Ok, I know not everybody feels this way, but hear me out.

I think we all love a good antihero or conflicted "kind of an asshole" party member.... but the "kind of" and "-hero" parts are kind of important there, and I can't be the only one who feels like Lae'zel is kind of JUST a hostile, racist, abusive, psycho and wonders why anybody would party up with her, can I?

For the life of me I can't think of a single positive thing I've heard her say to another party member. She feels so one-dimensional, and that one dimension is basically being a horrid space-nazi who's constantly 2 seconds away from murdering her own party.... and honestly, it's exausting. I've played through the first half or so of Act 1 probably 30 times now, and not once have I kept her in my party, because I just get so tired of every time she opens her mouth (which seems like it's more often than almost anyone else) it's to insult, belittle, or threaten her own teammates.

It's even more frustrating in early access, since she's really the only front-line warrior type we have access to, so people like me who just find her grating and unbearable essentially have our PC class choices significantly narrowed, or else have to deal with playing an incredibly squishy party with few protections, which makes the whole thing much more difficult. I assume (and hope) this will be corrected with more companion options in full release, but oh my god has it been a slog barely getting to play with other options because I have to always be the Lae'zel of the group in order to create any sort of party balance.

PLEASE give us some sort of update to her similar to what you guys did with Shadowheart. Don't get me wrong, I get the value of (and thematic appropriateness of) the broad sweeps of her personality, but if we could dial down that meter down from a 10 to maybe a 7 or 8 and maybe give her a single redeeming quality at some point (hopefully early on before people like me give up on her) that would improve the experience SOOOO much.

There are few things as frustrating as a one-dimensional character.... but when that one dimension is "arrogant, abusive, space nazi who's going to kill you in your sleep" .... ugh, I just get so burnt out on her bullshit that it actively hurts my enjoyment of the game.

Being a racist, abusive psycho is what redeems Lae'zel. If she was a peaceful lovey dovey githyanki I would just kill her on the spot, like I kill all the tieflings in the grove.
I honestly really disliked her until we arrived at the tiefling camp and she humiliated Zorru, like he deserved.

Honestly I think she's a breath of fresh air. Most games can't handle evil companions. In fact I think I'm kinda disappointed with Larian, because they told us that we will ge the evil companions in Early Access, but let's face it, only Lae'zel and Astarion are (kinda) evil, the rest of them are good people with a chip on their shoulder. (Shadowheart is definitely not an evil companion, and that's a total disappointment.)

Now I certainly agree that we need more companions with a high STR score, because someone has to carry the loot, and playing a caster MC is fun, but complaining that Lae'zel is a bad person even though that's exactly what her appeal is, is just a bad idea. I honestly wish that when the full game comes out, Shadowheart, Astarion, Gale and Wyll will all become these really fucked up evil people who are actually interesting to have around. I also hope that we get 4-5 more companions who are actually good guys.

No ...
Just no!

Lae'zel is perfect as she is, and if someone dont like her, there is enough other companions to pick ...
Dont just make everyone sweet and fuzzy as all other games. -_-
There is finaly some real character and people want to ruin it.

I agree with Rag that her personality is good as is, she's currently my favorite character I think. But there is one issue I do have with her, and that she's so rigid and so focused and arrogant that it really does strain credulity that she sticks around with us if we do anything other than go straight to the gith. She can say repeatedly that she thinks we're weak and soft and generally talk down to us, so the fact ahe sticks with us feels out of character. You can say that she recognizes strength in numbers, but I don't think that's true to her character either. She's an arrogant racist zealot, they're not given to that sort of logic or self awareness.

BUT!

Just so im not so negative ...
If you really want Lae'zel to be nicer to you, i suggest to make Githyanki ... she is still harsh, but didnt seem even nearly as harsh to me.

I can see both sides: I agree that Lae’zel’s abrasiveness is a large part of her charm, but also that the degree to which she’s rude doesn’t actually make much practical sense given she does want allies, and teaming up with her does involve roleplaying either a certain amount of eye-rolling tolerance or teeth-gritted acceptance that the githyanki are a good lead for dealing with the tadpole.

I’m not a big fan of Shadowheart’s change of personality from the early patches when taken at face value, and hope it turns out she’s every bit as contemptuous as ever but has learnt to hide it better, which would actually make more sense for a manipulative Sharran than alienating people she wants to use for her own ends. And while that level of deviousness wouldn’t make sense for Lae’zel, I do think there are places where it would make more sense for her to compromise or keep her mouth shut. But as a player I’d miss her snark, so I’d prefer she’s left as is than that she’s toned down too far.

Or, picking up on Gray Ghost’s point, perhaps she should just dump the party and head off to the creche if we don’t follow her lead within an acceptable timescale.

For the full game, I think we can expect more strength based characters, like Karlach and Minsc, so we won’t be as reliant on Lae’zel if we want a warrior type in our party, giving Larian more flexibility to take her out of our party if that makes narrative sense.

I remember that there used to be a scene where Shadowheart sneaks upon Lae'zel and murders her in cold blood. I really want to get that back into the final game.

Really?! I don’t recall ever coming across that, though admittedly I only did quick run throughs of the first few patches and only tried to be more completionist from around patch 6 onwards.

