf, Gnome, ...
I would love to see a faithful and kindhearted, handsome human Paladin, that guy Anders e.g. would make an excellent companion.
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
I'd assume there has been half a dozen threads about this already, but one might have to dig a bit.

If we forget about all the things that Larian has publicly said (if somebody has the complete records of this somewhere, I'm in, I mostly know about the community updates), and all the things that people have been speculating, with upper bounds because how much work Larian wants to put in each companion ... meaning if we forget about companions having to be Origins (tadpole-infected, playable as PC), then ...

- A bard. Say, Alfira.
- A druid. Say, Halsin.
- A tiefling of Rolan, Lia and Cal's group
- A boasting punk. Say, Sazza.
- An evil character that maybe we could turn away from the masters she serves. Say, Minthara. (She'd still be quite evil though.)

I might be slightly focused on the characters we have met already. But Larian still have 3 Origins companions still to release. So they can be hoped to be everything else : a Paladin, a Ranger, Dwarf, Gnome, ...


You're probably right. I did some brief digging, but could not find anything. But I only scummed through the first 5-6 maybe 7 pages. My bad, if I missed any threads. :x I blame my poor eye sight and me being tired and trying to observe way too many forums/threads/posts at once. xD Excuses! I am the master of them all.

I do DEFINITELY approve of Halsin. Please yes, Larian. q _ q The other ones, definitely a yes as well. The more options, the merrier!


Originally Posted by Maldurin
I would love to see a faithful and kindhearted, handsome human Paladin, that guy Anders e.g. would make an excellent companion.


I like the way you think! A good looking, friendly paladin would make for a great addition to most teams! laugh Reminds me a bit of Alistair - however he is a little bit too... Naive? For my taste. XD Adorable, non the less.
Originally Posted by Maldurin
I would love to see a faithful and kindhearted, handsome human Paladin, that guy Anders e.g. would make an excellent companion.

Should we tell him?
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire
Originally Posted by Maldurin
I would love to see a faithful and kindhearted, handsome human Paladin, that guy Anders e.g. would make an excellent companion.

Should we tell him?


Noooo, don't ruin the surprise. :x
Yep, I miss Eder-like character, or goofy Alistair. And some spiritual like Dak'kon, mature as FFG and annoying as Morte or Oghren. And always happy mule as Lydia from Skyrim.
The personality types that I tend to enjoy are already covered.
I'm really worried about the good alignment characters because the "dutiful do-right veteran with the voice of reason" and "bubbly and perky optimistic comic relief" are pretty much guaranteed, and I can't stand those tropes.
As long as the rest of the characters maintain appreciation for the severity of the situation that they're in and act like functional adults instead of either taking themselves too seriously or not-at-all seriously, I'll be fine with it.
Originally Posted by Verte
Yep, I miss Eder-like character, or goofy Alistair. And some spiritual like Dak'kon, mature as FFG and annoying as Morte or Oghren. And always happy mule as Lydia from Skyrim.


Lydia <3 Yeah, could use a Lydia here too.


Originally Posted by Tzelanit
The personality types that I tend to enjoy are already covered.
I'm really worried about the good alignment characters because the "dutiful do-right veteran with the voice of reason" and "bubbly and perky optimistic comic relief" are pretty much guaranteed, and I can't stand those tropes.
As long as the rest of the characters maintain appreciation for the severity of the situation that they're in and act like functional adults instead of either taking themselves too seriously or not-at-all seriously, I'll be fine with it.


By folks in this thread or Larian? laugh I can tell we're not really into the same type of companions, but that's fine. I hope we get enough companions so we both can be happy. c:
I want to see odd couples other than Shadowheart and Lae'zel. Something like Keldon and Jan or Mazzy and Jan. A deadly serious type paired with a fool out of Shakespeare
I just don't want any silly comic relief companions. Especially no gnomes.

Halsin would be great.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I want to see odd couples other than Shadowheart and Lae'zel. Something like Keldon and Jan or Mazzy and Jan. A deadly serious type paired with a fool out of Shakespeare



Intriguing, I'll take it!


Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I just don't want any silly comic relief companions. Especially no gnomes.

Halsin would be great.


But... But... frown
Originally Posted by Dez
Originally Posted by Verte
Yep, I miss Eder-like character, or goofy Alistair. And some spiritual like Dak'kon, mature as FFG and annoying as Morte or Oghren. And always happy mule as Lydia from Skyrim.


Lydia <3 Yeah, could use a Lydia here too.


Originally Posted by Tzelanit
The personality types that I tend to enjoy are already covered.
I'm really worried about the good alignment characters because the "dutiful do-right veteran with the voice of reason" and "bubbly and perky optimistic comic relief" are pretty much guaranteed, and I can't stand those tropes.
As long as the rest of the characters maintain appreciation for the severity of the situation that they're in and act like functional adults instead of either taking themselves too seriously or not-at-all seriously, I'll be fine with it.


By folks in this thread or Larian? laugh I can tell we're not really into the same type of companions, but that's fine. I hope we get enough companions so we both can be happy. c:


The personality types that I tend to enjoy are covered by Larian already. Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I guess it would be lazy to just say, "The entire cast of Dragon Age: Origins", so I'll think that instead and put some actual effort into coming up with different examples. How about...

A mad scientist, like Kang the Mad from Jade Empire. Someone who's SUPER EXCITED about the mind flayers and the tadpoles and stuff because it's all so weird and interesting. They can join Astarion on Team "We should totally use this thing what do you mean it's a bad idea."

A dutiful do-right veteran with the voice of reason and bubbly and perky optimistic comic relief, because I love those tropes and Tzelanit will be so annoyed. grin

Someone alien. I was hoping Lae'zel might fit this role, but she's far too "normal". I want someone whose way of thinking is completely baffling at first and over the course of the game we work to wrap our minds around their minds - sort of like Sten from Dragon Ag I mean, uh, Yuun from SWTOR or Grieving Mother from Pillars of Eternity I.

A kid brother/sister type. Someone who's equal parts annoying and endearing, someone who's not a world-weary adventurer with pages of backstory to throw at you, someone who's actually a little lost and freaked out in this situation and looking to the PC for guidance. Imoen is the obvious example, but I got the same vibe from SWTOR's Guss Tuno and Nadia Grell, or the famous Deekin Scalesinger (doomity doom dooom).

A cat? My camp needs a cat, Larian.
Originally Posted by Tzelanit


The personality types that I tend to enjoy are covered by Larian already. Sorry, I should have been more specific.


Oooh, good stuff laugh Glad you're sorted, then! \o/ There is absolutely nothing wrong with our current companions - I like the depth of all of them and think they are very well written. They just simply do not suit my preferred main playable characters' type and while the band of misfits undoubtedly could make for rather comical story, I would strongly prefer having a team that made slightly more sense from *my* roleplaying perspective. (and yes, I know we got our "good" companions coming up c: )


Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
I guess it would be lazy to just say, "The entire cast of Dragon Age: Origins", so I'll think that instead and put some actual effort into coming up with different examples. How about...

A mad scientist, like Kang the Mad from Jade Empire. Someone who's SUPER EXCITED about the mind flayers and the tadpoles and stuff because it's all so weird and interesting. They can join Astarion on Team "We should totally use this thing what do you mean it's a bad idea."

A dutiful do-right veteran with the voice of reason and bubbly and perky optimistic comic relief, because I love those tropes and Tzelanit will be so annoyed. grin

Someone alien. I was hoping Lae'zel might fit this role, but she's far too "normal". I want someone whose way of thinking is completely baffling at first and over the course of the game we work to wrap our minds around their minds - sort of like Sten from Dragon Ag I mean, uh, Yuun from SWTOR or Grieving Mother from Pillars of Eternity I.

A kid brother/sister type. Someone who's equal parts annoying and endearing, someone who's not a world-weary adventurer with pages of backstory to throw at you, someone who's actually a little lost and freaked out in this situation and looking to the PC for guidance. Imoen is the obvious example, but I got the same vibe from SWTOR's Guss Tuno and Nadia Grell, or the famous Deekin Scalesinger (doomity doom dooom).

A cat? My camp needs a cat, Larian.



I wouldn't complain about just tossing in the entire cast of DAO xD !

I really like the idea of another, proper, "LET'S USE THESE NEW POWERS! What is the worst that can happen"-type laugh In Astarions case, it is a rather reasonable approach - but it would be entertaining with a character that has less of a ... Logic reason, and just happens to be a slight bit off. XD

Can't argue with the dutiful vet either :'D However, I prefer keeping the vet and the comic relief separate laugh Idm either way, though. c:

And yes, Sten - or Yuun - wouldn't be a bad addition either, especially as an alternative character for... Alternative moral routes. I liked Sten - but he kept disapproving of EVERYTHING I did. He pretty much insisted that my character can't even breathe properly so we didn't get along (even though I really wanted to frown ).

The aspiring type would also be a fresh breeze. Can't have enough diversity ! XD

And yes, cat(s) would be nice too. I am generally 50-50 when it comes to cat and dogs, but if we can have one - then I wanna have the other one as well! laugh Great ideas in general!
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I just don't want any silly comic relief companions. Especially no gnomes.

Yeah, I could certainly do without a ranger and his miniature giant space rodent in the party.

I think I could be fine with gnomes. So long as they are not obsessed with how smart they are, or ruling the world, or long-winded stories that make no sense but contain turnips. From the little I heard of Glint, he sounded like a decent chap.
I guess I'm in this camp, the most difficult thing for an RPG to do is make compelling and three dimensional "Evil" characters, because our EA companions seem to be: (I'm guessing) Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Good (but for that demon) I'm pretty much satisfied. My main worry now is that the "Good" characters aren't paper thin do-gooders, not that I don't love Minsc, but he's hardly been the an engine of compelling story-telling.

No one asked but Knights of the Old Republic II has my favorite crew of companions, they all had baggage which contributed to the story's and your own conflict within the Star Wars moral binary, making such a black and white universe like Star Wars into a compelling treatise on philosophy and morality was a great accomplishment to me, and I'm worried that between the Absolute Mind-Flayers and the Blood War in Avernus plots we aren't going to be getting a story with as much nuance, but I'm reserving my judgement there.
Originally Posted by Dez
He pretty much insisted that my character can't even breathe properly so we didn't get along (even though I really wanted to frown ).


Breathing?!

Sten disapproves.
Morrigan disapproves.
Zevran is bored.
Alistair wants cheese.


As someone who plays goody two shoes 99.9% of the time, I don't mind having to work at winning over the, uh, more morally flexible companions in my group, but if there's no way at all to do that, they just end up getting left behind.
Sort of like the atmosphere of uncertainty the current companions create in the early game. I would like a Jan Jansen or Minsc type character, but would prefer it if they were un-tadpoled and to be recruited a bit down the line, when party issues start stabilizing and we have already learned some of the current cast’s quirks.

Would like a few more good ones as well. Maybe a good rogue-like character in case we do not want to use Asterion.

I also kinda wish we got a tiefling from the refugee camp. Maybe a character with a slightly less fantastical backstory (but still plenty of secrets to keep) compared to our current group?
Someone with the persona of hundred eyes (monk) from Marco Polo.
An overly chatty Magpie and a magical Sloth that live in the branches of a Treant.
Some sort of "outlaw" type who isn't bothered by questionable means to get to a good end.
A Lolth Sworn Drow, this one could maybe have an optional "redeemable" arc for those who like that stuff.
A shadow mastiff or hellhounds. (ok this one is a stretch I know. smile )

Originally Posted by Tzelanit

I'm really worried about the good alignment characters because the "dutiful do-right veteran with the voice of reason" and "bubbly and perky optimistic comic relief" are pretty much guaranteed, and I can't stand those tropes.
As long as the rest of the characters maintain appreciation for the severity of the situation that they're in and act like functional adults instead of either taking themselves too seriously or not-at-all seriously, I'll be fine with it.

Agreed. I welcome realistic good companions but preaching about righteousness and morals or acting like an idiot because it is "funny" makes me want to stab someone and usually they are considered essential.

Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I just don't want any silly comic relief companions. Especially no gnomes.

Agreed on the first part but curious, why no gnomes?
Best companions were in Planescape: Torment.
I want to see someone who is completely fine and happy, besides the current events. Someone who has a good life and no trauma.
We need a dwarf. Why can't we have a dwarf?
Originally Posted by Kadajko
I want to see someone who is completely fine and happy, besides the current events. Someone who has a good life and no trauma.


This reminded me of
I would like a shy companion, someone who doesn't constantly complains or argues about everything, mysterious and secretive to the point I want to ask him/her questions, someone who seem fragile and needs protection.
We need silly companions who make us laugh.
...i like all manor of companions available but like to have the classics available. Triss merrigold type sorceror... goldmoon type cleric... rastalin... but would even support an evil pre-golem type hafling...

Biggest thing for me is how they interact with us in the end...
I challenge Larian to write a companion who is interesting solely because of their personality rather than taking the short cut of making everyone a vampire, alien, half-devil or werewolf.

I'm a bit fed up with the extra specialness. It feels like it's the norm in BG3. When everyone is fantastical and special, no one is. And this is all external anyway, personality and deeds are what actually matter.

When BG2 has a vampire companion, it's a quest and a little story in itself. The vampire isn't obvious, doesn't just fall down on a beach next to you and casually tag along as a convenient daywalker. Astarion's big reveal scene has no emotional impact or intrigue whatsoever. A vampire story should.
An older companion with an unresolved conflict/task (like Keldorn from BG2 or Wynne from DA:O) and dwarf bro that has your back no matter what (like Khelgar from NWN2) would be nice.

I require no originality. It's overrated and all too often poorly done. Well-executed tropes make for a much more enjoyable experience.
Originally Posted by Sozz
I guess I'm in this camp, the most difficult thing for an RPG to do is make compelling and three dimensional "Evil" characters, because our EA companions seem to be: (I'm guessing) Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Good (but for that demon) I'm pretty much satisfied. My main worry now is that the "Good" characters aren't paper thin do-gooders, not that I don't love Minsc, but he's hardly been the an engine of compelling story-telling.

No one asked but Knights of the Old Republic II has my favorite crew of companions, they all had baggage which contributed to the story's and your own conflict within the Star Wars moral binary, making such a black and white universe like Star Wars into a compelling treatise on philosophy and morality was a great accomplishment to me, and I'm worried that between the Absolute Mind-Flayers and the Blood War in Avernus plots we aren't going to be getting a story with as much nuance, but I'm reserving my judgement there.


Sounds legit enough laugh I approve!

Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Originally Posted by Dez
He pretty much insisted that my character can't even breathe properly so we didn't get along (even though I really wanted to frown ).


Breathing?!

Sten disapproves.
Morrigan disapproves.
Zevran is bored.
Alistair wants cheese.


As someone who plays goody two shoes 99.9% of the time, I don't mind having to work at winning over the, uh, more morally flexible companions in my group, but if there's no way at all to do that, they just end up getting left behind.


Yeah... It pretty much went like that. :x Fortunately, my dog always approved of my decisions. <3


Originally Posted by Ari
Sort of like the atmosphere of uncertainty the current companions create in the early game. I would like a Jan Jansen or Minsc type character, but would prefer it if they were un-tadpoled and to be recruited a bit down the line, when party issues start stabilizing and we have already learned some of the current cast’s quirks.

Would like a few more good ones as well. Maybe a good rogue-like character in case we do not want to use Asterion.

I also kinda wish we got a tiefling from the refugee camp. Maybe a character with a slightly less fantastical backstory (but still plenty of secrets to keep) compared to our current group?


I am pretty sure we'll at least be able to get a thiefling c: I heard rumors about the bard-one - though I cannot confirm nor deny.


Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
Someone with the persona of hundred eyes (monk) from Marco Polo.


Now THIS I like. 100% approve!
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
An overly chatty Magpie and a magical Sloth that live in the branches of a Treant.


I mean... Why not :'D


Originally Posted by Zarna
Some sort of "outlaw" type who isn't bothered by questionable means to get to a good end.
A Lolth Sworn Drow, this one could maybe have an optional "redeemable" arc for those who like that stuff.
A shadow mastiff or hellhounds. (ok this one is a stretch I know. smile )



YES. laugh!


Originally Posted by Kadajko
I want to see someone who is completely fine and happy, besides the current events. Someone who has a good life and no trauma.


That would certainly be unusual. I approve! o7


Originally Posted by Abits
We need a dwarf. Why can't we have a dwarf?


+1. Definitely.


Originally Posted by Nyanko
I would like a shy companion, someone who doesn't constantly complains or argues about everything, mysterious and secretive to the point I want to ask him/her questions, someone who seem fragile and needs protection.


Why not! Would make a fine addition to all these not-quite-shy characters that we have right now. :'D I am interested!

Originally Posted by Terremer
We need silly companions who make us laugh.


I agree. I like comic relief, as long as they're not mandatory. c:


Originally Posted by Llev
...i like all manor of companions available but like to have the classics available. Triss merrigold type sorceror... goldmoon type cleric... rastalin... but would even support an evil pre-golem type hafling...

Biggest thing for me is how they interact with us in the end...


That's a good perspective. c: A Triss Merigold would certainly be appreciated! Especially if she is as cute as she is in the Witcher game series. ^_^


Originally Posted by 1varangian
I challenge Larian to write a companion who is interesting solely because of their personality rather than taking the short cut of making everyone a vampire, alien, half-devil or werewolf.

I'm a bit fed up with the extra specialness. It feels like it's the norm in BG3. When everyone is fantastical and special, no one is. And this is all external anyway, personality and deeds are what actually matter.

When BG2 has a vampire companion, it's a quest and a little story in itself. The vampire isn't obvious, doesn't just fall down on a beach next to you and casually tag along as a convenient daywalker. Astarion's big reveal scene has no emotional impact or intrigue whatsoever. A vampire story should.


Certainly a legit point, I also felt like this more often than not - but not just in BG3.


Originally Posted by Leuenherz
An older companion with an unresolved conflict/task (like Keldorn from BG2 or Wynne from DA:O) and dwarf bro that has your back no matter what (like Khelgar from NWN2) would be nice.

I require no originality. It's overrated and all too often poorly done. Well-executed tropes make for a much more enjoyable experience.



100% approve - on all points. laugh
Originally Posted by Kadajko
I want to see someone who is completely fine and happy, besides the current events. Someone who has a good life and no trauma.


Yes. I mean, some challenges and ambitions in life, sure, but I'm not a fan of tragic backstories and emotional drama.

Other than that... I think a gnoll companion would be cool. An intellectual type.

I'd love some evil characters that are either magnificent bastards or "fun" evil (...and not Astarion). Maybe crazy evil (like Xzar).

A vicious halfling in the vein of Montaron.

While I'm bringing BG1 companions as examples: a Branwen-like war cleric would be awesome. I initially thought I'd dislike Branwen (mostly the portrait, I guess), but I grew to really like her and kept her for the rest of my playthrough.

A classic dwarf. I usually prefer "weird" characters, but I like classic, stereotypical dwarf companions. On the topic of dwarves, a Varric-like companion would be great.

And of course a spiritual successor to Jan. That's a must.
Lump the Enlightened. This is the companion we deserve, AND the companion we need.
I actually like our current companions but I would LOVE an option for a custom party of my own characters. That would be a lot of fun from a pure gameplay perspective, even if the character interactions were limited.

I doubt Larian will add anything like that but I'm hoping that modders eventually will.
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.



I love Eder so much, he was a GREAT companion. But Sagani seemed dull as dirt, to me.
Is the Thieve's Cant still a thing in 5E?

I would love a companion who speaks the Cant, somewhat like Narlen Darkwalk in BG I, but with even more of the 16th century English dialect like the pirates from "Treasure Island". Sort of a D&D version of Boomhauer (ref. King of the Hill).
And if could I swap Astarion for Regis, someone older, intellectual type not psycho hedonist
Originally Posted by Verte
And if could I swap Astarion for Regis, someone older, intellectual type not psycho hedonist


Well, I would gladly swap Gale for Yennefer. One can only dream :P
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Verte
And if could I swap Astarion for Regis, someone older, intellectual type not psycho hedonist


Well, I would gladly swap Gale for Yennefer. One can only dream :P

I would swap the entire forgotten realms for the continent for that matter.
Yennefer? No, I'm definitely a Triss guy. Yennefer has nothing on her.
If I'm clear, I think we're all in agreement that we could switch Gale for Yennefer, Astarion for Regis, Lae'zel for Cahir, Shadowheart for Triss, and Wyl for Geralt...and the Forgotten Realms for the Continent.

Sounds good to me.

and of course Dandelion is already in the game
Guys you forgot about most important character

crème de la crème

[Linked Image]
And in this game high ground is a pretty big deal
Originally Posted by Abits
And in this game high ground is a pretty big deal


We should have sided with Vader against General Kenobi. Too little too late though. frown
Star Wars total conversion mod when!
Originally Posted by Cactus_Back
I actually like our current companions but I would LOVE an option for a custom party of my own characters. That would be a lot of fun from a pure gameplay perspective, even if the character interactions were limited.


You can already do that with some gymnastics (simulated multiplayer), but Larian stated custom parties are planned to be available at character creation (and then there'll be customizable generic mercenaries).

Originally Posted by kanisatha
I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic."


I'm strongly of the opinion that emotional baggage or flaws don't automatically make characters better written or more realistic. "Nuanced" is often good, but I like simple, fun characters too (and actually find them refreshing in the modern race for "depth", which often equals "drama").

Originally Posted by Verte
And if could I swap Astarion for Regis, someone older, intellectual type not psycho hedonist


Can I have a psycho intellectual? Debauchery is what I dislike about Astarion.

Originally Posted by Verte
Guys you forgot about most important character

crème de la crème

-snip-


Oh shit you're right. I have a lot of screenshots depicting Roach's shenenigans.

Originally Posted by Dexai
Star Wars total conversion mod when!


My guess? Soon (TM)
Hmm. A kind girl. Well trained hunter or sorcerer who is not afraid to kill when threatened. Trust not easily given and who hasn't sold themselves out to any patron good, neutral, or evil. No sass, but a sense of some humor. No need for crazy backstory trauma. In fact I would make it so she would try to leave once the tadpole was taken care of and you need to a pass skill check regardless of approval to keep her or be in a romance with her. Her excuse is that the party is crazy and she wants to go home lmao. Her character would be the grounded one to balance the others out. Closer to the MC in a way I guess depending on playstyle. Maybe towards the end she will gain some secret abilities, but without knowing the story it's hard to say what. Point being she would be just another wrong place wrong time like mc.
A Duergar one
and a deep gnome necromancer
I'm surprised that there isn't a dwarf companion and of the other classes, I would prefer a barbarian and a druid!
Ok here goes:


A stoic Dwarf Druid who goes on about stone and earth and hammers his foes with a thunderous Maul.

A neutral aligned Eilistraee Drow Sorceress whose master plan is for Drow to abandon Lolth and return to the surface. Pleasant and social for a purpose but proud, likes to compete with Gale. Natural enemies with Minthara.

Assuming we get a famous human barbarian and a halfling bard, that leaves...

Monk... Tilda Swinton's Ancient One without the Arcane. An ageless bald human female. She knows more about the Absolute and the events than she reveals to the player. Hard, mysterious exterior and unconditional destroyer of evil. Unlike Shadowheart and Astarion, she has an actual reveal scene containing a big, even shocking surprise. =)

I'll probably have to play all those characters myself. :P
I've said this before but it's important enough to repeat -- we need to be able to put together an entirely good party and we need have as many companions in BG3 as we did in BG2.

I want people who love monks to get a monk in the game but I'll never use them. I just hate that class. It has always seemed out of place in the setting and I just don't enjoy the class mechanics.

Likewise, I do like bards but it will be hard to put a bard into 4 person party.
all good party but its anomen, aerie and nalia
One of the things I really liked about BG:2 was how most companions had a reason to join up and a neat way to exit the party after you helped them out. apart from the old hands, which meant I was usually rolling with Minsc Jaheira, possibly Yoshimo, and then I would rotate in and out people I met along the way. I kind of wish that was the case in BG:3 too but with the tadpoles I think everyone's personal quest involve being in the group for the duration.
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
all good party but its anomen, aerie and nalia


Damn it. I knew I shouldn't have used that monkey's paw.
I think I can roll up my request with many of the others here:

A half-dwarven druid pirate who speaks the Cant!

"Put yer backs into it, ye swamp-sucking whip jacks! Get that swag aboard afore darkmans; ere the Abbess don't take kindly to a scurvy sailor with a queer bung. Aye, we'll have some rum fun with that well-equipt autem bawler yet. Heave to!"
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.



I love Eder so much, he was a GREAT companion. But Sagani seemed dull as dirt, to me.


I only took Sagani for Eder's interaction with the fox. Otherwise she rode the bench, along with Kana, the boring paladin bird lady and Grieving Mother.

Durance was an amazing bastard and it was interesting to see him torn down and built up through certain choices. The Zahua (the drug monk) was another favorite in the expansion.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.


I loved Eder as a companion in PoE 1&2. Without any doubt, he was my favorite companion. I enjoyed the character development, the conversations we had, and the interactions he had with other party members. It didn't feel unnatural or forced. It felt real.
Verse and Barik archetypes, if only they could.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Verse and Barik archetypes, if only they could.


+
Kept them along with Lantry, divided but together, cool dynamics
Krogans are awesome. can we have a krogan?
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.


I'd say the companions in PoE are nuanced and 'realistic'. It's just that unlike the companions in BG3 their flaws are not quite so obnoxiously in-your-face. I'd mention Astarion but i'd say Wyll is an almost better example, my man's supposed to be a hero but pretty much from his 2nd dialogue he makes it pretty clear he's full of shit. Compare with Durance or Grieving Mother (who are different shades of full of shit), or even the Devil with Astarion. Maybe it comes down to taste.

As for what i want, i hope none of the good companions fit the tropy paladin. Companions that are single-mindedly good or evil are usually a hard skip for me.
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.


I'd say the companions in PoE are nuanced and 'realistic'. It's just that unlike the companions in BG3 their flaws are not quite so obnoxiously in-your-face. I'd mention Astarion but i'd say Wyll is an almost better example, my man's supposed to be a hero but pretty much from his 2nd dialogue he makes it pretty clear he's full of shit. Compare with Durance or Grieving Mother (who are different shades of full of shit), or even the Devil with Astarion. Maybe it comes down to taste.

As for what i want, i hope none of the good companions fit the tropy paladin. Companions that are single-mindedly good or evil are usually a hard skip for me.

It's been a while but I don't remember Grieving Mother being full of shit...

I'm also not sure how full of shit we're supposed to believe Wyl is, especially when he mentions how before being implanted with the tadpole he was taking on hill giants, is that BS? dunno
We Demand More Sexy companions
Originally Posted by AnonySimon
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.


I loved Eder as a companion in PoE 1&2. Without any doubt, he was my favorite companion. I enjoyed the character development, the conversations we had, and the interactions he had with other party members. It didn't feel unnatural or forced. It felt real.

Eder was also my auto include. Every time. And the only one.

This is what also Larian should understand. Maybe they do, but so far creating an immersive setting hasn't been their strong suit. I can't imagine Eder eating pigs heads while shoving hook horrors 15 meters off a ledge either.

Relatable characters give credibility to everything. They get more emotional response.

You need someone grounded so that the more fantastical characters are also believable.

I would prefer many more grounded companions to be able to have some control over the balance while also having classes and personalities I actually like. I would prefer the fantastical to be the minority in my party.
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
We Demand More Sexy companions

It sounds like you're not rolling an 'all underwear' campaign
Originally Posted by AnonySimon
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.


I loved Eder as a companion in PoE 1&2. Without any doubt, he was my favorite companion. I enjoyed the character development, the conversations we had, and the interactions he had with other party members. It didn't feel unnatural or forced. It felt real.


Well, the fact he was voiced by Matt Mercer surely helped.
One for each class ideally
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
We Demand More Sexy companions

It sounds like you're not rolling an 'all underwear' campaign


I just could not resist using this quote, if it was not a meme, I would not write it
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by AnonySimon
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.


I loved Eder as a companion in PoE 1&2. Without any doubt, he was my favorite companion. I enjoyed the character development, the conversations we had, and the interactions he had with other party members. It didn't feel unnatural or forced. It felt real.


Well, the fact he was voiced by Matt Mercer surely helped.

This whole Eder love-in has been very interesting considering I'd always considered him to be the most 'conventional' companion you get in that game, more interesting because he's a sounding board for your character than anything in his persona history.
Would like to see a community add. To be honest one the the worst thing Larian has done in all of their games is make companions. The ones in the game now are boring and all standard tropes. I mean we have the Vampire right out of twilight(I killed him in all play throughs) A hyper aggressive toad, a weird mage and a pansexueal warlock that hits on everyone. Also strange they are all bi-sexual and super aggressive about it. Stuff must be really weird in Sweden these days.

Have a contest with the community to create a companion. You have 9 months left in development. Lets really see if you listen to teh community feedback.
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
We Demand More Sexy companions



We Demand More Sexy Entirely New Threads About Evil Path Or Minthara
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Verse and Barik archetypes, if only they could.



Verse is my favorite female warrior character from any RPG. She's just a badass.

Barik, though, was a bit too stuffy for me. Especially since with the whole "can literally never take off his armor" thing, I couldn't stop imagining him as being this terribly stinky shit churro.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by AnonySimon
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.


I loved Eder as a companion in PoE 1&2. Without any doubt, he was my favorite companion. I enjoyed the character development, the conversations we had, and the interactions he had with other party members. It didn't feel unnatural or forced. It felt real.


Well, the fact he was voiced by Matt Mercer surely helped.

This whole Eder love-in has been very interesting considering I'd always considered him to be the most 'conventional' companion you get in that game, more interesting because he's a sounding board for your character than anything in his persona history.



I love Eder so much. He's normally so low-key and just relaxed, but once in a while he suddenly pipes up with a great one-liner in his casual tone. When talking about why the Dozens have the name that they do, and Eder does not approve of them, he just calmly opines, "Don't imagine they'd get as many members if they called themselves the Loudmouth Sheepfuckers." And the way Mercer delivers the line is priceless.
As long as not every companion (beside the ones we already know) ends up being some variation of human or elf, I'm good. Like, what's the point of traveling a fantasy world and meeting with a bunch of exotic people everywhere you go, but you're stuck with the human'n'elf squad (+Lae'Zel).

I reeeeally want a half-orc companion. Half-orcs are the best.
Originally Posted by zeel


I reeeeally want a half-orc companion. Half-orcs are the best.


+1
Half-orc barbarian whos playing chess FR variation at camp, total opposite to dumb Minsc. Contradictions could be funny
I want at least one other companion who is genuinely exotic. Right now we have one and a half elves, two and a half humans, and a Githyanki. The Githyanki is exotic to Faerun but she's in the stark minority and very hard to keep happy if you're not doing an evil run.

Something like a Lizardfolk, Kenku, dragonborn, or Tabaxi. I'd even settle for a Goliath. Just something that is immediately visibly distinct from the norm that comes with some interesting cultural differences and behaviors without being callously evil.

I really don't want to be rolling with an all elf/human party if I can help it. In fact if I could make a party of all monstrous looking races that'd be fantastic.

Also a bit of a pipe dream of mine: Put in a side quest where druids can feasibly awaken a powerful beast and turn it into a party member. Either the PC druid or a companion druid it does not matter.

It could function like the war dog you could get in Dragonage: Origins but you can actually speak with it with Speak with Animal.

It'd be a ton of fun to have an intelligent dire wolf or a giant ape in your party due to using a powerful but niche class spell.
Shale
Originally Posted by SaurianDruid


Something like a Lizardfolk, Kenku, dragonborn, or Tabaxi. I'd even settle for a Goliath. Just something that is immediately visibly distinct from the norm that comes with some interesting cultural differences and behaviors without being callously evil.



Goliath would be rad.

But how about a Thri-Kreen? I love those things. (They're not just a Dark Sun thing, they existed in Faerun before Dark Sun even came out.)
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Shale


+
fav girl
[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I only want good-oriented and honorable companions, and I need at least five of them because I will only be playing the game with a mod that increases party size to six. Someone already mentioned Eder. Yes I love Eder. In both PoE games Eder is my always-in-the-party companion. In PoE1 I also similarly loved Sagani and she was always in my party too.

I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic." If I wanted any of that, I can get that from real life. I play my cRPGs to get away from real life.


I love Eder so much, he was a GREAT companion. But Sagani seemed dull as dirt, to me.

The reason I loved Sagani so much is that
when you get near her when first coming across her, you overhear her talking to her fox about how much she is worried and even scared because she things the person who she's waiting for is not going to show and she is going to end up dead in that very dangerous place.
That just made her like my little sister who I wanted to be very protective of from then on. A personal thing I guess. Plus, yes, the foxy fox!!! smile
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I don't care at all about my companions being "nuanced" or "flawed" because that's what's "realistic."


I'm strongly of the opinion that emotional baggage or flaws don't automatically make characters better written or more realistic. "Nuanced" is often good, but I like simple, fun characters too (and actually find them refreshing in the modern race for "depth", which often equals "drama").

You said it my friend. So this^

Separately, I've always been torn between Yen and Triss. Yen is so obviously the default love of Geralt. So it makes sense to always go with her. But Triss is such a sweetheart, and a redhead on top of that, it's just ... well ... YUM!! smile
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Separately, I've always been torn between Yen and Triss. Yen is so obviously the default love of Geralt. So it makes sense to always go with her. But Triss is such a sweetheart, and a redhead on top of that, it's just ... well ... YUM!! smile


Khe, khe Shani
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Shale


+
fav girl
[Linked Image]



Shale was so good! Man, we need more unique characters like that.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Shale


+
fav girl
[Linked Image]



Shale was so good! Man, we need more unique characters like that.


This golem dies when we help Bianca restore Anvil of the Void and make Orzammar great again, a sad story. I love that the decision was difficult, as was the choice between Harrowmont and Belén. The Dragon Age origin allowed it's up to everyone to decide what was good and what was bad. An example of good quests where you really think about what decision to make, because everyone has motivation and moral justification. Even helping werewolves made some sense
Yup, the DA games have had some good companions too, Shale among them.
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
I love that the decision was difficult, as was the choice between Harrowmont and Belén.


Those choices weren't difficult for me at all. The only really difficult choice in that game was whether my Warden should die or talk poor Alistair into sleeping with Morrigan (ew ew rapey ew).

