Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
E
stranger
Offline
stranger
E
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Originally Posted by EMTFields
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Originally Posted by EMTFields
I just wish we had a likable female companion, period..
But again, as has been said over and over, this is subjective experience. It's not "I wish we had a likable female companion" its "I wish there was a female companion I liked" - I think that's a valid request - the more the better with any sort of rpg imo, but to say that ones own personal experience of not liking any of the female companions can be generalized as "we", applied to everyone's experience is egocentric and will constantly butt up against the people who like the female companions.

I really don't understand why people who complain about the companions insist in generalizing their own views on "likability" to everyone as if this was some sort of objective scale rather than just saying that a particular demographic (both the people who like (ethically) good female characters, and people like the OP who want more helpless women in the game) find nothing that appeals to their tastes, or as it seems in the OP, their particular horny rpg fetishes.

Just because I generalized and wrote "we" doesn't actually mean I speak for everyone. Which is pretty evident when I state "I WISH" If you like the companions cool. I don't, which is why I gave my subjective opinion to sympathize with OP. Not to speak for everyone who plays the game.
well now you're simply rowing back in an effort to cover - there's a difference between saying you don't speak for everyone (self evident) and saying you didn't intend to speak for everyone. I think its obvious that you don't speak for everyone - but that was not the original complaint. the contention is around the use of "I wish we had a likeable companion" rather than something like "I wish there was a companion I liked" i.e. the original issue of subconscious projection of personal desire creating a monolithic player-base which universally considers there to be no objectively likable companions from who's point you frame your avocation for personally likable companions.
I'm not rowing back anything I stated. To simply think one speaks for an entire forum of individuals by stating "we" is ridiculous. Also saying: projecting my desires will some how cause a "monolithic player-base" is even more ridiculous. Stating my desires have no effect on what others desire. We all have our opinions. As for using "we" how do you know I wasn't speaking about what the OP and I wanted, and not everyone. You're arguing semantics, and purely creating an argument when there isn't anything to argue over.

Last edited by EMTFields; 14/02/21 10:06 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Originally Posted by BeeBee
I recently played a game based on a different RPG franchise that messed up both parts of this argument SO BADLY that it almost made me lose faith in this kind of video games. How can you mess both sides, you ask?

Well, they made the protagonist a middle-aged male character with a fixed backstory where his wife died a horrible death. Then, through non-branching dialogue, they implied that there was a non-emotional reward mechanic to get a new romantic partner and / or human connection with the remainder of his family. So I was like "uuuugghghgh so first Woman in the Refrigerator and now Women as Rewards with no way to opt out of that route, I guess I'm not the target audience at all but let's push through for the sake of the combat and the puzzles."

And then, at the end of the game, regardless of what you picked or chose, everyone dies a horrendous death and the protagonist remains alone forever.

If I had been the target audience I would have been incredibly pissed.


So you made up a category of being and then agitated yourself with your own categorical creation? Seems like you are choosing to view people a certain way and passing that as reality without context or individual awareness. Basically looking at individual situations without empathy. The only one to see woman as rewards or whatever right now is you. It also seems like a doubled edge sword of both pride and disgust that you repeatedly use.

All I can say is maybe stop putting people into boxes. People are much more varied than the skewed views you have presented in both stories and real life. I'm going to assume you are young since you seem to revel in interpersonal conflict as a form of entertainment. If that is correct then I'd suggest travelling to different cultures. Not saying you have a problem. Just offering a suggestion that you may benefit from. You remind me of that comedy skit where the guy goes into an agency to pay to argue with someone. Except your topic would be "How woman should be!!!!".

Joined: Jan 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Originally Posted by BeeBee
I recently played a game based on a different RPG franchise that messed up both parts of this argument SO BADLY that it almost made me lose faith in this kind of video games. How can you mess both sides, you ask?

Well, they made the protagonist a middle-aged male character with a fixed backstory where his wife died a horrible death. Then, through non-branching dialogue, they implied that there was a non-emotional reward mechanic to get a new romantic partner and / or human connection with the remainder of his family. So I was like "uuuugghghgh so first Woman in the Refrigerator and now Women as Rewards with no way to opt out of that route, I guess I'm not the target audience at all but let's push through for the sake of the combat and the puzzles."

And then, at the end of the game, regardless of what you picked or chose, everyone dies a horrendous death and the protagonist remains alone forever.

If I had been the target audience I would have been incredibly pissed.


So you made up a category of being and then agitated yourself with your own categorical creation? Seems like you are choosing to view people a certain way and passing that as reality without context or individual awareness. Basically looking at individual situations without empathy. The only one to see woman as rewards or whatever right now is you. It also seems like a doubled edge sword of both pride and disgust that you repeatedly use.

All I can say is maybe stop putting people into boxes. People are much more varied than the skewed views you have presented in both stories and real life. I'm going to assume you are young since you seem to revel in interpersonal conflict as a form of entertainment. If that is correct then I'd suggest travelling to different cultures. Not saying you have a problem. Just offering a suggestion that you may benefit from. You remind me of that comedy skit where the guy goes into an agency to pay to argue with someone. Except your topic would be "How woman should be!!!!".


Or, alternatively, that specific game was terrible.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Sure.

Joined: Apr 2013
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Apr 2013
Everything is subjective but I'm not convinced there is anything TO like about Shadowheart or Lae'zel.