The Githyanki are a militaristic and highly organized society of warriors who are often depicted as antagonistic towards other races, particularly humans and elves. In terms of alignment, the Githyanki are typically portrayed as Lawful Evil. This means that they adhere to a strict code of conduct and hierarchy, but they are primarily motivated by self-interest and personal gain. They are willing to use violence and aggression to achieve their goals, and they do not shy away from using deception or manipulation to further their own ends. The Githyanki code of honor emphasizes strength, courage, and loyalty to one's own people above all else. They believe that only the strong have the right to rule, and that all other races are inferior to them. As a result, they often engage in raids and battles against other races, seeking to conquer and subjugate them. Overall, the Lawful Evil alignment of the Githyanki reflects their strict adherence to a code of conduct, as well as their ruthless pursuit of power and domination. While they may have some redeeming qualities or individual members who are more complex, as a society, they are generally depicted as antagonistic and dangerous to those who do not share their beliefs.

As a Githyanki warrior, Lae'zel adheres to a strict code of conduct that values strength, honor, and loyalty to one's own people above all else. She is a fierce and formidable warrior who is not afraid to use violence and aggression to achieve her goals, which can sometimes put her at odds with other characters in the game. Lae'zel's Lawful Evil alignment can be seen in her actions and motivations throughout the beta. While she may betray her own people for personal gain, she does so in a way that is consistent with the Githyanki code of honor. She is also willing to use violence and intimidation to achieve her goals, which can make her seem ruthless and calculating at times. However, her adherence to the Githyanki code of honor also means that she can be trusted to keep her word and remain loyal to those who have earned her respect. Overall, Lae'zel is a well-written character who is perfectly suited to her Lawful Evil alignment. Her motivations and actions are consistent with the values of her society, and her interactions with other characters in the game are always interesting and dynamic. Whether you love her or hate her, there's no denying that Lae'zel is a compelling and complex character who adds a lot to the world of Baldur's Gate 3.

Having recently done a little research on the Githyanki, they're typically considered "Chaotic Evil", an inverse to the Lawful Githzerai. But of course their society is highly militaristic too, so you have an interesting juxtaposition, that I don't think the source material tries too hard to reconcile. The best I can make of them, they're more like a Mongol Horde but with an eternal and undying Genghis Khan unifying them. Actually I guess Genghis disappeared a millennia ago, and everybody is waiting for her to return while stuck doing the last thing she told them to.

I think Lae'zel is clearly acting Lawful Evil, considering she's pretty low on the totem pole she probably never had enough clout to be given any autonomy. In 5e, Githyanki aren't considered 'graduated' to Gith society until they're taken on a successful Mind-Flayer raid. I enjoy her brusque attitude, and am especially curious to see how it develops after we go to the creche. Also giving Tav and Lae'zel a few more opportunities to challenge each other would be a good thing for both.

Does she tho?
I would say she see us more like servants, tools, or means to an end ... but allies is a bit strong word, that would imply she sees us as equals ... while, using her own words, she is a Wyvern, and we are Worms.

Im pretty sure this was datamined by Chubblot, and it was never live in Early Acess ...
Especialy since there is only one recording on youtube (as far as i know) ... wich is happening between Gale and Gale, since "that was the only way he made it work" as Chubblot said.

Not that I care much about the companions, since I'm a custom party fan, but here's my impression to Lae'zel:

For me she is almost the same as Viconia DeVir was back then. There is only one big difference here, which probably offends many. While Vicci lost her connection to Lolth and found comfort with Shar, and over time found trust in our party by showing her weaknesses sometimes, and this is not the case with Lae'zel at all, because she wants to please Vlaakith. I am very curious to see if there is a twist to this in BG 3 and Lae'zel is also cast out by Vlaakith, is lost and confused, is picked up by our party and goes through a similar evolution as Vicci in terms of her experience and relationship with others. Of course, it would then be a kind of Vicci copy, but something like that has stood the test of time.

And yes there are still front fighter companions missing. It is possible that we will get a Kensai: https://scryfall.com/card/clb/290/oji-the-exquisite-blade

Some players says they hate companion X and the next players loves them.

Laezel has been my most taken origin in my party and made a great contribution. Plus I enjoy her voice barks talking with SH and Astarion.

But one more "good" companion, say little and furry would be fantastic.

Uh. Enough companions to pick?! Is this joke of the year? Out of a <Baldur's gate> 3 roster of 7 whooping companions. The RPG choices we have are just outstanding.
Right.
Boy how have standards dropped. Quality over quantity I guess is the excuse. Apart from a character or two, I am not seeing nor the quality or quantity.

It's worth noting that the number of companions in a game is not necessarily an indicator of its overall quality. While Baldur's Gate 1 had only 6 companions, it was still widely regarded as a classic RPG, and the success of that game led to the development of Baldur's Gate 2.

Similarly, while Baldur's Gate 2 had a much larger roster of companions, it did not necessarily lead to the immediate creation of Baldur's Gate 3. Game development is a complex process that involves many factors beyond just the number of available companions.

That being said, it's important to note that the quality of the companions is often more important than the quantity. It's possible that Baldur's Gate 3 will have fewer companions than Baldur's Gate 2, but if they are well-written, well-developed characters, then the game could still be a success.

Ultimately, the success of a game depends on a variety of factors, including gameplay mechanics, story, world-building, and character development. While the number of companions is one aspect of a game, it is not necessarily the most important or the only factor that contributes to its overall quality.