My favorite companions from Pillars of Eternity were Aloth, Sagani, Pallegina and Kana. Apparently that's the most boring party of all time, but I had a blast.
No one liked Grieving Mother? She was my favorite.
I liked Grieving Mother. Favorites in order were Durance, Eder and then GM. Mixed feelings on the chanter.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
No one liked Grieving Mother? She was my favorite.


She was interesting to get to know. Once.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
No one liked Grieving Mother? She was my favorite.


I liked her but wasn't big fan of her class. Serafen and Ydwin, liked both, were ciphers too, what a coincidence.

+Eder, Devil and Durance. Hiravias wasn't special but I had some sympathy for him, maybe thats because of the fur.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I just don't want any silly comic relief companions.


I cannot agree more with this! I don't mind a bit of silly banter between companions or a funny remark now and then but a character who's only reason for existence is to blunder about, living up to a stereotype and generally make every situation in the game feel a little less perilous is just too excessive for me. And when these comedic characters finally have their serious moment in a game I'm already like: "ye ye funny man when are you going to let out a burp or trip over your words or something?"
Regarding another recent thread this is also my issue with Minsc and...Boo. Yes, yes a well explored character of the franchise but still it's a giant russian man and his pet hamster who against all odds hasn't been squished yet. A tad difficult to take seriously a lot of the time.

Aaanyway~
As a fan of Paladins my ideal companion would simply be a good aligned Paladin who throughout the journey would come into some sort of conflict regarding his oath to protect others. Perhaps witnessing the constant atrocities his own people commit against one another and other races. A tad cliche yes but with Larian's story telling and near-flawless voice acting work I can imaging this being a very emotional journey.
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
I love that the decision was difficult, as was the choice between Harrowmont and Belén.


Those choices weren't difficult for me at all. The only really difficult choice in that game was whether my Warden should die or talk poor Alistair into sleeping with Morrigan (ew ew rapey ew).

My favorite companions from Pillars of Eternity were Aloth, Sagani, Pallegina and Kana. Apparently that's the most boring party of all time, but I had a blast.


Sure? I played the game as a dwarf noble and a commoner dwarf.
Harrowmont looks good and Belén looks evil. They really are.
But Belén wants to arrange reforms, and stop discriminating against the poor dwarfs, abolish the caste system (and when he was chosen, the epilogue tells that the dwarfs have better times).
Harrowmont is good as a person, but maintains the caste system, and is also ineffective as a king, after which the dwarves begin to have problems.
So I can't call one choice evil and the other good

By the way, Loghain can sleep with Morrigan at the personal request of the Gray Warden. This is one of the weirdest things about Dragon Age, but very funny.
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
I played the game as a dwarf noble and a commoner dwarf.


I did too, multiple times (and as every other origin available). Still not a hard choice. I've never chosen Bhelen (or Branka) once.

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
By the way, Loghain can sleep with Morrigan at the personal request of the Gray Warden


That requires betraying Alistair. Also something I've never been able to do.
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
I played the game as a dwarf noble and a commoner dwarf.


I did too, multiple times (and as every other origin available). Still not a hard choice. I've never chosen Bhelen (or Branka) once.

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
By the way, Loghain can sleep with Morrigan at the personal request of the Gray Warden


That requires betraying Alistair. Also something I've never been able to do.


I understand Alistair is a good character. I was upset when he left the group (I never allowed him to be executed, but I like to give mercy to antagonists)
The option when Alistair has to sleep with Morrigan is even more fun, especially if the main character has an affair with Morrigan
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
The option when Alistair has to sleep with Morrigan is even more fun, especially if the main character has an affair with Morrigan


You mean if the Warden is sleeping with Morrigan and they convince Alistair to do it anwyay? I do think that's funny - I have no idea what arguments the Warden uses in that case - and I love that BioWare gives players the option. Options are good!
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies

Goliath would be rad.

But how about a Thri-Kreen? I love those things. (They're not just a Dark Sun thing, they existed in Faerun before Dark Sun even came out.)


Thri'Kreen would be awesome. Games in general need more giant bug people.

Granted the romance would be challenging to say the least, but let's be honest; This isn't the weirdest thing someone in DnD has tried to sleep with.

Ideal party: A Lizardfolk PC, a Thri'Kreen, a Tabaxi, and a bugbear. Any time you talk to NPCs you need to wait for them to be done screaming before you can access normal dialogue.

It'd be glorious.
Originally Posted by SaurianDruid
I want at least one other companion who is genuinely exotic. Right now we have one and a half elves, two and a half humans, and a Githyanki. The Githyanki is exotic to Faerun but she's in the stark minority and very hard to keep happy if you're not doing an evil run.

Something like a Lizardfolk, Kenku, dragonborn, or Tabaxi. I'd even settle for a Goliath. Just something that is immediately visibly distinct from the norm that comes with some interesting cultural differences and behaviors without being callously evil.

I really don't want to be rolling with an all elf/human party if I can help it. In fact if I could make a party of all monstrous looking races that'd be fantastic.

Also a bit of a pipe dream of mine: Put in a side quest where druids can feasibly awaken a powerful beast and turn it into a party member. Either the PC druid or a companion druid it does not matter.

It could function like the war dog you could get in Dragonage: Origins but you can actually speak with it with Speak with Animal.

It'd be a ton of fun to have an intelligent dire wolf or a giant ape in your party due to using a powerful but niche class spell.


Take notes, Larian! An all-monstrous party would be amazing. I love "weird" characters. (About to play Torment, can't wait.) I like elves, so I have no problem with those, but I'd rather have something less of a "bog-standard fantasy race". (And certainly not more humans... two are too many.)

Originally Posted by SaurianDruid
Ideal party: A Lizardfolk PC, a Thri'Kreen, a Tabaxi, and a bugbear. Any time you talk to NPCs you need to wait for them to be done screaming before you can access normal dialogue.

It'd be glorious.


Yes. I'd love a party of a dragonborn, a lizardfolk, a tabaxi, a gnoll, a genasi and a yuan-ti. There are actually many monstrous options - you could also use aarakocra, kenku, centaur, minotaur, firbolg, hobgoblin, bugbear, kobold, perhaps more "out-there" tiefling, gith... And those are just the ones from 5e sources (including UA and sans gnolls). As a side note, I wish celestials and therefore aasimar were more... "biblical monstrous angel" in appearance, not just pretty glowy humans.



Btw, I have yet to play PoE and Pathfinder and it's interesting reading the comments on characters without knowing them... I'll be sure to come back to this discussion once I finish those games. :P
Originally Posted by Abits
Krogans are awesome. can we have a krogan?


Tali'zorah while your at it...she was humble, yet could take charge. She was competent, pleasant, could make a gentle appeal, or voice her convictions.

Overall, she was one of the best female 'good' characters of all time...very nicely voiced!
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
No one liked Grieving Mother? She was my favorite.


She was interesting to get to know. Once.

This was my reaction to GM as well, and also Durance. Were interesting once, but after that they both got benched. I've never been a fan of Avellone's writing. It's just way over the top, and all his characters are just melodramatic drama queens. They very quickly become tiresome to me.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
No one liked Grieving Mother? She was my favorite.


She was interesting to get to know. Once.

This was my reaction to GM as well, and also Durance. Were interesting once, but after that they both got benched. I've never been a fan of Avellone's writing. It's just way over the top, and all his characters are just melodramatic drama queens. They very quickly become tiresome to me.

Same. I think he is better at story than characters
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Take notes, Larian! An all-monstrous party would be amazing. I love "weird" characters. (About to play Torment, can't wait.) I like elves, so I have no problem with those, but I'd rather have something less of a "bog-standard fantasy race".


If bog-standard doesn't interest you then it's possible the Forgotten Realms isn't for you....it's the bog-standard built-in world of D&D, things are only supposed to get interesting when you change it for your campaign :p
Pathfinder Kingmaker has excellent companions. You can feel that Chris Avellone was part of the writers team for that game. The companions in Kingmaker are amazingly well written and I'd love to have all of the 11 or so companions on my team at all times but I can only have 5 at a time smile
I don't like any of the BG3 companions so far, but haven't given Wyll a chance yet.
I can barely remember the companions from Kingmaker. I think there was a gnome I liked.
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
I can barely remember the companions from Kingmaker. I think there was a gnome I liked.

Linzi your halfling biographer was my favorite, the rest of them....
Of course also being the narrator probably helped make Linzi more memorable to me.
In P:Km I particularly liked Amiri and Linzi. Several others grew on me through the game. I don't think I actively disliked any of them.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Take notes, Larian! An all-monstrous party would be amazing. I love "weird" characters. (About to play Torment, can't wait.) I like elves, so I have no problem with those, but I'd rather have something less of a "bog-standard fantasy race".


If bog-standard doesn't interest you then it's possible the Forgotten Realms isn't for you....it's the bog-standard built-in world of D&D, things are only supposed to get interesting when you change it for your campaign :p


It's not that I dislike the bog-standard races per se, just that I'd like something else in there as well. And FR isn't that bad in this regard, you have a truckload of "weirder" races, as I listed earlier. Most of these were FR-friendly. Among the "common" ones are dragonborn, drow(?) and tieflings, then we have firbolgs, genasi, gith, tabaxi... just to name a few "exotic" (not "monstrous") ones.

I have more of a problem (though "problem" is a bit of an overstatement) with games/settings where all there is are humans, elves, dwarves and maybe halflings. Especially for PCs. Those are all just humans with different proportions.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Take notes, Larian! An all-monstrous party would be amazing. I love "weird" characters. (About to play Torment, can't wait.) I like elves, so I have no problem with those, but I'd rather have something less of a "bog-standard fantasy race".


If bog-standard doesn't interest you then it's possible the Forgotten Realms isn't for you....it's the bog-standard built-in world of D&D, things are only supposed to get interesting when you change it for your campaign :p


It's not that I dislike the bog-standard races per se, just that I'd like something else in there as well. And FR isn't that bad in this regard, you have a truckload of "weirder" races, as I listed earlier. Most of these were FR-friendly. Among the "common" ones are dragonborn, drow(?) and tieflings, then we have firbolgs, genasi, gith, tabaxi... just to name a few "exotic" (not "monstrous") ones.

I have more of a problem (though "problem" is a bit of an overstatement) with games/settings where all there is are humans, elves, dwarves and maybe halflings. Especially for PCs. Those are all just humans with different proportions.

Current political mores have certainly tried to make all the races into humans but I think that the Tolkien races can be made to be as common or exotic as you like.

Ever since 3e I've found that the number of races ginned and made playable to be more problematic than anything, Tieflings are a good example, it used to be a template you'd add to an existing race, but I think for external reasons their popularity took over and now they're their own race. Now repeat that process a dozen of times for every interesting looking monster-race and exceptional extraplanar idea and I feel like it begins to unsettle the narrative, a lot like how comics books progressed from stories about fighting crime to stories about collapsing multi-verses into themselves to stop existence from ending....
I would like to see LIKABLE characters. Someone funny, someone flirty, someone witty, someone adventurous. I'm sure we all have enough grouchy assholes to deal with in our real lives so why does Larian think we want our fantasy party filled with them?
In some early news about the game, I heard that it would be possible to have custom mercenaries in the party. How do you feel about this? For me this is not a very good option, since they will not have a backstory and quests, they will not be full-fledged companions
I would like a normal, not Origin companion who thus can have a more rounded backstory.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Current political mores have certainly tried to make all the races into humans but I think that the Tolkien races can be made to be as common or exotic as you like.

Ever since 3e I've found that the number of races ginned and made playable to be more problematic than anything, Tieflings are a good example, it used to be a template you'd add to an existing race, but I think for external reasons their popularity took over and now they're their own race. Now repeat that process a dozen of times for every interesting looking monster-race and exceptional extraplanar idea and I feel like it begins to unsettle the narrative, a lot like how comics books progressed from stories about fighting crime to stories about collapsing multi-verses into themselves to stop existence from ending....


Not to go deep into that, but I'm very much not a fan of the "current political mores" and how they impact... well, everything.

Yeah, you're onto something... But there's also a matter of "allow a weird race PC" vs "make weird races ubiquitous". Even if loads of people choose to play tieflings, in every campaign they can be "the odd one" without messing with lore. It's not an MMO where players are the ones that make the general demographics.

And there's another matter: the setting itself. A world filled with "weird" races doesn't have to feature over-the-top collapsing multiverse stories; those races could be "bog-standard" for that particular setting. (Though I suppose you might have meant jumping the shark in general.)

Both of the above said, I think FR should stay mostly populated by the Tolkien races; I'd keep dragonborn and tieflings "exotic" and drow "common in the Underdark". Which doesn't mean we can't have those rarer races as a custom PC option or as companions, like we had Haer'Dalis, Viconia and Aerie in BG2.
I'd love to have a jovial, fun and adventurously chaotic guy. A Mollymauk in our party. Someone that's very 'woohoo let's have fun with this'. Asterion is close in some cases, but he's also way too evil. lol
Every companion we have so far has been, atleast outwardly, experienced and sure of themselves, a young sorcerer in need of guilence or something like that would be cool
Originally Posted by Sozz

Current political mores have certainly tried to make all the races into humans but I think that the Tolkien races can be made to be as common or exotic as you like.

Ever since 3e I've found that the number of races ginned and made playable to be more problematic than anything, Tieflings are a good example, it used to be a template you'd add to an existing race, but I think for external reasons their popularity took over and now they're their own race. Now repeat that process a dozen of times for every interesting looking monster-race and exceptional extraplanar idea and I feel like it begins to unsettle the narrative, a lot like how comics books progressed from stories about fighting crime to stories about collapsing multi-verses into themselves to stop existence from ending....


It isn't a "political more" that people want to play something exotic or unique. Monster races being playable is a time honored tradition in DnD going all the way back to 2nd edition (1st if you count half-orcs who fill the same niche) because, surprisingly, different people have different tastes and preferences. Not everyone wants to be a human, pointy eared human, short human, shorter human, or even shorter human. Lots of people also love the look and lore of a beefy orcish warrior or a cunning and vicious lizardfolk.

The Forgotten Realms is, above all else, a setting designed to accommodate as many character ideas and stories as it can possibly contain. Always has been. But as times evolve and more people come to the table and ask "Hey, can I play this?" the setting itself also evolves so that it can reply "Yes" because that is the nature of DnD and Forgotten Realms. To be accommodating to the wants and needs of as wide a range of players as possible so that everyone at the table is having fun.

And, of course, to get people to buy the books and make Wizards money.
Originally Posted by SaurianDruid
Originally Posted by Sozz

Current political mores have certainly tried to make all the races into humans but I think that the Tolkien races can be made to be as common or exotic as you like.

Ever since 3e I've found that the number of races ginned and made playable to be more problematic than anything, Tieflings are a good example, it used to be a template you'd add to an existing race, but I think for external reasons their popularity took over and now they're their own race. Now repeat that process a dozen of times for every interesting looking monster-race and exceptional extraplanar idea and I feel like it begins to unsettle the narrative, a lot like how comics books progressed from stories about fighting crime to stories about collapsing multi-verses into themselves to stop existence from ending....


It isn't a "political more" that people want to play something exotic or unique. Monster races being playable is a time honored tradition in DnD going all the way back to 2nd edition (1st if you count half-orcs who fill the same niche) because, surprisingly, different people have different tastes and preferences. Not everyone wants to be a human, pointy eared human, short human, shorter human, or even shorter human. Lots of people also love the look and lore of a beefy orcish warrior or a cunning and vicious lizardfolk.

The Forgotten Realms is, above all else, a setting designed to accommodate as many character ideas and stories as it can possibly contain. Always has been. But as times evolve and more people come to the table and ask "Hey, can I play this?" the setting itself also evolves so that it can reply "Yes" because that is the nature of DnD and Forgotten Realms. To be accommodating to the wants and needs of as wide a range of players as possible so that everyone at the table is having fun.

And, of course, to get people to buy the books and make Wizards money.
I was talking about the point you yourself made about how with every edition the near human races seem to become less and less distinct, both narratively and mechanically.

I don't begrudge people wanting to play more diffuse races, my criticism there was more about how the world can lose something when the remote is made commonplace, and how it can be detrimental to the scope of your stories.
Originally Posted by Sozz
I was talking about the point you yourself made about how with every edition the near human races seem to become less and less distinct, both narratively and machanically.

I don't begrudge people wanting to play more diffuse races, my criticism there was more about how the world can lose something when the remote is made commonplace, and how it can be detrimental to the scope of your stories.


I think you are confusing me with Uncle Lester. I actually think 5e did a decent job differentiating the near-humans mechanically and lore-wise. Only pure human really hurts for unique lore and mechanics, and that has more to do with Wizards of the Coast thinking too much like a standard fantasy setting where every race is humans+ and not considering the strengths the human species has in the real world.

Making humans unique in a fantasy setting is its own subject though so I won't dwell on that.

I just want the option to have a full party of weird races because I like non-human races in games in general and am fond of the "traveling circus" style party where everyone is giving you weird looks as you walk through town.
A pixie. Plain and simple. I'd rather play one, but I will settle for camp follower or 2nd/3rd act companion. Purely so they can be modded later.
Originally Posted by Lethan
A pixie. Plain and simple. I'd rather play one, but I will settle for camp follower or 2nd/3rd act companion. Purely so they can be modded later.

As a fan of the concept of Paul Kidd's Justicar and Escalla characters, I'm all for this.
An elf that actually behaves like an elf and represent all of the more alien and ethereal aspect of their race. For the class, I am thinking a ranger.

Astarion is a lot of fun, but he offers zero elven input into the game, he could perfectly be a human and nothing about his personality or dialogue lines would have to be changed, from a narrative point of view. He is more human vampire, and vampire in general, than elf in any way.

A lawful good paladin, of course, maybe youthful and newly ordained to make it more quirky and fun, I am thinking a pseudo-Alistair kind of character. Could also be a fighter.

A jokester, chaotic-good do-gooder, always lighting up the mood and looking after the others. Could be a bard, or even a cleric of some lesser popular and used deity, like... I don't know, Lurue.

And most importantly and whatever it is, something humble and relatable, enough with the super extraordinary backgrounds.



I want to make my own companions so they actually make sense to me playing them.. Halfling Bard or Warlock, Gnome Sorcerer/Wizard, Dwarven Fighter or Paladin etc..

None of this human, elf stuff.. its just too generic..

Gale is painful to deal with his death crap and his eating all the magic items
Lae'zel is a bitch
Shadowheart is so emo and edgy i want to throw her off a cliff..
Wyll is just so generic and useless as a warlock
Astarion is a pompous asshole, antagonistic and is begging to be killed right off the bat...

What a fine bunch of companions i'm laboured with.. such fun, such hostility, much wow..

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
In some early news about the game, I heard that it would be possible to have custom mercenaries in the party. How do you feel about this? For me this is not a very good option, since they will not have a backstory and quests, they will not be full-fledged companions

I'd love that, i have no interest in their backstories just let me make my own group, like Solasta.
Hot female Aasimar with large breasts.
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Hot female Aasimar with large breasts.


I find this funny smile
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Hot female Aasimar with large breasts.

Glowing boobs for the win
I want a companion who doesnt instantly make me want to leave when I enter dialogue.

And someone who is actually chill with the current situation "it is what it is" vibes! I'm darn sick of being the only person who isnt a kill joy.

I also want a goat.
I assume you are running with the "Was a goat for 10 years" mod? IMO the game is unplayable without it:

https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/121
Wow, you guys have some great ideas overall :o I hope Larian is taking notes! laugh

Originally Posted by Goldberry
An elf that actually behaves like an elf and represent all of the more alien and ethereal aspect of their race. For the class, I am thinking a ranger.

Astarion is a lot of fun, but he offers zero elven input into the game, he could perfectly be a human and nothing about his personality or dialogue lines would have to be changed, from a narrative point of view. He is more human vampire, and vampire in general, than elf in any way.

A lawful good paladin, of course, maybe youthful and newly ordained to make it more quirky and fun, I am thinking a pseudo-Alistair kind of character. Could also be a fighter.

A jokester, chaotic-good do-gooder, always lighting up the mood and looking after the others. Could be a bard, or even a cleric of some lesser popular and used deity, like... I don't know, Lurue.

And most importantly and whatever it is, something humble and relatable, enough with the super extraordinary backgrounds.





Absolutely agree with the first one!
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I assume you are running with the "Was a goat for 10 years" mod? IMO the game is unplayable without it:

https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/121


This by far is the best mod ever! Though I was not referring to that I think it fitting for my PC to have a goat companion.

I'm just sick of humanoid, talking, "I'll only like you if you do this for me" companions

All I want to do is go about my adventures in my silly jester outfit with a animal friend.
Originally Posted by Dez
Wow, you guys have some great ideas overall :o I hope Larian is taking notes! laugh

Originally Posted by Goldberry
An elf that actually behaves like an elf and represent all of the more alien and ethereal aspect of their race. For the class, I am thinking a ranger.

Astarion is a lot of fun, but he offers zero elven input into the game, he could perfectly be a human and nothing about his personality or dialogue lines would have to be changed, from a narrative point of view. He is more human vampire, and vampire in general, than elf in any way.

A lawful good paladin, of course, maybe youthful and newly ordained to make it more quirky and fun, I am thinking a pseudo-Alistair kind of character. Could also be a fighter.

A jokester, chaotic-good do-gooder, always lighting up the mood and looking after the others. Could be a bard, or even a cleric of some lesser popular and used deity, like... I don't know, Lurue.

And most importantly and whatever it is, something humble and relatable, enough with the super extraordinary backgrounds.





Absolutely agree with the first one!

An elf-like elf. Yes, please. And some elven related banter with Shadowheart who seems 110% human as a half-elf.

Lae'zel also often seems like an angry human with face paint. So a timeless ethereal elf who actually feels non-human and otherworldly would be great. I'm glad Lae'zel at least speaks gith sometimes and not just her perfect english.
Someone that's genuinely likeable and easy to get along with would be great. Also some odd races like Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, etc.
Originally Posted by TrollishMcTroll
Someone that's genuinely likeable and easy to get along with would be great. Also some odd races like Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, etc.

Problem with odd races is that Larian can't do the expected romances with sex at the end which sadly seems to have become the standard in RPG the industry.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I just don't want any silly comic relief companions. Especially no gnomes.

Halsin would be great.

I agree with this. No gnomes and no bards please. I'm just glad Volo didn't become a party member.
I'm actually pretty happy with the companions we have so far, except for Gale ( he is well written, I just don't like him ).
I would love to avoid having special snowflake companions, especially tieflings.

However what I would really like is a good aligned HUMAN female character who is vulnerable, yet courageous and open, preferably a spellcaster, maybe a sorcerer. Imagine Bethany from DA2, but with magic. I would really love is she didn't have any angst or feel like she has to prove herself.

Another character I'd like is the stern rugged HUMAN paladin dude who is an all around good guy but he is a bit grumpy and isn't afraid to get his hands dirty to meet his objectives and fulfill the deamnds of his mission. Tough love type guy with a huge scruffy beard.

I want them to be human, because I think a human majority in the party enhances the specialness of non-human companions.

That being said the one non-human companion I would love to have is a halfling MALE, because if we had to suffer through all those gnome companions in D&D games I think we finally deserve a properly written halfling. Just don't make him into a goofball, like a barbarian who carries a gigantic weapon on his small frame.

Originally Posted by Abits
We need a dwarf. Why can't we have a dwarf?


Because Cleric, Rogue and Fighter are all taken already. We still have Monk and Paladin open though, so you never know.
Originally Posted by A Clown
I want a companion who doesnt instantly make me want to leave when I enter dialogue.

And someone who is actually chill with the current situation "it is what it is" vibes! I'm darn sick of being the only person who isnt a kill joy.

I also want a goat.

Exactly.. These companions anger me way too much.. I haven't hated companions this much since Dragon Age Inquisition.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I just don't want any silly comic relief companions. Especially no gnomes.

Halsin would be great.

I agree with this. No gnomes and no bards please. I'm just glad Volo didn't become a party member.
I'm actually pretty happy with the companions we have so far, except for Gale ( he is well written, I just don't like him ).
I would love to avoid having special snowflake companions, especially tieflings.

However what I would really like is a good aligned HUMAN female character who is vulnerable, yet courageous and open, preferably a spellcaster, maybe a sorcerer. Imagine Bethany from DA2, but with magic. I would really love is she didn't have any angst or feel like she has to prove herself.

Another character I'd like is the stern rugged HUMAN paladin dude who is an all around good guy but he is a bit grumpy and isn't afraid to get his hands dirty to meet his objectives and fulfill the deamnds of his mission. Tough love type guy with a huge scruffy beard.

I want them to be human, because I think a human majority in the party enhances the specialness of non-human companions.

That being said the one non-human companion I would love to have is a halfling MALE, because if we had to suffer through all those gnome companions in D&D games I think we finally deserve a properly written halfling. Just don't make him into a goofball, like a barbarian who carries a gigantic weapon on his small frame.

Originally Posted by Abits
We need a dwarf. Why can't we have a dwarf?


Because Cleric, Rogue and Fighter are all taken already. We still have Monk and Paladin open though, so you never know.

I actually want Gnomes, Halflings and Dwarves.. i have no interest in edgy drows and githyanki..

That why the option to make our own companions make sense.. Also gnomes can be serious not comic relief. I'm currently playing a serious Gnome Barbarian modded BG3 right now its great.

Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by TrollishMcTroll
Someone that's genuinely likeable and easy to get along with would be great. Also some odd races like Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, etc.

Problem with odd races is that Larian can't do the expected romances with sex at the end which sadly seems to have become the standard in RPG the industry.

I don't even want sex with these horrid companions 😂
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

I actually want Gnomes, Halflings and Dwarves.. i have no interest in edgy drows and githyanki..



I agree on dwarves and halflings, but if gnomes were deleted from the D&D universe, that would frankly bet a net benefit to all of us.
This is why Dark Sun is the best D&D setting. Gnomes have been entirely wiped out.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
This is why Dark Sun is the best D&D setting. Gnomes have been entirely wiped out.
Now there's a game world that needs to be revived.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
This is why Dark Sun is the best D&D setting. Gnomes have been entirely wiped out.


You really hate short people.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
This is why Dark Sun is the best D&D setting. Gnomes have been entirely wiped out.


Awesome. The next D&D CRPG needs to be a Dark Sun game. D&D meets Mad Max meets Conan. Out with the garden gnomes.
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
This is why Dark Sun is the best D&D setting. Gnomes have been entirely wiped out.


You really hate short people.
Don't say that to the halflings you meet there
I welcome a revival of Dark Sun. Gives them another chance to finally give Mul beards.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
This is why Dark Sun is the best D&D setting. Gnomes have been entirely wiped out.

It seems to me that the Dark Sun can be respected at least for the unusually represented fantasy races and cynicism.
Also, Dark Sun gave us the mules and half-giants... I miss them.
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
This is why Dark Sun is the best D&D setting. Gnomes have been entirely wiped out.


You really hate short people.



I don't hate short people. Gnomes are not people.

Also, Dark Sun halflings are AWESOME.
Gnomes used to have a narrow niche back when dwarves and halflings were restricted from the arcane casting classes. But ever since 3E I guess, anybody can be any class, so there is no need for them anymore. D&D tried later to give gnomes a raison d'etre with the "tinker" stuff, but that never really worked for me. Svirfneblin have a story purpose in the Underdark, but other than that, the gnome has no need to exist anymore. However, I've always thought that the dwarves in Snow White were actually gnomes. Would a dwarf ever go by the name "Bashful"?
Originally Posted by Argyle
Gnomes used to have a narrow niche back when dwarves and halflings were restricted from the arcane casting classes. But ever since 3E I guess, anybody can be any class, so there is no need for them anymore. D&D tried later to give gnomes a raison d'etre with the "tinker" stuff, but that never really worked for me. Svirfneblin have a story purpose in the Underdark, but other than that, the gnome has no need to exist anymore. However, I've always thought that the dwarves in Snow White were actually gnomes. Would a dwarf ever go by the name "Bashful"?


I think you're right about Snow White's dwarves actually being gnomes.
Then again they are just miners, not engineers and tinkers.
I dislike gnomes because they represent the progress of technology in a world where I don't want any advanced technology.
I agree about the technology thing. I don't want machines in my fantasy. Beyond that, I just feel like gnomes don't fit, thematically, with the other core races.
Half-elves > Half-orcs > Humans > Gnomes > Elves > Tieflings > Halflings > Dwarfs > Dragonborn

Fight me.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Half-elves > Half-orcs > Humans > Gnomes > Elves > Tieflings > Halflings > Dwarfs > Dragonborn

Fight me.
I'd remove Tieflings and Dragonborn as races all together and certainly put Elves above Humans.
It's funny how people have been saying that Gnomes are now superfluous, whenever I make up a world in my own head, it's the Halflings that I struggle to fit in somewhere, their culture is usually just Human to me.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Half-elves > Half-orcs > Humans > Gnomes > Elves > Tieflings > Halflings > Dwarfs > Dragonborn

Fight me.
I'd remove Tieflings and Dragonborn as races all together and certainly put Elves above Humans.
It's funny how people have been saying that Gnomes are now superfluous, whenever I make up a world in my own head, it's the Halflings that I struggle to fit in somewhere, their culture is usually just Human to me.

So true. Just look at letsplayers on youtube. Everyone is running a tiefling. It's quite annoying. Dragonborn are just as cringe.
At least Half-orcs would be flavorful and not the special snowflake race.
As for halflings, they always strike me as peasants. They are basically small statured peasants. They still have more validity then gnomes though.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
[I don't hate short people. Gnomes are not people.

Also, Dark Sun halflings are AWESOME.


They look humanoid to me.

Originally Posted by Eldath

Then again they are just miners, not engineers and tinkers.
I dislike gnomes because they represent the progress of technology in a world where I don't want any advanced technology.


Now they gained my sympathy but wouldn't play one. Dwarves are as far I would go with short people.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Half-elves > Half-orcs > Humans > Gnomes > Elves > Tieflings > Halflings > Dwarfs > Dragonborn

Fight me.
I'd remove Tieflings and Dragonborn as races all together and certainly put Elves above Humans.


...I'd remove humans altogether.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Sozz
I'd remove Tieflings and Dragonborn as races all together and certainly put Elves above Humans.
It's funny how people have been saying that Gnomes are now superfluous, whenever I make up a world in my own head, it's the Halflings that I struggle to fit in somewhere, their culture is usually just Human to me.
So true. Just look at letsplayers on youtube. Everyone is running a tiefling. It's quite annoying. Dragonborn are just as cringe.
At least Half-orcs would be flavorful and not the special snowflake race.
As for halflings, they always strike me as peasants. They are basically small statured peasants. They still have more validity then gnomes though.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
...I'd remove humans altogether.
Let me clarify, I liked better when being a Tiefling or a Dragonborn meant some ancestor of yours had a Demonic or Draconic encounter, which manifested in you, so you'd be an Human-Tiefling or a Dwarf-Dragonborn, I struggle with them being their own races.

Does anyone know what a half-Tiefling looks like? Or a half-Dragonborn? Have they been retconned to have always been a part of FR history, I think BladeDancer mention that during one of the reboots, Asmodeus retconned Tieflings into their current state but it still strains my ability to view the world realistically.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Sozz
I'd remove Tieflings and Dragonborn as races all together and certainly put Elves above Humans.
It's funny how people have been saying that Gnomes are now superfluous, whenever I make up a world in my own head, it's the Halflings that I struggle to fit in somewhere, their culture is usually just Human to me.
So true. Just look at letsplayers on youtube. Everyone is running a tiefling. It's quite annoying. Dragonborn are just as cringe.
At least Half-orcs would be flavorful and not the special snowflake race.
As for halflings, they always strike me as peasants. They are basically small statured peasants. They still have more validity then gnomes though.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
...I'd remove humans altogether.
Let me clarify, I liked better when being a Tiefling or a Dragonborn meant some ancestor of yours had a Demonic or Draconic encounter, which manifested in you, so you'd be an Human-Tiefling or a Dwarf-Dragonborn, I struggle with them being their own races.

Does anyone know what a half-Tiefling looks like? Or a half-Dragonborn? Have they been retconned to have always been a part of FR history, I think BladeDancer mention that during one of the reboots, Asmodeus retconned Tieflings into their current state but it still strains my ability to view the world realistically.


Yeah, I agree. I'd much prefer "dilutable" blood. Planar or dragon. I really dislike that tiefling retcon, one of my favourite things about tieflings is that they're so diverse.You could have Annah, who almost looks human or clearly fiendish Ei-Vene with orange eyes and claws, or digitigrade tieflings, or ones that look almost like fiends. Different kinds of fiends. Devils, demons, yugoloths, rakshasas, hags... And manifest whatever trait of those. And now they're... quite uniform. (Credit where it's due though; I think Larian managed tieflings fairly well within the constraints of 5e lore and video game format. Especially custom tieflings. NPCs maybe less so.)

Could you explain something about dragonborn to me, though? I came to 5e straight from 2AD&D (with bits of 3/3.5e) and just accepted dragonborn, because in my D&D reading years ago I came across a very similar race (dragon descendants similar to planetouched). Yet recently I realized what I'd read was just homebrew and dragonborn didn't exist until 4e. But you're saying dragonborn used to be like old tieflings; was there such a race after all before The Great Mess of 4e?
Most of my experience is with third edition where 'Templating' was a thing. I believe you found in the Monster Manual Tieflings and their celestial counterparts had a "Planetouched Characters" blurb that told you what abilities you'd gain and your level adjustment as well as a issue of Dragon magazine that incorporated the elemental planes.

I remember having this same crisis when 4e made them a race, I thought I had suffered a Mandela Effect for Dragonborn being in 3rd Edition but I think what I was thinking of were called Half-Dragon, even though they're called Half-Dragon I think it wasn't supposed to be necessarily literal. I had to look that up because I still have a distinct memory of creating a dragonborn character being used as an example of templating in either the MM or the DMG. It could also have been in Dragon magazine, I'll keep looking around until I'm satisfied.

All that said I had to look this up online it's been so long since I had those books handy so take everything I remember with a grain of salt.

Edit: there's also the implied Draconic nature of the Sorcerer class that I'm now remembering and could be conflating things.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Most of my experience is with third edition where 'Templating' was something I believe you found in the Monster Manual, had Tieflings and their celestial counter parts had a "Planetouched Characters" blurp that told you what abilities you'd gain and your level adjustment as well as a issue of Dragon magazine that incorporated the elemental planes.

