Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback How many companions?

The original meaning was a character written into fanfic that represented what the writer wanted to act out within that area of fiction. The writer effectively inserts themself into the world. Originally for Star Trek fanfic, the 'Mary Sue' is written as being prominent and admired within that setting, and usually manages to save the day and/or sleep with the writer's love interests.

In RPGs, a 'Mary Sue' is an NPC created as a way for the GM (or game writer) to insert themself into the gameworld and be a part of it. 'Mary Sue' NPCs generally end up more powerful or skilled than everyone else, including the PCs, and are a pain in the rear end when encountered by players because they usually act like Ãœber-PCs run by the GM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_...n%20written%20by%20adolescent%20authors.

Haha indeed. I just had the thought that if one decided to play Astarion as an Origins character that you could, I assume, try to romance the werewolf. An elf vampire spawn and a halfling werewolf...even for a fantasy game that is hilarious.

Hmmm ok. So basically literal self insert. So what bothers people is that the self insert character does not lose? I mean you can't create something without putting a piece of yourself in it, but a Mary sue is an extreme case? Has Elminister ever lost? Just curious. Technically all upper ranked gods past shar and Overgods like Ao are Mary sue's. Lmao. Crazy.

I don't know. Seems like a very dark outlook. If someone does not lose something they are hated. Very philosophical actually. Interesting.

I've never payed attention to the term so it was nice learning the clarification. Thanks.

Edit: I guess I'm someone who rather focus on putting a characters strengths to the test instead of focusing on exploiting weaknesses storywise. If that makes sense. The struggles vs actual defeats.

Well the hero of the story should win. It’s more nuisanced than that. The hero has to earn the victory. If all his powers and gifts are inherent and free, the victory is shallow. But if they were earned through hard work, struggle or dedication then the audience can appreciate the win.

It’s the same reason people like to cheer the underdog. We want to see hard work pay off even if the odds are against you.

Training is good and all but I don't have a bias toward weakness. It sounds like the argument is essentially prodigy bad, masochism good. Thats a popular pit fall that i'm not a fan of. I greatly prefer a middle ground that focuses more on giving the target audience a good time. A flexible approach. Mary sue's, stuggles, losing cause weakness's, etc seem to be deviations and digressions that might get a little too much focus and get people lost on the point. Lol

I understand what you are saying though. I'm just not that rigid when it comes to stories personally. I think differently and focus on different things.

Its more a problem when it doesn't feel earned, like when a character solves a conflict simply without any challenge or need for thought. People claim a character is Mary Sue-ish when they manifest a power or ability out of nowhere, or always win creating no suspense for loss.

You mean cheating. A Mary sue by definition wouldn't need to cheat. Fascinating really. Becareful you are about to make a circular argument. Don't do it lol. Come back.

How is that cheating?

A power or ability with no explanation. Thats different from a state of being or lineage. Everything has a source. To come from nowhere is not random either since random has a source too. Then again it could be fine if its creationism. Like if your character was cosmic or beyond. Everything has a frame of reference. So it depends on the explanation.

I wasn't talking about cheating? A famous example of a character people consider a Mary Sue is Superman because occasionally he is written to have whatever power is convenient to the plot and rarely loses, which is why Death of Superman became such an impactful comic because Superman could actually lose and it played out consequences. But that doesn't mean Superman is a bad character, he is a classic for a reason.
But generally it is easier to empathize with characters who are not perfect, but that isn't a hard rule. Any trope can be done well with enough care. So in wanting companions I would not want Perfect people who are flawless in every way and instead more nuanced characters, with some kind of flaw or goal they need to overcome.

Okay I see. It’s not that the hero doesn’t have an explanation on their power, it’s how they got it. The easier they get it, the less relatable they are to the audience. The less flaws they have, the less the audience empathizes.

Superman is someone we like to aspire to but as a character he’s pretty boring. He’s never really in any danger. There’s no fear or suspense. His life is pretty perfect.

I think people like to hear and read about heroes overcoming difficult trials and odds. You can’t have that when the hero is good at everything.

Spider-Man is pretty powerful but very relatable. Outside his powers, his life is hard. He has finance issues. Girl issues. He has to take care of his elderly aunt. Yet he still finds a way to save NYC. It’s why he’s so popular. We can understand his struggles.

I mean I never said struggling is bad. I was trying to say middle grounds don't exist for people that use it as an excuse.