I think making Lae'zel more agreeable would be dishonest. Fans who are steeped in the lore of the Githyanki would be disappointed (including me). She is a product of her experiences and a brutal childhood of martial discipline and constant training. You would be the same as her if you survived that.


Yeah pretty much - She refers to the PC as "Istik" - which is the Githyanki word for 'meat' or 'meatbag' - oddly the word for Plant in Estonian though. Also not the first companion to refer to the PC as Meatbag as I recall.

Yup ...
If you dont like Lae'zel, you have 4 more to pick ...
If you do, there is only she ...

Seems clear to me wich side would need some filling. :-/

Statement: Ideed, master.

It would be nice if Lae was more precise and pragmatic in her hostility. Especially in the sense that she'd be more conscious of the fact that she's not among her own people, and that she has to rely on foreigners, even if she regards them as tools.

Her unwillingness to let you handle things when it's prudent (like letting you ask about the gith patrol from the tiefling before resorting to threats of violence) imo just seems careless and undisciplined even when taking into account theviolent gith culture. But this type of reckless behavior, that doesn't take into account where you are and with who, is rather commonplace in the game, and something we see also in interactions with non-evil NPCs. So it's probably more of an overall problem with the writing and not just a character spesific problem. Devs also seem keen on constructing some sort of detailed traumatic background/present for most of the evil characters to account for their misdeeds, which means there's no short supply of volatile/foolish evil types like Kagha, Shadowheart, Lae, Kethric etc. It would be nice, if we had other alignments than reactive stupid evil.

Given that the gith culture is essentially a racist and genocidal religious warrior cult, that devours even its own top dogs, I think she'd be more interesting if she didn't so fanatically(and cluelessly?) align with the sacrificial ideals of gith society. I suppose this wouldn't matter so much in interactions with her, if you could have antagonistic, rock bottom approval relationships with party members, like in Dragon age 2, especially since mocking her beliefs is kind of fun. Still, even if you're obliged to let her run amok, at least Lae has a personality, is possibly easier to "cure" from her origin backstory, than say Shadowheart, and she doesn't approve of the idiotic brainworm farming plotline.

As a romance option she's passable from a D/s perspective, but she doesn't differ that much from the standard skewed/retrograde way kink is depicted in games: yet another self-destructive evil dominant woman in a game that mostly equates kink with the insane and the (oft. non-consensually)hierarchical evil.

I agree with you that Lae'zel's hostility could be more precise and pragmatic, especially given that she is among foreigners whom she needs to rely on. It would be interesting to see her character develop in a way that acknowledges this and perhaps shows her becoming more strategic in her interactions with the party. I also think your point about her unwillingness to let the player handle things in a more diplomatic way is a valid critique. It would be nice to see her show more trust in the player's abilities to negotiate and avoid violence when it's appropriate. Overall, while I find Lae'zel to be an interesting character, I think there's definitely room for her to be more nuanced and less one-dimensional in her interactions with the rest of the party.

Here's hoping that the final version delivers.

It is pragmatic .... in Githyanki way ...

They dont ask for things, they state what they want and you either give it imediately, or they take it by force.
Anything else is waste of time for them ...

This is common, but pure, misstake. O_o
I wonder where people get that idea ... but as far as i know, Lae'zel dont rely on anyone, except her own people (Creche) ...

After all, if you dont recruit her she finds that Githyanki patrol on her own ... even if you knock her out and steal her equipment!

You are just making her another Human. :-/

I wonder where this weird urge came from ... that everyone else should "see the error of his way and become better person". :-/

There is no error ... Lae'zel acts just as Githyanki would ...
And Githyanki acts just as anyone with fanatically loayal army of dragonriding elite warriors would.

Didn't they already tone down Lae's lines? Out of the beta companions she's actually one of my favs. I really would like her to stay the same, imo.

I'd say people get this idea from the fact that she 1) was found caught in a tiefling trap that she apparently needs us to free her from (I can't remember if it's made clear whether or not she was conscious or not when they caught her though) and 2) she's travelling with us and listening to us as we travel. That she takes her cues from us and follows us despite her constant insistence on going to the creche implies that she relies on us to some degree, especially if we ignore her and clearly show no indication of going to the creche. Based on her personality as shown, if she really thought she was capable of going on her own and not relying on us, then she would kill us all and leave. So of course people are going to think she needs us.

This is a failing of her writing, basically, and it makes it easy for people to dislike her for the wrong reasons. She behaves high and mighty, constantly badgering us to go to the creche, yet despite her superiority complex, she just sticks with us, contuing to nag us. Not even really trying to physically force us. She implicitly takes the position of our subordinate, but talks about how much better she is. It just doesn't go together.


I don't think the urge is even a little weird. Consider that even Larian acknowledges that the evil paths in games are taken notably less than the good paths. Most people want to play good characters. They see themselves as the good guys, and so when a character is on the good guy's side and clearly starts off as evil, then if people like that character, they will want the character to become more good. People fundamentally like and enjoy redemption stories, they appeal to a part of us that wants hope, wants to see things get better. I have a theory that most people, on some subconscious level, sees being good as the logical course of action. At least, good in the sense of being pro-social and capable of engaging positively with people around them. They like to see characters grow and change rather than remain statis. So if a character starts off evil and is going to grow and change, then the obvious direction is that they grow and change to develop more positive personality traits.

I like Lae'zel as she is (although she will probably not be in my party) and would oppose a change of personality. I don't see inconsistencies with her as character which aren't explainable by her background and the situation she is in.

