Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General If the main hero dies, and you don't revive them, can you still finish the game?

Pretty much what the topic says, the main hero, your character, if you choose to just have stay dead, can you still finish the game and if so how does it change?

We'll see, I suppose? At the least, you might get hard locked out of companion interactions dependent on approval, maybe. Though, you could get approval for Lae'Zel by having her talk to Astarion perhaps even then. It doesn't seem like the game /needs/ Tav.

what If I told you your character wasn't the hero?

Your character was always just an addendum to Larian's Mary-Sues, from day one. They are inconsequential and there is no legitimate reason for all these special awesome amazing magical people to be kow-towing to your decisions and following you around like the leader. They mostly exist to be the fall-guy to feed Larian's origin characters the lines they need to spring board off of to make themselves sound more awesome, or to have the final word over.

you can't do that actually. if you control your companion talk to another companion, they would say something like "no time for you. I'll talk to the boss" etc. and you can't long rest or quick travel if your main character is dead iirc.

Next time my MC dies, I won't immediately rez them and see what limitations I face. I'm aware they brush each other off.

That no resting is a game-stopper, you must rest at some point. Yes, I know there's been no-rest runs in EA and someone'll probably do that while speed-running. But I'm talking regular play.

Niara's cynicism has a point. The origin characters are antithetical to each other, it's just that EA is letting them coexist. I'm picking that by mid-Act1 in the real game it'll be clear who can't pair with whom and end of act, a choice made. In which case the MC is the nexus character, the most connected bridge-builder.

Dragonlance novels had Tanis Half-Elven, who was 2nd best to all the other warriors in the party but rose to become both an evil Dragon Highlord thanks to his lover, and good Solamnic Lord Knight thanks to his friends. Of all the characters, his was the most varied, though Raistlin fans would disagree.

There's a decision point in storytelling. Do you define a character, like say Astarion being a vampire, to tell a focused story? Or do you open character options, like Tav, and let adventure path decisions be their story?

I don’t mind my companions having awesome back stories as long as my custom character gets to be just as awesome as them in the game, which admittedly they don’t yet. I’ve found this a problem with other games with strong companions (eg BioWare ones) so I don’t blame Larian for struggling. I just hope they can solve the issue by making our custom characters cooler rather than by making companions more boring. I’m happy to invent an epic back story for my custom character if I really want one, but that’s not going to help unless they can also be as impactful as the rest of the party on screen.

Though of course it’s also a valid choice to play a random joe who has been thrown into a difficult situation and to want to form a party of similar individuals, who then develop their awesomeness throughout the story rather than having it pre-established. That unfortunately doesn’t seem to be the sort of story Larian are going to support in their single player game, which doesn’t really bother me but I can understand why it might frustrate others.

EDIT: Regarding the initial topic, that is interesting. I’ve never tried leaving my main character dead for long.

Other games in this genre handle it by tying your MC directly and intrinsically to the core plot of the game in a way that the other companions are not; this gives them a very good reason to follow and ultimately defer to the main character's decisions - the MC is deciding for themselves how they will approach the issue that personally affects them, and the others follow because it matters to them, or because they think helping the MC best serves their interests, or any other reason circling that - and for the most part this core reason is *more* pressing than their personal objectives, which is why they continue to follow and wait on their personal objectives until the MC diverts time and energy to help them out. The important element that is unique to the player character must outweigh any one individual goal or need of the other companions.

The tendency of other games in the genre doing this, for generations of games, is not an arbitrary decision; it serves an important purpose which Larian's game is currently missing.

Suggesting "Oh the MC will have an important role to play, it's just not been revealed yet" is not good enough. It Needs to be clear and present Now from the outset, as the catalyst for why our other companions are followers and not leaders, and why they are willing to put their personal directives on hold until we get around to them. (NWN2's knight captain is a good example of this principle; the unique element is introduced from the beginning, and while the other companions and NPCs all have personal stories and personal goals and quests, and as important as those things are to them, they recognise that the thing that the shard-bearer has going on is more dire and more important, and so they choose to follow us, help us, and wait until we can all find time together to help them with their own objectives.)

Without this, it's a gaping great plot hole that shatters any hope of immersion in space and story - as a lot of folk around here have been pointing out from day one. "We've all got a tadpole and we all need to find a cure so we should stick together and do that" is a perfectly good reason for them all to stick together, and travel as a party, but it's NOT a sufficient story hook to explain why our player character is made the defacto leader of the group, in amongst all these legendary-epic-heroic individuals... not on its own.