I remember having this same crisis when 4e made them a race, I thought I had suffered a Mandela Effect for Dragonborn being in 3rd Edition but I think what I was thinking of were called Half-Dragon, even though they're called Half-Dragon I think it wasn't supposed to be necessarily literal. I had to look that up because I still have a distinct memory of creating a dragonborn character being used as an example of templating in either the MM or the DMG. It could also have been in Dragon magazine, I'll keep looking around until I'm satisfied.

All that said I had to look this up online it's been so long since I had those books handy so take everything I remember with a grain of salt.

Edit: there's also the implied Draconic nature of the Sorcerer class that I'm now remember and could be conflating things.


Thanks for the explanation! Yeah, there's also half-dragons, dragonkin, dragonspawn, dragonborn of Bahamut, draconic creature template... The homebrew I saw was fairly similar to the template. Maybe what you're thinking about were the dragonborn of Bahamut? They were a different type, pre-4e.

I kind of wish they made a variant Dragonborn, a Toril one.

Aand... Not a huge fan of the lineage system from TCoE, but perhaps it could be used to make templates or something akin to them? Would be nice to see templates back, they seemed like a interesting mechanic (if quite complicated, as fitting for 3e).
Dragonborn technically existed in the 3E Forgotten Realms, although it was because of a not very well received or widely spread splatbook.
Basically Bahamut changed volunteer humans who wanted to fight evil dragons in dragonborn. But those were few individuals.

The majority of dragonborn came from 4E lore when the world of FR merged with another world and a country of dragonborn was planeshifted over. On their world they were a slave race to true dragons. In 5E that place planeshifted back, but as dragonborn had by then also settled outside of that area several communities remained in the forgotten realms.
In FR dragonborn were never directly related to dragons. Offspring of dragon/humanoid pairings are half-dragons (which were never really playable very well) and further down the line draconic blood serves as explanation for sorcerers.

Originally Posted by Eldath

I dislike gnomes because they represent the progress of technology in a world where I don't want any advanced technology.


Most stuff gnomes invent fit into the technology level of the FR. D&D in general is early renaissance and there specialists had a basic understanding of chemistry although often coupled with alchemy and there was also construction of clockwork, mainly in the Islamic part of the (real) world that had its golden era during that time.
Originally Posted by Ixal


Most stuff gnomes invent fit into the technology level of the FR. D&D in general is early renaissance and there specialists had a basic understanding of chemistry although often coupled with alchemy and there was also construction of clockwork, mainly in the Islamic part of the (real) world that had its golden era during that time.

Yeah but couldn't like humans do that?
I just really hate gnomes and want them gone.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Ixal


Most stuff gnomes invent fit into the technology level of the FR. D&D in general is early renaissance and there specialists had a basic understanding of chemistry although often coupled with alchemy and there was also construction of clockwork, mainly in the Islamic part of the (real) world that had its golden era during that time.

Yeah but couldn't like humans do that?
I just really hate gnomes and want them gone.



Humans certainly also know that. After all there are several highly advanced, for D&D, human nations. But gnomes are simply a bit better.
I don't like it when high fantasy races like Dragonblorn, Aasimar and Tieflings are turned into generic races. It takes the special out of them and they become mundane. And there's the contradiction because they are not ordinary in Forgotten Realms. In tabletop with a good DM you can of course write a proper story around them, but not in a CRPG.

Imagine a 4 player party where everyone is a Tiefling, Dragonborn, Aasimar or Minotaur. It becomes a bit of a competition who's more fantastical. What was the story again? Right, there was a story that wasn't about these strange creatures. How are NPCs going to react to this spectacular gallery of the fantastical and monstrous when they enter the gates of Baldur's Gate?
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I don't like it when high fantasy races like Dragonblorn, Aasimar and Tieflings are turned into generic races. It takes the special out of them and they become mundane. And there's the contradiction because they are not ordinary in Forgotten Realms. In tabletop with a good DM you can of course write a proper story around them, but not in a CRPG.

Imagine a 4 player party where everyone is a Tiefling, Dragonborn, Aasimar or Minotaur. It becomes a bit of a competition who's more fantastical. What was the story again? Right, there was a story that wasn't about these strange creatures. How are NPCs going to react to this spectacular gallery of the fantastical and monstrous when they enter the gates of Baldur's Gate?

Yeah that's why I think most of the remaining companions should be human. Throw in a dwarf, sure, but I want more humans. I'm personally unhappy with the possibility of a tiefling paladin in the party but it looks like it's happening. At least I can kill her if I don't like her, which is always a nice touch in video games.
Originally Posted by Eldath
I'm personally unhappy with the possibility of a tiefling paladin in the party but it looks like it's happening. At least I can kill her if I don't like her, which is always a nice touch in video games.

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is with tiefling paladin.
Since the third edition, D&D began experimenting with the paladin archetype, which led to the emergence of classes such as antipaladin (blackguard), who known to affiliate themselves with demons and serve dark, generally malevolent deities, and are described as being hated by all other races and classes that serve good.. The Fifth Edition also features "unusual" versions of the paladin, from the Oath of Conquest paladins serving the forces of the Nine Hells to the Oathbreaker who replace the previously mentioned blackguards.
So what's the problem?
Originally Posted by Eldath

Yeah that's why I think most of the remaining companions should be human. Throw in a dwarf, sure, but I want more humans. I'm personally unhappy with the possibility of a tiefling paladin in the party but it looks like it's happening. At least I can kill her if I don't like her, which is always a nice touch in video games.


This would be the worst case scenario for me. We already have two humans and a half-human in the game. Let players who actually like the fantastical races have options too.
Originally Posted by SaurianDruid
Originally Posted by Eldath

Yeah that's why I think most of the remaining companions should be human. Throw in a dwarf, sure, but I want more humans. I'm personally unhappy with the possibility of a tiefling paladin in the party but it looks like it's happening. At least I can kill her if I don't like her, which is always a nice touch in video games.


This would be the worst case scenario for me. We already have two humans and a half-human in the game. Let players who actually like the fantastical races have options too.


+1, I'd like a no-humans-allowed party. Tried to make it in BG1, but Branwen (and party comp/alignment matters) ruined my plans. :P

However, I agree with this:

Originally Posted by 1varangian
I don't like it when high fantasy races like Dragonblorn, Aasimar and Tieflings are turned into generic races. It takes the special out of them and they become mundane. And there's the contradiction because they are not ordinary in Forgotten Realms. In tabletop with a good DM you can of course write a proper story around them, but not in a CRPG.


The "special" races should feel special and be rare in the world. For companions, have a good explanation why they're what they are and why they're there. I think the tiefling camp would work better later on in the game, once our perception is "anchored" in the mundane world of human peasants and Tolkien race common bandits.
The problem is that every aspect of the races and Lore are Human aspects translated into a Game World.

Orcs can be described as green painted human barbarian tribes.
Elfs are to often humanized and simply pretty humans and no long living race which have another view of the world.



A good race in my eyes are dwarfes because the living under the earth, the importance of crafting, and the isolated culture gives a mixture which cant be translated easy in a human version.
all gnome/drow custom parties ftw
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

The "special" races should feel special and be rare in the world. For companions, have a good explanation why they're what they are and why they're there. I think the tiefling camp would work better later on in the game, once our perception is "anchored" in the mundane world of human peasants and Tolkien race common bandits.


Too bad that D&D doesn't treat those races as special. Foe example in the latest D&D adventure up in the far north there is a dragonborn "protector" of a village with no explanation of how he got there all alone.
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is with tiefling paladin.
Since the third edition, D&D began experimenting with the paladin archetype, which led to the emergence of classes such as antipaladin (blackguard), who known to affiliate themselves with demons and serve dark, generally malevolent deities, and are described as being hated by all other races and classes that serve good.. The Fifth Edition also features "unusual" versions of the paladin, from the Oath of Conquest paladins serving the forces of the Nine Hells to the Oathbreaker who replace the previously mentioned blackguards.
So what's the problem?

Yeah I have a problem with evil paladins in general. Make them a separate class and call them blackguards. That's one thing 3rd edition definitely did better.
Basically this tiefling paladin is a special snowflake race with a special snowflake class.
The Paladin as a title was iconic of goodie two shoes, and it should have remained as such. The word "Paladin" still carries connotations of being an upstanding good person, which a tiefling is just not going to be, because that's not what they are about, for one, and for two, if they make our tiefling companion into an upstanding good person that will merely give a third exra special snowflake point at which I will just throw my hands up and murder her.
Actually scratch that, I will just be fooled by those "paladins" of Tyr and kill her.
There is nothing that says that tieflings can't be good. They're a standard PC race. They can be any alignment.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
There is nothing that says that tieflings can't be good. They're a standard PC race. They can be any alignment.

I know and I hate it.
Originally Posted by Eldath
That being said the one non-human companion I would love to have is a halfling MALE, because if we had to suffer through all those gnome companions in D&D games I think we finally deserve a properly written halfling. Just don't make him into a goofball, like a barbarian who carries a gigantic weapon on his small frame.


I enjoyed Tommi Undergallows as a halfling rogue companion in Neverwinter Nights, and I never thought it was a badly written companion.
I do like certain races having a penchant for good or evil but i feel like outright forcing them to be one alignment or the other is needlessly restrictive, especially when they're good or evil because of some abstract thing (like it would be for aasimar and tieflings) rather than because of something tangible, like the societies they live in. Probably why i find githyanki, that i knew nothing about before this game, kind of interesting, and same for drow and duergar.
Originally Posted by AnonySimon
Originally Posted by Eldath
That being said the one non-human companion I would love to have is a halfling MALE, because if we had to suffer through all those gnome companions in D&D games I think we finally deserve a properly written halfling. Just don't make him into a goofball, like a barbarian who carries a gigantic weapon on his small frame.


I enjoyed Tommi Undergallows as a halfling rogue companion in Neverwinter Nights, and I never thought it was a badly written companion.

Now there's a game I never played xD
I'd love an elfy elf too! I liked Sand in NWN 2 though even he could've been elfier since he lived in Neverwinter for a long time as merchant. I can't even remember a true elfish behaving companion in an RPG.
I also agree that the existing companions would profit from behaving a bit more like what and how old they are. Also a Paladin would really be nice. And a warrior that is not a psycho or arse. Some fellows that good aligned characters could get along with easily. The current cast seems to be for evil aligned characters really.


- Shadowheart seems to act like a very young half-elf at least in that her reactions truly seem to be just a front and behind that is the unexperienced and uncertain girl. I mean I could actually believe that one can kinda uh... educate or convince Shadowheart a bit because her core being seems not to be evil. Just her front.
- But Lae'Zel? No thanks lol. I'd rather kiss a real frog.
- And Alistair seems to be a boy, not a 200 years old man. If you do not actively stop him when you are careless enough to let him suck your blood, then he kills you. I don't like men who know no restraint and can't control themselves. Wouldn't even take him with an evil main character.
- Gale obviously has his own agenda. TOO friendly up front. Probably a manhunt for Shadowheart from what I've gotten out of the story so far. So I don't want to have him around. Also he eats my loot.
- Wyll just seemed uninteresting, dunno. "I'm the hero, yeah yeah. Lets do the good yeah, yeah. Also there's totally no demon involved with me, yadda yudda". And in combat he kinda sucks. But thats probably only me disliking warlocks.
Originally Posted by Eldath

Yeah I have a problem with evil paladins in general. Make them a separate class and call them blackguards. That's one thing 3rd edition definitely did better.

Strictly speaking, the blackguard was something of an prestige classes of the paladin, like a arcane trickster for the rogue.
In general, there were additional rules for blackguards who had paladin levels.
And I don't really understand why you should create many classes instead of making several ordered classes with many subclasses.
By the way, due to the number of classes it does not help the balance too much.
Originally Posted by Eldath

The word "Paladin" still carries connotations of being an upstanding good person, which a tiefling is just not going to be, because that's not what they are about, for one, and for two, if they make our tiefling companion into an upstanding good person that will merely give a third exra special snowflake point at which I will just throw my hands up and murder her.

It seems to me that "oathbreaker" does not sound very heroic.
Originally Posted by Eldath

I know and I hate it.

Why?
I would understand your idea if it was about cambions, but these are tieflings. The legacy of the fiends is not so strong in them. None of the editions indicate that the tiefling will always be evil and the aasimar good.
In addition, in the history of D&D, there have been cases when originally evil creatures could be good. Remember the Fall-from-Grace from Planescape.
I'd like to see the progeny of the infamous Noober or Neeber be a recruitable companion. Ideally on a quest to redeem his annoying ancestor I suppose.

But seriously, some companions who are a little more toned down, in that they are not a vampire, werewolf, beholden to a demon, feed on magical items etc. I have to keep reminding myself that this is EA and Larian are probably throwing the kitchen sink at us to gauge the response.
I guess in a more general sense its important to be able to form a fairly well balanced good AND evil party... and a good benchmark for the game probably how much flexibility you have with both...

Pet peeve of mine playing an evil character with a bunch of squares around... and the whole immersion thing...
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
The legacy of the fiends is not so strong in them

Well they sure look like creatures that should be slaughtered on sight to me. Sorry. If it has horns I will cut it down.
How about a Male centaur say a Ranger with a Romance option for the ladies.....
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
The legacy of the fiends is not so strong in them

Well they sure look like creatures that should be slaughtered on sight to me. Sorry. If it has horns I will cut it down.

How evil of you
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
The legacy of the fiends is not so strong in them

Well they sure look like creatures that should be slaughtered on sight to me. Sorry. If it has horns I will cut it down.

How evil of you


No, you see if it looks like a devil then it is. And devils are evil. I will just spare the world the misery of their existence.
Originally Posted by Eldath

Well they sure look like creatures that should be slaughtered on sight to me. Sorry. If it has horns I will cut it down.

Well, if you're playing an evil character, then why not?
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by Eldath

Well they sure look like creatures that should be slaughtered on sight to me. Sorry. If it has horns I will cut it down.

Well, if you're playing an evil character, then why not?

That's like saying that good people should just sit back and tolerate everthing.
Good =/= tolerance, you know.
This is a very dangerous line of thought lol
Originally Posted by Abits
This is a very dangerous line of thought lol

Truth is dangerous
Who's truth? Your truth? Hitler's truth? Al quiad's truth? Postmodern us university's truth?
Originally Posted by Abits
Who's truth? Your truth? Hitler's truth? Al quiad's truth? Postmodern us university's truth?

There can be only one ultimate truth. IF there are several, then truth by definition doesn't exist, and as a consequence, neither does good or evil. In which case killing everyone you dislike is just as moral as not doing so, and no-one should care about people's moral outrage about someone genociding tieflings
Responding any further will probably force me to digress into politics and history more than I would have liked, so I'll just say that even if there is one truth, your notion of being so sure you know it and willing to kill people for it is stupid and dangerous.
I'll finish with a small quote I think is appropriate:
Four legs good, two legs bad"
Originally Posted by Abits
Responding any further will probably force me to digress into politics and history more than I would have liked, so I'll just say that even if there is one truth, your notion of being so sure you know it and willing to kill people for it is stupid and dangerous.
I'll finish with a small quote I think is appropriate:
Four legs good, two legs bad"


The point of this discussion here is that you either accept there is a truth or you don't. If you do, that gives you the possibility of morality, if you don't, nothing matters anyway.
And saying that goodness is equivalent to tolerance is demonstrably false, as such the idea that if you are a good guy you are supposed to just roll with the flow is also wrong.
Evil wins when good men do nothing.
All true. I'm still not sure how you made the leap into "if it has horns I'll cut it down".
Originally Posted by Abits
All true. I'm still not sure how you made the leap into "if it has horns I'll cut it down".

Because it's a video game in which devils demons and stuff like that are evil and seek to cause harm. Exceptions may occur, but they are the exception and not the rule, so your prejudices are actually justified. To treat tieflings as if they were just human is actually a problem because they fundamentally are not human the same way elves aren't.
You are basically reducing an entire species to cosmetics.
And you reduce them to evil because of their heritage, even though if we talk about truth a good aligned tiefling is objectively and factually possible as much as an evil human. I guess we are both racist pricks
Cutting down all tieflings on sight sounds very much like the kind of things a racist, narrow-minded, righteous paladin or other noble knight could very much do (though that's certainly not the kind of paladin I intend to play). Of course, it is evil, from our point of view as players. But for a certain type of character, that would be thought of as a very good deed. In fact, I would see this type of slaughter coming from a misguided good character a lot more easily than a murder-loving-muhaha-so-evil character who thinks they can get away with that since nobody will stand for tieflings anyway.
Originally Posted by Abits
And you reduce them to evil because of their heritage, even though if we talk about truth a good aligned tiefling is objectively and factually possible as much as an evil human. I guess we are both racist pricks

Possibility doesn't translate to actuality. We are talking about a race descended from demons and/or devils, whose favored class was always thief, rogue or warlock and who have an affinity towards fiends.
Just like with the drow it is very fair to say that they are an evil race despite the fact that outliers may exist.
Also prejudice in a world full of species that want to eat your brain or want to sacrifice you to please some tsundere goddess, is perfectly reasonable and justified.
D&D shouldn't have to try to appeal to our modern sensibilities about morality.
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Cutting down all tieflings on sight sounds very much like the kind of things a racist, narrow-minded, righteous paladin or other noble knight could very much do (though that's certainly not the kind of paladin I intend to play). Of course, it is evil, from our point of view as players. But for a certain type of character, that would be thought of as a very good deed. In fact, I would see this type of slaughter coming from a misguided good character a lot more easily than a murder-loving-muhaha-so-evil character who thinks they can get away with that since nobody will stand for tieflings anyway.

Yeah I think we must understand that when we roleplay we are not supposed to have meta-knowledge of the D&D universe and lore.
But even in universe tieflings are not evil by nature... And it's supposed to be common knowledge isn't it? How is it any different from killing everyone in a village of humans that some of them are evil?
Let's be very careful with ascribing in-game behaviour to real-life and vice-versa.

That way madness, unrest and objectional language lies.
Originally Posted by Abits
But even in universe tieflings are not evil by nature... And it's supposed to be common knowledge isn't it? How is it any different from killing everyone in a village of humans that some of them are evil?

Well I disagree that a race descended from a race of evildoers is not evil by nature. That makes perfectly zero sense.
That's like saying there is nothing elfy about half-elves. I mean maybe there really is no difference between humans and halfelves and tieflings other then appearances, but that's actually bad design in my eyes. Tieflings shouldn't just be "humans with horns and tails"
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid. Another lore question. How favourably your (supposedly) good aligned God will look upon your extermination of the druid grove?
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by Eldath

Well they sure look like creatures that should be slaughtered on sight to me. Sorry. If it has horns I will cut it down.

Well, if you're playing an evil character, then why not?

That's like saying that good people should just sit back and tolerate everthing.
Good =/= tolerance, you know.

And what is so bad about the tieflings from the Sylvanus Grove, for example? Exists?
Originally Posted by Abits
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid.

Well, intelligence is a dump stat for a paladin.
I think this might be a wisdom problem rather than intelligence. It sounds to me like something an immature paladin who spent his entire life in a temple reading about tieflings and never actually seen one would think and say
Originally Posted by Abits
I think this might be a wisdom problem rather than intelligence. It sounds to me like something an immature paladin who spent his entire life in a temple reading about tieflings and never actually seen one would think and say

Wisdom, at least in the fifth edition, is also not very useful for paladins, well, unless they need a decent Insight score. In fact, most paladin builds only need high levels of charisma, strength, and constitution.
Come to think of it, jokes about stupid paladins did not appear out of nowhere.
Originally Posted by Abits
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid. Another lore question. How favourably your (supposedly) good aligned God will look upon your extermination of the druid grove?

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's smart or stupid. What matters is whether it's immersive and authentic or not. Tieflings by and large are an overwhelmingly alien and in fact less then good race. The only difference between them and goblins is that they are a bit smarter and you like how they look. That's it.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Abits
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid. Another lore question. How favourably your (supposedly) good aligned God will look upon your extermination of the druid grove?

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's smart or stupid. What matters is whether it's immersive and authentic or not. Tieflings by and large are an overwhelmingly alien and in fact less then good race. The only difference between them and goblins is that they are a bit smarter and you like how they look. That's it.


I'm new to the franchise and must admit that how the tieflings are presented is passing strange to me? I mean just as soon as you visit the druid grove they all seem like the most normal and sweet people that one could ever meet and yet they all stem from within the Nine Hells?? The nature of the goblins make sense, but these tieflings absolutely do not to me. Now if they acted and came across like proper citizens of the hells, I believe that it would make the choice between siding with the Druid Grove or the Goblin Camp a far more interesting dilemma?

Kagha stands out as much more in line with what a tiefling persona should probably look like, and she's an elf?
Originally Posted by Capt.Wells

I'm new to the franchise and must admit that how the tieflings are presented is passing strange to me? I mean just as soon as you visit the druid grove they all seem like the most normal and sweet people that one could ever meet and yet they all stem from within the Seven Hells??

In fact, tieflings are ordinary people. Their specific appearance is due to the fact that their ancestors were somehow influenced by fiends.
Perhaps their ancestor was a warlock who took an oath to one of the fiends, maybe he was a Cambion, maybe they were subjected to planar influence in the mother womb... There are many options. In any case, a drop of fiends' blood does not make them evil.
And, one more thing, Nine Hells.
And since we are talking about Nine Hells, not all of tieflings come from baatezu. The ancestor of the tiefling can also be the yugoloth, tanar'ri, and more specific types of fiends. In the 3rd edition, tieflings were mentioned, descended from night hags. This is continues in Pathfinder, where tieflings can come from all fiends, even from qlippoth, strange fiends similar to Lovecraft monsters.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Abits
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid. Another lore question. How favourably your (supposedly) good aligned God will look upon your extermination of the druid grove?

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's smart or stupid. What matters is whether it's immersive and authentic or not. Tieflings by and large are an overwhelmingly alien and in fact less then good race. The only difference between them and goblins is that they are a bit smarter and you like how they look. That's it.
presumably Tieflings have been a part of the FR world for centuries, you're characterization isn't really informed by immersion but by your own meta-narrative perspective. Even fiends and devils in FR don't typically have horns and red skin, this is actually more of an indictment of WotC for condensing their own mythology into a race with a few uniform features.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Abits
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid. Another lore question. How favourably your (supposedly) good aligned God will look upon your extermination of the druid grove?

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's smart or stupid. What matters is whether it's immersive and authentic or not. Tieflings by and large are an overwhelmingly alien and in fact less then good race. The only difference between them and goblins is that they are a bit smarter and you like how they look. That's it.
presumably Tieflings have been a part of the FR world for centuries, you're characterization isn't really informed by immersion but by your own meta-narrative perspective. Even fiends and devils in FR don't typically have horns and red skin, this is actually more of an indictment of WotC for condensing their own mythology into a race with a few uniform features.

Well, the fourth edition is to blame for the tieflings looking like a "horned red devil". There it is justified by the fact that tieflings come from a group of people who have concluded an agreement with Asmodeus. And in this case, their appearance is justified.
As for the fifth edition, I still don't understand how the tiefling of Asmodeus, Levistus and tanar'ri tiefling could look the same in rulebook pictures.
Tieflings have no leanings towards evil in this edition. But it is correct that the common populace *does* look at them with great suspicion and for all they know, a tiefling might be an actual devil.

How a character reacts to a tiefling should depend on their moral nature and how much they know about the nature of devils and tieflings. Unfortunately, BG3 currently does a poor job of introducing you to the dilemma - and an even worse job of telling you about the preceding events surrounding Elturel.

Originally Posted by Leuenherz
Tieflings have no leanings towards evil in this edition. But it is correct that the common populace *does* look at them with great suspicion and for all they know, a tiefling might be an actual devil.

How a character reacts to a Tiefling should depend on their moral nature and how much they know about the nature of devils and Tieflings. Unfortunately, BG3 currently does a poor job of introducing you to the dilemma - and an even worse job of telling you about the preceding events surrounding Elturel.

This makes sense, I'm sure there's Tiefling racism stemming from their infernal ancestry, but I'm not sure there's going to be any society that they're not common enough in that the kind of attitude Eldath is advocating would be considered sanctioned, Innkeepers might refuse them service, sure, but the killing one on sight, I'm not so sure.

We've seen this already in BG:3 the Tiefling refugees were all residents of Elturel that the city exiled after their misadventure in Avernus. Though the particulars are still unclear. And you'll notice that Elturel didn't just kill them all.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Leuenherz
Tieflings have no leanings towards evil in this edition. But it is correct that the common populace *does* look at them with great suspicion and for all they know, a tiefling might be an actual devil.

How a character reacts to a Tiefling should depend on their moral nature and how much they know about the nature of devils and Tieflings. Unfortunately, BG3 currently does a poor job of introducing you to the dilemma - and an even worse job of telling you about the preceding events surrounding Elturel.

This makes sense, I'm sure there's Tiefling racism stemming from their infernal ancestry, but I'm not sure there's going to be any society that they're not common enough in that the kind of attitude Eldath is advocating would be considered sanctioned, Innkeepers might refuse them service, sure, but the killing one on sight, I'm not so sure.

We've seen this already in BG:3 the Tiefling refugees were all residents of Elturel that the city exiled after their misadventure in Avernus. Though the particulars are still unclear. And you'll notice that Elturel didn't just kill them all.


Yes, tieflings will typically just be segregated and be forced into the poorer parts of a town or city, unless we are talking about particularly cosmopolitan areas like Waterdeep.

"Kill on sight" is an attitude that a tiefling *might* run into in a particularly rural area that has never seen one. Even then, a couple of village hicks are probably gonna be too afraid of the "devil" to attack it.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Abits
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid. Another lore question. How favourably your (supposedly) good aligned God will look upon your extermination of the druid grove?

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's smart or stupid. What matters is whether it's immersive and authentic or not. Tieflings by and large are an overwhelmingly alien and in fact less then good race. The only difference between them and goblins is that they are a bit smarter and you like how they look. That's it.

I like how the goblin look as well but I have no delusions about their intentions. The tieflings I met are just a lot of poor people with horns. If you kill them on sight because that's your idea of immersion more power to you I guess. Again stupid, but if it makes your experience feel more immersive go for it. It doesn't make it any less silly, whether it's in universe or otherwise
This is warning number two to keep things civil in this thread. This includes a strong recommendation to avoid passive-aggressive incivility and snarkiness. Look at the tone of your posts before committing them to the thread. The next step is suspensions.

If you cannot make your point without implying someone else is 'stupid' and 'wrong' in their interpretation of a fantasy, please just step away from the keyboard for a minute and compose a better way of expressing yourself. Nobody becomes a lesser being by stepping away from an argument. There are some good points being made here, so remember that other people are as invested in their gaming as you are and may not share your opinions. Communicate as you would if you were face to face with a fellow gamer.
Originally Posted by Capt.Wells
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Abits
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid. Another lore question. How favourably your (supposedly) good aligned God will look upon your extermination of the druid grove?

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it's smart or stupid. What matters is whether it's immersive and authentic or not. Tieflings by and large are an overwhelmingly alien and in fact less then good race. The only difference between them and goblins is that they are a bit smarter and you like how they look. That's it.


I'm new to the franchise and must admit that how the tieflings are presented is passing strange to me? I mean just as soon as you visit the druid grove they all seem like the most normal and sweet people that one could ever meet and yet they all stem from within the Nine Hells?? The nature of the goblins make sense, but these tieflings absolutely do not to me. Now if they acted and came across like proper citizens of the hells, I believe that it would make the choice between siding with the Druid Grove or the Goblin Camp a far more interesting dilemma?

Kagha stands out as much more in line with what a tiefling persona should probably look like, and she's an elf?


This post and others in those thread explains well how WotC botched tiefling design from 4th edition and onwards.



Originally Posted by Abits
And that's why I think paladins are so stupid. Another lore question. How favourably your (supposedly) good aligned God will look upon your extermination of the druid grove?


Hey now judging all Paladins as bad as because of one Paladin is just the same as...



Originally Posted by Leuenherz

Yes, tieflings will typically just be segregated and be forced into the poorer parts of a town or city, unless we are talking about particularly cosmopolitan areas like Waterdeep.

"Kill on sight" is an attitude that a tiefling *might* run into in a particularly rural area that has never seen one. Even then, a couple of village hicks are probably gonna be too afraid of the "devil" to attack it.


I feek Tieflings are much more likely to get murdered in cities than in the countryside. Tieflings are rare. There's not enough of them to ghettify them into their own neighbourhoods -- city folks should be just as likely to never have seen one as rural folks are. And there are a lot more people in cities and mob mentality is much, much stronger.



Originally Posted by Sadurian
Communicate as you would if you were face to face with a fellow gamer.


Your "face to face" rules no longer makes sense in corona times, old man! :P
Originally Posted by Dexai
Your "face to face" rules no longer makes sense in corona times, old man! :P

Fair point.
Originally Posted by Abits
The tieflings I met are just a lot of poor people with horns.

And that is exactly what the problem is. They are not, or the very least they are not supposed to be "just ordinary people with horns". They are an entirely different species.
This over humanization of them is exactly what destroys the importance of race in this game. Elves are just humans with pointy ears, halflings are just short humans, dwarves are just miner-vikings etc.
This is not a good thing. Races should be radically different, and simply making them LOOK different is utterly meaningless. It's like reducing someone to how they look on the outside.
Race should carry more meaning than that, especially in a medieval setting where mass literacy and education isn't a thing, so people can't be expected to know that they don't stand face to face with an actual devil (because let's face it they look like devils, they are related to devils, and assuming that they are just like you is absolutely unfounded).
If you want to sell me on the idea that tieflings are "just people", then make them a subrace of humans, otherwise I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

Also rest assured, I'm not interested in playing paladins, more of a rogue type of guy over here.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Abits
The tieflings I met are just a lot of poor people with horns.

And that is exactly what the problem is. They are not, or the very least they are not supposed to be "just ordinary people with horns". They are an entirely different species.
This over humanization of them is exactly what destroys the importance of race in this game. Elves are just humans with pointy ears, halflings are just short humans, dwarves are just miner-vikings etc.
This is not a good thing. Races should be radically different, and simply making them LOOK different is utterly meaningless. It's like reducing someone to how they look on the outside.
Race should carry more meaning than that, especially in a medieval setting where mass literacy and education isn't a thing, so people can't be expected to know that they don't stand face to face with an actual devil (because let's face it they look like devils, they are related to devils, and assuming that they are just like you is absolutely unfounded).
If you want to sell me on the idea that tieflings are "just people", then make them a subrace of humans, otherwise I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

These are fine points, the question is how you deal with them. You could go head against the wall and say "I don't care about the game narrative tieflings are supposed to be evil so I'll kill them all" or you can address the ones we actually got in the game, not some hypothetical ones.

I don't know much about tieflings outside of video games, but my assumption is that there are some good some neutral and some bad. You know what, even if most of them are evil, unless it's like 90 percent I don't think the attitude of "kill them all" makes any sense, in universe and otherwise. It doesn't mean you can't create a good written character that believe it is the right choice, but I can't see supposed character as anything other than a misguided at best and villain at worst.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Leuenherz

Yes, tieflings will typically just be segregated and be forced into the poorer parts of a town or city, unless we are talking about particularly cosmopolitan areas like Waterdeep.

"Kill on sight" is an attitude that a tiefling *might* run into in a particularly rural area that has never seen one. Even then, a couple of village hicks are probably gonna be too afraid of the "devil" to attack it.


I feek Tieflings are much more likely to get murdered in cities than in the countryside. Tieflings are rare. There's not enough of them to ghettify them into their own neighbourhoods -- city folks should be just as likely to never have seen one as rural folks are. And there are a lot more people in cities and mob mentality is much, much stronger.


The PHB itself talks about how tieflings "subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places". When I used the word "segregated", I did not mean to imply that they had their own districts all to themselves, but that they would be pushed to those ghettified places as a result of racial prejudice against them.

While I can see the argument that a tiefling is more likely to get murdered in the city (because an armed and organized gang is more likely to do so than a bunch of farmers), I don't think that is because city people are "as likely" to have never seen one. Tieflings are "rare" only in the sense that they will always form a very small minority where they can be found, but they're not unicorns.

Now, you might personally feel that they should be more rare, just as Eldath thinks they should be more evil, but I do not see where WotC's own official material supports that.
I am not able to reconcile what D&D really means by "race", other than the tables of abilities in the player's handbook.

The basic biological taxonomy goes as follows:
kingdom,
phylum,
class,
order,
family,
genus, and
species

Then where do Tieflings branch away from humans? They seem to have a spinal cord, so the phylum "chordata" is the same. I would guess they could be considered mammals? But on the other hand, maybe they could actually be in a different class. Once again, the virtue of unknowing reveals itself.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by Abits
The tieflings I met are just a lot of poor people with horns.

And that is exactly what the problem is. They are not, or the very least they are not supposed to be "just ordinary people with horns". They are an entirely different species.
This over humanization of them is exactly what destroys the importance of race in this game. Elves are just humans with pointy ears, halflings are just short humans, dwarves are just miner-vikings etc.
This is not a good thing. Races should be radically different, and simply making them LOOK different is utterly meaningless. It's like reducing someone to how they look on the outside.
Race should carry more meaning than that, especially in a medieval setting where mass literacy and education isn't a thing, so people can't be expected to know that they don't stand face to face with an actual devil (because let's face it they look like devils, they are related to devils, and assuming that they are just like you is absolutely unfounded).
If you want to sell me on the idea that tieflings are "just people", then make them a subrace of humans, otherwise I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

Also rest assured, I'm not interested in playing paladins, more of a rogue type of guy over here.
you want to be careful calling this a medieval setting, it's a pastiche of eras ranging from Imperial Rome to the Renaissance. There's also the question of what exactly a Tiefling is that doesn't seem to be clear anymore. I'm a 3e hack so to me they've always been normal people who through a quirk of birth have a very faint reflection of an Outsider in their blood, now that they've been made their own race I'm not really sure where Tieflings come from or where new Tieflings come from. For better or worse most areas we play in the FR are pretty cosmopolitan, even the rural areas don't think elves and demons are mythological creatures (though they might have strange ideas about them).

As for the homogenization of the near-human races, I think this is more apparent mechanically than narratively, but I hardly have my ear to the ground in terms of the standard D&D setting.
Originally Posted by Eldath

If you want to sell me on the idea that tieflings are "just people", then make them a subrace of humans, otherwise I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

Well, strictly speaking, tieflings from the fourth edition have become a subrace of humans. So, Bael Turath was a human empire, from where virtually all 4th edition tieflings originated.
Nothing has changed in the fifth edition, where tieflings have human proportions, and non-human tieflings are not mentioned at all.
Funnily enough, Pathfinder, who originally gave many pedigrees of tieflings and assumed that they could not only be humans, changed this in the second edition, making tieflings a subrace of humans.
The same is true of aasimar.
Originally Posted by Argyle
I am not able to reconcile what D&D really means by "race", other than the tables of abilities in the player's handbook.