She is part of an arrogant warrior race/caste and sees us as companions as inferior beings, like worms. So she acts harsh and as if only she can decide what to do. But she is insecure (and perhaps intelligent) enough to realize, at least sub-consciously, that that's partly a fake and she is not so superior and independent as she wants to be and braggs to be. When she tries to kill you in one scene and you enter her mind, you notice her doubts she has about herself. Insecure people often need to overcompensate and be radical, as you find a lot in our world. Lae'zel's harshness and despise and at the same time her reluctance to leave the party and do her own things are not contradictionnary, having that in mind.

1) She dont need us ... if we leave her there, she escapes on her own ... we are just usefull tool that makes things happen faster, nothing more.
2) This is awfully out of context ... yes, she was in the trap, but litteraly just few moments earlier our "strong character on wich she should rely" was lying unconscious with face burrowed in beach sand ... Shadowheart aswell.
I mean ... applying the same rules ... our character should be seen just as weak and dependent
as her.

I dont think this was mentioned ...

Nor i think such trap would make any sense, those Tieflings surely didnt drag unconcious body to the trap just so they can start arguing if they should kill it.
Especialy since when get there, they are comenting her appearance, just as if they would discover her at same time as we appear.

Well, this is argument that is really hard to take seriously ...
We are main character, our followers were made to follow us ... duh ... :-/

No, it makes no sense ... but not many games do all the time.

Why Kazuhira give orders to Venom Snake, even tho Diamond Dogs as organisation "belongs to PC" and our ingame nickname is Big Boss?
Why Aleister get orders from our PC Grey Warden, even tho he have years of experience and we become one litteraly few hours earlier?
Why Emhyr var Emreis didnt get Geralt killed, when he mock him on his own court?

I could probably find more examples, but the point is still same ... bcs the game is telling OUR story, no matter how small or big cogwheel in the whole machinery we are, we still are at its center, everything is turning around our PC character.
So, sorry ... but you cant really use as an argument that NPC do what it was created for. :-/

I would welcome such outcome ...
But im affraid im in the minority here.

Agreed ...
Even tho this could be effect of not having whole story yet ... there was several datamined dialogues that is just not acessible trough regular means in EA.

But i certainly loved when Sven attacked my character in DA:Origin, bcs he disagreed with my leadership ... and only after he was "put in line" he submited. :3
I can only hope Lae'zel will have something simmilar.

Thats completely different story tho.

This is something i dont really understand ... even tho i see it very often around me, in real relationships.

Two persons meat each other, find something they like about the other ...
Then they both spend lots of time and energy trying to shape the other more in their own image ...
Usualy one submits sooner or later ... in better cases, they broke up, bcs they give up ...
But if not, somehow in the process something is lost, something that made the other character interesting ... or, if you wish, make them what they are, at least partialy.
Then its only matter of time til sucesfull shaper find out that he dont like this new person ... and they broke up anyway.

Its just as if you are trying to create "perfect face" in character creation, and after hours and hours it finaly seems perfect ... then first cinematic in game play and the only thing you can think about is: "What the fuck is this monstrocity?!"

Shadowheart suffered simmilar fate ... i never liked her and i still dont, but either my memory is so horrible allready, or it seems like parts of her personality were just deleted and now are missing. :-/
Im not a fan of theese changes. :-/

Im aware of this ... and i hate it.
Its not that i dont like redemption story, dont get me wrong ... but i dont think i ever seen single that was made properly ... i mean in games, or movies ... but there was lots of them in books! :-/

Still i think that in order to maintain ballance, games should provide both options.
You want redemption story for Lae'zel?
Ok, i want corruption story for Minsc! :P

Possibly ...
Problem with games is that such changes often happens so fast, its almost parodic.

Just look at her ...
She is certainly at least 20-30y old ... with no idea how much time she spended in Astral Plane, where they dont age ... so it can be even centuries ...
And during all this time Githyanki doctrine was the only thing she even knew ...
For lets say those 20 years ... she was told that she is supperior in every way ... even if you would beat her, her indoctrinated mind wouldnt see it as proof that it was a lie ... she will understand it as her own failure, bcs doctrine is right, it allways were, and it apply to everyone, so logicaly it have to be her fault.

Thats why i like it so much that she is mad at Kithrak and suspect him from betrayal, bcs that makes sense from her perspective.
Yes, we (players) know that Githyanki are backstabing assholes that only allows you reach so far, before their own queen will devour their soul so nobody too strong will ever appear ...
But Lae'zel have no such information, in her eyes Githyanki are perefectly oiled machinery, that works for centuries, maybe even millenia, under watchfull eyes of her beloved, strick, but fair ruler ...

If you take this all under concideration, how should our little adventure that (in EA) takes barely few days could outweight decades of ... well, basicaly brainwashing?

Even if our full adventure would take year, it would still not be sufficient in my eyes ... unless something so drastic (and dramatic) would happen, so it would right in front of Lae'zel eyes give her undeniable proof that her doctrine was wrong!
And such thing would have to be Vlaakith trying to kill her personaly, in order to get the Weapon.

Only after this i would concider her questioning her values.
But that is probably just my opinion.

I also hate her and I won't ever do any playthrough with her.
She's only good at being killed to take the best armor of act 1 in the first minutes...