Perhaps they will just treat this game so that every single character/companion is considered the MC, so that all you need to do (if you wanted) is just switch to another character at any point and they are now the 'MC'?

I don't know how else they could solve this otherwise.

You mean, things like the tadpole? More later.


It's currently missing a lot of things, like at least two acts, and whatever is in Act 1 that we haven't seen, and won't see, until the full game launches.


Should they start the game at the end, so you know what's going on? I can't think of a lot of works of fiction, whether they're in print, a movie, or a game, that does that. Some will certainly use a "flashback" mode, but generally speaking, stories start at the beginning, meaning any meaningful information about a character that the story needs to provide will be laid out in the narrative. Of course, then there's the whole "player character" thing. Let's look at some "plot holes" that happen with this:

1. Why is it that my MC, one of two remaining Grey Wardens in Fereldan, is doing all the dirty work, instead of sending out their companions to do it, while making sure they survive?

2. In Inquisition, why is the Inquisitor doing all the leg work, when they have a whole force they could be using? Something that gets touched on with the War Table missions.

3. It's a pretty common observation, across a multitude of games, that the MC is really super important, and yet, they're chasing down some old woman's frying pan...

Regardless of what's in store for the rest of the game, the companions will follow the main character because they are the main character. Very few games feel the need to explain this design philosophy, because it's pretty much understood that games would be pretty boring if all the MC did was sit on a throne and give orders to subordinates. I mean, there's a whole genre of games where this is pretty much what happens, but mostly, no, in RPGs, the MC is the driving force. This isn't a plot hole.


Only for people that haven't played a lot of cRPGs, and don't understand that the PC is the driving force for the main story of these games. For the rest of us, it's pretty much understood that this is how it works. Why would Khalid and Jaheira follow you in BG? They're the more experienced, and should probably assume that leadership role, and yet, you wind up being the leader, and yes, you can alienate them by goofing off instead of taking care of what they believe is important, but shouldn't they have taken the reins from the time you meet them?

This is why we're thrust into the leadership role here. Because once we roll Tav, Tav is the MC, and the MC is always the driving force. This isn't a plot hole, it's an understood game mechanic, and has been for a very long time. You complain about the comps being Mary Sues, and yet, you won't be happy unless Tav is as well?

You know, Robert... I don't think I've ever seen you jump into a thread without doing so seemingly for the sole purpose of being contrary and fractious. What do you get out of it? It's fine if you don't see the problem as being one - but a lot of people do. We're not stupid, we just care about immersion in space, especially in story-driven games.

Your sole comment here boils down to "It's the mechanics, don't question it!" ... which is a valid opinion to have, and which you could have said in a couple of sentences and saved everyone some effort.

We are all aware that the player character is the main character and the driving decision-making force in purely mechanical terms; we are the single player playing the single player game, of course we are. That's the mechanics. That's not the story; that's not the setting; that's not an in-space, in-world reason. It's the out-of-character reason - there is no in-character reason presented, and that's a problem. Having such a reason is important, and good games provide one. BG3 does not... and as I discussed "It hasn't yet!" is not an adequate response; it is past the point where it needs to have done so.

Immersion and consistency in world space matter - and if they don't matter to you, or you've just gotten used to playing games that treat them like they don't matter (in which case, BG3 will be excellent for you, I'm sure...), that's fine - but there are higher calibre games out there that don't do that, and do treat the in-universe story as meaningful and relevant, and any good story-driven rpg should do as much. Most of the ones I've played do.

No, the tadpole is not such a reason; I discussed why it fails to be so above, which you suggested you would address, but didn't. It doesn't serve to justify why everyone with their very important histories and very important personal goals have decided to make those goals second fiddle to the choices that our player character makes, and to designate them, specifically, as the defacto leader of the group. It's a shared danger that serves to keep the party together and justify them travelling and working together as a group, but it doesn't justify making our player character the leader and decison-maker.

Yes, the reason that we are the defacto leader of the group and the others are following our decision-making should be established right away, from the time that others start doing so. That doesn't mean starting at the end and spilling all the beans on everything right away - it means giving a sensible, in-universe reason for an obvious and mundane question (Why are you the one we're all following the lead of?), the lack of which is jarring and immersion-breaking.