The basic biological taxonomy goes as follows:
kingdom,
phylum,
class,
order,
family,
genus, and
species

Then where do Tieflings branch away from humans? They seem to have a spinal cord, so the phylum "chordata" is the same. I would guess they could be considered mammals? But on the other hand, maybe they could actually be in a different class. Once again, the virtue of unknowing reveals itself.
I don't think Zoology in D&D would have the same kind of system of classification. really
Originally Posted by Argyle
I am not able to reconcile what D&D really means by "race", other than the tables of abilities in the player's handbook.

The basic biological taxonomy goes as follows:
kingdom,
phylum,
class,
order,
family,
genus, and
species

Then where do Tieflings branch away from humans? They seem to have a spinal cord, so the phylum "chordata" is the same. I would guess they could be considered mammals? But on the other hand, maybe they could actually be in a different class. Once again, the virtue of unknowing reveals itself.


The term "race" is certainly misleading. As you suggest, "race" exists merely as a mechanical construct in DnD, at least for player characters.

With a few exceptions, all available player races are classified as "humanoids" and among those, almost all of them can interbreed. In biological terms, it'd make sense to classify them as part of the same genus. From there, it gets tricky, because magic enters the equation. Tieflings are, for the most part, humans, whose bloodline got changed by fiendish essence.
My issue with kill all tieflings attitude is related to the rules of this world as I understand them (and as very patient forum users explained them to me). If we know that in FR there are inherently good and inherently evil beings, but there are those that aren't (like the php races that could have any alignment). If you arbitrarily decide that because X percentage of tieflings are evil all tieflings are evil, why not apply this logic to all other races that are not inherently good?
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by Eldath

If you want to sell me on the idea that tieflings are "just people", then make them a subrace of humans, otherwise I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

Well, strictly speaking, tieflings from the fourth edition have become a subrace of humans. So, Bael Turath was a human empire, from where virtually all 4th edition tieflings originated.
Nothing has changed in the fifth edition, where tieflings have human proportions, and non-human tieflings are not mentioned at all.
Funnily enough, Pathfinder, who originally gave many pedigrees of tieflings and assumed that they could not only be humans, changed this in the second edition, making tieflings a subrace of humans.
The same is true of aasimar.


Tieflings, and all Planetouched races, use to be assumed to be planetouched subtypes of human, rules-wise. As far as I know, at least. Fluff-wise there's always been the extrapolated existence of non-human tieflings, but whenever such a thing has been rule-ified it's usually under a different name -- Fey'ri (elf/demon), Whispling (halfling/fiend), Tanarukk (Orc/Fiend) for example. I am not sure whether or not these are direct equivalents to tieflings, though, but they're similar.

Anyway, this human-subtype assumption actually changed with 4th edition. Previously, tieflings did not breed true. Two humans could have a tiefling child, and two tieflings were more likely to give birth to an ordinary human than they were another tiefling. What caused Tieflings to be born was supernatural influences, or bloodlines that lay dormant and unexpressed for generations. But 4th Ed decided to make them their own, true-breeding race. Sure, they were still descended from humans. But now all tieflings had tiefling parents and made tiefling children (and they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same). I think it's pretty fair to consider them no longer a type of human but their own race entirely.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by Eldath

If you want to sell me on the idea that tieflings are "just people", then make them a subrace of humans, otherwise I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

Well, strictly speaking, tieflings from the fourth edition have become a subrace of humans. So, Bael Turath was a human empire, from where virtually all 4th edition tieflings originated.
Nothing has changed in the fifth edition, where tieflings have human proportions, and non-human tieflings are not mentioned at all.
Funnily enough, Pathfinder, who originally gave many pedigrees of tieflings and assumed that they could not only be humans, changed this in the second edition, making tieflings a subrace of humans.
The same is true of aasimar.
Tieflings, and all Planetouched races, use to be assumed to be planetouched subtypes of human, rules-wise. As far as I know, at least. Fluff-wise there's always been the extrapolated existence of non-human tieflings, but whenever such a thing has been rule-ified it's usually under a different name -- Fey'ri (elf/demon), Whispling (halfling/fiend), Tanarukk (Orc/Fiend) for example. I am not sure whether or not these are direct equivalents to tieflings, though, but they're similar.

Anyway, this human-subtype assumption actually changed with 4th edition. Previously, tieflings did not breed true. Two humans could have a tiefling child, and two tieflings were more likely to give birth to an ordinary human than they were another tiefling. What caused Tieflings to be born was supernatural influences, or bloodlines that lay dormant and unexpressed for generations. But 4th Ed decided to make them their own, true-breeding race. Sure, they were still descended from humans. But now all tieflings had tiefling parents and made tiefling children (and they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same). I think it's pretty fair to consider them no longer a type of human but their own race entirely.
Very true, but because of the popularity of Tieflings (and seemingly for no other reason) they've been given very special treatment, to the point that I'm not sure they're can really be considered Planetouched anymore.
Originally Posted by Abits
My issue with kill all tieflings attitude is related to the rules of this world as I understand them (and as very patient forum users explained them to me). If we know that in FR there are inherently good and inherently evil beings, but there are those that aren't (like the php races that could have any alignment). If you arbitrarily decide that because X percentage of tieflings are evil all tieflings are evil, why not apply this logic to all other races that are not inherently good?


I'm sure the answer to this is pretty obvious.
Let's say that 99% of all drow everywhere are baby-eating murderous bastards who would kill you for the sheer fun of it.
And then let's say 60% of all gnomes are standoffish isolationist who just want to stay out of your way and leave you alone.

No-one would equivocate between killing a drow and a gnome on first sight under these circumstances.
At that point, killing a drow on first sight is either self-defense or a favor to the realms, while gnomes just leave everyone alone and for the most part they don't hurt anyone even though 40% of them might be up to no good. The point is not about moral perfection, the point is about some races being dangerous and actively harmful to everyone else.
If you can kill a 100 drow with only one of them being someone who isn't explicitly evil, can anyone justifiably blame you for prejudice, when statistically speaking, your prejudice makes the world a better place? I mean, most places in the realms are not going to be nice to orcs, because orcs are primitive savages who will murder and rape for fun (hence half-orcs).

Add to that the fact that in the Forgotten realms you can just worship a God who is okay with this kind of behaviour and you get yourself an afterlife that is not Hell. Case in point: Kagha
I mean who is going to blame someone in the Forgotten Realms for dedicating their lives to the elimination of goblins, drow or orcs? And why should he care about other people's judgement? There is an elven deity whose portfolio is exterminating the drow (unless they removed him).
I try very hard to see your point, and at some stage I thought perhaps in the realms it would morally good while not in the real world and vise versa, but no matter how much I think of that I can't find it "good". If you are talking about self defense it is something else entirely. But if you kill someone on sight because he might be evil* you are evil. If any of the good aligned Gods allow this kind of behaviour it is more of problem of the settings than of your train of thought.

*Not talking about situations like war zone or something like that.
Originally Posted by Dexai

Tieflings, and all Planetouched races, use to be assumed to be planetouched subtypes of human, rules-wise. As far as I know, at least. Fluff-wise there's always been the extrapolated existence of non-human tieflings, but whenever such a thing has been rule-ified it's usually under a different name -- Fey'ri (elf/demon), Whispling (halfling/fiend), Tanarukk (Orc/Fiend) for example. I am not sure whether or not these are direct equivalents to tieflings, though, but they're similar.

Tiefling is a pretty broad concept. Baphitaur (Half-demon minotaurs, chosen by Baphomet), for example, were recognized as tieflings. Same with Durzagon (Half-Devil Duergar).
Personally, I'd love to see the return of non-human versions of tieflings as playable races.
Originally Posted by Dexai

Anyway, this human-subtype assumption actually changed with 4th edition. Previously, tieflings did not breed true.

Not really. Until the 4th edition, tieflings could produce offspring with fiends, the result was cambions. By the way, cambions could also produce offspring. For example, Ravel from Planescape had a tiefling daughter, conceived by Cambion.
Originally Posted by Dexai

I think it's pretty fair to consider them no longer a type of human but their own race entirely.

Well, I agree with you.
Originally Posted by Abits
I try very hard to see your point, and at some stage I thought perhaps in the realms it would morally good while not in the real world and vise versa, but no matter how much I think of that I can't find it "good". If you are talking about self defense it is something else entirely. But if you kill someone on sight because he might be evil* you are evil. If any of the good aligned Gods allow this kind of behaviour it is more of problem of the settings than of your train of thought.

*Not talking about situations like war zone or something like that.


It's not about being good it's about being acceptable. If you go to a forest and you see a hag, virtually no-one is going to judge you for killing her and then bragging about it, because it is understood that hags are evil creatures that eat babies and make people's live miserable.
The same way, if you kill a red dragon without said dragon first initiating combat, no-one will call you an irredeemable villain for it, because red dragons are cruel and evil beasts (even though they are sentient).
Now here we arrive at drow. It is understood in the realms that the drow are evil, cruel, and seek the death of all surfacers to please their evil goddess. Killing a drow wouldn't be considered a crime pretty much anywhere, because the tales about the drow being evil are actually true, and the chance that you killed a "good drow" is virtually zero. Keep in mind that you are not killing the drow because it's evil, you are killing it because you know that drows seek to harm you or others on the surface.

The real world is very different, because in the real world we are all humans, God's existence can't be proven with material evidence and most importantly, we are the only sentient race on the planet.
Now, as for good aligned gods allowing this or that kind of behaviour, it's up to them. But there are most certainly plenty of neutral gods who aren't going to make a fuss about killing some drow or tiefling, and since your afterlife ultimately depends on faithfully serving your deity, everyone is incentivized to pick a deity whose tenets they can live up to, and whose afterlife they find to be appealing.
Kagha really isn't going to care that you think she is evil, because what she did doesn't really violate Silvanus. She will just die one day and end up in her chosen afterlife. Your judgements will mean nothing to her, because frankly, she has no reason to care for it.
Rule of thumb: Those who are attacked, have the right to defend. I don't like tieflings. They are hellspawn/abyss spawn. Being created in hell/abyss? You're evil. Died and ended up in hell/abyss? You're evil. Stay extended times in hell/abyss? The plane warps you into an evil being. It's part of how devils can turn demon and vise versa. Not even angels can resist the change forever let alone mortals. Will I go out of my way to kill them? No. Would I put myself in a position to be screwed over by them? Not if I can help it. Whether something is good or bad is relative and circumstantial.

Do tieflings have evil blood? Yes. Are tieflings evil? Depends. Actions speak louder than words and I do mostly trial by trial.

The humanization of races muddled things. If you don't like tieflings then you don't like tieflings. No need for general action unless something happens. Just be on guard and stick with what you like.

If you are concerned about being good you shouldn't kill anything. You might as well give up adventuring. Killing without purpose is chatioc evil. Killing with purpose is lawful good. Everything else is kind of grey. Is the problem being good or is the the problem tieflings?

That's how I see things at least.

Minor spoiler.
The tieflings are not as good as people think, and the druids are nowhere near as bad as people think. The only actual evil one so far in the grove drama is Zevlor. Everyone else is just grey. More info is in datamine topics and videos.
i kill all humans on sight. they are inherently evil and should be eradicated regardless of the odd "good human" (Never met one). I am lawful good and my god favors me for my actions.
First post, hay!

A little strange discussion of companions. I'll try to dilute it with my thoughts.

First run in BG3 i begin like a warlock with the fiend as patron. After first rest in camp and Karlach quest (and seeing portrait of Wyll ofcourse) i started thinking, that maybe, just maybe, the Larian Studios do some quest for classess and as warlock i will try save my soul in some devil mindgames with my patron... just like in "The Devil's Advocate" oh my! Ah, well, that was just another dream. But i remembered one very good game: Dark Messiah. And ofcourse - Xana, a demon that accompanies player all the way. She is one of my favorit companion, remembering how was changing my opinion about her from start to end of game, when you realised that she was not absolute evil, but still - the demon. I always liked that kind of companion when you dont know what going next: evil, not evil, good, not good. Something like this was in Divinity: Original Sin 2 with gods, or in Neverwinter Nights with Aribeth, well that the point: controversial character.

About races - whould like to see, some bestialy races, i think its great addition, having some "rare" companions make the jorney even more exotic. In Pathfinder you can take a kobold companion (not long), and goblin - that was nice expirience! In DOS2 cool lizard race, some kind of drakonids - wery proud and ambicious, really like them! In Mass Effect series you can fall in love with the alien races and there really good romances.

I like this kind of games for opportunities - the bigger, the better. Wanna be sneaky-peeky pinkhired orc-bastard with tiny knife? Ofcourse! Do you want to be the biggest and tallest in the party? Here - take a goblin, halfling and gnome with you! Liked this sssscales coldblooded lady? Well go and try, maybe she like you too! Or she will just eat you... How about building some kingdom of your own, mm? In DnD we play same way, it's all a matter of taste and having a choise is better part of game.

Sorry for mistakens, my english is not good. And sorry, not everything on the topic.
Originally Posted by VikNG
First post, hay!

A little strange discussion of companions. I'll try to dilute it with my thoughts.

First run in BG3 i begin like a warlock with the fiend as patron. After first rest in camp and Karlach quest (and seeing portrait of Wyll ofcourse) i started thinking, that maybe, just maybe, the Larian Studios do some quest for classess and as warlock i will try save my soul in some devil mindgames with my patron... just like in "The Devil's Advocate" oh my! Ah, well, that was just another dream. But i remembered one very good game: Dark Messiah. And ofcourse - Xana, a demon that accompanies player all the way. She is one of my favorit companion, remembering how was changing my opinion about her from start to end of game, when you realised that she was not absolute evil, but still - the demon. I always liked that kind of companion when you dont know what going next: evil, not evil, good, not good. Something like this was in Divinity: Original Sin 2 with gods, or in Neverwinter Nights with Aribeth, well that the point: controversial character.

About races - whould like to see, some bestialy races, i think its great addition, having some "rare" companions make the jorney even more exotic. In Pathfinder you can take a kobold companion (not long), and goblin - that was nice expirience! In DOS2 cool lizard race, some kind of drakonids - wery proud and ambicious, really like them! In Mass Effect series you can fall in love with the alien races and there really good romances.

I like this kind of games for opportunities - the bigger, the better. Wanna be sneaky-peeky pinkhired orc-bastard with tiny knife? Ofcourse! Do you want to be the biggest and tallest in the party? Here - take a goblin, halfling and gnome with you! Liked this sssscales coldblooded lady? Well go and try, maybe she like you too! Or she will just eat you... How about building some kingdom of your own, mm? In DnD we play same way, it's all a matter of taste and having a choise is better part of game.

Sorry for mistakens, my english is not good. And sorry, not everything on the topic.
Welcome to the forum, you're certain more on topic than all this Tiefling talk wink

I like the idea of class specific companions but I've seen nothing to point in that direction, they seem to want you to see everybody in one go (even if you decline to travel with them)

I thought the Kobold's and Mites in Pathfinder were cute, but like all the just sentient creatures could become parts of some creepy storylines. D&D goblins aren't quite as stupid as those guys but I'm not how Larian would translate that into a PC character.
Originally Posted by Argyle
I am not able to reconcile what D&D really means by "race", other than the tables of abilities in the player's handbook.

The basic biological taxonomy goes as follows:
kingdom,
phylum,
class,
order,
family,
genus, and
species

Then where do Tieflings branch away from humans? They seem to have a spinal cord, so the phylum "chordata" is the same. I would guess they could be considered mammals? But on the other hand, maybe they could actually be in a different class. Once again, the virtue of unknowing reveals itself.



The taxonomical classifications in Faerun do not reflect real life.

They are:

Humanoids: Any human-sized and vaguely human-shaped race.
Beasts: Non-sapient but naturally created creatures.
Aberrations: Tentacly creatures with crazy mind powers that usually come from other worlds.
Fey: Creatures from the Feywild.
Elemental: Elemental beings from the Elemental Planes.
Monstrosities: Usually magically created or otherwise freakish mutant things.
Fiends: Denizens of the lower planes.
Celestials: Denizens of the upper planes.
Dragons: Draconic creatures like dragons, wyverns, etc. For some reason kobolds and dragonborn don't count.

Probably more than I am missing.

Humans, gnomes, elves, etc are all humanoids. So are tabaxi, lizardfolk, tieflings, dragonborn, etc.

Some humanoids have ancestry that could classify then as something else but don't for mostly mechanical reasons. Dragonborn and kobolds are humanoids that are related to dragons. Tieflings are humanoids who are related to fiends. Shoot, elves are humanoids related to the Fey.

The concept of species is mostly meaningless in Faerun. Some races can breed true like humans, orcs, and elves while others cannot (to the best of my knowledge, I could be wrong) like dragonborn and lizardfolk. And even then with magic all things are possible. Dragons can breed true with basically anything with the use of polymorph.

Tieflings are the descendents of humans who made some blood pacts with devils for power. Thus the tieflings look like devils due to what their ancestors did but aren't actually bound to the Hells in any way, meaning they can be just as good or evil as anyone else.

On the other hand Yuan-Ti were humans who decided snakes were rad and went through some crazy rituals to become snake people. Part of this ritual involved killing their empathy for others, which is why their race is uniformly evil.

Both are new races that spun off from humanity due to magic shenanigans but their capacity for good is very different.

I hope this helps.
I thought so
Are Outsiders still a classification in 5e?
Originally Posted by Dexai
Are Outsiders still a classification in 5e?


I don't recall the term cropping up. It's certainly not used as an actual monster classification in the rules.
I think that the term 'Extraplanar' has somewhat taken that niche but D&D5e is, for some reason, less keen to have an overall label for creatures who originate from other than the Prime Material Plane.
Originally Posted by Leuenherz
Originally Posted by Dexai
Are Outsiders still a classification in 5e?


I don't recall the term cropping up. It's certainly not used as an actual monster classification in the rules.


I've noticed it as well, anyone has an idea why it's the case? There are many instances where it's specified "fiends, celestials, fey, elementals" (like Abjure the Extraplanar). Would be much easier with just "Outsiders" and the creatures having appropriate tags (Abishai: Outsider - fiend (devil) or something like that).
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Leuenherz
Originally Posted by Dexai
Are Outsiders still a classification in 5e?


I don't recall the term cropping up. It's certainly not used as an actual monster classification in the rules.


I've noticed it as well, anyone has an idea why it's the case? There are many instances where it's specified "fiends, celestials, fey, elementals" (like Abjure the Extraplanar). Would be much easier with just "Outsiders" and the creatures having appropriate tags (Abishai: Outsider - fiend (devil) or something like that).


According to Mike Mearls they removed it, because it was too "generic".

Here is a link for a tweet from Mike Mearls regarding the subject: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/08/07/outsider-where-did-they-go-in-5e-why/

Personally, I would've thought it was due streamlining and minimizing creature types and tags.
The more characters the merrier and the more diverse the better. I love all the current companions but I feel there is a little overlap in their demeanor at times. Here are two ideas that I would enjoy seeing in the game:

A mature knight errant or ronin styled paladin. - Not your stereotypical cartoonish naïve judgmental douche.
One that is wise, reserved, and careful in their judgment of others. They have a philosophical depth to them. A stoic nuanced paladin perhaps seeking redemption to an oath sworn not to a god but a lost lover or mentor. They are rarely snarky and would retort to humorous jabs at them or the situation with wise stoic one-liners imparting lessons of wisdom and honor. This character could be any race or sex but I think they would be most interesting as a female dwarf.
---
A struggling adventuring Sorcerer who is introverted, self-loathing, mostly sad, rarely brave but is incredibly powerful. They could get their powers from a cursed bloodline and prefer solitude so they don’t hurt others when they lose control of their wild magic; perhaps they too are seeking a powerful healer or magic-user to help them control or get rid of their powers/curse.
Originally Posted by Thorion
The more characters the merrier and the more diverse the better. I love all the current companions but I feel there is a little overlap in their demeanor at times. Here are two ideas that I would enjoy seeing in the game:

A mature knight errant or ronin styled paladin. - Not your stereotypical cartoonish naïve judgmental douche.
One that is wise, reserved, and careful in their judgment of others. They have a philosophical depth to them. A stoic nuanced paladin perhaps seeking redemption to an oath sworn not to a god but a lost lover or mentor. They are rarely snarky and would retort to humorous jabs at them or the situation with wise stoic one-liners imparting lessons of wisdom and honor. This character could be any race or sex but I think they would be most interesting as a female dwarf.
---
A struggling adventuring Sorcerer who is introverted, self-loathing, mostly sad, rarely brave but is incredibly powerful. They could get their powers from a cursed bloodline and prefer solitude so they don’t hurt others when they lose control of their wild magic; perhaps they too are seeking a powerful healer or magic-user to help them control or get rid of their powers/curse.


Man, these are great, love the idea.
Originally Posted by Leuenherz
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Leuenherz
Originally Posted by Dexai
Are Outsiders still a classification in 5e?


I don't recall the term cropping up. It's certainly not used as an actual monster classification in the rules.


I've noticed it as well, anyone has an idea why it's the case? There are many instances where it's specified "fiends, celestials, fey, elementals" (like Abjure the Extraplanar). Would be much easier with just "Outsiders" and the creatures having appropriate tags (Abishai: Outsider - fiend (devil) or something like that).


According to Mike Mearls they removed it, because it was too "generic".

Here is a link for a tweet from Mike Mearls regarding the subject: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/08/07/outsider-where-did-they-go-in-5e-why/

Personally, I would've thought it was due streamlining and minimizing creature types and tags.


Thanks for the link!

Huh. That's a weird excuse...? Maybe they first developed the classification (only types and tags) and decided to stick to it, even if it's limiting. Then again, I see that, for example, abishai are "Type: Fiend, Tag(s): Devil". So nothing seems to stand in the way of adding "Outsider" tag, even if it's not the "type".
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

I actually want Gnomes, Halflings and Dwarves.. i have no interest in edgy drows and githyanki..



I agree on dwarves and halflings, but if gnomes were deleted from the D&D universe, that would frankly bet a net benefit to all of us.

You realise Halflings are smaller than Gnomes in D&D.
That said whats the hate on Gnomes that can't be added to Halflings?
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
This is why Dark Sun is the best D&D setting. Gnomes have been entirely wiped out.


You really hate short people.



I don't hate short people. Gnomes are not people.

Also, Dark Sun halflings are AWESOME.

I don't get you don't like Gnomes but you are ok with Halflings.... What... confused

How are Gnomes not people, Elves are not people then, neither are humans or Drow.. You sound like you just say stuff to set off flame wars..

If anything is not people its Teiflings.. They are kind of an organic construct.. made by devils.
Add a succubus companion, a romanceable succubus companion and I"ll be happy
Originally Posted by Iszaryn
Add a succubus companion, a romanceable succubus companion and I"ll be happy

Having a succubus/incubus companion that was non-romanceable would be odd. And I use the word 'romanceable' in its loosest form, here.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Iszaryn
Add a succubus companion, a romanceable succubus companion and I"ll be happy

Having a succubus/incubus companion that was non-romanceable would be odd. And I use the word 'romanceable' in its loosest form, here.


Planescape: Torment did it.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Iszaryn
Add a succubus companion, a romanceable succubus companion and I"ll be happy

Having a succubus/incubus companion that was non-romanceable would be odd. And I use the word 'romanceable' in its loosest form, here.


Planescape: Torment did it.


No kisses then.

PsT did it and did it right. Although FFG's promise was sweet and, one can say, even romantic. wink
I kill every companion I meet.......
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

I actually want Gnomes, Halflings and Dwarves.. i have no interest in edgy drows and githyanki..



I agree on dwarves and halflings, but if gnomes were deleted from the D&D universe, that would frankly bet a net benefit to all of us.

You realise Halflings are smaller than Gnomes in D&D.
That said whats the hate on Gnomes that can't be added to Halflings?


It has nothing to do with height, it has everything to do with being a forced "look how cute and funny I am" race.
Truly, I would sooner exterminate gnomes then tieflings, and I really hate tieflings.
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

If anything is not people its Teiflings.. They are kind of an organic construct.. made by devils.

And in what edition are tieflings described as "organic construct made by devils"?
Personally, I don’t remember the fifth, third, second or even fourth edition described them like that.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

I actually want Gnomes, Halflings and Dwarves.. i have no interest in edgy drows and githyanki..



I agree on dwarves and halflings, but if gnomes were deleted from the D&D universe, that would frankly bet a net benefit to all of us.

You realise Halflings are smaller than Gnomes in D&D.
That said whats the hate on Gnomes that can't be added to Halflings?


It has nothing to do with height, it has everything to do with being a forced "look how cute and funny I am" race.
Truly, I would sooner exterminate gnomes then tieflings, and I really hate tieflings.

I dunno what type of Gnomes you play but halflings fit that description way more.. Halflings are way more cutsey.

Originally Posted by BuckettMonkey
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

If anything is not people its Teiflings.. They are kind of an organic construct.. made by devils.

And in what edition are tieflings described as "organic construct made by devils"?
Personally, I don’t remember the fifth, third, second or even fourth edition described them like that.

Well their whole race is by product of devil deals and pacts, how are they made not by sex originally..

Tieflings were usually descended from fiends but not the same as half-fiends, since a Tiefling's fiendish ancestry lies further up the family tree. This description remained true in 3rd Edition. In 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, tieflings are a race whose human ancestors made a bargain with devils to increase their power.

They are made like a construct.
Please add Sazza as a character we can romance or at least add female Gnome and Halfling to be romance

Thanks

Or please let us make our own companions.
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
Well their whole race is by product of devil deals and pacts, how are they made not by sex originally..

Tieflings were usually descended from fiends but not the same as half-fiends, since a Tiefling's fiendish ancestry lies further up the family tree. This description remained true in 3rd Edition. In 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, tieflings are a race whose human ancestors made a bargain with devils to increase their power.

They are made like a construct.

So you're not considering tieflings descended from the copulation of a cambion and a mortal race? Or tieflings and other tieflings? Or splash of power from the Lower Planes?
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

They are made like a construct.

For fun's sake, do you consider other planetouched races to be "organic constructs"?
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
Please add Sazza as a character we can romance or at least add female Gnome and Halfling to be romance

Thanks

Or please let us make our own companions.

You already can make your own companions. Or at least they promised you could.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
Please add Sazza as a character we can romance or at least add female Gnome and Halfling to be romance

Thanks

Or please let us make our own companions.

You already can make your own companions. Or at least they promised you could.


Making entire custom parties is indeed in the game now, but you need to jump through hoops to do it.
A hot and busty companion.
A companion that is prostitute. Please keep in mind that in my country Finland, Europe prostitution is legal and I personally do note see nothing wrong in it (as long as adult age and voluntary) though prostitution is much less common then say in Germany Europe.

Aah a monster like Succubus though the TV series that I found an succubus was to lame for my taste.

If no such companion included then please later acts a Brothel.

Oh and please do not consider this a political statement. I am talking about stuff into a game.
I think we kinda need a classical paladin type (male, human, noble soul, Devotion Oath) in this game, because so far the party is very edgy, which is fine as long as there are some companions who are grounded.
I mean this game is practically screaming for someone who is just "normal"
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
A companion that is prostitute.


But we already have Astarion
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
A companion that is prostitute.


But we already have Astarion

I am interested to see naked women and not naked men.

I have nothing against Astarion as a party member though.

You can have romance with at least possibly some of the characters I know....
Originally Posted by Bruh
I think we kinda need a classical paladin type (male, human, noble soul, Devotion Oath) in this game, because so far the party is very edgy, which is fine as long as there are some companions who are grounded.
I mean this game is practically screaming for someone who is just "normal"


First, they have released they less Good characters so far. They almost surely have at least one goody-two-shoes in stock.

Also, why human ? Why male ?

And I surely don't view a noble Paladin as normal. Even when they're not portrayed as narrow-minded and stupid, these people are not normal.

In some promotional material, one can see a Tiefling. Who looks like a Cleric though. I don't know if he's meant to be an Origins Character, or a custom PC. I wouldn't mind a Tiefling Paladin. There's a female Tiefling in the Druid Grove who sounds like she could be Paladin or Fighter (can't remember her name right now, she bets she won't make it alive to Baldur's Gate).
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn


Also, why human ? Why male ?


Because I want something classical. It doesn't get more classical then a handsome buff dude swinging a sword in the name of goodness and being real about it too.
So far everyone is very edgy, I need someone who is mellow, totally normal and exactly what I'd expect him to be, at least on the surface. Why? Because that will make all the other characters stand out, while still allowing you to have someone who is very relatable to you. We already have mrs. strong woman in our party, we also have secretive cleric chick, and they are fine, I love SH especially.
Now you could say that classics are boring, but I beg to differ. We need classics, and I never find paladins boring, or "narrow minded and stupid".
Also, it would be interesting to roleplay the classical knight striving to uphold his vows while his mind is being screwed with. (I expect all our companions will also be available origin characters.

A tiefling (female) paladin on the other hand would be just another edgy snowflake, a total subversion of the classical archetype. It has a right to exist, of course, I'm just already rolling my eyes, because it's obvious that some people can't come up with their own ideas and they have to subvert the classics and present them as if they were original.

In short: Classics are good, derivations of classics are usually not as good.
Plus as I said, out current party is already a freakshow as it is. Adding a single "normal" person isn't too much of an ask.

On top of that I also want a sweet and kinda innocent female companion with a hint of naivety. Any class except bard will do. Also make her pretty so elf/human.

Alternatively if people are offended by humans (lmao wtf) I could settle for a Dwarven male (mandatory) Paladin of Moradin too, because dwarves really never get proper representation and they are usually portrayed as dumb hotheads without any intellectual or spiritual qualities.
Sorcerer Friendly Mind Flayer, good alignment tiefling paladin who you would meet in the baldur gate city, female drow companion (someone who won't bitch about you like shadowheart does), Dragon pet, werewolf cursed ranger, duergar chaotic evil barbarian, dwarf fighter. multi class gnome who is artificier and rogue she would or he be amazed in charname tadpole and would join charname to study it and assist him in discovering more about it.
A grizzly old Fighter with good alignment and a classic LG Paladin.
I really need Minthara as a companion. I will also be glad to see a succubus, by the way, such a proposal has already been made before. I support him.

I also really like the idea of ​​the friendly Mind Flayer.

Kagha would be interesting too. For neutral.

And someone from the Aasimar race for a good pass.
What I don't want to see: a 'comic' dwarf with a bad Scottish accent.

What I do want to see: a female character who is at least relatively normal, that is to say, not a psychopath.
I'm happy about the current roster of companions. They are interesting with unique personalities and great voice-acting. In terms of party function, all bases are accounted for with backup for most roles and this provides the player with more freedom to choose the class he or she really wants to rather than fill a hole. 3 more companions are apparently being added; a tiefling fighter (Karlach), a halfling werewolf bard (Helia), and a human/hamster ranger (Minsc+Boo).

I *much* prefer deeper characters rather than the shallow window dressing many advocate for inadvertently. Less is more in this regard as resources are not infinite. The only thing I miss, is a character who isn't going out of his/her way to be a disapproving edgelord, but both Helia and Minsc might fill that role somewhat.

Originally Posted by Terminator2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
A companion that is prostitute.


But we already have Astarion

I am interested to see naked women and not naked men.

I have nothing against Astarion as a party member though.

You can have romance with at least possibly some of the characters I know....

Forget about it. Political correctness won't allow that sort of thing.
Originally Posted by Seraphael
3 more companions are apparently being added; a tiefling fighter (Karlach), a halfling werewolf bard (Helia), and a human/hamster ranger (Minsc+Boo).


Wow. I may have missed some episodes : where is there an official source for that ? Because if there is, I'm excited to read about it. (Even though I'd be disappointed to read that Minsc will be one of the 8 OC.)
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Wow. I may have missed some episodes : where is there an official source for that ? Because if there is, I'm excited to read about it.


Unmarked datamine spoilers. +1 on the point of disappointment.
Excited for the werewolf, but it does a feel a bit contrived that we just happen to have both a vampire and a werewolf in the same party. Halfling bard reminds me of the girl in Pathfinder who I quite liked, so hopefully we have a nicer more enthusiastic girl alongside SH and Lae'zel; loving them both as I do, a counterbalance would be good.
Originally Posted by NorimizuRintarou
Excited for the werewolf, but it does a feel a bit contrived that we just happen to have both a vampire and a werewolf in the same party. Halfling bard reminds me of the girl in Pathfinder who I quite liked, so hopefully we have a nicer more enthusiastic girl alongside SH and Lae'zel; loving them both as I do, a counterbalance would be good.


Yeah the vampires and werewolves thing is kinda cringe. Also good lycanthropes tend to worship Selune so we know they are not gonna be friends with SH. Also... a f'cking bard... yay...
Why does the good aligned companion have to be a BARD? I hate bards. They are evil. It would make much more sense for one of the evil guys to be a bard.
I hope we have a companion thats just a starry eyed adventure. I dont really care for more deep trodden sob stories. Give us an excited and energetic (any class) companion thats just a chirpy to have for the journey.


And then kill him off when we least expect it. Oh the famed tragedy it'll be.
Even if the datamining sourced "companions" turn out to be correct, that still means we don't have enough good-aligned and likeable companions to form a party. For me, my party of good-aligned a likeable companions would be limited to ... Minsc? That would be the worst.
Bring back Korgan Bloodaxe or similar. Not a romantic interest, just a blood thirsty head remover. I’ll take an evil goblin too. Make Gale an evil backstabber, it’ll make him a little less a my lil pony type.
Originally Posted by Jeffreedammit
Bring back Korgan Bloodaxe or similar. Not a romantic interest, just a blood thirsty head remover.


Yeah. Tbh I'd just like companions without traumatic backstories and emotional issues. Be it unapologetically evil head remover, a Chaotic Neutral weirdo or Such A Cool Guy(TM).
Yes we have enough companions with tragic back stories. Could use a companion that gives some comic relief and no Volo is not funny or entertaining and I’m not sure why I haven’t tried to kill him yet. Is he killable?
Originally Posted by Jeffreedammit
a companion that gives some comic relief

Please for the love of all that is good, no.
To me, the triumph of the BG series, was a diversity of companions and being able to build different parties. As well as conflicts and characters being free to leave.
So, Untadpolled companions and many of them. Who leave if they don't share your caused, have arguments with each other and aren't linked to you by destiny but by choice.