Just to be clear, I'm mainly arguing devil's advocate as to why people might feel the way they do about Lae'zel, I in general don't mind her as she is now despite what I see as flaws in her writing. Though there are some parts of your arguments that I disagree with still.


I mean, if we don't make right for the creche then we're not all that useful and we only slow things down for her. As for your second point, it's true, but we also were not stuck in a trap. And the fact we have to rescue her does create an impression that's unlikely to go aware unless you sit and really peel back everything about it,which most players, especially on a first playthrough when they're just going through the game, aren't likely to do for such a basically straight forward moment. If we just found her passed out on the sand, that would feel different. Instead we find her in a trap she needs to get her out of. Plus we're the main character, we naturally attribute to ourselves greater benefit of the doubt since we're seeing things unfold through our own eyes. It's why I mentioned it not being clear when she got into the trap. We were unconscious from falling out of the nautiloid. totally fair that she might be put into a cage while unconscious. But the impression given, as you seem to point out, is that she was awake and moving about when she was caught, which makes her seem less competent. It's not entirely fair or strictly logical, but by story logic, that's the implication.


I agree, but the problem here is that the answer, obvious as it is, requires the player setting aside the logic of the story and the character as presented to instead just say, "it's a game, don't worry about it." And while I'm fully in favor of saying that when it makes the game more interesting, I don't think it does so here. I'll point to your dragon age example in particular because that's the only game you mentioned I'm familiar with. Alistair actually gets asked why he's taking his cues from a new recruit when he's at least a year or two more experienced (the sense I've always gotten is that he's still 'the new guy' himself relatively, but he's been around long enough to know the ropes). And he gives a reason. He admits to not being comfortable with leadership and preferring to take orders from someone else, and our character is the more assertive force, the one who's willing to take charge. So they took that fact of game narrative design and made the story work with it by tying it into Alistair's character. It's even something that can impact his character arc if he becomes king or not.

So while I don't think the 'because it's our story' justification is bad in general, it's bad here because as written, Lae'zel's character runs entirely counter to her role in the story. Which is what I man when I say that it's a failing of her writing. If the only reason there is for why she doesn't leave us is because we're the main character, then that's poor writing. It means Larian failed to consider the limitations of the medium they're working in.


I think there's still honestly a bit of an issue here because she's SO rigid, so set on only one goal that it wouldn't make sense for her to tolerate any but the most absolutely necessary diversions. To the point that taking on basically any side quest should be unacceptable to her. And having a companion who requires you to ignore most of the fun parts of playing the game isn't that great an idea. It's basically setting her up to be fundamentally unlikeable not simply because of her attitude, but because she's stopping you from engaging with the game.


When I saw this said "Sven" instead of "Sten" I thought for a moment you were referencing a very strange moment in a Panel from Hell. XD


What's not to understand? People like to have control over things, and sometimes that desire for control extends to people. In a real life context that impulse is always unhealthy. In a fictional context, it's only sometimes unhealthy simply due to the way games work. And with games, people understand that being evil is not... well, good. In fiction evil is usually presented as ultimately futile. It's harmful, caustic, and most importantly, it doesn't provide an avenue for genuine happiness. And when you think of it in that way, why would anyone want a character they like to be evil? Especially because Lae'zel is on our side, not a villain. Villains are different because we're rooting against them. We're rooting for Lae'zel in as much as we're rooting for our side to come out on top. And that extends to wanting her to be happy. And thus, wanting her to not be evil.


I don't think you're wrong anywhere here except for two points. The firstand least important is that I believe she says explicitly that she's never actually been to the astral plane, she's been living in Creche Ki'lir, on the asteroids that follow the moon in the material plane. The second, slightly more important point is that I don't think it would necessarily take only Vlaakith herself trying to kill her to make her change. I think if the writers wanted to, they could write plenty of emotionally wheighty, intense moments that could convincingly see her change. Not all at once, probably but still.

Thats how i take it, its just debate about interesting topic.

Do we?
I mean, if we leave her alone in trap, knock her out, or just help her and leave her free and alone ...
In all 3 cases, she arives to Githyanki patrol "coveniently" at the same time as we do.

I get it may seem that way, but she dont really know where she is, nor where to look out for her kin ... so ... im not really sure, if this even can be said. :-/
There certainly is direct way, and we as players knows about it ...
But from characters perspective, we know (unless i remember some talking wrong) that other Githyanki are "in North" ... but we also know that "in North" there is something burning ... and we also know that "in North" is Gobin camp, from wich they keep attacking all and everyone around ...
From tactical perspective it make sense to deal with at least this problem in advance ...

True, Tollhouse, Teahouse, or Underdark ... those all are unnecesary detours and she should be louder against them.

Well, indeed ...
But this one is also the only "functional" catching trap trough whole EA.
We were not stuck in any ... but there is also none we even could be stuck in.

Now this makes me wonder ...
Since there is so many broken traps around that area ... do you think she triggered them all? xD xD xD

And it also depeds a bit on playtrough, bcs just few seconds earlier, our brain could have ben almost eaten by wounded mind flayer.

I presume you wanted to say away ...
But i agree with this part, just my impression was obviously quite different from others.

We can turn it around ... even in that situation, where people claim she rely on us, she is snarky, harsh, refuses to say please, or thank ... she clearly made it clear that we are barely even worth her noticing.
And yet, people help her down ... why?
My gues is simple: Its a follower, roleplay be damned, there will be a content related to her!

