Surely that topic has been discussed here and there but i think it deserves an own thread.

I do understand that the origin system requires the tadpole problem as an common motivation for the party to find together, but since there are so many awesome characters with companion potential in the game i have to ask:
Does every companion have to be an playable origin character ?
It would add so much to the game if for example Halsin, Minthara or Anders could become permanent companions with their own motivations.

I dont need them as a potential Main Character with some Origin Integration..but limiting the party to the tadpole crew kinda seems like lost potencial to me.
It would also give you more variety to make your own party without hiring nameless mercenaries, which was practical in DOS II but i dont think many people really enjoy travelling with empty characters.

I would love it if Halsin joined the party.

I too really hope we can have non-Origins, non-tadpoled companions. It's cool to move away from "godspawn topic-of-prophecy PC surrounded by allies met on the way". It's sad if it ends up being the extreme opposite, "everyone is VIP : no tadpole, no joining".

The list of non-tadpoled companions could include :
- The bard Alfira (+++)
- The druid Halsin (+++)
- Minthara (+++)
- Sazza
- Gandrel (a Ranger ?)
- Someone from the Lia-Rolan-Cal group (or another tiefling that looks fighter-like, basically, they look like they have a couple of people who could hold their own)

Sazza added..
Nettie added..
Deep Gnome guy added..

Still better than these origin characters, hell Nettie tried to kill me and i still like her more than Astarion or Lae'zel.

They said before they are considering it at the very least. I also prefer non-origin companions

Do not forget about Paladin Anders, i see a lot of potential in this character and his story

Oh ? I missed that (I think). Where was it ? And where do they "say things", if they have any regular/semi-official other channel of communication ? I only know of the community updates.

Mostly interviews with sven/ occasional comments on this forum.

I am pretty sure there will be two types of companions, the tadpole origin characters and the non-origin non-tadpole ones.

Because if they said you need to commit with the companions you selected in act 1, they didn't say you won't meet new companions afterwards. And I think Minsc, for example, will come later and you won't be able to choose him as your main character.

"We are considering it" means "We won't do it and hope that you will eventually forget that you asked".

It does not

I can see Haslin, Minthara, Kahga, Alfira, and maybe Mizora for scripted fights in a Malady/Jahan style. I heard Nightsong could be a follower too in a capacity similar to Haslin depending on your choices. I wonder though, does non origin companion mean actual party members or is it just a camp follower and maybe a scripted battle or two.

[/quote] I wonder though, does non origin companion mean actual party members or is it just a camp follower and maybe a scripted battle or two. [/quote]

I was referring to actual party members

Yeah I understand you lol. I hope Larian is on the same page too.

I hope they add nonorigin companions. I would like Halsin to be a companion and also would like to have more companions in general.

I've commented on it many times, so as to not repeat myself too much: I very much agree we need non-origin companions, and quite a lot of them. 8 companions is just not enough to choose from in a Baldur's Gate game.

A non-playable no-tadpole companions is something I would have a great interest in, but I think it would put the entire origin concept into question - mostly, how would it work in coop. I think it is safe to say, that origin system’s biggest advantage is for coop companions being able to join you at any moment and take control of your companions. Would they still allow for that for non-tadpole companions? If those companions have added content to make them playable, why not make them origins? Don’t they need a wide range of playable origins to choose from, before entertaining an idea of non-tadpole companions?

And as Minsc is confirmed - what will be his role? Companion? Follower? Quest NPC?

Killing “spare” companions would be in line with D:OS2 formula.

Yes - the problem with non-tadpole party members is how would they be treated in dialogue. There are some conversations, such as the goblin priestess, that would require completely different player and NPC dialogue for a tadpoleless character.

And Minsc is confirmed as a companion and origin character. Data miners have already found Minsc specific dialogue choices in the game for when the player is playing as Minsc.

Guys, please hide spoilers, especially datamined.

Not a fan of him being an origin, tbh. I was hoping he'd be a temporary quest companion.

That wouldnt be the problem if these characters were just companions and not playable as Main character, wouldnt it ?

yes only origin characters need to be tadpole'd otherwise the whole conceit behind grouping up in the first place would need to change as well.

How is he confirmed as origin (being origin would mean starting the game as Minsc)? I find that unlikely but from what you said it does sounds like he will be able to join our team. A tadpole-less companion, or temporary companion (or indeed, a full origin - that would be weird though, starting with Minsc in this very alien Baldur’s Gate setting). I could swear Larian mentioned something like that when discussing 4party limit (characters temporary joining your team of four), however, I seem to be the only one remembering that, so I might have misinterpreted something. Especially so, as there is nothing of that sort in EA as far as I am aware. However, that still would make the most sense to me - any character who joins our party will have their own lines and will be under player control (afterall, BG3 allows for any party member to engage with the conversation, regardless if it’s player character or companion).

I don't think it's true at all because there are many things that were asked of Larian regarding this game, but they only commented on a select few suggestions. It seems very likely they only address things they are seriously considering implementing at the very least

+1 for non origin companions.

It looks like a huge majority of players just don't care about origins (reddit polls) so please... Don't spend all your "companions time" on them.

This is the last one I saw : https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGat..._medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Great idea. Also not all NPCs need to be there in act 1... so the possibilities are literally endless... in BG2 the most fun NPCs also joined somewhere mid-game... (especially Edwina...)

? Outside Imoen every companion is recruitable from the very beginning. Some are of the beaten path (not in ankathla) but they still can be quickly reached.

I don’t think spreading companions around is bad, but I do think it undermines companions you meet later. In my personal experience, companion who join after substantial playtime are unlikely to make it into my A squad. Of course, unless, all starting companions are unlike grumps.

I'd actually prefer all of them be available in Act I, perhaps beginning of Act 2 (because BG). In BG1 you had a bunch of companions only available once you reached BG, so in Chapter 5 (out of 7 chapters). By this point your party was pretty much established. So either you skipped the late-game companion or you spent most of your adventuring time with a character that was just there to be dumped once you reach BG. There's even a mod to make those characters available earlier, before BG is available. BioWare seems to have recognized the problem, as in BG2 it's only Imoen that is available late into the game; you can recruit all the other characters pretty much before doing anything else in Chapter 2 or even 1 (And Chapter 1 in BG2 is done in the first hour of the game or so.) Some quests required, of course, but not story progression.

Companions aren’t the same as party members and I’m pretty sure that you can’t enter dialogue with them.

Anyway, Minsc

Yes... but there were so many quests, you might have played 2 hours or 20 hours before you actually came to these quests (e.g. Anomen, Valygar, Keldorn). I think it felt much more satisfying also from a story perspective if they all were not just standing around and immediately available...

I agree that "standing around waiting to be recruited" is bad, but the point in BG2 is that you CAN recruit them as soon as you sprint out of Irenicus' dungeon and do their recruitment quest. You CAN recruit them after you do most of Chapter 2/3 stuff (so most/half of the game), but it's entirely up to you. If they're locked to later story arcs, there's the BG1 problem I've described. In BG2 you can form your desired party at the beginning and go through the whole game with your trusty companions.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I liked the druid Apikusis that I spoke to in the Druids Grove. Hard to pin down exactly what it was about her, but the second that I spoke to her, I thought that she could potentially be an interesting companion?