A Xan style, I've here to a mission and you seem to align with that but I'm not invested in you specifically, LN would be fun. Especially if you wind up really close and then as soon as they finish their mission they're like, that's me i'm off, pass a hard roll and make the right dialogue choices based on what you remember form their conversations to convince them or they leave.

Also, I really enjoyed how the goblins and hobgoblins are characterised in the ruins, so a goblinoid would be great. But not as a comic relief.

A changeling, if they were like the early version (with the every skill a different personality) would be really fun and we have planar shenanigans to justify it too.

Originally Posted by Jeffreedammit
Bring back Korgan Bloodaxe or similar. Not a romantic interest, just a blood thirsty head remover.


Yes, an uncomplicated I know why I am here and so do you, lets get on with it. It'd be cool if it was Bloodaxe as he'd still be around and probably doing the same, and the game could explore, what happens to an uncomplicated evil merc/adventurer when they.. save the world and are now famous but don't care. It could be fun and of all the characters to bring back, he'd be the least fanservicey so probably to best to work on his own rather than just, hey remember me from the thing?

I'd kind of like an uncomplicated fighter to be, a not traditionally evil or fighter species though. Something about that personality on a hafling, aasimar or gnome would be hilarious but with the character still being completely played straight and serious not a comic relief.

Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by Jeffreedammit
a companion that gives some comic relief

Please for the love of all that is good, no.


C’mon you didn’t find Korgan funny in the slightest? He actually had me lol quite a few times. Astarion is entertaining too. Imagine having both of them in the party cutting up.
Originally Posted by Jeffreedammit
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by Jeffreedammit
a companion that gives some comic relief

Please for the love of all that is good, no.


C’mon you didn’t find Korgan funny in the slightest? He actually had me lol quite a few times. Astarion is entertaining too. Imagine having both of them in the party cutting up.


I dont consider Korgan to be comic relief, the same way I don't find Varric in DA comic relief. Comic relief is someone like Grobnar from NWN2, someone who exist sorely to be funny and have no personality beyond that.
I'm pretty happy with Astarion.
...Thats not comic relief. That's forced comedy. If it's funny or comedic (or meant to be, anyway) in order to alleviate the situation, that's comic relief. Whether or not that is bad or good comedy is irrelevant.

A lot of Korgan's character is comic relief. Not all, but he's probably the most comic reliefy companion character in BG2 after Minsc. Edwin might give him a run for the money, I don't remember him very well (most often didn't make use of him).
A character can make jokes without being comic relief.

Atleast BG2 made Edwin and even minsc, fleshed out characters. especially Edwin. Minsc is still a bit but the banter with him explores his character passed where you can say its all he is.Edwin has plenty character exploration going on and a repeating icarius character arc.
Tiax is really the comic relief character I'd point to of the early games, and while he rules all, I think I'm in the majority when I say I didn't really ever use him or care about him. I did Edwin.
Originally Posted by Starshine
A character can make jokes without being comic relief.


No, that's... literally what comic relief is.
It's when it defines, typifies or if the purpose of the character in the narrative. Not one small aspect or a context appropriate moments of dialogue/characterisation.
Otherwise by, any joke in any aspect of them or any dialogue = relief, then there's never been a character written who isn't.

For the topic and from your avatar, I kinda of hope there's an underdark origin companion seeing as how that's where the next act can happen. Probably not a drow as while, beloved, we have two elves already so maybe a deep gnome?
They get to be gnomes without the wacky intellectual personality and are generally shown as just people who live under hardship so could make a good NG 'I just want for others better than I got' character?
Hmmmmm. Maybe a taciturn ranger with a heart of gold. (Note: they are not unkind/curt, just are of few words)
I am really rooting for a dwarf companion. Very cliched, with a bad scottish accent and a dangerously out of hand alcoholism. I am a simple guy like that.

But jokes aside, I would really like a dwarf party member who is just normal, for a dwarf. A dwarf barbarian perhaps, from Icewind Dale. Something like that. I like the companions so far but I do miss some levity. I dont mean silliness, just mean somebody like Korgan who makes you laugh (I remember he made me laugh out aloud multiple times in bg2).

I know that some of you guys are vary of Larian's wacky humour but I do think some light-heartedness is in order.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
I am really rooting for a dwarf companion. Very cliched, with a bad scottish accent and a dangerously out of hand alcoholism. I am a simple guy like that.

But jokes aside, I would really like a dwarf party member who is just normal, for a dwarf. A dwarf barbarian perhaps, from Icewind Dale. Something like that. I like the companions so far but I do miss some levity. I dont mean silliness, just mean somebody like Korgan who makes you laugh (I remember he made me laugh out aloud multiple times in bg2).

I know that some of you guys are vary of Larian's wacky humour but I do think some light-heartedness is in order.

I second this. We need a dwarf. I would prefer an cultural artifact like a paladin of Moradin, and he could also be on the side of beerlovers, and be a bit of a jokester, but he should also have a heart of gold and not be stupid. Something like a wise old grandpa with a huge hammer.
You are soo speaking my lg... :DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I definitively want a bard in the group - bards are the best.

And a druid would be great. I like Halsin so far, but I don't think, we can snitch away the leader of the druid grove. Maybe someone like Nettie? I know, she tried to kill us, but I think, in her case it's kind of understandable.

There was the Tiefling adventurer group, you can convince to stay and help the refugees - I really would like the girl from the group as a companion. She seems to be nice and determined and if you convince her to stay, you here her arguing later on with the guy, that wanted to leave and she brings some good arguments. I don't know - I like her from the bits, we get. She could be another fighter - or the bard.

I do love Varric from DA2 - a companion like him, trustworthy, funny and cunning, would be nice. Not every companion has to bring their personal drama - I think, it's already enough as it is. I like some companions, that are your friends and in it for the adventure without being haunted by their past/a demon/(...apply some dark sceret here...).
Originally Posted by fylimar
I like Halsin so far, but I don't think, we can snitch away the leader of the druid grove.

We can already get him to come with us, we just can't convince him to leave camp and do the adventuring thing with us. C'mon, Halsin, you know you want to!
Minsc (&Boo of course) (Ranger/Barbarian)
A paladin, good aligned and wise (Dragonborn)
A Tieflin bard (the blue skin girl at the party with the sligh bells), hell rock style and funny, with true inner beauty and with a secret celestial origin
More clerics & more different gods
If we really MUST get a bard (yuck), can we at least get an evil one? A good bard is a contradiction in terms for me. However an infiltrator/spy/manipulator kindof person who gets his ways by social interactions and some bardic magic would make a perfect cunning villain who could betray us in the end.
Imagine Eldoth from BG1, but more developed and socially savvy.
Come to think of it, I'm kinda surprised Astarion isn't a bard. It would be a better fit with his high elf race because a bard is basically a magical rogue with social skills.
Originally Posted by Bruh
If we really MUST get a bard (yuck), can we at least get an evil one? A good bard is a contradiction in terms for me. However an infiltrator/spy/manipulator kindof person who gets his ways by social interactions and some bardic magic would make a perfect cunning villain who could betray us in the end.
Imagine Eldoth from BG1, but more developed and socially savvy.
Come to think of it, I'm kinda surprised Astarion isn't a bard. It would be a better fit with his high elf race because a bard is basically a magical rogue with social skills.

Whats wrong with bards? I think they are a great class in 5e. Also I dont really see how they must be edgy and evil. How are they a contradiction?
I agree, we have enough edgy and at least morally flexible companions. I like a good bard.
And maybe an interesting Ranger (not Minsc!). More someone like Kivan.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Originally Posted by Bruh
If we really MUST get a bard (yuck), can we at least get an evil one? A good bard is a contradiction in terms for me. However an infiltrator/spy/manipulator kindof person who gets his ways by social interactions and some bardic magic would make a perfect cunning villain who could betray us in the end.
Imagine Eldoth from BG1, but more developed and socially savvy.
Come to think of it, I'm kinda surprised Astarion isn't a bard. It would be a better fit with his high elf race because a bard is basically a magical rogue with social skills.

Whats wrong with bards? I think they are a great class in 5e. Also I dont really see how they must be edgy and evil. How are they a contradiction?

Bards have originally been charismatic coomers who had secks with everything that moved, plus their social skills make thema dept at manipulation, infiltration and spying. Keep in mind that bards are a rogue-class. Also the problem with bards is that I hate their guts and yet they are always represented in every video game, while barbarians and monks never are, even though they are both much more interesting classes.
So you hate bards, another one hates wizards or rogues. If every class, someone hates would get cut from the game, it would be a very boring game indeed.
I hate Minsc, but he is shoved at us in every BG game (from what I saw even in this one), so nothing to be done. Just don't use a bard companion, if you don't like them, like I don't use Minsc, problem solved.
Btw I find barbarians and monks not even a bit interesting - tastes vary
Originally Posted by Starshine
Originally Posted by Jeffreedammit
Bring back Korgan Bloodaxe or similar. Not a romantic interest, just a blood thirsty head remover.

Yes, an uncomplicated I know why I am here and so do you, lets get on with it. It'd be cool if it was Bloodaxe as he'd still be around and probably doing the same, and the game could explore, what happens to an uncomplicated evil merc/adventurer when they.. save the world and are now famous but don't care. It could be fun and of all the characters to bring back, he'd be the least fanservicey so probably to best to work on his own rather than just, hey remember me from the thing?

I'd kind of like an uncomplicated fighter to be, a not traditionally evil or fighter species though. Something about that personality on a hafling, aasimar or gnome would be hilarious but with the character still being completely played straight and serious not a comic relief.

Yeah I could get into that. Someone who's just there to merc the hapless rubes and take their money hehe. Korgan was great in BG2, and the Zhent pairing from BG1 was also rad, Monty and Xzar had the best barks.

Like I'm guessing they'd save Xzar's reappearance for an NPC Lich King by now, or maybe some unfortunate B-tier Zombie. Maybe he got demoted from some shit that went totally awry and backfired, just trying to shake off the dust now, eat some brains and get his game back. That would have been funny for a "speak with the dead" riff.

There are other PCs from the first two games who might sensibly still be alive 100 years out. Any of the Elves or Dwarves could work. And there are plenty of planar accidents or various 'turned to stone' type tropes that could have been used to bring back a few favs. They teased Minsc and that's cool, but I still haven't seen him, and anyway I probably would have been more interested in seeing Kivan again.

Druids have traditionally ceased to age at higher levels, so if she didn't get off'd at Trademeet, Faldorn could still doing her thing, or maybe we run into Cernd somewhere down the line.

Any of those could work for an act 3 insert.

But mainly I just wish there were a lot of non-origin companions to round things out. For a more BG feel the VA work for such companions should be focused on simple barks and banters, not full on cinematics or romance. More peeps that could come and go, get chunked or left by the wayside, without upending the whole tadpole-team plot device. Right now the bar is set so low, I'd be happy if we end up with a dozen possible companions. Its just sad cause this is BG3 and I'd have hoped for more companions than we got BG2 which had a potential roster of 25. In the first two games there were a couple versions of each class archetype to choose from, which made the party feel a lot more flexible.

With the 5 companions currently available there's not much dynamism to party composition, or room to play it more by alignment. There's basically one Good aligned party that includes Gale and Wyll (with Shadowheart, Lae'zel or Astarion being constantly annoyed with your decisions) and one Evil aligned party where you have to listen to Shadowheart and Lae'zel gripe about each other, or else deal with constant disapproval from Gale or Wyll who don't really want to be there for the bloodsports.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
But mainly I just wish there were a lot of non-origin companions to round things out. For a more BG feel the VA work for such companions should be focused on simple barks and banters, not full on cinematics or romance. More peeps that could come and go, get chunked or left by the wayside, without upending the whole tadpole-team plot device. Right now the bar is set so low, I'd be happy if we end up with a dozen possible companions.

This. Ideally I'd like 12 "high-content" companions, one per class (could be 8 origins and 4 BG2+ level companions in terms of "richness") and another 12 of "low(er)-content" (between BG1 and BG2 "richness") companions, also one per class (so we have a choice within one class).

Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Its just sad cause this is BG3 and I'd have hoped for more companions than we got BG2 which had a potential roster of 25. In the first two games there were a couple versions of each class archetype to choose from, which made the party feel a lot more flexible.

Actually, BG1 had 25 and BG2 15 (17 if you count temporary and ToB). But that's still ~2-3 times the final(?) number of BG3 companions...
Yeah but to be fair BG1 and BG2 companions werent fully voiceacted so they cost way less to produce.
Also yeah, I would love to have Faldorn as a companion. An evil druid would be a very interesting option given how druids are usually represented as these weird goodie two shoes even though it makes absolutely no sense for them to be that way.
One of each class as origin companions would be perfect. Have them equally spread out by alignment, should make people mostly happy. I would like there to be 3 of each class at some point in the game, one of each base alignment so 36 in all. Ideally, the other 24 non origin ones would have their own stories, but they don't have to be as robust as the others.
There is a distinct lack of Dwarves in this game.
BG3 is in desperate need of a Dwarven companion!

Each time I've restarted I keep thinking about where they plan to start inserting some more NPCs into this first Act, if anywhere. But it doesn't seem like there's a whole ton of room left to start tossing dwarves about willy nilly, so hopefully they rectify things with a pretty interesting Dwarf companion. Right now there are practically no Dwarves to be seen among the rando NPCs we run into.

Shorties are conspicuously absent among the Origin options, despite offering a decent back catalogue to work from in the Realms and in fantasy or mythology more generally.
I'd be willing to wager that a lot of players might prefer rounding out their tiny team of 4 with a Dwarf.

It'd be nice to see a dwarf with a killer battle mask for once. That was a badass riff on the War Dwarf archetype of old, going back to the Silmarillion, but its rarely done up in games despite having obviously cool visual potential.

It would also be particularly nice I think to get a good Classic Dwarf. A reliable, predictable Dwarf, to offset all the other showstealers we have on team-tadpole right now. A decent brawler, who could be subbed in for Lae'zel, or a Warpriest type to be subbed in for Shadowheart, or maybe a traditional cutpurse Rogue just out for his gold (strength based would be fun) to give a sub in for Astarion.

Don't saddle us with a Dwarf Druid or a Dwarf Sorcerer or something like that just to push the envelope, simply because new editions of D&D don't have restrictions anymore. This game needs a few more touchstones anyway, and Dwarves are a stuffy lot, set in their ways.

Just give us a decently gruff voice set (hopefully one that can be used by Charname too, since that's totally absent right now) and some classic war-hammer-crashing or battle-axe-bashing Dwarf that we can rely on.


ps. another idea regarding Dwarves and beards. Nobody has yet figured out a way to do Female Dwarves with beards that's compelling, and its like a running joke within the genre. I appreciate that Larian gave us the option for female facial hair, though I suspect it may not be a super popular look. But what might be cool, in keeping with the battle mask idea, would be a kind of ornate false beard of the sort the Pharaoh Queens of Egypt would ware.

You know like Hatshepsut style. It mixes mythologies sure, but I can picture how that might look cool, since there are ways to do it that would give Female dwarves something to mess with in the Character creator the way males might get a bunch of options for braids and such. It doesn't have to be standard, but just an aesthetic option to open things up a bit on balance, 1 option among many. Just trying to think of an aesthetic feature that might actually get used more, since you could trick it out in various decorative ways to make it actually look cool.
I kind of want a bard character loosely based upon Barney Stinson, calling everything legendary.
i actually agree that this game needs a proper dwarf.
I like to lean into tropes sometimes.

There should be some character sthat do that. a stout dwarf to rely on. an annoyingly smug elf (we already have that, but not in that way)
Something along those lines.
STout is something i wouldnt call any of the current companions. I think they overall need some testosterone.
A dependable Bro type of character would be a nice start.
Perhaps a woman thats a bit more womanly would also be nice, i guess otherwise well have to make due with Shadowheart
Or, they can pay homage to BG1's homage to Newhart and have a character named Larry whose backstory involves getting back to his brother Darryl and his other brother Darryl - though they can do that with minor NPCs as well.
Hehe I was really truly secretly hoping to run into Larry again. I mean it is a strange brew they're brewing after all.

Maybe Darryl could sport a falsy in this one?

Now I'm thinking false beards should be available to all, though obviously the Dwarves would make the best ones. Mithril Whiskers could be the thing that really sets this one apart hehehe

But yeah I'd like to see a standard trope for a Dwarf companion, just done up to the nines from the mines. We need something to hold onto
Dig deep, put in the work Larian.
Of course, for anyone unfamiliar with the cameo:
Agree on the dwarf. We need one. A male one, because that's a classic, please don't force the female dwarf thing, it never works out, it only ever worked once with Shale in DA:O, and even then it was a golem.
Now that I think of it, I think the only way I could be sold on a non-evil Bard companion is if it was a dwarven skald character who is honorable and seeks valiance, glory and honor in his own conduct. That being said I would also be happy with a Dwarven cleric/paladin, because we need something that breaks the mold of "Dwarf = dumb hick"
And I'm actually going to throw in that I want to see a transgender PC show up somewhere in here - seeking a magical item to swap sexes (and BG1 did have such a "cursed item" indeed). Trans people have been around since prehistoric times and I think it's about time to show it in a game like this. I don't care if they're MTF or FTM, but I want to see the character. I see them as closeted at first, but once you get their goal out of them they become themselves behaviorally even before getting the item.

Now to hear from people triggered by other people with different experiences in 3... 2... 1...
I like the idea of a dwarf war priest - like the one from BG1, Yeslick - I liked him and basically used him constantly after saving him. And yes to a more reliable and less dramatic companion. Team tadpole really has enough drama going on right now.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
And I'm actually going to throw in that I want to see a transgender PC show up somewhere in here - seeking a magical item to swap sexes (and BG1 did have such a "cursed item" indeed). Trans people have been around since prehistoric times and I think it's about time to show it in a game like this. I don't care if they're MTF or FTM, but I want to see the character. I see them as closeted at first, but once you get their goal out of them they become themselves behaviorally even before getting the item.

Now to hear from people triggered by other people with different experiences in 3... 2... 1...

I mean... Gith are pretty much trans-people. When it comes to genitalia, both the males and the females have cloaca, because they lay eggs now and the only difference between their genders is breasts pretty much.
On the other hand if we got Edwin back that would be fun laugh Maybe he wants to become a woman for real this time lol.

Originally Posted by fylimar
I like the idea of a dwarf war priest - like the one from BG1, Yeslick - I liked him and basically used him constantly after saving him. And yes to a more reliable and less dramatic companion. Team tadpole really has enough drama going on right now.

YES! THIS! I WANT YESLICK BACK!
Too bad he was very old even back then, but who knows? Dwarves live a very long time.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
And I'm actually going to throw in that I want to see a transgender PC show up somewhere in here - seeking a magical item to swap sexes (and BG1 did have such a "cursed item" indeed). Trans people have been around since prehistoric times and I think it's about time to show it in a game like this. I don't care if they're MTF or FTM, but I want to see the character. I see them as closeted at first, but once you get their goal out of them they become themselves behaviorally even before getting the item.

Now to hear from people triggered by other people with different experiences in 3... 2... 1...

I mean... Gith are pretty much trans-people. When it comes to genitalia, both the males and the females have cloaca, because they lay eggs now and the only difference between their genders is breasts pretty much.
On the other hand if we got Edwin back that would be fun laugh Maybe he wants to become a woman for real this time lol.

Originally Posted by fylimar
I like the idea of a dwarf war priest - like the one from BG1, Yeslick - I liked him and basically used him constantly after saving him. And yes to a more reliable and less dramatic companion. Team tadpole really has enough drama going on right now.

YES! THIS! I WANT YESLICK BACK!
Too bad he was very old even back then, but who knows? Dwarves live a very long time.

It doesn't have to be Yeslick, but someone like him would be ok - on the other hand: if Minsc, a human, can be back, a dwarf shouldn't be too much of a problem. I liked, that there wasn't that much drama about Yeslick - and he was a very good and versatile character. I used Branwen until I got him, but while I did liek Branwen too, I liked Yeslick more.

About transgender characters: could be interesting. I really liked Krem and Maevaris in the Dragon Age franchise, especially Maevaris is very well integrated in teh whole lore. If we could get a similar well written companion, that would be great.
Yeah I'm on board for Yeslick, just old as dirt but still swinging. A Dwarf Paladin word work, just make sure its a proper Dwarven type diety and I'm there. Skald might also be cool, especially singing warsongs and such. If practically nothing else, the Hobbit film did manage to nail how Dwarves should sing. There's plenty to back it up, even like Snow White and the Huntsman leaned into that. So sure, Skald or Paladin would work for me. Just make sure they can take a hit. Nobody want's a Dwarf that can't tank around or carry a tower shield tall enough to turtle up proper.

@veronica for trans, I think the way into it for high fantasy is to build on some of the more ancient myths. I actually think they should steer clear of trying to make it feel too modern, but instead show that as you pointed out this is a phenomenon that goes back to prehistory. They should look to myths and legends like those Tiresias. Dyalos and Adgistis or the like. Or take some of the ideas from like the pools of Salmacis, and start weaving that into the realms, to give such stories an expression in Faerun. There should be background story elements to support the concepts within the worldbuilding more broadly, so its not treated as bizarre or a novelty but just part of the natural order. Not suggesting that PCs need to necessarily be able to roleplay an actual transition, or become an Erotes like Hermaphroditus or Phanes. But something in the overall architecture of the lore that's a little more compelling than say, a belt of gender swapping. I fully agree. In addition to ancient western sources, there are also a number of world mythologies and esp indigenous myths and legends that could be drawn from, because again (unsurprisingly) this has been a fact of human life for a long time and basically everywhere. Its timely, especially at this moment, but they should approach it as in FR terms as something with some antiquity to it, in-world, so when they do decide to take that trip eventually, it actually reads as something with proper D&D heroics, or as part of the longer lineage, if that makes sense. In other words, they should leave the shapeshifting anachronism to the legends and lore, and so the companion can just be presented as is, without needing to make a bunch of extraneous commentary about it. But of course the territory is fraught, as Beamdog learned when they tried it in a slapdash fashion, Larian should do it with more tact and deliberation to ensure they don't fall down the same old pits. That's more for a companion type character, for the PC the player should be able to roll as whatever they want or can imagine. That's the whole promise of the game from its inception.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
@veronica for trans, I think the way into it for high fantasy is to build on some of the more ancient myths. I actually think they should steer clear of trying to make it feel too modern, but instead show that as you pointed out this is a phenomenon that goes back to prehistory. They should look to myths and legends like those Tiresias. Dyalos and Adgistis or the like. Or take some of the ideas from like the pools of Salmacis, and start weaving that into the realms, to give such stories an expression in Faerun. There should be background story elements to support the concepts within the worldbuilding more broadly, so its not treated as bizarre or a novelty but just part of the natural order. Not suggesting that PCs need to necessarily be able to roleplay an actual transition, or become an Erotes like Hermaphroditus or Phanes. But something in the overall architecture of the lore that's a little more compelling than say, a belt of gender swapping. I fully agree. In addition to ancient western sources, there are also a number of world mythologies and esp indigenous myths and legends that could be drawn from, because again (unsurprisingly) this has been a fact of human life for a long time and basically everywhere. Its timely, especially at this moment, but they should approach it as in FR terms as something with some antiquity to it, in-world, so when they do decide to take that trip eventually, it actually reads as something with proper D&D heroics, or as part of the longer lineage, if that makes sense. In other words, they should leave the shapeshifting anachronism to the legends and lore, and so the companion can just be presented as is, without needing to make a bunch of extraneous commentary about it. But of course the territory is fraught, as Beamdog learned when they tried it in a slapdash fashion, Larian should do it with more tact and deliberation to ensure they don't fall down the same old pits. That's more for a companion type character, for the PC the player should be able to roll as whatever they want or can imagine. That's the whole promise of the game from its inception.

I love the idea of giving it an ancient flare - but I also think the desire to switch to an applicable body is still going to be a strong desire, especially in a world where that is possible - and more possible than it is today's modern world - due to magic.
Yeah for sure, I mean that's the beauty of Magic. The reality is that a lot of stuff is already present in the backcatalogue of the Realms if they did a little legwork. D&D has been on the inclusive side of the culture wars for a long time, so we know there's a fit, and in literature more widely these are things that have interested humans for ages and ages. And its not just about sexuality, or dress, or comfort in one's skin, but power too. Not so much in Dungeons and Dragons of today, but surely in the the sorts medieval or ancient societies it borrows from and builds itself out of. There were pretty obvious reasons that a woman want might to be man and hold power in times like those. Like you know Agrippina would have wanted to be Caesar herself, if Locusta had only had the right potion hehe.

But going back a little further you can see the reverse too, if only vestigially. Like when obviously the Sky Gods wanted what the Earth Goddesses had, given how pretty much every early myth cycle cracked off. Probably more than a few priests wishing they were priestesses in whatever period preceded, just for pure power motivations. But yeah, the game really doesn't need to be that complicated with it. They should just provide a cool point in the story where the PC is offered a choice. A magical choice, that they can either pursue or ignore, as their interest dictates.

The genius of Edwin in BG2, is that they threw that belt in there kinda casually, as casual as a polymorph can be at any rate. They handled his metamorphosis conundrum like proper thracian witchraft, like Lucius, like oh shit this is a story worth checking out! And so it worked and the character remains celebrated. Ahead of his time. There was an element of choice to it too, after the initial questline, that left the door open.

Plus I think if Bioware had actually commissioned a proper female portrait and voice set for Edwina at the time, I bet like half of everyone would have elected to have him remain a babe for the duration. Clearly he was getting into it, and discovering things he didn't know he didn't know haha.

Edwina custom portraits and voice sets probably got hacked into the thing by more than a few Shadowkeepers, but it would have been nice if they had actually built it into the game on the first pass. Took another decade and a half for the Enhanced Editions to fix that issue, or maybe it was just a mod? I can't recall. But anyway, they handled it with style.
i dont hate female dwarves, they can be neat.

But make male characters that are more traditionally masculine.
And not in the Cocky athlete stereotype, make a Bro, someone who has your back. Someone that acts like Men act when they are in trouble together.

And while were at it, some female character that embraces positive feminine qualiites
Well there's something to be said for stereotyping too. Because without your stock standard-variety types, the Companions who break the mold don't have a point of contrast to make them seem more compelling by comparison.

The problem with this game is that they just didn't make enough companions. Quantity matters.

If they had more standard tropes on offer, it would make the other companions who diverge from those tropes more interesting. BG1 had no problem leaning into the standard fair. People fell in love with it because it was pretty much what one might expect, just well executed. Maybe with a few breaks to keep it lively. Throw in a Drow on the run who worships Shar but remains decidedly villainous. A couple colorful shorties that drift at least a little ways from the hobbity comfort zone but not by much. A stuttering Fighter who's kind of a coward, but still basically gets the job done. A shadow druid. A kid sister rogue who could slings spells, maybe. And you're pretty much set, because everyone else was moreorless stock fair. We had a Valkyrie, two maniacal evil wizards, some bard grifters and the like. Robin hood, two solid Dwarves, a Paladin (being all Paladin-like), a barbari-I mean 'ranger' with a goofy accent. All the usual suspects. And because it was basically boiler plate, that made it all the better when it started branching out in BG2.

They just need to stop worrying about wowing us with the newness of these same 5 characters, and open the floodgates on it. Focus on Barks and banters and just giving us the whole shabang, with like 5 times the number of companions. Don't sweat it if you're not reinventing the wheel. For many this is all comfort food, treat it more like Xmas dinner. Like we better see some fucking mashed potatoes on the plate, or of course its going to be disappointing.

You can only switch it up with so many dishes so fast. Or sure, maybe sometimes you can get away with eating chinese take out or pizza or tacos, "cause we're doing it different this year!" That might be exciting a couple times, once in the blue moon. But it's probably not going to happen every year, and you probably don't want to eat all of that stuff all together at once in the same meal. I don't know, but I feel like I showed up at the door expecting a full on meal with the bird and all the fixings, and they're just doling out fancy appetizers all night. Sorry, I was caterwaiter for years. I can't help it
Originally Posted by Sordak
But make male characters that are more traditionally masculine. Someone that acts like Men act when they are in trouble together.

Wyll is one no?

Originally Posted by Sordak
And while were at it, some female character that embraces positive feminine qualiites

Shadowheart is feminine, maybe you will see those qualities if you get on her good side.
+1 What @Kadajko said.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by Sordak
But make male characters that are more traditionally masculine. Someone that acts like Men act when they are in trouble together.

Wyll is one no?

Originally Posted by Sordak
And while were at it, some female character that embraces positive feminine qualiites

Shadowheart is feminine, maybe you will see those qualities if you get on her good side.


He means more toxic masculinity - like blend in Astarion's disregard for consent, Wyll's pompousness, and Lae'zel's domineering. By feminine qualities, he's thinking more of Zorru's personality.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
He means more toxic masculinity

Well, Shadowheart displays a lot of toxic femininity, so why not? Not like companions have to be perfect.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
He means more toxic masculinity

Well, Shadowheart displays a lot of toxic femininity, so why not? Not like companions have to be perfect.

Well, the game is allowing sexual interactions, so it may upset a lot of people when that companion invariably rapes you - because rape is about power and so it doesn't matter if they're attracted to you or not.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
He means more toxic masculinity

Well, Shadowheart displays a lot of toxic femininity, so why not? Not like companions have to be perfect.

Well, the game is allowing sexual interactions, so it may upset a lot of people when that companion invariably rapes you - because rape is about power and so it doesn't matter if they're attracted to you or not.

You mean like Lae'zel? I don't see too many complaints about that, I don't even think that majority of people consider it rape, if it's consensual.

As a side note: we can have rape in the game too, it's a mature game. I am not a try-hard edge lord, just honestly, I like negative things to be present in games too, it adds to realism.

P.S. Rape is bad mkay?
Halsin as the friendly daddy, the party is sorely missing a friendly/good daddy character. Would also sort out the druid of the party
Lol, there is no rape in this game. You have to agree first, to have a night with the companion.
That escalated quickly.

[Linked Image from memecrunch.com]
Originally Posted by Kadajko
You mean like Lae'zel? I don't see too many complaints about that, I don't even think that majority of people consider it rape, if it's consensual.

As a side note: we can have rape in the game too, it's a mature game. I am not a try-hard edge lord, just honestly, I like negative things to be present in games too, it adds to realism.

P.S. Rape is bad mkay?

Well, I've never been with Lae'zel so I'm not sure how that goes - but rape is by definition nonconsensual. And while rape can be addressed, probably best if it doesn't happen to the player character itself.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
That escalated quickly.

I know you want to have fun but be careful with posts like that, because often it attracts the attention of mods as if something is going wrong in the thread, when in reality ( I'd like to think ) we are just calmly discussing things like adults, even if controversial. I've seen so many threads locked, so many sads.

Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Well, I've never been with Lae'zel so I'm not sure how that goes

You want to check real quick? It's just one post camp scene, or are you super anti-spoiler? I've linked the correct time 2:23.

I would also like to point out that if you do watch the clip pay attention that player is actually given multiple opportunities during the scene to stop and leave if they don't like it or feel uncomfortable. I think when you always have control it's fine.

But then again, I am lost in your original point a bit. You might not enjoy it, but someone will and will have a different outlook on what is happening, that doen't mean they shouldn't have their fun right?
I wish back the times when discussions about companions in an RPG did focus on politically fuelled sexual preferences and romance options.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
You want to check real quick? It's just one post camp scene, or are you super anti-spoiler? I've linked the correct time 2:23.

I would also like to point out that if you do watch the clip pay attention that player is actually given multiple opportunities during the scene to stop and leave if they don't like it or feel uncomfortable. I think when you always have control it's fine.

But then again, I am lost in your original point a bit. You might not enjoy it, but someone will and will have a different outlook on what is happening, that doen't mean they shouldn't have their fun right?

Well, that is more light BDSM than rape. We all knew she was a dominatrix.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Well, that is more light BDSM than rape. We all knew she was a dominatrix.

So what is your definition of toxic masculinity then? Because imo, Lae'zel clearly has it. How would a sex scene with a masculine guy that was requested be any different?
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Well, that is more light BDSM than rape. We all knew she was a dominatrix.

So what is your definition of toxic masculinity then? Because imo, Lae'zel clearly has it. How would a sex scene with a masculine guy that was requested be any different?

Toxic masculinity goes much further - and I did mix three characters traits together, including hers, to give an example earlier. But look at a Proud Boys rally - every single person there has toxic masculinity. They want to just intimidate anyone who disagrees with them and kill anyone who stands up to them while they yell and wave their phallic substitutes around.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Well, that is more light BDSM than rape. We all knew she was a dominatrix.

So what is your definition of toxic masculinity then? Because imo, Lae'zel clearly has it. How would a sex scene with a masculine guy that was requested be any different?

Toxic masculinity goes much further - and I did mix three characters traits together, including hers, to give an example earlier. But look at a Proud Boys rally - every single person there has toxic masculinity. They want to just intimidate anyone who disagrees with them and kill anyone who stands up to them while they yell and wave their phallic substitutes around.

Yeah, I guess your earlier example is better, I prefer a bit more abstract and not involving real world examples as it requires a lot of research to make informed comparisons accurately. Then again, like I said earlier, all characters have their flaws and that is absolutely fine, we have flat out evil companions, we as the player are allowed to murder children etc.

I guess my main point is - there is nothing wrong with someone wanting a traditionally masculine / feminine character in the party, you might not like those party members, I for example don't like the fact that Shadowheart is a zealot and manipulator, those are not positive qualities, but it's ok, and you don't have to romance anyone you don't like, Larian does a very good job of making sure you have control over such interactions.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
I guess my main point is - there is nothing wrong with someone wanting a traditionally masculine / feminine character in the party, you might not like those party members, I for example don't like the fact that Shadowheart is a zealot and manipulator, those are not positive qualities, but it's ok, and you don't have to romance anyone you don't like, Larian does a very good job of making sure you have control over such interactions.

Actually, it was more a pointed barb at Sardok. I've run into him before, and as suggested by someone else who messaged me, and with some new information granted there, I made it so I don't even see his posts.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Actually, it was more a pointed barb at Sardok. I've run into him before, and as suggested by someone else who messaged me, and with some new information granted there, I made it so I don't even see his posts.

I understood that, I am just treating it as a suggestion without taking into account who specifically posted it.