Just as some other Larian logic ...
Looking at you, Astarion attacking someone whos party outnumber you in ratio 1:3.

I think we can agree that writing is here to blame.

Indeed ...
The problem here is that Alistair, even tho i kinda liked him, was strongly submisive character ... Lae'zel is exact oposite.

Thats why there cant be any narrative reason for her to follow you, bcs unless you would be older Githyanki, she would never follow you (from narrative perspective).

I dont really think this is example of bad writing ...

Lae'zel is basicaly writer paradox ...
Character like her cant exist in position where story needs her.

Dominant, strong character are ment to lead ...
Submisive, characters are ment to follow ...
How can you create dominant, strong character, that would follow? O_o Especialy if that character is supposed to be from race that ... well, is basicaly fantasy nazists. :-/

I dunno, i gues there is no way ... either Lae'zel wont make much sense, or she would be bad Githyanki, im not sure if there even is middleground.

Maybe, juuuuuuuuuuust maybe ... if she would keep periodicaly question our leadership, and challenging us for our position, it may look a little better.
You know something like "you are still piece of shit in my eyes, but you are strong enough piece of shit to lead us for now".

OR!

If Larian would give her some mind reading options here or there, that would show how frustrated she is, but somehow still willing to bare us for a little longer, since she could still use us.

Question is if that will be the case in final release ...

I have read some datamining spoilers from Creche ... and i think that nobody can be mad at me if i say that things wont go exactly as planned. Bcs, when they did, right?
So, my question would be ... if following Lae'zel questline, indeed is "ignore all, rush there and loose lots of content" ... or just "take this first, and then return for the rest anyway" just as with some other quests related to tadpole.

I mean ...
- Ethel is deadend ... Gut is deadend ... Nettie is deadend ... Halsin is basicaly deadend (bcs he cant help us himself, but hopes that there is a place where we can find some answer) ... Volo is deadend (but did that really surprised anyone? ) ... why should Creche be any different?
- Even if you take the big decision (underdark, or mountain pass) ... as it is right now, if you go trough Underdark, you get to Grymforge ... you only find out that there is noone with still working pixie lantern ... so (unless there will be some changes ofc) you will have to return ...

My point is that maybe we all will be pleasantly surprised, when it comes out that Larian was leading us by the nose, and while we were thinking that we are deciding where our adventure will lead ... in fact, we only decided in what order we will wisit all places that were prepared for us.

Whoopsie.

That is exactly the point of that real life example ...
We want her to be happy, but on our therms ... it smells little selfish to me.

She can be happy, if she would wield Silver Sword, and ride a Red Dragon ... then she would be happy ... and (at least for me) more importantly, she would still be herself.

But what we basicaly want for people that we are trying to shape ... and for Lae'zel quite litteraly ... is to change her into someone else, who would be easier for us to like.
And that is never healthy for anyone.

If i would want to take this to narrative extremes, imagine that she would indeed become nicer, diplomatic, kind, and the other stuff people wanted ... and then our adventure would end and she would return to her people ... what would await her there i wonder?
My guess? Death, probably fast and painfull.

Thats quite possible ...
After all, even Kithrak called her Child. :-/

Still, there was some years.

Well, power of writer is limitless obviously ...

My point was that i really liked that when even Kithrak acted against doctrine, she blamed him specificaly, rather than presuming it was all bunch of crap.
I simply dont like characters that "for the sake of story" or "for the sake of redeption" are willing to dump everything they build their whole life in meere seconds.

In BG2, good or bad, having 17 npcs to play with you have something for everyone. Easy to get immersed in creating your 6 comp. party.

In BG3 you are so limited in builds and npcs, this is frustrating. I don't care that its quality writing and visuals. You have to force yourself to enjoy whats given. I want to slap that snarky Astarian face every second I see him. And you can kill him, which is great. But thats 1 down and only 6 to go...etc.

I dislike 4 of the npcs. Thats more than half of whats available. Its like disliking 10 of the 17 npcs available in BG2. But even then you still have tons of build options left for the party.

What made Baldurs gate, Baldurs gate are all the available classes and NPCS to play with. Thats its greatest strength that we are sadly not getting (yet?...).

What makes everything even more bitter sweet is that we (the community) will most definitely NOT be able to ADD more companions with mods. Just look at DOS2. Zero extra companions. Due to of course the modern aspects of these 3D games. BG2 for example had dozens of extra companions (if you want to count even the sub-par companions, probably over 30...) superbly written and added by the modding community. Even expertly voiced and banttering with the main characters and tied to the main story-lines.

It’s a matter of taste, isn’t it? I’ll admit that while I appreciated the additional depth of companion interactions in BG2 and love the game, I actually didn’t much like the vast majority of new companions it introduced and probably prefer any of the BG3 EA companions to any of the new companions introduced in BG2. Which isn’t to say that many of the latter didn’t have their moments, just that on balance, and judging on the basis of the partial info of EA, BG3 is averaging better to my mind.

And you may well be right that catering for a wide variety of tastes, as opposed to just happening to coincide with mine, is partly a numbers game - I certainly found more companions to like in BG1 than BG2 - and that expectations with respect to animation and voiceover are a barrier to modding. But in the same way that I’d not personally trade the improved companion interactions in BG2 for the wider variety of companions in BG1, I will happily accept further reduced choice in BG3 for yet more depth and complexity. And much as I like the BG1 companions I can admit that they’re mainly fairly one-dimensional and played for laughs, which isn’t what I’d have wanted in BG2, let alone BG3, and wouldn’t support the sort of character development I’d want to see these days. Of course, appetite for such a trade off is going to vary from player to player, but so far (and on the assumption that there will at least be some additional unannounced companions) Larian are hitting the mark pretty well for me.