I do complain about the mary-sues, though mostly because of the writing, and the way in which our character often exists purely for them to dunk on and to feed them the fall-guy lines that they can respond to, to upsell their own awesomeness... but the complaint here is mainly around such important, established and epic people following our player character and bowing down to their decisions, when none of them have a reason or disposition to do so. That's a problem. The reason to follow our character should put the character at least on reasonably equal footing with the importance of the other characters and their other objectives, and enough above or more urgent enough to make the choice from them of putting those personal objectives on hold and to put their opinions on what we should do secondary to what this other person says we all will do, seem like a reasonably believable and sensible decision. Right now, BG3 does not provide this, and it really should.

I meant in the full game. Once origin characters are implemented, it's possible they might have some kind of approval network among them. Mostly, I believe you'd get locked out of all companion quests and interactions. However, since I can't prove that, let it be said that the option is theoretically there.

Niara, what the heck? What is this attitude? Your posts are amongst the longest on these forums, may be boil them down to a couple of sentences, alright? Something among the lines of "every companion is too cool to my taste"?

The other user gave actual examples of games that failed to create the perfect narrative around the MC's leadership. There will very likely be a moment in any role playing game when your party members stick with the MC instead of doing something of higher value to their made-up story/personality. This derives from the "player factor", because games are played by players, not characters. Especially in a game with a lot of sandbox elements, a player can make erratic decisions, made with the understanding that the world they explore isn't real and there is no necessity for actions that would contribute to a cohesive story. For example, if a player decides for their MC to run in circles for an hour or to go fishing for a week or be rude to a character their MC was always polite with. Some of those scenarios are almost unpredictable and they won't ever be considered to be the ones triggering companion reaction. Thats why your leadership only needs to be explained to an extent, in broad strokes, such as tadpole or the blight and so on. Especially when it comes to the role-playing game, in which you can have additional justification layers of your leadership based on your background, race, class, made-up story etc. I mean, if you want to? Another option is to demand everything worked out for you on a plate with a silver lining.

BG3 does exactly what you described in the previous posts - its plot has a common denominator of the tadpole problem, which creates a purpose for the infected characters to stay together. You say that it does not justify leadership. So you basically discredit your argument about how the games handle leadership, if its not the way to handle it, according to yourself. Develop your thought further if you want to tie those things together.

Also, saying that the fact of BG3 not having its acts 2 and 3 yet, is not important and that it is past some point to solve its problems is nonsense, imo. Acts 2 and beyond can hold the crucial development of the tadpole factor into the attitude/approval factor. As the writers said during the PfH - what started as a forced cooperation will shift towards friendship/rivalry etc.

By the way, before you label my post "arguing for the sake of arguing", let me put it straight. I argue because I disagree with some of your points. I also argue because I don't like people trying to make witty commentary about other people's words.

It's easy to shunt criticism off to the as yet undetermined parts of the plot. Tav could have a much more important plot specific mechanism, making him the clear One True Hero, but that doesn't change how right now, we have a number of main characters who, solely from plot contrivances are following a cobbler who happened to be abducted.

We've had this conversation before of course, it's been two years. Which Origin Character are you looking forward to playing?

I think RPGs have a 'special main character' problem, I don't really have a problem with the Everyman taking the leadership role, but that doesn't abjure the game from the need to establish a logical reason that the big egos we're questing with are sticking around. It's not like it's unheard of for characters to leave the party if they didn't like the direction it was going, in older BG games people would leave if your rep was too high or low, or if you didn't take care of quests in a timely manner.
It follows that someone like Lae'zel would finally get fed up with us if we choose to save the grove before following Zorru's lead; she complains about it enough as is.

This is all a very serious and marvelous conversation. But, since seeing the videos of companions being forced to talk to each other... I'm a true believer in the crack "we made Tav lead because it results in the fewest murders in camp" theory.

Why, when given a blank slate, would you decide that your backstory is just some random average joe?

Here is the backstory for my sorcerer (sailor) - Pavel was a ship’s windcaller, abducted by a notorious pirate because he was the child of a dragon. The pirate raised the half-elf, half-dragon, as they sailed across the oceans of Faerun, becoming bloody conquistadors. But as he grew older, Pavel rejected the violence of his upbringing. He killed the pirate captain who raised him, along with much of the crew. Having made a daring, narrow escape after setting the ship on fire, Pavel barely made it to Baldur’s Gate alive. After arriving, he decided to lay low and recover from his injuries, when all of the sudden- tadpole.