On a side note, I believe you are doing yourself a disservice by shutting down voices of people you disagree with as that intelectually stagnates you, but it's not my place to lecture you, just an opinion.
That only works when they deal in reality. Discussing with irrationalists just drains you and you cannot deal with them rationally.
Honestly, I'd like to see more plain old fashioned characters like paladins who are honorable and good. I loved Keldorn in BG2 as well as Mazzy who had the heart of a paladin but couldn't become one as a halfling. It almost seems like there's a concerted effort to turn paladins evil.

There's too many companions who are already rare, unusual or with special qualities. Characters who are plain can have wonderful backstories and be down to earth and still be part the world of Faerun. There's too much effort to make the companions unique not with their personalities but with their special traits. Tell a good story with good characters and you don't need all the fancy stuff like vampires, werewolves and ticking time bombs to create conflict and struggles.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Well there's something to be said for stereotyping too. Because without your stock standard-variety types, the Companions who break the mold don't have a point of contrast to make them seem more compelling by comparison.

Stereotyping with a twist is generally more fun, and more BG. Good tiefling/drow, evil aasimar, orc scholar, the paladins a jerk but the rogue is righteous etc type of thing. Yeah it's basically the expected thing now but it's still establishes that mould, without nessicarily breaking it just, bending it little.

Some more normal companions would be great, but normal should still leave room for the creative/unexpected.
Good drows/tielfing are not a twist on the stereotpye but the denial of them.
A twist on the evil drow stereotype would be for them to be evil in a peculiar fashion, in an unexpected way.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Good drows/tielfing are not a twist on the stereotpye but the denial of them.
A twist on the evil drow stereotype would be for them to be evil in a peculiar fashion, in an unexpected way.

Honestly I am confused by the tiefling of BG3. They are supposed to be these loners that become evil because they are shunned. These guys have a whole freaking community and the overwhelming majority of them seem to be well adjusted.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by Bruh
Good drows/tielfing are not a twist on the stereotpye but the denial of them.
A twist on the evil drow stereotype would be for them to be evil in a peculiar fashion, in an unexpected way.

Honestly I am confused by the tiefling of BG3. They are supposed to be these loners that become evil because they are shunned. These guys have a whole freaking community and the overwhelming majority of them seem to be well adjusted.

They are? I thought they were supposed to be refugees? strong community because all they have is each other, hated by the outside world because of the current events (descent into avernus) that forced them into the world+prejudice against them.

Tieflings in random parts of the world are often loners, but the ones in BG3 are stated as being from the place where they had a thriving community and were those shunned loners would flee to to find community, before it all went to hell. literally and they lost that home too.
If we get, driven to become evil from being shunned, I'd expect that to come from if they are refused entry to BG city when they arrive?

Tiefling in most DnD stories are either driven to evil by infernal forces inside them which is boring, or by being isolated and not having others accept them which is a story BG already has with Vicona in BG1-2
idk, it seems to me Larian was going for tieflings as refugees in BG3 not tieflings as set up for their becoming villains?
>Wyll is no one
yes, im sorry but he isnt very masculine
>Shadowheart
shes the closest we get, i said that before, but i think "spitefull bitch is actually a functional human beeing deep down" is not what i meant when i said that
I'd like to see more normal companions...

Again, it's Larian's style and everything has to be absolutely so special...

A vampire emo, a githyanki princess or something like that, a human that had sex with a god, another that has a pact with a demon (being a warlock won't necessary lead to such special stories... Hello custom warlock).
The most usual companion is probably Shadowheart but I'm sure they have surprises for us...
And what about Karlach that is probably going to be another companion...

I really miss the old BG companions...
Their story was not deep enough for a new game but their background look plausible.

I fear that in BG3, it's going to be another overdose of originality.
Originally Posted by Sordak
i dont hate female dwarves, they can be neat.

But make male characters that are more traditionally masculine.
And not in the Cocky athlete stereotype, make a Bro, someone who has your back. Someone that acts like Men act when they are in trouble together.

And while were at it, some female character that embraces positive feminine qualiites

What are positive feminine qualities?

I am seriously curious what people think, because this is an important subject.

But for instance, lets say you think of Aerie as a "real woman". Her shyness, her vulnerability, her inexperience, these are not feminine attributes (these are attributes a phallocentric mind wants to force unto women, but that is another question). Being a push over is not a girly thing to do. And I know Aerie has an evolution as a female character and grows a spine in Throne of Bhaal, still it is obvious whom the writers were trying to please with her...

I would also argue that Wyll is traditionally masculine. He wants to be a hero, he wants to measure up to a hyper masculine standard. He is action-oriented, he has anger issues, and he has a kinda swagger. He is black though (which is for some people a feminizing quality, see how Obama was feminized by the GOP, despite being quite frankly a manly man).
Originally Posted by Starshine
They are? I thought they were supposed to be refugees? strong community because all they have is each other, hated by the outside world because of the current events (descent into avernus) that forced them into the world+prejudice against them.

Tieflings in random parts of the world are often loners, but the ones in BG3 are stated as being from the place where they had a thriving community and were those shunned loners would flee to to find community, before it all went to hell. literally and they lost that home too.
If we get, driven to become evil from being shunned, I'd expect that to come from if they are refused entry to BG city when they arrive?

Tiefling in most DnD stories are either driven to evil by infernal forces inside them which is boring, or by being isolated and not having others accept them which is a story BG already has with Vicona in BG1-2
idk, it seems to me Larian was going for tieflings as refugees in BG3 not tieflings as set up for their becoming villains?
You don't have to be a villain in order to be evil. Most evil people are just petty creatures who want their creature comforts. To be a villain, you need ambition.

Originally Posted by Kadajko
Honestly I am confused by the tiefling of BG3. They are supposed to be these loners that become evil because they are shunned. These guys have a whole freaking community and the overwhelming majority of them seem to be well adjusted.
Yeah I really hate that. Tieflings aren't supposed to be these nice, pretty much normal people who just happen to have horns. I am going to murder them with all my characters, because they are devilspawn and devilspawn deserve to be obliterated for everyone's sake. Same goes for goblins, drow, etc etc.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
What are positive feminine qualities?

I am seriously curious what people think, because this is an important subject.

But for instance, lets say you think of Aerie as a "real woman". Her shyness, her vulnerability, her inexperience, these are not feminine attributes (these are attributes a phallocentric mind wants to force unto women, but that is another question). Being a push over is not a girly thing to do. And I know Aerie has an evolution as a female character and grows a spine in Throne of Bhaal, still it is obvious whom the writers were trying to please with her...

I would also argue that Wyll is traditionally masculine. He wants to be a hero, he wants to measure up to a hyper masculine standard. He is action-oriented, he has anger issues, and he has a kinda swagger. He is black though (which is for some people a feminizing quality, see how Obama was feminized by the GOP, despite being quite frankly a manly man).

Yeah but as a guy what kind of mind are you supposed to have if not a phallocentric one? I love being phallocentric, and I don't want to change that about myself.
And yeah I do consider Aerie to be a real woman, her shyness, vulnerability and inexperience are not exclusively female qualities, but they evoke my caretaker response.
Contrast her with Viconia, who is callous, cruel and an experienced lover, and you will notice that the only difference between Viconia and Aerie is that Viconia isn't honest about her own vulnerability. Her whole romance plot is about getting under her armor of hatred and violence to touch her real heart.
Aerie maybe shy, but she is courageous, while Viconia isn't shy, but she puts up this elaborate play to keep people at a distance. Both of them are very feminine, because they are both vulnerable and seek your support and strength to fall back on.
Jaheira however is none of that. She is the masculine one of the BG2 bunch. Romancing Jaheira is like dating a guy, but she is not overdone like Laezel, which is nice. If you observe the relationship between Aerie and Jaheira you can't really say that Aerie is a pushover. She literally stands up to everyone around her and goes on the offensive on both Jaheira and Viconia.
Jaheira and Viconia are both nagging shrews, which is what I would describe as a negative feminine quality, while Aerie is kind and nurturing, which I would call a positive feminine quality.
Which is funny, because I consider kindness and nurturing to be a positive masculine quality as well.

However I must disagree on Wyll. He is not traditionally masculine at all. He is practically a parody of classical masculinity, because he just oozes bravado and really wants to show off and prove himself in the eyes of others (which is not masculine, but insecure). Wyll is basically what I would call a representative of playful machismo. Don't get me wrong, I like Wyll, but he is more of a boy then a man.
I will start with Wyll.

The heart of traditional (toxic) masculinity is insecurity. Like watch a Zack Snyder movie, it is all about insecurity (his mostly).

Yes, Wyll is a very good example of that, how he tries to measure up to a standard he will never be able to. I would also argue that his bravado is exactly what traditional masculinity is all about, not about strength but about the appearance of impenetrability (if we want to go that deep into it :D).

About femininity and phallocentrism (which is another word for sexist, and no not all men have to have sexist mindsets).

Being vulnerable is not feminine quality. We are human-beings. We are all exposed and vulnerable. And it is funny that you singled out Jaheira as not feminine enough for you, cause yes, she was the least written to crater to a sort of male fantasy as she was the most complex. She was a person bound by duty to her order and scarred by a tragic loss of her love. While Aerie is the submissive kitten and Viconia is the dominatrix with a heart of gold (and these like are the oldest sexist archetypes).
>these are not feminine attributes
wrong, they are, but some of them are attributes of a particulary inexpirienced women.

However, positive female traits are not male traits. Forwardness, stubborness, rudeness, beeing taciturn, thick headedness and recklessness are not what i would call positive female attributes.

Id say positive female attributes are: Compassion, Dignity, Demureness, Nurturing good qualities in others, beeing an example in virtue, respectfulness, leadership by high expectations, Offering of Redemption rather than forgiveness, Spirituality, guidance, beeing an examplar for a cause rather than just af ollower

a strong female character TM (i hate that term), shows dignity and is composed, she doesnt lash out under stress, and guides others to be what they need to be.
I understand that people mistake direct stern leadership for a pureley positive concept, as it is associated with power. But a good feminine character leads by holding herself and others to a high standard, a feminine leader makes others want to be better than they are, rather than shouting at them to behave as such.

Showing weakness is not a flaw of a feminine character. It can be a demand.
Both a demand for others to drop their guard and be honest, aswell as one for others to step up and do their part.

>inb4 this is letting other people do the work
leadership is a desireable quality both in men and women and it always requries delegation.


As a contrast ill give you some positive male qualities and leadership abilities:
Stoicism, Bravery in the face of fear opposed to a lack of fear, Self Sacrifice, Comradrie, Loyalty to a cause and allies, Making bad descisions rather than no descisions-> descisiveness, saying only things that need to be said, no plattitues

Male leadership is about: leading by example, show not tell, getting a heterogenous group to work together by bridging the gaps, rousing people with words and deeds to give them a cause, accountability, answering for descisions made while also not undermining the authority when not the leader, integrating the weakest links in the chain rather then bullying them and creating a weakness


Or to put it down bluntly: a masculine leader shows HOW to follow a cause, a feminine leader shows WHY to follow it





Those are just some examples of classic positive male and female traits and leadership skills.
I could go onf or hours. Of course you could say "Duh all of those things are good a human should know all of these"; but this is not true. some of these are diametrically opposed to one another, and both kinds of leadership are required in Humans.


>ON aerie und vici
i pretty much agree with this analysis of both of those characters.
Note that vulnerability always plays a part in relationship building both for men and women, tho typically male positive romantic qualities is beeing someone who you can rely on when you are vulnerable, so typically vulnerability is less pronounced in male characters in romance.

>On Wyll
So all the "male "characteristics you see on him are negative, maybe thats the issue. Maybe thats also why you use the word "Toxic masculinity".
Theres the first red flag, then you start throwing around the word sexist and im thinking maybe youre not the right person to debate these topics, you obviously have some issues to work on yourself.
regardless:
Wyll is not a very Masculine character.
In the sense that Manhood in most Human cultures is, opposed to womanhood, earned rather than given.
You are expected to grow out of the bravado and the bragging, you are expected to restrain your anger and channel it into something producitve.
In that sense, Wyll is not very manly at all.

He is more reminiscent of a late teenager trying his best good boy / bad boy routine. But not a man.
Either that, or he is a man written by someone who has some very bad opinions on men.
Yes, I would argue these have nothing to do with gender or sex. Only with gendered expectations.

You very arbitrarily divide the spectrum of human emotion and decide what is okay for women and men to assume. Sorry, but this is exactly what toxic masculinity is about.

I don't want to judge and don't know your background or age group, but for me, this sounds very old-school and harmful for all parties included.

Originally Posted by Sordak
>
So all the "male "characteristics you see on him are negative, maybe thats the issue. Maybe thats also why you use the word "Toxic masculinity".
Theres the first red flag, then you start throwing around the word sexist and im thinking maybe youre not the right person to debate these topics, you obviously have some issues to work on yourself.

No need to get into personal insults, my dude. I didn't say I hate Wyll or he is unappealing to me, I said he is a very good case study of the crisis of masculinity.
>nothing to do with gender or sex
Everything to do with gender or sex, if you dont believe me i urge you to read a bit into Evolutionary Psychology and group dynamics.
These are archetypes that humanity has known and perpetuated since before antiquity and they have been well explained by now.

>he is a very good case study of the crisis of masculinity
Exactly. youre right on that.
hes a case study on young men with no father figures that never learn restraint and accountability.
There is indeed a problem with this in the western world due to rising numbers of absantee fathers and single mothers that dont know how to deal with a physically and emotionally powerfull young asshole thats confused and doesnt know what to do with his life.


>this is what toxic masculinity is all about
Toxic masculinity is a Feminist talking point created to deride men and male behaviour.
Nothing more.
What you discribe is the behaviour of a teenager that hasnt learned to be mature yet. This is normal in Humans, but not past a certain age. Attributing it to "men" or "masculinity" is ridiculous.
>Harmfull
To whom?
Everything i have said is positivisitc, if people behaved more like that, they would be more happy.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
What are positive feminine qualities?

I am seriously curious what people think, because this is an important subject.

I like this:

One thing to note though is that feminine =/= female and masculine =/= male, males can be feminine and females can be masculine and both can be somwhere in between.
Originally Posted by Sordak
>nothing to do with gender or sex
Everything to do with gender or sex, if you dont believe me i urge you to read a bit into Evolutionary Psychology and group dynamics.
These are archetypes that humanity has known and perpetuated since before antiquity and they have been well explained by now.

>this is what toxic masculinity is all about
Toxic masculinity is a Feminist talking point created to deride men and male behaviour.
Nothing more.
What you discribe is the behaviour of a teenager that hasnt learned to be mature yet. This is normal in Humans, but not past a certain age. Attributing it to "men" or "masculinity" is ridiculous.
>Harmfull
To whom?
Everything i have said is positivisitc, if people behaved more like that, they would be more happy.

Let's agree to disagree.

Toxic masculinity is not a feminist "creation". You cannot shoot the messenger cause they bring bad news. I have studied feminist theory (though it is not my field) and they make extremely important points and exciting discoveries.

I am a literary scholar and not a biologist but frankly the term "Evolutionary Psychology" screams pseudo-science to me.

The last statement about how people would be happy if only they would live the way that pleases you, that is let's say troubling.

Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
What are positive feminine qualities?

I am seriously curious what people think, because this is an important subject.

I like this:

One thing to note though is that feminine =/= female and masculine =/= male, males can be feminine and females can be masculine.

Agreed. I found the traditional dichotomy largely unhelpful to fully map out the human psyche.
Originally Posted by Sordak
Toxic masculinity is a Feminist talking point created to deride men and male behaviour.

It's basically wounded masculine in the picture that I showed, there is also toxic femininity aka wounded feminine.

I don't think there needs to be seperation between what are positive qualities for males or females, there are just a bunch of positive qualities and the more of those you have the better, both masculine and feminine.
Some of these qualities are diametrically opposed however. And sometimes it just takes two people to tackle a problem.

men and women are literaly made for one another. i dont know how such a wholesome statement could be considered so controversial.
For what its worth, men and women do things differently and thus they get things done.

This might be a bitter pill to swallow but some characteristics are immuteable and some things you cannot escape, unless you count hormone therapy which literaly changes your brain chemistry, but thats too complex a topic to get into right now.

Id like to remind you of that book about a woman who decided to live as a man for a year, only to discover that despite herself seeing herself as a very masculine woman, men saw her as an overly feminine men when disguised.

Im not saying you CANNOT have feminine traits as a man and vice versa.
Im saying that youll eventually be a man with some feminine qualities. These cannot just be swapped around.


And this only takes into account a single Human beeing.
Once you introduce more people (such as in lets say an adventuring party) you start getting group behaviours which are even more influenced by evolutionary biology.
Read up on the American military and how group dynamics change when women and men are in mixed units.
The same behaviour when done by a man and by a woman will have a different effect.

And no, this is not due to some kind of negative tinted "sexism" or anything else nefarious. This is due to men and women beeing different, having different bodies and having different evolutionary pressures.
it is human instinct to save a woman. An instict that both men and women share. This comes from the simple fact that if half your men died, your tribe could recover within one generation, if half your women died the same wasnt true. And such people in combat situations will always gravitate towards securing the womans safetey.
Hence why a woman leading the charge in the same way as a man would, leads to a different leaderhsip effect.

A man charging headlong into the fray will show his commitment to self saccrifice for the cause.
a woman charging headlong into the fray will prompt a protective response from the rest of the team.

Spacehamster:
So you have STUDIED "Feminist theory" but evolutionary biology sounds like pseudoscience to you?
yeah lets agree to disagree because i dont think this is going to get anywhere.
Originally Posted by Sordak
Some of these qualities are diametrically opposed however. And sometimes it just takes two people to tackle a problem.

Sure, but it doesn't matter which side you are on regardless of your sex.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Men and women are literaly made for one another. i dont know how such a wholesome statement could be considered so controversial.

Sure. I don't think it's controversial, if we are talking about reproduction.

Originally Posted by Sordak
For what its worth, men and women do things differently and thus they get things done.

Individuals do things differently regardless of their sex.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Id like to remind you of that book about a woman who decided to live as a man for a year, only to discover that despite herself seeing herself as a very masculine woman, men saw her as an overly feminine men when disguised.

Haven't read the book, but I guess she had a faulty perception of how masculine she actually was.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Im not saying you CANNOT have feminine traits as a man and vice versa.
Im saying that youll eventually be a man with some feminine qualities. These cannot just be swapped around.

What are you even trying to say here? I am confused. You just said that you can have feminine traits as a man, that means you can be a feminine man.. so what cannot be swapped?


Originally Posted by Sordak
And this only takes into account a single Human beeing.
Once you introduce more people (such as in lets say an adventuring party) you start getting group behaviours which are even more influenced by evolutionary biology.
Read up on the American military and how group dynamics change when women and men are in mixed units.
The same behaviour when done by a man and by a woman will have a different effect.

If you put a bunch of feminine men and a bunch of masculine men into the same unit the dynamic will also be different than if it was a group of all likeminded individuals. Once again, sex is irrelevant, it's the individual.

Originally Posted by Sordak
This is due to men and women beeing different, having different bodies and having different evolutionary pressures.

Individuals also have different biology. I know there are tendencies, but in society we ought to judge everyone on an individual basis. Also one thing you have to understand is that biology is often dumb and it is not in your best interest to blindly follow it, I'll give you an example:

I had an ear canal infection once, which messed up my vestibular system, during that time I had motion sickness and constantly wanted to vommit, because my lizard brain thought that it's because I ate something poisonous, but I knew better because I was diagnosed at the hospital, so fought the urge to vommit constantly to keep down the food and water to get well faster rather than give into the instinct and be sick while hungry and dehydrated.
I'd actually like to throw my hat into the ring on this one: I think that Wyll is actually a decent example of fairly healthy masculinity. The man is relentlessly nice to you. One especially clear example is the Tiefling party where everyone is like "Oh you're sleeping with them? Ok suuuure." but Wyll just congratulates you and moves on. He never claims to be in charge, never criticizes you unless you do something incredibly heinous, and very rarely fits the toxic masculinity talking points on @Kadajko's little chart. He actually firs the "natural masculine" section very well. I also never really saw his journey for heroism to be him trying to live up to an impossible standard, but rather him trying to improve himself. We know that Wyll used to be a *really* bad person. He was a spoiled nobleman, then a thief, then a member of the Fist. He then fell in with Mizora, which is something he is, by the time we meet him, actively trying to rectify. The only possible thing that could be percieved as "toxic masculinity" about him is his anger issues. Other than that, Wyll is a rather masculine man who is healthy, supportive, and nothing but kind to you.
Originally Posted by Sordak
Spacehamster:
So you have STUDIED "Feminist theory" but evolutionary biology sounds like pseudoscience to you?
yeah lets agree to disagree because i dont think this is going to get anywhere.

Dude, you are so full of it. You used the phrase "Evolutionary Psychology", not evolutionary biology. Big difference. Also, arguing from a point of essentialism that your argument represents the natural order of things is like a century late.

Originally Posted by DuskHorseman
I'd actually like to throw my hat into the ring on this one: I think that Wyll is actually a decent example of fairly healthy masculinity. The man is relentlessly nice to you. One especially clear example is the Tiefling party where everyone is like "Oh you're sleeping with them? Ok suuuure." but Wyll just congratulates you and moves on. He never claims to be in charge, never criticizes you unless you do something incredibly heinous, and very rarely fits the toxic masculinity talking points on @Kadajko's little chart. He actually firs the "natural masculine" section very well. I also never really saw his journey for heroism to be him trying to live up to an impossible standard, but rather him trying to improve himself. We know that Wyll used to be a *really* bad person. He was a spoiled nobleman, then a thief, then a member of the Fist. He then fell in with Mizora, which is something he is, by the time we meet him, actively trying to rectify. The only possible thing that could be percieved as "toxic masculinity" about him is his anger issues. Other than that, Wyll is a rather masculine man who is healthy, supportive, and nothing but kind to you.

I like Wyll, too. I didn't mean that he was a bad person. I totally imagine my pc being mates with him. I meant that his insecurities about himself, as the so-called Blade of Frontiers, spring from his insecurities about being the Man. On the note that he was only trying to improve himself, well he chose the short cut approach on that front, with the devil's deal, so he had a sort of hybris, a dramatic sin in that regard (which in my mind makes his story even more compelling). The point I was trying to make that he was a masculine guy (reacting to posts claiming that he was too feminine for some reason).
As a woman, I have to wonder what strange and really old fashioned views some of the male player here have. I really hope, we won't get an Aerie or a Viconia again.
Originally Posted by fylimar
As a woman, I have to wonder what strange and really old fashioned views some of the male player here have. I really hope, we won't getan Aerie oraViconia again.

But why? Why can't we just have diverse characters that include characters that have old-fashioned views and personalities too? Contrast is good.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by fylimar
As a woman, I have to wonder what strange and really old fashioned views some of the male player here have. I really hope, we won't getan Aerie oraViconia again.

But why? Why can't we just have diverse characters that include characters that have old-fashioned views too? Contrast is good.

Contrast is fine, I was talking about what player were writing here. The whole discussion about what is a perfect 'feminine' female (same with the male discussion, I guess) rubs me the wrong way. I'm not mad, I know people have strange views, I just found it a bit hilarious.
We already have a drow dominatrix in the story (whom you can romance). So that is checked.

These are our old-fashioned ideas about gender (women=vulnerable et cetera), not the Faerunian concepts (I mean, looking at the lore, People in Faerun have very different ideas about sex and gender).
Originally Posted by fylimar
Contrast is fine, I was talking about what player were writing here. The whole discussion about what is a perfect 'feminine' female (same with the male discussion, I guess) rubs me the wrong way. I'm not mad, I know people have strange views, I just found it a bit hilarious.

Strange is in the eyes of the beholder. Our discussion de-railed a bit from the ''what I want to see in the game'' to ''whether what I want to see is justified and why''. Personally I don't think a justification is needed, but if someone is going to imply that their view is the ''correct'' one I will chime in.
Originally Posted by fylimar
As a woman, I have to wonder what strange and really old fashioned views some of the male player here have. I really hope, we won't get an Aerie or a Viconia again.
That's fair. I got caught up in something I really didn't believe in, and I apologize. I hope to hell we don't get those two either, I really disliked them.
>What are you even trying to say here?
that a masculine woman is masculine... for a woman and probably sitll a lot less masculine than a very effeminate man.

>If you put a bunch of feminine men and a bunch of masculine men into the same unit the dynamic will also be different
Incorrect.
a feminine man will be pushed in the same way as a non feminine man. a woman will be treated differently.
Ive seen it happen firsthand in the military.

>Individuals also have different biology.
and the biology between a man and a woman is more different than that between individual men and women.
this is also probably not awfully controversial.
Humans have phenotypical differences but that doesnt erase millions of years of evolution through different evolutionary pressures and sexual selection.
>Blindly follow biology
you can try to defy it, i never made a statement about human INTENT.
Point is tho, youll quickly realize that when a man acts more like a woman, he wont start thinking like one and the change in his behaviour would have to be intentional.



>Dusk horseman
beeing nice isnt always a good quality. Neither is not criticising anyone or not taking charge.



>Dude, you are so full of it. You used the phrase "Evolutionary Psychology"
slip up on the second one.
google it, Evoltuionary psychology is a real thing and just because you never heard of it doesnt mean its not real.
Wait till you hear about game theory, then youll start to think the world has gone mad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
There, in case you somehow believe that this is something that only exists on youtube or the like.


>As a woman
Ok.
>I really hope, we won't get an Aerie or a Viconia again.

And i wish you best of luck grappling with a fanbase that genuinly holds up Viconia as one of the, if no thte most memorable characters of the franchise and her romance as the gold standard in CRPG romances.

i also genuinly apreciate you putting words in my mouth.
But it also reveals some things. As far as im concerned, showing vulnerability to people that are close to you is a sign of maturity, not anything else.
But if that makes you feel threatened, i will immediatly stop talking about this when Chick flicks stop featuring men that have no personality ouside of beeing determined and falling over themselves for a plain woman with no redeeming qualities other than beeing the viewer self insert, oh yeah and the part where he always has to be filthy rich and good looking.

have it your way. But i can still enjoy watching the Nanny without feeling attacked.
Originally Posted by Sordak
>
>Dusk horseman
beeing nice isnt always a good quality. Neither is not criticising anyone or not taking charge.<

I mean yeah. What I was saying was in response to an earlier thing where people were saying that Wyll was an example of toxic masculinity, which I disagree with. They're not great qualities, but they're certainly not toxically masculine ones.
Originally Posted by Sordak
slip up on the second one.
google it, Evoltuionary psychology is a real thing and just because you never heard of it doesnt mean its not real.
Wait till you hear about game theory, then youll start to think the world has gone mad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
There, in case you somehow believe that this is something that only exists on youtube or the like.

Yes, I know the discipline exists, but I am also pretty sure it does not mean what you think it does. I meant pseudo-science in that sense, that you are evoking a field of study to support your argument without any credibility on that field. Sorry, mate.

The scientific consent had rebuked this kind of regressive attitude about gender and gendered behavior decades ago.
Sordak: I was basically referring to your posts with my comments and you proof me right.
I'm in the BG community for many years and I don't see a big Viconia movement. I'd say, every romance in the games is talked about equally, positive and negative.
And I really don't care, if every person in the world loves Viconia, doesn't really change my opinion.
well toxic masculinity is not a word id use in general because its unneccesarily polarizing.

Id say wyll is certainly not a very manly character in the sense of maturity and positive masculine qualities.

doesnt mean hes not probably the nicest of the companions, but id say agreeability is not a good judgement about those qualities.


and oh man
>The scientific consent had rebuked this kind of regressive attitude about gender and gendered behavior decades ago.
prove it then, outstanding claims require outstanding evidence.

The fact that theres critics of an academic field doesnt mean that the field is somehow invalid or that its findings can be discounted out of hand.
In what field do you have any credability?
Do you need a physcis major to discribe that things fall when you drop them?
What kind of silly reductionist argument is that.

>Sordak: I was basically referring to your posts with my comments and you proof me right.
Nice kafkatrap.
clearly my protest of your characterization proves your characterization right.

I encourage you to read this forum then. also id like to ask, which romance in the series do you prefer then? is any of them good?
Are they all horrible? Im genuinly interrested now.


For what its worth, the two of you sound like ideologues to me.
You dismiss academic fields out of moral considerations and call beloved staples of the franchise awfull. Well then, you are entitled to your opinion, but somehow i dont think youre making anyone reconsider their position this way.
I like Wyll, too. I think he will have a very interesting personal arc throughout the chapters of the story. I really hope that Larian adds pact of the blade in one of the next updates, so he can shine a bit.

Ohh my god, dude. I am not dismissing the field of study you mentioned. I just think you are bullshiting and have no idea about the field.

You think the field will validate your very last century ideas about gender and gendered behavior and I seriously doubt that because as I have mentioned there was a paradigm shift in natural sciences (especially in psychology) about gender relations, thanks to the work of feminist scholars whose dedicated and hard earned scholarly achievements you dismissed so easily.
Originally Posted by Sordak
that a masculine woman is masculine... for a woman and probably sitll a lot less masculine than a very effeminate man.

Ok, this is just factually false and extremely easy to debunk with real life examples. A statement like that almost makes me feel like you live in a small village with very little contact with the outside world, but you are on the internet.. or you just heavily filter the media you consume.

Originally Posted by Sordak
a feminine man will be pushed in the same way as a non feminine man. a woman will be treated differently.
Ive seen it happen firsthand in the military.

So the dynamic is different because people are sexist in he work place. What now?

Originally Posted by Sordak
and the biology between a man and a woman is more different than that between individual men and women.

Differences in primary sexual characteristics and everything to do with reproduction, yes. However the individual differences between different men and women do indeed outweight the difference between men and women as a whole.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Point is tho, youll quickly realize that when a man acts more like a woman, he wont start thinking like one and the change in his behaviour would have to be intentional.

You already start with a false premise that there is such a thing as ''acting like a woman''. A man can be naturally feminine without intent.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
The heart of traditional (toxic) masculinity is insecurity. .

If you can reduce the entirety of traditional masculinity and put it as equivalent to toxic masculinity, then you probably have a very narrowminded and likely ideologically framed view of masculinity; if not an outright chauvinist one.


Originally Posted by spacehamster95
The point I was trying to make that he was a masculine guy (reacting to posts claiming that he was too feminine for some reason).

It was fairly obvious from what the other people wrote that they thought of Wyll not as "too feminine" but too juvenile. Somebody not being masculine does not make them feminine.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Toxic masculinity is not a feminist "creation". You cannot shoot the messenger cause they bring bad news. I have studied feminist theory (though it is not my field) and they make extremely important points and exciting discoveries.

I am a literary scholar and not a biologist but frankly the term "Evolutionary Psychology" screams pseudo-science to me.
Ahahahaha, oh my God, I'm falling off my chair. Feminist theory is legit, but oh no, evolutionary biology is a pseudo-science.
Also calling masculinity toxic is toxic. There is nothing toxic about traditional masculinity, and men don't owe conformity to people who resent and hate them. If you find this troubling, good. You should feel troubled, as all petty tyrants should
Is it not possible to have a discussion without attacking each other? Please be civil people.
Originally Posted by fylimar
As a woman, I have to wonder what strange and really old fashioned views some of the male player here have. I really hope, we won't get an Aerie or a Viconia again.
As a gay man I have to wonder what strange and really progressive views some of the feminist players here have. I really hope we get an Aerie or a Viconia again.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Originally Posted by Sordak
slip up on the second one.
google it, Evoltuionary psychology is a real thing and just because you never heard of it doesnt mean its not real.
Wait till you hear about game theory, then youll start to think the world has gone mad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
There, in case you somehow believe that this is something that only exists on youtube or the like.

Yes, I know the discipline exists, but I am also pretty sure it does not mean what you think it does. I meant pseudo-science in that sense, that you are evoking a field of study to support your argument without any credibility on that field. Sorry, mate.

The scientific consent had rebuked this kind of regressive attitude about gender and gendered behavior decades ago.
Dude you already admitted never studying evo-psych, so you might as well stop making uneducated comments about it's validity. You just don't like it because it disagrees with you, therefore you try to assassinate it's validity so that you can feel comfortable.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
The heart of traditional (toxic) masculinity is insecurity. .

If you can reduce the entirety of traditional masculinity and put it as equivalent to toxic masculinity, then you probably have a very narrowminded and likely ideologically framed view of masculinity; if not an outright chauvinist one.


Originally Posted by spacehamster95
The point I was trying to make that he was a masculine guy (reacting to posts claiming that he was too feminine for some reason).

It was fairly obvious from what the other people wrote that they thought of Wyll not as "too feminine" but too juvenile. Somebody not being masculine does not make them feminine.

If you read through this discussion, it really shows how much people think in the dichotomy of masc/fem. So yes, not being masculine, means being feminine, because femininity has been defined as a lack by as old as Aristotle.

About traditional masculinity. Yes, there is a crisis of masculinity today, in post-feminism society, because we have discovered that the way we used to think man should be, that ain't shit. That's one of the challenges of contemporary men that we have to construct a healthy idea of masculinity that is not toxic (as the traditional idea was). That is not a chauvinist attitude, only it is informed by the findings of the past fifty years of cultural scholarship.

I am a dude. I have problems with emotion. I get angry, sometimes too much because I was taught that is the only valid emotion I am allowed to have. I have my heroes, mostly from antiquity whom I admire, but I also see how sometimes they were ain't shit.
@Bruh @spacehamster95

Tbh feminist theory AND evolunionary psychology are both pseudoscience.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Toxic masculinity is not a feminist "creation". You cannot shoot the messenger cause they bring bad news. I have studied feminist theory (though it is not my field) and they make extremely important points and exciting discoveries.

I am a literary scholar and not a biologist but frankly the term "Evolutionary Psychology" screams pseudo-science to me.
Ahahahaha, oh my God, I'm falling off my chair. Feminist theory is legit, but oh no, evolutionary biology is a pseudo-science.
Also calling masculinity toxic is toxic. There is nothing toxic about traditional masculinity, and men don't owe conformity to people who resent and hate them. If you find this troubling, good. You should feel troubled, as all petty tyrants should
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Toxic masculinity is not a feminist "creation". You cannot shoot the messenger cause they bring bad news. I have studied feminist theory (though it is not my field) and they make extremely important points and exciting discoveries.