I also wonder if they might bridge the gap with “mercenaries” to some extent. I think we’re still expecting this functionality. If such custom party members are wholly characterless then that probably won’t help much, beyond meaning folk don’t have to populate their parties with NPCs they actively dislike. But if they have at least rudimentary personalities, or such personalities can be modded in, then that might give an option for those who prefer more companions and are willing to trade depth for choice.

But apologies, that’s digressing from the topic of Lae’zel specifically, and probably retreading ground that’s been well-trampled elsewhere.

I think that it's definitely bad writing to include a character to fulfill a role whose personality basically cannot be consistent if she's in that role. Lae'zel seems like a very bad case of the writers writing an origin character rather than a companion character. It's bad writing in the sense that they didn't consider the limitations they were presented with. Perhaps if they had they could have worked within or around them in some clever way to get the desired result. Instead they didn't and the outcome is compromised as a result.

As for finding a way to make her work, I thin there actually is. It's just about making her more pragmatic. She thinks of us as tools? Fine, lean into that. A warrior knows that if you have a good sword, then you have to oil it, sharpen it, generally take care of it or it will become dull and unreliable. Same with armor, carpenter's tools, etc. So maybe take that angle. Give her a moment where she respects us as tools - still beneath her, but well-suited to achieving her ultimate goals. Or on that note, maybe have her justify for we the player WHY she thinks we're of any value to begin with. Something where she acknowledges in some way what use we're serving to her. She calls us slaves or tools, but we don't act like it, so what benefit does SHE think she's getting? Maybe we get the chance to read her mind and see her acknowledge that she's in a new, unfamiliar world and that much as she hates it, having natives who know the way things work is her best bet at this point. Something along those lines.

Also, having her confront our character and having our character actually come out on top in some fashion would go a good way towards addressing the problem too. It would make other people feel satisfied about 'putting her in her place' as opposed to her just getting to constantly talk down to us withonly fairly meager reprisal from our character.

I think another thing worth acknowledging is that I'm quite certain that most of the people who play this game will have never heard of Githyanki before and will have no context for them. I already sort of knew about D&D adjacent stuff and this game was my first experience of them. Beyond that, I didn't even learn much about them from the game thus far. The majority of what I know about them came from these forums and from a D&D actual play podcast where Githyanki are recurring antagonists who have Australian accents. So having her not be a perfect representation of her people isn't exactly going to ruin things. Larian has already demonstrated their overall lack of care for the setting and associated things with it. So if their reasoning behind Lae'zel's character is just about loyalty to the source material, that comes off as disingenuous to me.



The thing is, this is a story, which works on story logic. And by story logic, being evil simply CAN'T lead to happiness. Therefor wanting a character to become good isn't selfish, because the side of good is the only side that can really get genuine happiness.

Even in stories that trade in moral grayness and grittiness, the only people who are really shown as happy in their evil acts are usually psychopaths and genuine monsters. Otherwise they're shown occasionally enjoying the fruits of their evil labour, but any joy they find is usually painted as fleeting, as never satisfying them, and the things that do give them lasting happiness are things we associate with being good, like family, friendship, etc, and often their evil acts are done in service to those things, and will often end up putting those things in danger. Just look at breaking bad - his turn to evil ultimately destroyed his relationships and was shown to be self-destructive.

So yeah, in real life trying to reshape people is unhealthy. But by the logic of stories, trying to make others good is the right thing to do. Also in the narrative extreme of the Lae'zel changes during the adventure situation, the outcome would probably be that she abandons her people entirely after seeing them for what they are, rather than going back to them.

Okay, I’m feeling we’re starting to go round in circles on some of these points, which should indicate it’s time to agree to disagree. It seems some of us think Lae’zel is perfectly coherent and well written, others think she’s badly written, and the rest are somewhere in the middle. I’d suggest we just take that as established and move on unless we have any genuinely new considerations to offer or haven’t already made our own view clear.

:Moderator hat off:

On the suggestion that there’s a kind of “story logic” that means Lae’zel can’t be evil and fulfilled, I’ll admit I find that difficult to accept. Sure there are conventions - and cliches - but I can’t see those myself as having any normative force that means the Larian writers can’t or shouldn’t try to be a bit more interesting. Personally, I think a well written RPG companion has the potential to develop in a number of different ways, depending on events in the game and player choices, and have all of them feel natural, logical and satisfying. If there’s only one coherent direction for a character, then I’d question whether the writers had made a good decision in including them as a companion, when it’s surely going to be more fulfilling for more players, as well as add to replay value, to build in a level of flexibility into their design.

It remains to be seen whether Lae’zel or the other companions have such flexibility, and how well different possible story paths for them come off, but so far it feels to me as though Larian are at least making a decent stab at setting up the companions in a way that has potential to develop in different interesting ways, which might include redemption arcs or falls to the dark side amongst them.

Mercenaries aren’t my cup of tea (but great for people who like them). For me what would help is knowing the remaining good (and neutral but good leaning) companions! Hopefully they are revealed soon! 🐻😊

I don’t think Lae’zel would need any changes as long as there are also enough good companions to pick!