Will any of this be referenced in the game? Aside that he is a sailor, of course not, but that’s okay. I don’t need the game to tell me I’m a super badass. Give me a blank slate and I’ll fill in the blanks myself. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the point of a role playing game, and unless I’m playing a truly stupendously great character (The Nameless One level at least) I prefer to come up with my own character in my head.

Also,

Lae’zel - foot soldier, used to following orders
Shadowheart - acolyte of a religious cult, used to following orders
Astarion - literal slave
Wyll - talks a big game but is clearly a bit full of crap and definitely not leadership material
Gale - has a big ego but doesn’t seem to possess the managerial people skills or the interest in stepping into a leadership role, seems more like a power behind the thrown sort
Karlach - you save her life
Minsc - years of canonical experience following a leader
Jaheira - ditto

I don’t think it’s strange that, given the pressing circumstances, any of these characters would fall in line behind a decisive, authoritative type-A personality.

Lae'zel - Considers herself superior to any non-gith(and lets you know it), already views you as a monster.
Shadowheart - used to following orders, namely her cults, and is in the process of doing so. Using us to help her reach Baldur's Gate is the best the game does to rationalize Tav being leader. It helps if you have Lae'zel along because Tav becomes a mediator between them
Astarion - was a literal slave, probably happy to kill anyone who wants to put him into a subordinate position again.
Wyll - Talks a big game, also the only character who will actually follow through and leave the party based on our choices.

I agree with you on Gale, but mostly because he has the least going on with his backstory. He needs magic items, might as well get in a group plundering tombs.
The problem isn't that they follow us, it's that they complain about our leadership, while not justifying following us. If you think you're going to turn into a Mind-Flayer, and think there's an clear avenue of action, why tolerate a party that goes from one dead end to another while ignoring your objections.

I know we've had this discussion before too Warlocke Just adding your own head canon isn't enough for me, without the game's acknowledgement it doesn't or didn't happen.

We have? That must have been a while ago because I haven’t been here in quite some time. Good memory.

“If you think you're going to turn into a Mind-Flayer, and think there's an clear avenue of action, why tolerate a party that goes from one dead end to another while ignoring your objections.”

Because it’s evident quite early on that something else is a going on, you aren’t in immediate danger of flaying out, and it’s safer than going it alone. It’s contrived, sure, but most games rely on contrivance and don’t address their (to use a popular buzzword) ludonarrative dissonance. I really don’t think all that much more justification is needed besides “this shit is crazy, we’re safer together than alone. This guy / gal is taking charge so okay.”

Party members in BG 1 and 2 would put up will a lot of meandering about too, and while some would leave if you didn’t complete personal quests in a timely manner, there were much more companions because each companion required less work (mo-cap, voice-work, personal quests). Therefore, the game can afford to have companions more readily leave you because you can just go find another. Everyone is free to disagree, of course, but I personally don’t mind this trade off all that much. I’d rather have fewer fleshed out companions. If I want more companions with BG1 level development I can just make my own. 😂

And of course, there is always the option of just selecting party members who you plan on actually accommodating. If I’m not planning on recruiting a party member I usually kill them anyway (especially Lae’zel because she is rude to me, so firebolt to the face it is). I don’t think role playing requires the motivation of real consequences though. I often do it just for fun.

I remember us having some interesting conversations, even if most of the particulars escape me. I do remember head canons coming up quite a bit before on the forum, there are two camps of crpg players that have very different expectations from their characters, and what constitutes customizability.

I think the tadpole is a perfectly valid reason for all of our disparate characters to want to journey together, it's why Tav is de facto leader where I have to eat my ludonarrative pease.

This evident intrigue around our condition is part of the mystery box that I was referring to earlier. The dynamics of the party and our MC might change drastically at the climax of Act 1, but as it is, most of us seem to be treating this thing as a tadpole we can remove, this becomes less and less the case as we draw closer to the Moonrise plot, but it still doesn't change that Tav problem.

There's a reason I hardly play BG 1 compared to BG2, the companions are mostly just memorable catchphrases that I projected a lot onto, so we can agree there. But I don't think you need to say its a trade off to have more companions or better companions. Not to mention all the speculation around having our roster locked in after Act I. Who knows, all the characters you kill or avoid meeting might end up at Moonrise anyway, similar to the end of DOSII, and we'd have less reason for them to subject themselves to our party in the interim.

Your murderhoboism makes my lawful stupid self apoplectic.