I am a literary scholar and not a biologist but frankly the term "Evolutionary Psychology" screams pseudo-science to me.
Ahahahaha, oh my God, I'm falling off my chair. Feminist theory is legit, but oh no, evolutionary biology is a pseudo-science.
Also calling masculinity toxic is toxic. There is nothing toxic about traditional masculinity, and men don't owe conformity to people who resent and hate them. If you find this troubling, good. You should feel troubled, as all petty tyrants should

Dude, please read through the discussion.

Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Originally Posted by Sordak
slip up on the second one.
google it, Evoltuionary psychology is a real thing and just because you never heard of it doesnt mean its not real.
Wait till you hear about game theory, then youll start to think the world has gone mad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
There, in case you somehow believe that this is something that only exists on youtube or the like.

Yes, I know the discipline exists, but I am also pretty sure it does not mean what you think it does. I meant pseudo-science in that sense, that you are evoking a field of study to support your argument without any credibility on that field. Sorry, mate.

The scientific consent had rebuked this kind of regressive attitude about gender and gendered behavior decades ago.
Dude you already admitted never studying evo-psych, so you might as well stop making uneducated comments about it's validity. You just don't like it because it disagrees with you, therefore you try to assassinate it's validity so that you can feel comfortable.

Yes, I have never studied it, just like Sordak. The difference, I won't name drop a field of study I am not familiar with just to support my argument.


Originally Posted by Kadajko
@Bruh @spacehamster95

Tbh feminist theory AND evolunionary psychology are both pseudoscience.

They are both valid fields of study, with incredible achievements. Let's not dismiss them so easily.
I did read through it, which is why I'm laughing at you.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
The heart of traditional (toxic) masculinity is insecurity. .

If you can reduce the entirety of traditional masculinity and put it as equivalent to toxic masculinity, then you probably have a very narrowminded and likely ideologically framed view of masculinity; if not an outright chauvinist one.


Originally Posted by spacehamster95
The point I was trying to make that he was a masculine guy (reacting to posts claiming that he was too feminine for some reason).

It was fairly obvious from what the other people wrote that they thought of Wyll not as "too feminine" but too juvenile. Somebody not being masculine does not make them feminine.

If you read through this discussion, it really shows how much people think in the dichotomy of masc/fem. So yes, not being masculine, means being feminine, because femininity has been defined as a lack by as old as Aristotle.

About traditional masculinity. Yes, there is a crisis of masculinity today, in post-feminism society, because we have discovered that the way we used to think man should be, that ain't shit. That's one of the challenges of contemporary men that we have to construct a healthy idea of masculinity that is not toxic (as the traditional idea was). That is not a chauvinist attitude, only it is informed by the findings of the past fifty years of cultural scholarship.

I am a dude. I have problems with emotion. I get angry, sometimes too much because I was taught that is the only valid emotion I am allowed to have. I have my heroes, mostly from antiquity whom I admire, but I also see how sometimes they were ain't shit.

Definitely narrowminded and ideolically framed, chauvinist overtones amplified.
Okay, guys. Bless your hearts, then.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Okay, guys. Bless your hearts, then.
No, no, bless your heart. You clearly need more love in there. Learn to forgive men for the great sins they have comitted against you. Lmao.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by Sordak
Some of these qualities are diametrically opposed however. And sometimes it just takes two people to tackle a problem.

Sure, but it doesn't matter which side you are on regardless of your sex.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Men and women are literaly made for one another. i dont know how such a wholesome statement could be considered so controversial.

Sure. I don't think it's controversial, if we are talking about reproduction.

Originally Posted by Sordak
For what its worth, men and women do things differently and thus they get things done.

Individuals do things differently regardless of their sex.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Id like to remind you of that book about a woman who decided to live as a man for a year, only to discover that despite herself seeing herself as a very masculine woman, men saw her as an overly feminine men when disguised.

Haven't read the book, but I guess she had a faulty perception of how masculine she actually was.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Im not saying you CANNOT have feminine traits as a man and vice versa.
Im saying that youll eventually be a man with some feminine qualities. These cannot just be swapped around.

What are you even trying to say here? I am confused. You just said that you can have feminine traits as a man, that means you can be a feminine man.. so what cannot be swapped?


Originally Posted by Sordak
And this only takes into account a single Human beeing.
Once you introduce more people (such as in lets say an adventuring party) you start getting group behaviours which are even more influenced by evolutionary biology.
Read up on the American military and how group dynamics change when women and men are in mixed units.
The same behaviour when done by a man and by a woman will have a different effect.

If you put a bunch of feminine men and a bunch of masculine men into the same unit the dynamic will also be different than if it was a group of all likeminded individuals. Once again, sex is irrelevant, it's the individual.

Originally Posted by Sordak
This is due to men and women beeing different, having different bodies and having different evolutionary pressures.

Individuals also have different biology. I know there are tendencies, but in society we ought to judge everyone on an individual basis. Also one thing you have to understand is that biology is often dumb and it is not in your best interest to blindly follow it, I'll give you an example:

I had an ear canal infection once, which messed up my vestibular system, during that time I had motion sickness and constantly wanted to vommit, because my lizard brain thought that it's because I ate something poisonous, but I knew better because I was diagnosed at the hospital, so fought the urge to vommit constantly to keep down the food and water to get well faster rather than give into the instinct and be sick while hungry and dehydrated.

Sordak is pushing a bunch of nonsense based upon a very poor understanding of the world, but there should be some clarification. People tend to have specific internal qualities that come from nature - and certain ones are possessed by most people coded XX and other ones are possessed by most people coded XY, but not the other way around. Very few people, if any, have all the markers of XX or XY, but there are tendencies. In essence, these mark out gender; this is what is internal and defines someone. On top of this, you have societally made gender roles which shape men and women to act in specific ways artificially such as that women should stay at home or that it is the man's job to protect the home and provide or that men are always in charge. The societal stuff is what tends to be toxic because it is designed to maintain a specific societal structure that has a specific purpose - which in our case is a patriarchal structure where property is passed on through men and men want to make sure that the children they are handing it down to are theirs. Of course, some people are born in bodies that are identified as masculine but their internal gender is feminine and vice versa. There are women who are born into bodies that are coded XY. There are intersex people that are coded XXXY or XXY or XYY or XXYY, etc who aren't coded so clearly. There are people born in the Carribbean as little girls then during puberty they grow penises and easily adapt to being men despite being raised as women.

Sordak's views come from those artificial gender roles that oppress men and women alike and a lack of knowledge about how human biology actually works beyond a fourth grade level. He wants to play in 1e as originally written before everyone disregarded the rules on gender because they were horribly oppressive and added nothing to the game.
If it was nonsense you could easily disprove it. I happen to agree with Sordak, and I don't see any argument, not a single one, why I should take feminist/progressive hatepropaganda over the traditional view. You guys simply criticize and present no alternative that is appealing at all.
It's really not interesting after I listened to this garbage for 10 years.
It is not our job to educate you. It is yours. If you agree with Sordak because he doesn't move you out of your comfort zone, that is great.

Happy Holidays!
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
In essence, these mark out gender; this is what is internal and defines someone.

I don't subscribe to the idea that a person has an internal gender I view gender only as social construct that consists of behevioral rules. That which is internal I simply call ''character'' or ''personality'' which does not have a direct parallel to ones sex even though there are tendencies.

Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
The societal stuff is what tends to be toxic because it is designed to maintain a specific societal structure that has a specific purpose - which in our case is a patriarchal structure where property is passed on through men and men want to make sure that the children they are handing it down to are theirs.

I don't believe that one sex is better off in society than the other as a whole, I believe that there are upsides and downsides in how each is treated due to sexism.

Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Of course, some people are born in bodies that are identified as masculine but their internal gender is feminine and vice versa. There are women who are born into bodies that are coded XY.

I don't subscribe to this idea as I have mentioned earlier I see gender as a social construct, while I view men / women through a lense of biological sex which unlike gender is a biological fact.

Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Sordak's views come from those artificial gender roles that oppress men and women alike and a lack of knowledge about how human biology actually works

Agree here.
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
It is not our job to educate you. It is yours. If you agree with Sordak because he doesn't move you out of your comfort zone, that is great.

Happy Holidays!
Thats a lot of projection here from a guy who rejects evo-psych despite admittedly never reading up on it because it goes against his comfortbale man-hating religion.
Also careful with that smug "education" attitude. You may not think that you should educate people (and really, that should be done by professionals), but right wing traditionalists most definitely feel like they should educate people and they do. If they do their education and you just act smug and superior you will lose out in the long run.

But of course that would assume you have actual knowledge instead of hate-propaganda against men. Oh foolish me...
OK, saying that I don't agree with the mansplaning about my gender is feminist hatepropaganda now. This discussion did go downhill quickly. I said my piece and am out now until this thread goes back to companion wishes.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
It is not our job to educate you. It is yours. If you agree with Sordak because he doesn't move you out of your comfort zone, that is great.

Happy Holidays!
Thats a lot of projection here from a guy who rejects evo-psych despite admittedly never reading up on it because it goes against his comfortbale man-hating religion.
Dude, as I have written multiple times, I have nothing against the field of evo-psych.

I just don't believe Sordak's bs has anything to do with it and he only name dropped the field to claim a phony authority in the discussion.

But I am out, too. Have a nice holidays everybody!
Guys and gals why don't we instead celebrate the fact that we are so different but BG3 brings us together?
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
I just don't believe Sordak's bs has anything to do with it and he only name dropped the field to claim a phony authority in the discussion.

But I am out, too. Have a nice holidays everybody!
And in my opinion he didn't just namedrop it. There my word against yours.

Originally Posted by fylimar
OK, saying that I don't agree with the mansplaning about my gender is feminist hatepropaganda now. This discussion did go downhill quickly. I said my piece and am out now until this thread goes back to companion wishes.
Well I don't agree with your womansplaining about your gender either.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Well I don't agree with your womansplaining about your gender either.

I am a woman, I'm pretty sure that makes me more of an expert about my gender than you. You might have noticed, that I didn't engage in the discussion about men and masculinity, I have my own thoughts about that, but unlike you, I find it disrespectful to tell the other gender, what they have to think about themselves.
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Bruh
Well I don't agree with your womansplaining about your gender either.

I am a woman, I'm pretty sure that makes me more of an expert about my gender than you. You might have noticed, that I didn't engage in the discussion about men and masculinity, I have my own thoughts about that, but unlike you, I find it disrespectful to tell the other gender, what they have to think about themselves.

Everyone can engage about any discussion regardles of their own gender. You may think it disrespectful, but I think using the word "mansplaining" is more disrespectful.
Originally Posted by fylimar
I am a woman, I'm pretty sure that makes me more of an expert about my gender than you.

Not necessarily. An expert is a person that simply has extensive knowledge on the subject, regardless of personal experience, aka anecdotal evidence.

Originally Posted by fylimar
You might have noticed, that I didn't engage in the discussion about men and masculinity, I have my own thoughts about that, but unlike you, I find it disrespectful to tell the other gender, what they have to think about themselves.

Not at all disrespectful, you are allowed to have your opinion and can start productive discussions about men. Also what a person thinks about themselves is not always true, I might for example think that I am a kind person but others might disagree, my opinion is not the only one that is valid.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by fylimar
I am a woman, I'm pretty sure that makes me more of an expert about my gender than you.

Not necessarily. An expert is a person that simply has extensive knowledge on the subject, regardless of personal experience, aka anecdotal evidence.

Originally Posted by fylimar
You might have noticed, that I didn't engage in the discussion about men and masculinity, I have my own thoughts about that, but unlike you, I find it disrespectful to tell the other gender, what they have to think about themselves.

Not at all disrespectful, you are allowed to have your opinion and can start productive discussions about men. Also what a person thinks about themselves is not always true, I might for example think that I am a kind person but others might disagree, my opinion is not the only one that is valid.

In general, I agree with you, but I did found the way, Bruh and Sordak talked about women really disrespectful, that is, why I reacted asI did. I'm generally OK with discussing the other gender, but not here in this environment.
I'm coming back, when it goes back to the topic of companions we like to see.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
I don't subscribe to the idea that a person has an internal gender I view gender only as social construct that consists of behevioral rules. That which is internal I simply call ''character'' or ''personality'' which does not have a direct parallel to ones sex even though there are tendencies.

Well, science disagrees with your conclusions.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

Originally Posted by Kadajko
I don't believe that one sex is better off in society than the other as a whole, I believe that there are upsides and downsides in how each is treated due to sexism.

Both are harmed, but women still get the shorter straw. Though, the statement you are replying to doesn't claim that in itself and this is essentially unprompted.

Originally Posted by Kadajko
I don't subscribe to this idea as I have mentioned earlier I see gender as a social construct, while I view men / women through a lense of biological sex which unlike gender is a biological fact.

And, once again, science disagrees with you. They see the overarching pattern and you are essentially denying trans people their existence after the reality of our struggle has been painstakingly proven from times when experts wouldn't even consider taking it seriously enough to study. There is internal gender shown through different ways that male and female brains tend to form and function and trans people who have been claiming they feel like the other have been shown to show those same patterns as the cisgender counterparts of their claimed gender.

Originally Posted by Bruh
Thats a lot of projection here from a guy who rejects evo-psych despite admittedly never reading up on it because it goes against his comfortbale man-hating religion.
Also careful with that smug "education" attitude. You may not think that you should educate people (and really, that should be done by professionals), but right wing traditionalists most definitely feel like they should educate people and they do. If they do their education and you just act smug and superior you will lose out in the long run.

But of course that would assume you have actual knowledge instead of hate-propaganda against men. Oh foolish me...

Evolutionary psychology is not very well respected within academia and specifically derided for not having testable hypotheses and thus not being falsifiable. Once it can form falsifiable claims is the point where people will potentially take it seriously.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash

No, because I don't subscribe to the idea of transitioning, it actually supports my conclusion, that a female can have a brain structure typical of males and vice verse. In my opinion a society without sexism would not have trans people, there would be nothing to transition to, as you could be as feminine / masculine as you like regardless of your sex.

Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Both are harmed, but women still get the shorter straw.

I'm not sure how you would go about reliably quantifying the harm.

Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
And, once again, science disagrees with you. They see the overarching pattern and you are essentially denying trans people their existence after the reality of our struggle has been painstakingly proven from times when experts wouldn't even consider taking it seriously enough to study. There is internal gender shown through different ways that male and female brains tend to form and function and trans people who have been claiming they feel like the other have been shown to show those same patterns as the cisgender counterparts of their claimed gender.

But you realize that not all people have gender right? I actually don't have problems with trans people existing or them doing whatver they like, my disagreement is only in the use of language, which stems from my conviction of making rational sense of everything in the world. No person has ever been able to rationally explain what gender is, because it is an emotion, a feeling. I can't feel other peoples emotions, and I don't share them, that's why I make sense of the physical reality and connect language to that instead.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Evolutionary psychology is not very well respected within academia and specifically derided for not having testable hypotheses and thus not being falsifiable. Once it can form falsifiable claims is the point where people will potentially take it seriously.

That is just an appeal to authority fallacy. Fields of science that rock the boat of consensus are never respected. Just look at the the story of Ignaz Semmelweis who was bullied to insanity for his accomplishments, because he went against the scientific consensus of his day. Turns out he was right and his theories saved millions of lives.
I would like to see non-ideological companion to carry my stuff around.
Originally Posted by Verte
I would like to see non-ideological companion to carry my stuff around.
Oh yes, that would be so nice. Maybe a Half-Orc buddy with 20 STR?
This?
My favourite companion was always Lydia. Best delivery, any game
Originally Posted by Dexai
My favourite companion was always Lydia. Best delivery, any game

Too bad she likes to use Giant airlines without a parachute.
Ok cool, new page

In addition to a Dwarf Companion (critically important) I'd also like to see a companion with a unique summons, familiar/animal companion/other.

I'm thinking especially of Tiax with his Ghast in BG1, and how that pretty much made the character from a utility standpoint, even if Thief/Cleric was already pretty useful in itself. It's hard to say what might be best functionally when we don't really know who else is showing up, but some consideration of cross-over with the other PCs in the party so that there are ways to sub companions in/out without having any one Companion feel too essential to ignore. I'm still really hoping that these Origin companions are window dressing, and that the real companions will be greater in number with many more options in the mix.

Right now we are missing a second melee fighter/mule option, and its pretty noticeable if you decide not to roll with Lae'zel.

I feel like they spoiled us a bit, by giving us a lvl1 Companion with 19 strength and 14 constitution, already decked out in Half Plate from the get go. Also with an option to be an Eldritch Knight, like that's going to make most of the runners up look pretty weak sauce by comparison.

But we need another wrecking ball to compete. Perhaps the inverse: a mauler with very high Con and moderately high STR say?

Again, a Dwarf would be a good fit for that. This one isn't rocket science. Just because its a staple and has been done to death shouldn't preclude it. They should look at that as a challenge, like how to make a character type so familiar actually interesting, without breaking the trope fundamentally.
I never used Tia much, but he seemed interesting. But by the time, I've met him, my group was pretty set.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Ok cool, new page
IKR

Btw yeah, I suspect Lae is not going to be very popular, I'm actually incentivized to play a beefy meelee guy myself just so that I don't have to bring her along. (Don't take it as a sign to change her Larian, I love to hate Lae, and I don't want her to be nice).

What I'd like is maybe a beefy/tanky dragon sorcerer who is meelee focused and gets more powerful as his health goes down? His fires would burn hotter and hotter as he is more and more desperate. That would make for an interesting, high risk, high reward risky pseudo-tank. The Dragon bloodline already makes you quite a bit more tanky and Sorcerers have CON as a recommended stat for some extra HP. It could be a she too, but I would prefer a human female sorcerer more then a male one. Dunno why , I just feel it's more fitting laugh
Originally Posted by Kadajko
No, because I don't subscribe to the idea of transitioning, it actually supports my conclusion, that a female can have a brain structure typical of males and vice verse. In my opinion a society without sexism would not have trans people, there would be nothing to transition to, as you could be as feminine / masculine as you like regardless of your sex.

Science still disagrees. And there is a lot of evidence that this is wrong. For some people, being able to express the gender they want to express is enough without any bodily changes - most people depart partially from the archetypes and most cisgender people aren't fully masculine or feminine. However, there are some people whose gender dysphoria leads them to literally chop off their breasts or penis because they so feel they don't belong - and I'm not talking about gender affirming surgery, I'm talking about people who end up dying, bleeding out, because they just chop off their own body parts because they don't match. Transgenderism is not the result of sexism, and it is absurd to suggest it is - it is the result of the sloppy way that biology works where people are born with bodies that don't match their internal conceptions of what that body should be. In fact, gene variants have been tied to being transgender just earlier this year - what has been found relates to estrogen receptors in the brain.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

Originally Posted by Kadajko
I'm not sure how you would go about reliably quantifying the harm.

Plenty has been done on where the advantage is one way - such as with pay, promotion, whether or not there are laws governing what you can do with your own body, etc. While both men and women can be funneled into artificial gender roles that deny them who they are, the vast majority of oppression that is one way flows against women. The only exceptions I'm aware of is with child custody (which feminists have fought against the presumption that the mother is the best candidate) and with the presumption of who can commit rape (whereas feminists forced the FBI to redefine rape to recognize that women can rape men).


Originally Posted by Kadajko
But you realize that not all people have gender right? I actually don't have problems with trans people existing or them doing whatver they like, my disagreement is only in the use of language, which stems from my conviction of making rational sense of everything in the world. No person has ever been able to rationally explain what gender is, because it is an emotion, a feeling. I can't feel other peoples emotions, and I don't share them, that's why I make sense of the physical reality and connect language to that instead.

There is nothing suggesting that these people exist in the way that you describe them. They have gender, but their gender is right near the center of the spectrum so that they are left unable to comprehend gender and think they don't have one. They aren't outside the spectrum, they are balanced between the two extremes.
Originally Posted by Verte
I would like to see non-ideological companion to carry my stuff around.

In MMORPGs these are called mules - but if we get a proper DnD product, you can have an actual mule - or horse - or hippopotamus - to carry your stuff around. What you want are mounts and pack animals.
@VeronicaTash before I reply, wanna take it to Private? I think most people here had enough of this topic, and while I would love to continue I do not wish to derail the thread further.
Originally Posted by Kadajko
@VeronicaTash before I reply, wanna take it to Private? I think most people here had enough of this topic, and while I would love to continue I do not wish to derail the thread further.
Please make it private.
Oh man the absolute salt.
well i assume that when everyone just resorts to namecalling that i at least made a dent into their stubborn heads.
>last century ideas
>live in a very small village
man you two realy seem to think im from some kind of podunk village, not because of my views but because you seem to assume that this tactic has any effect on me.

Judging by your arguments ive been on the internet longer than both of you.
Ive witnessed the tail end of the atheism versus religion proto culutre-war and im well aware that when you start comparing your adversary to someone from a previous century or a small village (man, dont you people love stereotyping others? pot, kettle..) youve realized youve got nothing to add in the field of argumentation.

you just revealed your own biases and arrogance about your position.
Im not subscribing to your framework.


>Yes, there is a crisis of masculinity today, in post-feminism society, because we have discovered that the way we used to think man should be, that ain't shit

Speaking of revealing your biases. I think you dont even KNOW what we "used to" think a man should be.
Is Stoicism bad? Are you in favor or against stoicism in the face of crisis? Given the current situation thats an interresting thought.
What abotu self saccrficie? is that good? or bad?
Because from your previous posts im somehow thinking that what you equate to "masculine behaviour" is not the "prescribed masculine behaviour" that one can attribute to the past at all, but rather juvenile male behaviour.

>Tbh feminist theory AND evolunionary psychology are both pseudoscience.

One of them is an academic field, one of them is an ideology.
One of them engages with its critics, one of them doesnt.
Evolutionary Psychology can predict outcomes, feminist theory can not. Which is a pretty good indicator wether or not a hypothesis is any good or not.
And before you ask me about sources, look up the Scandinavian experiment regarding career choice and upbringing in which it was hypothesized that upbringing alone dictated what careeers you were interrested in.
In the end the study concluded that males were still more interrested in "thing" related fields such as mathematics and engineering.

Not to mention that evolutionary psychology is NOT a fully "Nature" aligned field in the nature vs nurture hypothesis.


>Yes, I have never studied it, just like Sordak. The difference, I won't name drop a field of study I am not familiar with just to support my argument.

Say i hypothesize that if i drop an object, it will fall down. Am i namedropping physics? I mean i have studied some physcis in my chemistry major, but at the end of the day im not a physcis major, or a maths major.
I know how Hartree-Fock calculations work, i still probably wont be any help explaining the Schrödingers equation to you mathematically.

Am i just namedropping?
Your logic isnt working out. You can use something without having studied it. Ive read papers on it and articles by people who have studied it, that seems to be sufficient for making an argument on a video games website.
If you want. Though it does immense good for people like Bruh to actually be exposed to truth as opposed to living in a bubble immune to science.
Oh yeah and another one i cannot ignore.

"Its not my job to educate you"

Hahahhaha oh man! What is this? 2015? Man i wanna go back. I wanna go back to laughing at tumblr otherkin blogs saying theres 80 different genders and how its not "Their job to educate me".

That was a simpler time

>Science disagrees

another good red flag for anyone wanting a nuanced discussion. Science is not a singular thing, there are debates.
Ive actually just dropped out of this discussion to read a few articles about the nature of consciousness and specifically p-zombies, might get some books on that. Blindsight was one hell of a read and introduced me to the concept.

Either way, its a view that comes from people that dont engage with rigorous study and review a lot.

It also explains the contention on the other page.
The idea that evolutionary psychology has "non proveable premises" or something along those lines.

I knew this would come up because its listed under "Criticisms" on the Wikipedia page. And its exactly what someone would point out if he read about this subject for the first time when opening this wikipedia article and hoped that a source that *i* provided would give him a counter argument against my point.

Well for anyone swayed by this argument i advise you to read the wikipedia article yourself, if were all wikipedia scholars here, and continue reading past the first paragraph on the criticisms page where you realize that this criticism is not something that is "True" and that the same argument can be made about Astrophyscis, Paleontology and Geology.

Fields that im pretty sure none of you actually question.


Lets take another bite at this.
You probably agree that Evolution exists. That through evolutionary pressures and sexual selection certain traits are enhanced and others are not.
Fine.
We can also agree that through this process, there are different sexes and that females carry children while men dont.
We also can probably agree that men and women have different hormonal balances right? Because that relates to pregnancy.
And we can probably also agree that children of young age and different gender react differently to stimuli.

I dont know how controversial you consider this but its something that is generaly agreed on.

If we can agree on those things, then why would it be logically unfeasable to yout hat due to evolutionary pressures in our prehistoric past, men and women differ in behaviour?

I mena this is super simple stuff but we need to unpack this.
Give me an argument against it. Since i just made an argument in favor of it.




And before anyone of you accuses me of beeing a neanderthal again, NOTE that Evolutionary Psychology, or lacking that, my assertion, is DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE, meaning that it discribes something that IS not something that OUGHT TO BE, so there is no moral consideration here, neither does it say what a man and a woman "ought" to be
lets maybe not and pretend we did
If people don't have anything more to say specifically about the Companions, can we just let it go?
They don't seem to lock people here, but they do lock the threads.
No reason to let 20 pages of commentary get sunk to debate the finer points off topic.

-----------------------------------

Back to the subject, just to take it further with the companions cross-over idea...

Shadowheart: A Half Elf Cleric of Shar/Trickery Domain.
Abilities are in flux but as of now she has STR 10, DEX 15, CON 13, WIS 16, CHA 14
She rocks chainmail and a Mace+Shield combo by default
Divine Spellcaster Damage/Healing/Tricks who mainly operates at range.

I think the obvious sub for this one would be a Druid archetype since they provide a similar healing utility and similar stat spread typically.
A scimitar+buckler combo is pretty traditional there, and while leather isn't the greatest for AC they have other spellcasting options like barkskin to help out in the fray, but they are similarly 'not up front' in the melee. Primarily AoE/summoning casters in the popular imagination, with some similar flair depending on which circle is selected for utility or rp dissembling type spells. Just like Shadowheart is a bit of a mystery by design, a Druid could offer a similar sort of secrecy bent. Shadowheart presents as neutral evilish, and I think a druid with the neutrality element would be a decent sub there. Shadowheart seems to have a soft spot for the animals, and so a Druid sub could provide a similar animal commentary off the cuff, in spots where those lines are delivered. Top simulacrum contenders among the current NPCs I think would be Kagha, since she also has them pointed ears, and similar phenotype, and would probably be pretty demanding in the romance angle. I like Halsin, but I think the more natural fit for a sub there would be for Wyll. Minthara is another possible sub here for Shadowheart, they seem to be almost identical from a utility standpoint. Maybe a pair of subs for each current companion would be productive.

How about the other Companions? Do you see any subs among the NPCs that seem like they'd fit well for a switch?

I mentioned Lae'zel getting subbed for a Dwarf tank type. But we also got Astarion and Gale and Wyll to mull over. Who might you switch out of them, or examples from NPCs?
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
If you want. Though it does immense good for people like Bruh to actually be exposed to truth as opposed to living in a bubble immune to science.
I am a scientist, I bet you are not. Please keep your obnoxious ideology to yourself.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
If you want. Though it does immense good for people like Bruh to actually be exposed to truth as opposed to living in a bubble immune to science.
I am a scientist, I bet you are not. Please keep your obnoxious ideology to yourself.

Sure you are, Bruh. I'm a political scientist, but not a biologist, but if you were a scientist you should be aware of the literature which you clearly are not.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
lets maybe not and pretend we did
If people don't have anything more to say specifically about the Companions, can we just let it go?
They don't seem to lock people here, but they do lock the threads.
No reason to let 20 pages of commentary get sunk to debate the finer points off topic.

-----------------------------------

Back to the subject, just to take it further with the companions cross-over idea...

Shadowheart: A Half Elf Cleric of Shar/Trickery Domain.
Abilities are in flux but as of now she has STR 10, DEX 15, CON 13, WIS 16, CHA 14
She rocks chainmail and a Mace+Shield combo by default
Divine Spellcaster Damage/Healing/Tricks who mainly operates at range.

I think the obvious sub for this one would be a Druid archetype since they provide a similar healing utility and similar stat spread typically.
A scimitar+buckler combo is pretty traditional there, and while leather isn't the greatest for AC they have other spellcasting options like barkskin to help out in the fray, but they are similarly 'not up front' in the melee. Primarily AoE/summoning casters in the popular imagination, with some similar flair depending on which circle is selected for utility or rp dissembling type spells. Just like Shadowheart is a bit of a mystery by design, a Druid could offer a similar sort of secrecy bent. Shadowheart presents as neutral evilish, and I think a druid with the neutrality element would be a decent sub there. Shadowheart seems to have a soft spot for the animals, and so a Druid sub could provide a similar animal commentary off the cuff, in spots where those lines are delivered. Top simulacrum contenders among the current NPCs I think would be Kagha, since she also has them pointed ears, and similar phenotype, and would probably be a pretty demanding in the romance angle. I like Halsin, but I think the more natural fit for a sub there would be for Wyll. Minthara is another possible here for Shadowheart, they seem to be almost identical from a utility standpoint. Maybe a pair of subs for each current companion would be productive.

How about the other Companions? Do you see any subs among the NPCs that seem like they'd fit well for a switch?

I mentioned Lae'zel getting subbed for a Dwarf tank type. But we also got Astarion and Gale and Wyll to mull over. Who might you switch out of them, or examples from NPCs?
I personally think that Druids could be a nice tank of bear-shape were to be given some tanky abiilties. That being said I was never a fan of druids, so I actually prefer a dwarf fighter type.
As for Gale, I definitely wasnt a sorcerer companion, and Astarion could be substituted by a ranger, who could sneak around like he does.
I personally love Astarion the most out of all the companions so far so I don'r know if I need a sub for him at all.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
If you want. Though it does immense good for people like Bruh to actually be exposed to truth as opposed to living in a bubble immune to science.
I am a scientist, I bet you are not. Please keep your obnoxious ideology to yourself.

Sure you are, Bruh. I'm a political scientist, but not a biologist, but if you were a scientist you should be aware of the literature which you clearly are not.

So you are not a scientist then. Thanks for letting me know.
Ok cool, new page again

For Astarion we got an Elf/Daywalking Thief with an arcane trickster option
Abilities are also in flux here, but currently he has Str 8, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Chr 10
he's reppin a dagger and a bow, and collar popping with padded armor
He's the basic sneak-about and lock-buster. Not the best backstab for damage but he does have some bite, mainly operates at range though and for rogue utility like scouting.

For an alt sub, I think the natural might be to drop a Tiefling on us, Alfira might work, or even a Sazza if they let us roll with a goblin. The former more on the spellcasting/utility charmer line as a Bard, the latter more the sneak or cutpurse Thief line. I think the challenge with Astarion is that, despite being ghost white ex sanguine, he's got a lot of color in the personality and that rakish charm. So I think in a sub in you'd want an archetype with some dazzle sazzle to em. I do feel like we need some shorties even if it breaks phenotype, so Sazza might qualify there. Astarion presents as neutral-evilish and hypersexual, so it might be fun to see them go a similar route with Sazza. She strikes me as having the confidence and experience to lean into it with the cat calls, even if its not exactly what Tav is after.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Ok cool, new page again

Lmao.
Also just one more thought on Sazza, there are no companions that seem particularly Chaotic right now. Everyone seems to have a plan and a pretty solid grip on things. Maybe Sazza could fill in a gap there? Whatever one thinks about the traditional Alignment Axis, its still useful for this kind of characterization. Since Astarion presents as a bit over the top, Sazza I think might handle going under the bottom. He can croon from the roof, while she guts from the gutter.

Also another thought, if Larian adopts the idea of cross-over alts in the Party (basically making sure we have a minimum of 2 options for each desirable slot/type), then, if both end up rolling together in the same party, with overlap in skills/utility, their banters with each other should make up for this by being even more engaging.

Like if utility gives you a reason for wanting to choose one over the other, then narrative/characterization should provide a reason for wanting to take both as on offset to that in another playthrough. Basically if you reduplicate Class/Skills/Abilities/Archetype, there should be some story reward for that, since you usually take a hit on the mechanical rewards for not having a 'balanced' party. Or same thing for D&D race. Like if there are utility reasons to want a variety of racial abilities and stat bonuses spread out across the party, there should be counterbalancing rewards in the banters and such if you elect to ignore the incentives for party balance, and instead opt to reduplicate.

So in the example above, this might take the form of Sazza turning the tables on Astarion and constantly gunning for him to dive in bed, while he discovers his prudish side. Or even better, if Astarion is super into her, but she's all unimpressed at his underwhelming libido and "boring" kinks.

Or maybe they alternate like that between the two, before finally finding true love with each other at camp. Where they ignore Tav completely to hop in the sack with each other, in their own extended cinematic. Shit like that
Originally Posted by Kadajko
[quote=KillerRabbit]That escalated quickly.


I know you want to have fun but be careful with posts like that, because often it attracts the attention of mods as if something is going wrong in the thread, when in reality ( I'd like to think ) we are just calmly discussing things like adults, even if controversial. I've seen so many threads locked, so many sads.
Yes I was trying to have fun but I was also trying to say that something was going wrong in the thread. So yes "just joking" but also, no, really, I'm not joking.

If I opened then thread hoping to see a discussion about companion personalities and was instead greeted by a discussion about sexual assault I would be upset. It's easy for me to have a calm discussion about such issues because I've never been assaulted but I've met people who have and have strong negative reactions to such discussions. I wasn't trying to call a mod (never once in my internet life have I flagged a post) but I was suggesting that the conversation deserved its own thread with an appropriate title.

The mods here are actually pretty tolerant -- one seems more inclined to lock and another more inclined to move and merge and I don't think a move / merger would be a bad thing. And I say this as someone who has a talent for getting banned.

Black Elk is valiantly trying to get us back on topic so I'll leave it there. Can I resist the temptation to discuss gender essentialism -- dc15 . . . Yes! I rolled a 17! See you all in the new thread.

Again, I want to see a Mazzy sort. Someone strong and optimistic, someone who compliments the party, someone who reminds the MC to do the right thing, who performs religious devotions from time to time . . .
Mazzy was one of the best companions in BG 2 so yeah,someone like Mazzy would really be great.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Ok cool, new page again

For Astarion we got an Elf/Daywalking Thief with an arcane trickster option
Abilities are also in flux here, but currently he has Str 8, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Chr 10
he's reppin a dagger and a bow, and collar popping with padded armor
He's the basic sneak-about and lock-buster. Not the best backstab for damage but he does have some bite, mainly operates at range though and for rogue utility like scouting.