With regard to the evil and fulfilled thing, I'll admit that that's just the convention of most stories, mixed with my own personal biases, in that I genuinely believe one cannot be evil and emotionally fulfilled, something I feel is borne out even in real life. But that's very much not in the purview of this discussion. I fully expect Larian to present options for keeping or making some companions evil, or having companions that are only ever evil, I was mostly arguing as to why people would want to see evil characters become good within the story. Ultimately while I stand by the observations I made, I think Lae'zel only really needs some very mild tweaks to really work. Even something as small as including a few key lines scattered around and not really changing anything else would have her on the right footing.

I see where are you going and i like the way you are thinking, but i still cant say i like the results. :-/

Lae'zel seems to me like the type who will take extra special care for her Githyanki gear ... bcs that is precious for her.
But if she will fight with regular (read Faerunian) sword, she would just use it until its dull, then throws it away, and just take another from nearby corpse ... bcs that is common, boring, easily replaceable.
And maybe im wrong, but i believe we are this sword for her ... she tolerate us, as long as we are usefull ... if we arent, she should throw us away without second thought.

But yeah, it would work better (as we talked previously) if delay would give her negative reputation, and at some point she would give up and leave.

This is much better, that would actually make sense.

Depends ...

There is many talking down to our character ... Lae'zel, Astarion, Tiefling kids ... its almost like Lariain enjoy provoking us, and then dont allow us to react to leach on our frustration. :-/

I would certainly enjoy option to challenge Lae'zel for a duel over leadership ... but i think that is all it should give, she would get reason to follow us ... i wouldnt change anything else, leave her snarky, let her still see us as inferiour, etc. etc.

Well, here you basicaly just say "i dont care" ...
What else can i say than "i do".

I dunno ...
I would say that happiness is relative, aswell as is path to achieve it.

Its true there is not much stories, where evil character would actually win ... maybe bcs they are harder to write ... but just recently i have read fascinating serie of books named "Čaroděj" (probably just Wizard in english) from czech autor "Tomáš Dušek" ...
I will not spoil it, if you ever get your hands on it ... but i can certainy recommend reading it, bcs its protagonist is certainly VERY evil in almost any aspect i can think of ... and yet, in the end he seemed happy.

//Edit:
I have read it again ...
And i think i have located the core difference in our opinions:
Now, i would like to say that i dont disagree with this statement, per se ...

But it feels a little like you are forgetting, that theese things are cultural based ... and in Githyanki culture, those things are not just source of happiness, they dont exist at all.

Githyanki dont have family ... they lay an egg, surrender it to caretaker in Creche for hatching and training, and thats it.
Githyanki dont have friends ... even tho i believe some bond can be created in certain groups, Lae'zel herself told us that during the training she slain several of her cousins, just bcs she was comanded to do so ... if you are familiar with Star Wars: Republic Comando (paint on Sev's armor was made of blood ... but he never meet anything than other clones), that seems like good comparison.

Therefore their Values quite logicaly needs to differ.
I would say that for Githyanki being a good soldier, is compareable as for us is to be good parent, or child.

So something that is supported across all the 'culturally' evil races is that when these people are removed from their culture they start to change and even adjust to what their new societal expectations are. We see Lae'zel at her worst, when she is fresh from her culture, indoctrination fully in place and the cultural expectations drilled into her. Given time she will have time for introspection and adjustment. Nobody wants to be alone, and Githyanki are just as dependent on others (mainly each other) as any other race in the game.

But right now, she is an accurate portrayal of a Githyanki, warts and all.

The whole lot feels like they designed half a dozen unlikeable annoying worthless characters first that would be last pick out of a roster of 27 then realised they had no time to make any more so that's all we're getting. A chaotic stupid Githyanki is a cool character to have on your eighth playthrough, not so much when you have zero alternatives other than hirelings.

I like Laezel.

I want conflict in my party. We're all strangers thrust together in a difficult situation. It's inevitable that some of us will cross one another's boundaries in an abrasive manner.

In time, perhaps we'll learn to appreciate one another. Is it possible Laezel could grow to respect Tav? I think so. If we stay together, if we overcome enough pain and hardship.

Agree with the OP. Githyanki or not, Lawful Evil alignment or not, there is a basic code of behavior in relation to people from whom you want things. Making her outrightly dismissive of all others with the constant superiority complex is just lazy writing. It's not how one would behave in her situation. She is not in her planar environment. She is the outsider and dependent on the player with whom she shares a common direction.

Example of proper approach would be to have her start out that way perhaps, sure. But she should undergo change due to relying on others who are in their environment, those upon whom she is dependent. Not only is this type of thing basic character development but it is also the truth of how things are and would be in that situation.

The female characters just seem to be written defensively overall. Lae'zel being confident and going after what she wants would be in character, which includes modifying her behavior to finish her mission with support.

Same with Shadowheart. She is supposed to be a deceptive dark cleric. One would think she is manipulative with windows for the player to maybe perceive she is trying to use them. But instead she's transparent and sulky like a teenager. I mean in most conversations with her no matter what one says the responses are almost childlike. She lacks depth in that way.

I realize it's easy to critique writing. And I realize there is much more to come from them. Just observing from the window of what we have seen so far it feels like some of the characters could use some quality control to ensure they're on whatever the storyline objectives are for them.