How is superman a mary sue overall? He has failed many times. He has been killed, beaten, stabbed. He has had training montages. He has had to go to different suns for different power levels. His powers have a source and weakness. He has been killed and beaten without kyrptonite too.

Ok i'm having too much this. I think people just like humans doing human things for entertainment. Lol

The only reason Superman loses or needs to train is because even DC realized he's boring and he needs obstacles. If the story is designed where he is weaker, his powers are weaker. His powers have no consistency. They rise and fall according to the narrative. That's why he's such an awful character. In order to make him interesting, you have to make all these changes. Perhaps if he stayed somewhat grounded from the beginning, the writers wouldn't need all these retcons. In truth, he's essentially a god. There's nothing he cannot defeat at full strength.

But yeah, we are just having a nerdy chat.

Yes, and . . .

I think the word has expanded some to mean role-play or fantasy characters without flaws. So it can also apply to credulity stretching perfection. Ultima's avatar was a Mary Sue even if it wasn't a self insert

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue

Well the middle ground does exist, sometimes a character can pull something out of what seems like nowhere but it later gets an explanation, or what seems like a lack of effort turns out to be the result of past skills or training.
Also the original topic was on how many companions there should be I think?

Yeah I get it. Lol. I don't follow comics much, but I saw one where batman was a god and something-monitor was going against another Monitor and superman was trapped in an imploding dimension. I kid you not, he superman won by flying really hard out of the dimension and punched the villan Lmao. The art was really amazing and the fights were cool and fun but story was dumb. Still enjoyed it though to be honest.

Oh and superman is suppose to be a god. I'm sure but originally I think superman was suppose to be a religious analogy. Don't quote me on that though.

This is such an incisive comment. "Subverting expectations" is so boring and lazy. Gifted writers can make a take a vanilla character and give it subtlety and nuance. CRPGs currently make you travel with a freak show that confuses wackiness with interesting. Just give me one normal person like Alistair from DAO or Ashley from Mass Effect. If anything, companions should be archetypal to allow the PC to explore all the various character possibilities.

I will continuously point to Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous. A lot of the companions are kinda freak shows on a surface level, but they're written extremely well, and you still get to steer their development in ways similar to your ability to harden Alistair and Leliana in DAO. That game has legit changed how I view party member writing in every other game. Best set of party members in all of gaming thus far, and I cannot wait for everyone to see for themselves once the game fully launches in about 2 and a half months from now.

One major example: You know how in most games, party members don't even bring up the topic of their family and their current relationship to them? Most of the WotR companions do, to the point where you actually get to meet some of the family members throughout the game. There's a subtle underlying theme among them all about what each of them thinks about the concept of family.

Even one of the evil companions is revealed to have a lot of depth when you have the option to talk to him about his mother, in a way that highly implies that his extended family treats him as a curious oddity or a burden due to his equally noble status among them (and more astute players will put a lot of pieces about him together from this statement, he and the hellknight are probably the most well-regarded evil companions I've ever seen judging from beta feedback thus far).

There's one other party member who is literally working as an assassin as his primary means of income for his own family, and he maintains a professional stance on his career instead of treating it like something to be ashamed of, or something to enjoy. He's probably the most 'normal' party member you get in that game from a personality standpoint.

This sounds very enticing. I was going to use Pathfinder: Kingmaker as an example of wacky characters: F Barbarian who is less Red Sonya and more resentful of the patriarchy; nihilist dwarf who is nihilist because he is bad at dwarfing; serial killer elf I want around for some reason; hot chick who doesn't like being hot; polyamorous orc/elf couple that like to hang out by my bed and an actual goblin (fair enough you can just kill him). This is in stark contrast to the awesome adventuring groups of yore: Tanis' and companions from Dragonlance and, Rikus, Sadira, Neeva and Agis from Darksun where every character is great. I should point out that I haven't finished Kingmaker and the game is great overall.

For the record, if you kill Nok-Nok because he’s a goblin, we can never be friends.

He’s legit smarter than most of the Kingmaker cast, and extremely well written and has an atypical story arc for someone who appears to be the joke companion at first glance.

Really, the Pathfinder companions are really the only wildly successful cases of subverting expectations I’ve encountered. Probably because of how earnestly they’re presented, rather than trying to grab your attention through shock value or endless snark or something.