For an alt sub, I think the natural might be to drop a Tiefling on us, Alfira might work, or even a Sazza if they let us roll with a goblin. The former more on the spellcasting/utility charmer line as a Bard, the latter more the sneak or cutpurse Thief line. I think the challenge with Astarion is that, despite being ghost white ex sanguine, he's got a lot of color in the personality and that rakish charm. So I think in a sub in you'd want an archetype with some dazzle sazzle to em. I do feel like we need some shorties even if it breaks phenotype, so Sazza might qualify there. Astarion presents as neutral-evilish and hypersexual, so it might be fun to see them go a similar route with Sazza. She strikes me as having the confidence and experience to lean into it with the cat calls, even if its not exactly what Tav is after.

I personally feel like Astarion is just begging to be multiclassed as a ranger or a fighter. His natural Dexterity is amazing and he can go meelee, ranged, or if they don't touch his WIS (they better not because I have plans for it) you may multi him into a cleric for the ultimate support character, picking locks, disarming traps, scouting, giving buffs, while still being amazing with a bow.
I think Astarion's stats are as diverse as they are exactly because they are setting him up as the flexible support companion who can fill the gaps, whatever it is that you may need. in 5E, DEX based rogue/fighters are incredibly reliable damage dealers, but Astarion can become an AT, an Assassin, he can multi to ranger, fighter, cleric and wizard, and he is just a joy to have around. The only reason not to take him is if you can't stand his personality.
If we must have a sub, we should have an evil bard to cover for Astarion. No clue who he might be, but I don't want a goodguy bard in my party, unless if it's the aforementioned dwarven skald.
Yeah I had a similar thought when I saw Astarion's stats, like maybe they had plans for Astarion to be the new Tiax? Its a bit of a shame that they decided to open with a cap at lvl4, rather than 5 or even 6, because I think it makes people rather less likely to explore multi-class builds if they can't advance to at least the 3rd level in one of the classes before hitting a cap. Like as a general rule, I usually want to hit at least the second level in the initial class before I cross over into something new. Multi-Classing is obviously way more flexible now than it used to be when BG1/2 came out in second edition, certainly less preplanning required than Dual-Classing a human used to be, but even still I feel like you want to have some room to grow if developing a multi-class idea. I think its rather more stark when combined with the limit of just 4 PCs, but of course that's been talked about endlessly elsewhere. Like either they're going to take the party size gripe seriously or they're not, but either way, the low level cap nerfs a lot of otherwise interesting multiclass options. Its unfortunate, because I suspect there will be some bugs with at least a few combinations, and it would be helpful to work out how the UI is going to handled multiclassing in EA.

Anyhow, the idea of alts/subs for the current Companions, is sort of just an expedient jumping off point to think about what other companions might be fun. I suspect a lot of people will opt to keep Astarion around, but if not for whatever reason, I think it would be nice to have an alt that could also fill a solid support role.

So say they give us Sazza as a potential alt for Astarion, she might have similar wide ranging options to multi, maybe along different lines. Like perhaps she really discovers a calling as a Paladin of the Absolute, or who knows lol. But basically some flexible stats to provide some options there, for the whole reduplication/party balance idea. Or again if the Player chooses to keep both characters in the party, that they might be able to Multi in different support directions as a possible payoff. Like maybe he goes Dex based fighter or ranger, she might go caster or vice versa. I just really hope some of these fan favorite NPCs like Sazza make it into the roster. It was a total tease to let us spring her from the cell and tag along as a follower but then take her away hehe.


How about a Gale sub?


Gale: Human Wizard with an appetite
His stats haven't changed yet I don't think, so STR 9, DEX 14, CON 15, INT 16, WIS 11, CHA 13
Other than the snazzy purple robe, his starting get up is pretty standard (Wizards are painfully plain in the style department right now)
He's the Mage, and the only one so we've seen, so obviously we know what we're dealing with there. He's going to be misty stepping about and trying to hurl the big spells.

For a sub, this is a bit of a dilemma, because a proper BG game should give us more than one Wizard. Right now the only schools to choose from are Evocation and Abjuration, and of the two he strikes me as more of an Evoker, even though they don't set him up with magic missile by default. Just because he likes to talk and you can't evoke without a gift for the vox. Hopefully they plan to include more magical schools than just 2 (like of course my dream would be a party of 6 mages each with a different specialization, but that's for dreams.) So who do we got? For candidates among the NPCs who either look like they might be wizards or who sling spells at some point...

*spoilers* (I guess, although people should assume them by now in an EA)

Zevlor does toss some spells around in the gate battle, but he's also sporting Plate, so there's that. He could make for an interesting Battle Mage if companions are already multi-classed but that seems a bit limiting. I think a Gale alternate should be able to hold their own as a purist.

Rolan the Tiefling, the one arguing with his friends that they should leave when you first enter the grove. He looks the part, since he's wearing the lame wizards robes. He doesn't jump out at me as a fan favorite, but maybe we just need to get to know him lol.

Eramas the Tiefling, the one in the hallows who wants to leave the village. She doesn't seem to like the Druids or the Goblins so maybe she has the intelligence at least. Her main point of intrigue is that she is a tiefling wearing a hood. Which is a better look than I'd imagined. So hey, at least it's a cooler outfit than the usual robes.

Roah Moonglow the Halfling merchant in the Goblin Camp shattered sanctum. The idea of recruiting a merchant into the party is a bit of a stretch, but she's got some potions on her and that staff. So maybe wizarding is a possibility for her? Probably just because I'd like to see some shorty companions, but yeah.

Finally there's Florrick, she's the one trapped in the burning inn. They call her counsellor, which seems like a fairly wizardy job title, and she does have a quarterstaff. Of all the NPCs we run into I think she's probably the top contender for a possible alt wizard. And her outfit is at least pretty cool, sporting some feathers and some decorative flourishes. Obviously her familiar would be a raven

Thoughts?


ps. Oh I almost forgot about Nadria the Tiefling with the telescope (every other NPC in this game is a tiefling lol) but she could probably fit the bill too. I mean she is in there from the crash cinematic. They must be trying to kill her for a reason right? A pink necromancer might be fun, once she's seen the other side. Keeping that coin to pay the ferry man for a return trip?
I'm replaying BG1 with the NPC banter mod and i'd trade Gale, Wyll and Astarion for my man Kivan so quick. For Imoen too. Wisdom and (non-malicious) light-heartedness are definetely missing from the current companions, especially the former.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
I kind of want a bard character loosely based upon Barney Stinson, calling everything legendary.

I am thinking about this more and think the character should be named Barnolo and I have the distinct feeling that Neil Patrick Harris might be willing to voice it for the normal voice actor's fee just to build his brand.
Hehe I'd let him tag along. Neil wouldn't do us wrong.

I could also go for a Mazzy. They need a shorty!

Or a Kivan, give us a hood!

I don't really have anything else for wizards right now. Well ok...

Emanrahc, a dyslexic Wizard who's spellbook requires constant editing? Insists he's from the mirror dimension. But no one believes him.
Uses the gruff scottish voice for sure.

I just felt like I needed to add a Wizard companion idea, who's not a Tiefling, cause I think we got enough of those already.
But yeah, another Wizard too, pretty please.
I would like Halsin to be a companion.
I was disappointed that there was nothing special about playing a cleric of Selune, but there is some rewarding talk when being a cleric of Shar. But I really, really want to see a female cleric of Selune you can pick up and who, when it is revealed that
Shadowheart is a cleric of Shar they declare that they are like sisters and have been chosen to represent a mending of the relationship between the two divine sisters
- to which Shadowheart is going to do a lot of cursing and yelling.

She should be a really, really annoyingly perky cleric too.
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
I was disappointed that there was nothing special about playing a cleric of Selune, but there is some rewarding talk when being a cleric of Shar. But I really, really want to see a female cleric of Selune you can pick up and who,
She should be a really, really annoyingly perky cleric too.

Weird, that was actually my first full playthrough, Half Wood Elf Cleric of Selune obsessed with Shadowheart. Did actually stumble across a dialogue interaction: At some point there's a [Cleric of Selune] Option that's something like "Insult my god again and we're gonna have words." Would love to see them build on that.
Originally Posted by Icelyn
I would like Halsin to be a companion.
I feel he has a serious job he can't leave?
One of the lesser druids would be good though? Maybe that one who talks to the bird.
Originally Posted by Starshine
Originally Posted by Icelyn
I would like Halsin to be a companion.
I feel he has a serious job he can't leave?
One of the lesser druids would be good though? Maybe that one who talks to the bird.
Putting this in spoilers in case you haven't finished the EA content yet.
After the party, Halsin selects someone else to take his place and joins the pc's camp.
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Originally Posted by Starshine
Originally Posted by Icelyn
I would like Halsin to be a companion.
I feel he has a serious job he can't leave?
One of the lesser druids would be good though? Maybe that one who talks to the bird.
Putting this in spoilers in case you haven't finished the EA content yet.
After the party, Halsin selects someone else to take his place and joins the pc's camp.

Thanks, I'd forgotten that. So yeah! wouldn't he be pretty high level? But yeah if he's in the camp he should be in the party. Like not a solid rule, litch and all, but definitely for people like him who would help and have a clear adventuring class.
Originally Posted by fylimar
Mazzy was one of the best companions in BG 2 so yeah,someone like Mazzy would really be great.


Been so long since I played BG 2 don't even remember her might have to do another run-through of that game
Originally Posted by fylimar
Mazzy was one of the best companions in BG 2 so yeah,someone like Mazzy would really be great.


Been so long since I played BG 2 don't even remember her might have to do another run-through of that game
Originally Posted by Starshine
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Originally Posted by Starshine
Originally Posted by Icelyn
I would like Halsin to be a companion.
I feel he has a serious job he can't leave?
One of the lesser druids would be good though? Maybe that one who talks to the bird.
Putting this in spoilers in case you haven't finished the EA content yet.
After the party, Halsin selects someone else to take his place and joins the pc's camp.

Thanks, I'd forgotten that. So yeah! wouldn't he be pretty high level? But yeah if he's in the camp he should be in the party. Like not a solid rule, litch and all, but definitely for people like him who would help and have a clear adventuring class.


If your talking about Hattie <sp?> How can she be in the party when a lot of us kill her when she tries to poison us? Astarion is lucky I didn't kill him when I first met him.
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I'm replaying BG1 with the NPC banter mod and i'd trade Gale, Wyll and Astarion for my man Kivan so quick. For Imoen too. Wisdom and (non-malicious) light-heartedness are definetely missing from the current companions, especially the former.

I vaguely remember Kivan and Imoen and the great banter of the party. Might have to buy that one again and replay through both it and BG2
Mazzy is the halfling Fighter who doesn't get to be a Paladin because of 2ed rules, but who is pretty much a Paladin. Probably one of if not the best character in SoA in my opinion, they milked the rules/story dynamic to very good result with her.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Mazzy is the halfling Fighter who doesn't get to be a Paladin because of 2ed rules, but who is pretty much a Paladin.
Mazzy in BG2 is the perfect example of why rules should be broken sometimes, just as much with 5e as with 2e.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Dexai
Mazzy is the halfling Fighter who doesn't get to be a Paladin because of 2ed rules, but who is pretty much a Paladin.
Mazzy in BG2 is the perfect example of why rules should be broken sometimes, just as much with 5e as with 2e.
She is also an excellent example why rules mustn't be broken. She works perfectly as she is with unique abilities.
Originally Posted by Bruh
She is also an excellent example why rules mustn't be broken. She works perfectly as she is with unique abilities.

OR rules need adjustments if there are situations in which they work poorly.
I think there will definitely be a tiefling as a companion. Probably the one from Avernus that the Tyr group wanted us to decapitate. She has the worm and a story of wanting to escape from her captors. I know she brushed off the chance to join but I bet we bump into her later.
Originally Posted by greenshep
I think there will definitely be a tiefling as a companion. Probably the one from Avernus that the Tyr group wanted us to decapitate. She has the worm and a story of wanting to escape from her captors. I know she brushed off the chance to join but I bet we bump into her later.
You're absolutely correct! Dataminers have found that she is an upcoming companion, and she's the only one of the three they've found with recorded voice lines right now. she seems cool.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Dexai
Mazzy is the halfling Fighter who doesn't get to be a Paladin because of 2ed rules, but who is pretty much a Paladin.
Mazzy in BG2 is the perfect example of why rules should be broken sometimes, just as much with 5e as with 2e.
She is also an excellent example why rules mustn't be broken. She works perfectly as she is with unique abilities.

This is actually a good point. The main reason why people remember Mazzy so fondly is her heart of a paladin even though she could never become one. If she was an actual paladin, her story would be non-existent. People love to say the journey is what’s important but then change when the outcome doesn’t meet their expectations.

Mazzy’s story was all about the great journey and it was great. I loved that little halfling and her heart of honor and valor.
Originally Posted by greenshep
I think there will definitely be a tiefling as a companion. Probably the one from Avernus that the Tyr group wanted us to decapitate. She has the worm and a story of wanting to escape from her captors. I know she brushed off the chance to join but I bet we bump into her later.

There’s no real good side on that quest. So I will continue my journey as a murder hobo and kill both sides.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Dexai
Mazzy is the halfling Fighter who doesn't get to be a Paladin because of 2ed rules, but who is pretty much a Paladin.
Mazzy in BG2 is the perfect example of why rules should be broken sometimes, just as much with 5e as with 2e.
She is also an excellent example why rules mustn't be broken. She works perfectly as she is with unique abilities.
No. Being a true paladin and an imitation of one are not at all the same thing no matter how good the imitation. And Mazzy would be the first person to agree with this.
I am definitely with the side that Mazzy, if she was a Paladin instead of a Fighter, would be a lot less interesting both narratively and charactively.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
No. Being a true paladin and an imitation of one are not at all the same thing no matter how good the imitation. And Mazzy would be the first person to agree with this.

You don't get Mazzy. Mazzy is a paladin despite not being one. She is a fighter on the outside but she is a paladin on the inside to the points that she transcends the limitations of her own race. She is practically a paladin in all but name. Why else would she get those special abilities?
In fact I would argue that Mazzy is a better paladin then the baseline one, because for her it's a personal thing. Her skills and devotion are intertwined with her personality making her into something unique.
I kinda wish all companions had a unique personality-twist on their core class like that.
DA2 and Tyranny did this very well. Every companion had their very own personal talent tree, they weren't just cardboard cutouts.
[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by kanisatha
No. Being a true paladin and an imitation of one are not at all the same thing no matter how good the imitation. And Mazzy would be the first person to agree with this.

You don't get Mazzy. Mazzy is a paladin despite not being one. She is a fighter on the outside but she is a paladin on the inside to the points that she transcends the limitations of her own race. She is practically a paladin in all but name. Why else would she get those special abilities?
In fact I would argue that Mazzy is a better paladin then the baseline one, because for her it's a personal thing. Her skills and devotion are intertwined with her personality making her into something unique.
I kinda wish all companions had a unique personality-twist on their core class like that.
DA2 and Tyranny did this very well. Every companion had their very own personal talent tree, they weren't just cardboard cutouts.
No, you're the one missing my point. Mazzy is a fighter and not a paladin because the game rules very arbitrarily and with no logical reason forces her to be that. It's the game rules forcing this on the character, not the character's story. That's the point. If the game rules allowed her to be a paladin, her character would've been written as a paladin.

The issue of a character who could be a paladin but chooses to not be one and instead chooses to be a fighter who behaves like a paladin, because that's what the character's story is all about, is an entirely separate issue. I agree that is an interesting character. But that is not what I am talking about here.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by kanisatha
No. Being a true paladin and an imitation of one are not at all the same thing no matter how good the imitation. And Mazzy would be the first person to agree with this.

You don't get Mazzy. Mazzy is a paladin despite not being one. She is a fighter on the outside but she is a paladin on the inside to the points that she transcends the limitations of her own race. She is practically a paladin in all but name. Why else would she get those special abilities?
In fact I would argue that Mazzy is a better paladin then the baseline one, because for her it's a personal thing. Her skills and devotion are intertwined with her personality making her into something unique.
I kinda wish all companions had a unique personality-twist on their core class like that.
DA2 and Tyranny did this very well. Every companion had their very own personal talent tree, they weren't just cardboard cutouts.
No, you're the one missing my point. Mazzy is a fighter and not a paladin because the game rules very arbitrarily and with no logical reason forces her to be that. It's the game rules forcing this on the character, not the character's story. That's the point. If the game rules allowed her to be a paladin, her character would've been written as a paladin.

The issue of a character who could be a paladin but chooses to not be one and instead chooses to be a fighter who behaves like a paladin, because that's what the character's story is all about, is an entirely separate issue. I agree that is an interesting character. But that is not what I am talking about here.
No, you are the one who doesn't get it and it's pretty damn clear. Mazzy is already a paladin, she merely externally isn't so. In her heart she already is and she is rewarded for her devotion with special abilities. If anything Mazzy showcases how dedication and passion transcends limitations.
Originally Posted by Dexai
I am definitely with the side that Mazzy, if she was a Paladin instead of a Fighter, would be a lot less interesting both narratively and charactively.

I'm on this side too. Mazzy is one of the most memorable paladins of all time precisely because she isn't a paladin.
I want more than anything some very visually distinct party members for the last few slots as what we have now so far are very boring aesthetically imo. My personal want is something very striking and unusual, like a tall and maimed no-nonsense vulture headed Aarakocra paladin.

I would want him to embody a depiction that goes hard on the "good is not nice" angle. An older/middle aged paladin who has no mercy or patience for evil, and who isn't an overly idealistic or impulsive fool. A "good guy" who actually comes off as intimidating, smart, hard to fool, and scary. More a Judge Dredd or Rorschach than the old boyscout idea of paladins.
Originally Posted by Nivv
I want more than anything some very visually distinct party members for the last few slots as what we have now so far are very boring aesthetically imo. My personal want is something very striking and unusual, like a tall and maimed no-nonsense vulture headed Aarakocra paladin.

I would want him to embody a depiction that goes hard on the "good is not nice" angle. An older/middle aged paladin who has no mercy or patience for evil, and who isn't an overly idealistic or impulsive fool. A "good guy" who actually comes off as intimidating, smart, hard to fool, and scary. More a Judge Dredd or Rorschach than the old boyscout idea of paladins.
I think that the game has done a pretty good job of twisting tropes like this so far. If the datamined character who is presumed to be a paladin is, in fact, a paladin, you may get your wish.
What as the datamine?
Okay since we are all bringing out our stupid, dumb stuff that we want, then here's mine:
I want a lizardfolk barbarian or a lizardfolk druid companion. I would actually prefer a cleric, but we already have SH for that. Maybe a lizardfolk ranger could also work but I'm not so sure about that.
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I'm replaying BG1 with the NPC banter mod and i'd trade Gale, Wyll and Astarion for my man Kivan so quick. For Imoen too. Wisdom and (non-malicious) light-heartedness are definetely missing from the current companions, especially the former.

What exactly isn't light hearted or wise about Gale, he's the wisest character in the party, even if you respond to him in a serious tone he finds away to fit a joke in
Originally Posted by Vallis
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I'm replaying BG1 with the NPC banter mod and i'd trade Gale, Wyll and Astarion for my man Kivan so quick. For Imoen too. Wisdom and (non-malicious) light-heartedness are definetely missing from the current companions, especially the former.

What exactly isn't light hearted or wise about Gale, he's the wisest character in the party, even if you respond to him in a serious tone he finds away to fit a joke in
>wise
>ends up with a timebomb in his body
Yeah I think I'll pass.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by Vallis
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I'm replaying BG1 with the NPC banter mod and i'd trade Gale, Wyll and Astarion for my man Kivan so quick. For Imoen too. Wisdom and (non-malicious) light-heartedness are definetely missing from the current companions, especially the former.

What exactly isn't light hearted or wise about Gale, he's the wisest character in the party, even if you respond to him in a serious tone he finds away to fit a joke in
>wise
>ends up with a timebomb in his body
Yeah I think I'll pass.
I've heard of psychologists getting spearphished more than once, despite the fact that they should know the psychological tactics behind spearphishing.

Even the wisest of men are more than do foolish and idiotic things when they should know better. It's far from unbelievable, and I would say far from unusual.
Originally Posted by Vallis
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I'm replaying BG1 with the NPC banter mod and i'd trade Gale, Wyll and Astarion for my man Kivan so quick. For Imoen too. Wisdom and (non-malicious) light-heartedness are definetely missing from the current companions, especially the former.

What exactly isn't light hearted or wise about Gale, he's the wisest character in the party, even if you respond to him in a serious tone he finds away to fit a joke in

Like Bruh said, he's really more smart than he is wise.

But anyway, it's a personality thing. Current companions just feel like a bunch of dumb/angry young people with all kinds of personality issues. I need me some breathers from all that.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by Vallis
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I'm replaying BG1 with the NPC banter mod and i'd trade Gale, Wyll and Astarion for my man Kivan so quick. For Imoen too. Wisdom and (non-malicious) light-heartedness are definetely missing from the current companions, especially the former.

What exactly isn't light hearted or wise about Gale, he's the wisest character in the party, even if you respond to him in a serious tone he finds away to fit a joke in
>wise
>ends up with a timebomb in his body
Yeah I think I'll pass.
I've heard of psychologists getting spearphished more than once, despite the fact that they should know the psychological tactics behind spearphishing.

Even the wisest of men are more than do foolish and idiotic things when they should know better. It's far from unbelievable, and I would say far from unusual.

Dude gets superclingy after 1 week of meeting the MC, and seeing his backstory it's not the game being weird but him not really learning anything from turning himself into a bomb because he got too clingy with a goddess.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by kanisatha
No. Being a true paladin and an imitation of one are not at all the same thing no matter how good the imitation. And Mazzy would be the first person to agree with this.

You don't get Mazzy. Mazzy is a paladin despite not being one. She is a fighter on the outside but she is a paladin on the inside to the points that she transcends the limitations of her own race. She is practically a paladin in all but name. Why else would she get those special abilities?
In fact I would argue that Mazzy is a better paladin then the baseline one, because for her it's a personal thing. Her skills and devotion are intertwined with her personality making her into something unique.
I kinda wish all companions had a unique personality-twist on their core class like that.
DA2 and Tyranny did this very well. Every companion had their very own personal talent tree, they weren't just cardboard cutouts.
No, you're the one missing my point. Mazzy is a fighter and not a paladin because the game rules very arbitrarily and with no logical reason forces her to be that. It's the game rules forcing this on the character, not the character's story. That's the point. If the game rules allowed her to be a paladin, her character would've been written as a paladin.

The issue of a character who could be a paladin but chooses to not be one and instead chooses to be a fighter who behaves like a paladin, because that's what the character's story is all about, is an entirely separate issue. I agree that is an interesting character. But that is not what I am talking about here.
No, you are the one who doesn't get it and it's pretty damn clear. Mazzy is already a paladin, she merely externally isn't so. In her heart she already is and she is rewarded for her devotion with special abilities. If anything Mazzy showcases how dedication and passion transcends limitations.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your thing. Okay then.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Apparently reading comprehension is not your thing. Okay then.
Cut the snarkiness. I'm sure that you can make your point without becoming insulting.
I like the current party . Could help to have a couple of really edgy character though, the kind that really want to dominate / could backstab you such as Xzar, Yoshimo, Tiax, Shar-Teel, and what not. I mean, really EVIL character, and not just neutral evil / passive ones.
Would also like to have a few really good character. Like more extreme. having personal quest and issue is great and cool, but you need some extreme character so the neutral one can find their true place.

Vouching for a power hungry mage scheming stuff, a cutththroat madman wanting to convert you to his faith / ideal / quest, a benevolent fanatical paladin that won't tolerate anything but greater good, a half dragon edgelord, haughty female dragonqueen , an intellectual firegiant that is a pacifist...

Like, lets forget Planescame torment and baldurs gate that had the best companion ever, ever . Lets just look at POE, grieving mother and Durance were such great, extreme, tragic companion. Also missing Eder tier of fortitude and kindness character.
I played with all of the love none of them SH is ok but needs a haircut, Lae is hmm weird to have a githyanki but understandble from the circumstances.

The rest are just horrible writen charakters.
Hope they rewrite them but will not happen so hopeing for the som great ones to come
I just, really like the Hobgolbin design in game, it's true to the books but it looks great. So on those grounds, a Hobgob would be great. They could a prisoner of the bad guys due to disobedience or politics or something, maybe they were chief of a goblin band that joined the cult and edged out of power or just, signed up then didnt like it or who knows. Just, you rescue them and they're like oh I'll help you bring them down cos I hate them then we'll go our own way and then by the time you've done that your friends/comrades?

No tadpole, no romance, just a Hob who joins the fight and finds they like you. Maybe LN rather than evil? followed the rules and norms of Hobgob society but never really cared about them just was about doing whats expected, until it backfired in his imprisonment and how he's all, that's not right you know, that's not right but no good-evil concern about it?
Originally Posted by Starshine
I just, really like the Hobgolbin design in game, it's true to the books but it looks great. So on those grounds, a Hobgob would be great. They could a prisoner of the bad guys due to disobedience or politics or something, maybe they were chief of a goblin band that joined the cult and edged out of power or just, signed up then didnt like it or who knows. Just, you rescue them and they're like oh I'll help you bring them down cos I hate them then we'll go our own way and then by the time you've done that your friends/comrades?

No tadpole, no romance, just a Hob who joins the fight and finds they like you. Maybe LN rather than evil? followed the rules and norms of Hobgob society but never really cared about them just was about doing whats expected, until it backfired in his imprisonment and how he's all, that's not right you know, that's not right but no good-evil concern about it?

You played Kingmaker? Pretty much described a companion in that game. I'd just prefer a goblin rather than a hob, since they look weirdly adorable and that goes hand in hand with them calmly eating charred dwarf.
I was picturing a more serious character than nok-nok. With a similar characterisation to the Hobs we meet in game, just on our side. Not a more comic gobliny character.
Originally Posted by Nivv
I want more than anything some very visually distinct party members for the last few slots as what we have now so far are very boring aesthetically imo. My personal want is something very striking and unusual, like a tall and maimed no-nonsense vulture headed Aarakocra paladin.

I would want him to embody a depiction that goes hard on the "good is not nice" angle. An older/middle aged paladin who has no mercy or patience for evil, and who isn't an overly idealistic or impulsive fool. A "good guy" who actually comes off as intimidating, smart, hard to fool, and scary. More a Judge Dredd or Rorschach than the old boyscout idea of paladins.

But with a vulture head...lol.

I actually want a normal 3e or 2e Tiefling. Like my boy Haer'Dalis. I absolutely loathe what 4e did to Tieflings.

I just hope we can get a really good mix of class/alignment (I know alignment is gone but you know what I mean) to make logically consistent groups if we wish, or wildly disjointed ones.

My all time favorite parties always involved

Korgan (#1, love that dwarf like a brother, through every run over years)
Edwin
Viconia

I want the characters to banter, not only with the main character, but with each other just as much! Let them develop just as much a bond with each other, or fight as they could in BG2 as well if you had a mix that didnt work!
if they had a vulture head they could wear normal helmets cos no feathers?
I would prefer to see some more "normal" companions. There is no need to just have exotic races or characters with epic backstories to make them interesting. To me it tends to be the opposite, their race, or their epic backstory kind of becomes their gimmick most of the time.

There are many ways to make nuanced, interesting characters without these things. These tend to be more memorable to me as they do not lean on the exotic/epic factor of their character to be special.

I kind of consider to be the case with current companions, their personality and just flavour seems... basic to me. They have the epic backstories and/or exotic race to make them stand out. I am sure many will disagree but that is fine. I have a different frame of reference and opinions can differ. But I tend to enjoy stories with simple beginnings more, where actual low level people without a backstory rise up and forge their epic story as we go along. I do like to play badass characters myself (Who doesn't afterall?) but it feels more rewarding for me to see the characters grow into them from those humble beginnings.

And mostly the common races where the exotic one is rare and stands out by being rare. It also allows you to play an exotic race as your main character/Tav/CHARNAME yourself and stand out (The lone, rare tiefling companion would tands out more than the camp full of them and you do not need to even focus on the tiefling part to still have it be an important character trait that way)
I want an androgynous character like Ydwin from Pillars of Eternity 2.
Looks.
I would like to see pretty womanly characters of elf, half elf, human and other nice looking races
I would like that companion to have pink/blue/grey/unnatural skin tone

Story
I would like to companion to be more leaning towards good path/ or ultimately to lead to redemption arc
I would like to see something akin to Red Prince
I would like to see companion that is badass
I would like to see companion that is already in the game, but not companion already

gameplay
I would like to see companion that is bard/performer, I would like an druid elf, or elf bard
I would like glass canon character
I would like fiery mage
I am not going to mince words here...my "perfect companion" would be...yes, you knew it all along...King Kong!

BG3 will not be BG3 until King Kong is introduced as my side-kick--my banter-loving, joke-cracking giant ape!

Who could possibly imagine a BG tale sans King Kong? Not happening.
Honestly, i just want a few companions that don't start our relationship off with snarkiness/arrogance. I don't like snarky people, and so far, it means I play the game alone, which isn't fun. Yea, yea, i get it, it's "realistic" that everyone is on edge. Except my pc ISN'T insulting everyone around them because of it, they're trying to work together.
I feel once we're meeting people who haven't just been in a crashed spaceship and found a tadpole in their heads, we'll get companions who aren't as stressed and hostile off the bat
Once we hit towns there should be adventurers who want to sign up, because theyre adventurers or to do a quest not all high stakes
Interesting, in this set of companions two of three men are polite and not aggressive, instead the two women are harsh, and suddendly it seems that there are no likeable companions, further more the man toon has dialogue options that range from very polite and friendly to aggressive, that is where it counts you can decide how your toon that supposedly, being this a ROLE PLAYING game have their own characters and likes and dislikes.

I myself are very polite and friendly a bit shy, I played a toon with that likelihood now I'm creating a character that will be harsh and non friendly (and that will fall under the charms of Astarion).

Furthermore I don't see, made an exception for Astarion who is really arrogant, arrogance. Lae'zel is a skilled trained warrior from a very intollerant and violent race, she acts exactly that way, didn't saw any hint of arrogance in Shadowheart, Wyll and Gale like to gloat and boast their past actions but when you talk with them they show enough humility to openly accept their own bias and fallouts and how they screwed up in their lives.

Maybe the problem is not with the current companions but with two of them.
Originally Posted by Starshine
I feel once we're meeting people who haven't just been in a crashed spaceship and found a tadpole in their heads, we'll get companions who aren't as stressed and hostile off the bat
Once we hit towns there should be adventurers who want to sign up, because theyre adventurers or to do a quest not all high stakes

I'm afraid that the origin characters are essentially the protagonists of the game though. It never felt like my custom character was actually the main character. Maybe i'm just weird lol.
This sums it up well, the main character you make feels less "special" than the origin characters. They all have their own epic backstory (which feels ridiculous for level 1 characters but that is a different issue altogether) while the main character feels like just some guy/girl. It almost seems as if you are meant to play as an origin character, rather than go for the custom character (Divinity Original Sin 2 had this as well, really)

I prefer that blank slate and starting from humble beginnings, but the origin characters not following that formula does feel kind of weird, too. And also why origin characters are kind of a poor idea for a game like this in my opinion. I guess the argument is that it adds replay value, but that would have been there anyway if the focus was instead on deeper backgrounds/storypaths for the main character. (less focus on making handful of characters origin characters would also mean we could have had more companions, as the companions would require less individual work).

But, it is as it is, and I doubt it will change (if nothing else I sort of expect Larian to release even more origin characters at one point or another)
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by Starshine
I feel once we're meeting people who haven't just been in a crashed spaceship and found a tadpole in their heads, we'll get companions who aren't as stressed and hostile off the bat
Once we hit towns there should be adventurers who want to sign up, because theyre adventurers or to do a quest not all high stakes

I'm afraid that the origin characters are essentially the protagonists of the game though. It never felt like my custom character was actually the main character. Maybe i'm just weird lol.

I’ve come to the conclusion a huge portion of their resources were used on voice acting and graphics. You can see it in EA. Unfortunately I don’t think Larian put the same effort on the game itself. It’s why they just copy pasted DOS combat.
Honestly, I want a Korgan, Edwin, and Viconia. Ive found over the decades, those 3 are central to my experience of the story, every time.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
This sums it up well, the main character you make feels less "special" than the origin characters. They all have their own epic backstory (which feels ridiculous for level 1 characters but that is a different issue altogether) while the main character feels like just some guy/girl. It almost seems as if you are meant to play as an origin character, rather than go for the custom character (Divinity Original Sin 2 had this as well, really)

I prefer that blank slate and starting from humble beginnings, but the origin characters not following that formula does feel kind of weird, too. And also why origin characters are kind of a poor idea for a game like this in my opinion. I guess the argument is that it adds replay value, but that would have been there anyway if the focus was instead on deeper backgrounds/storypaths for the main character. (less focus on making handful of characters origin characters would also mean we could have had more companions, as the companions would require less individual work).

But, it is as it is, and I doubt it will change (if nothing else I sort of expect Larian to release even more origin characters at one point or another)

I couldn't agree more. Really not a fan of this Origins mechanics at all and seems to go against everything that previous BG games were. I don't want to play someone else's vision for a character with a preconceived backstory, I want to carve my own path, within the limitations of the story arc of the game itself. Already the main PC is said to be a Baldurian (for most of the available races) so the option of making your own backstory is already taken away from you, in some respect.

To get back to the original post, I just want to see some grown up characters in the game.
Needs an interesting Tiefling character.

No more mean, hyper-aggressive Lae'zels, though. I like that she's in the game, but one is enough.
Bring back Minsc the Range with his Miniature Giant Space Hamster Boo they were in the last two games
Originally Posted by Cloverhoofs
Bring back Minsc the Range with his Miniature Giant Space Hamster Boo they were in the last two games
You're actually wicked lucky. Dataminers found some stuff referencing him as a companion in the files. You, at least, get what you want.
Originally Posted by VioletGrey
Needs an interesting Tiefling character.

No more mean, hyper-aggressive Lae'zels, though. I like that she's in the game, but one is enough.
Again, you're lucky too. Datamined companions are... pretty much these two requests. Spot on, fellows!
I'd like to have the heroes of the BG3 prequel (from the Infernal Tides comic) join the party. Minsc was one of them after all and Nerys Kathon in particular seems to be a super awesome and interesting character.

[Linked Image from cdn.discordapp.com]
© Larian Studios forums