Shadowheart is a cleric under the domain of trickery and she somehow has a charisma of 14. She should be likeable, friendly, easy to get along with and competely manipulative. Or maybe charming, somewhat rogueish, witty and completely manipulative. But instead she's curt, hostile and completely clueless as to what manipulation is. She lies with all the subtlety of a 3 year old who has just discovered the concept and is completely obsessed with it.

Lae'zel is a completely stock trope Gith. She's so stock though it's weird to even introduce her as a character. There needs to be something to flavor her arrogance, cruelty and aggression but there isn't. She's just a zero dimensional ball of petty rage. Why even give her dialog if there's no way to engage with her on any level?

Joined: Feb 2021
E
Erendil Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
E
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Zarna
I am glad you have had nice women in your life but I also find it amusing since my experiences are the opposite. The majority of women that have been in my life except my relatives, were backstabbing gossiping superficial wastes of flesh, and I had nothing in common with them. Most guys have always been genuinely nice to me, not the fake "I want sex" nice, and I find it much easier to get along with them.

It's not my personal experience, I am using scientific data here. And logically it makes sense too. Usually women are more compassionate because they are taking care of a baby. Men are more aggressive to protect the family. I am not saying that everybody is like that (your personal experience are clear proof of that), but if you would check the Bell's curve then you would see that majority of population tend to be like that. Last time I heard Jordan Peterson to talk about that.

Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Originally Posted by Erendil
The most gentle person is Astarion.
still in awe of this post.

I think he meant feminine, in which case he probably is.

Exactly, thank you.

Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
I really don't understand why people who complain about the companions insist in generalizing their own views on "likability" to everyone as if this was some sort of objective scale rather than just saying that a particular demographic (both the people who like (ethically) good female characters, and people like the OP who want more helpless women in the game) find nothing that appeals to their tastes, or as it seems in the OP, their particular horny rpg fetishes.

Well I don't know where you get anything about horny rpg fetishes, I guess you are playing games for your own reasons. But try to relax your right arm every now and then.
The point is that it is objective, to some degree. And of course that would change from culture to culture. But usually majority of women want the same characteristics from men and vice versa. And right now in EA there is no usual woman. At least that is my opinion.
But if you would take the time and read my post you would find out that I really don't have anything against new things in games, which means having unusual women as companions. It is interesting and it can find it's audience for sure. But it would be good to add more usual protagonist.

Originally Posted by Gimbal
And if people want to feel like the big brave hero who makes the ladies swoon, should they not have to work for it - to make it an actual achievement?
Yes, let's have some nice women in the game as well. But not flat and passive, or easy or weak. They too should have a will of their own, so they seem like real people you can respect. How about that tiefling bard, she seemed nice.

Absolutely agree and that is my point. There is no female companion who you can impress by being a hero (righteous and honorable). Right now you have to be more on an evil side to get their approval above neutral. Which isn't the case with men (Wyll and Gale). Soo let's wait what Larian is going to add as next companions.

Originally Posted by Rack
...
So spot on!

The truth is that I didn't like companions in DoS2 either and I ended up playing with merc and everything was fine...

Last edited by Erendil; 15/02/21 12:45 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Erendil
It's not my personal experience, I am using scientific data here. And logically it makes sense too. Usually women are more compassionate because they are taking care of a baby. Men are more aggressive to protect the family. I am not saying that everybody is like that (your personal experience are clear proof of that), but if you would check the Bell's curve then you would see that majority of population tend to be like that. Last time I heard Jordan Peterson to talk about that.

That's... so completely wrong that it makes absolutely no sense if you look at anything outside statistics gathered before writing was popular. Unless you want to count ones gathered by political entities attempting to enforce their views on the world. One look at the soviet and israeli militaries would tell you that.

Originally Posted by Erendil
Absolutely agree and that is my point. There is no female companion who you can impress by being a hero (righteous and honorable). Right now you have to be more on an evil side to get their approval above neutral. Which isn't the case with men (Wyll and Gale). Soo let's wait what Larian is going to add as next companions.

Righteous and honourable usually comes across as arrogant and narcissistic, you know? Or at the very least... feth, what's the word? Like how the Brits used to look down on the conquered territories as savages who could be almost as good as people with the right education. Not patriarchal, but similar.

On the other hand, I sure as heck wouldn't mind a nice himbo companion to provide a pair of strong arms around the place. Just to balance the houseplant Erendil wants~

Last edited by FuryouMiko; 15/02/21 12:59 AM. Reason: tag fix
Rack #756069 15/02/21 01:24 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Rack
Everything is subjective but I'm not convinced there is anything TO like about Shadowheart or Lae'zel.

Shadowheart is a cleric under the domain of trickery and she somehow has a charisma of 14. She should be likeable, friendly, easy to get along with and competely manipulative. Or maybe charming, somewhat rogueish, witty and completely manipulative. But instead she's curt, hostile and completely clueless as to what manipulation is. She lies with all the subtlety of a 3 year old who has just discovered the concept and is completely obsessed with it.

Lae'zel is a completely stock trope Gith. She's so stock though it's weird to even introduce her as a character. There needs to be something to flavor her arrogance, cruelty and aggression but there isn't. She's just a zero dimensional ball of petty rage. Why even give her dialog if there's no way to engage with her on any level?
Charisma also affects intimidation. Charisma doesn't define a character as friendly, just having a "je ne sais quoi" that makes them influential in one way or another. It can be charm, manipulation, how affable they are, etc. but not limited to that.

Lae'zel is a Githyanki and they are DnD's Klingons. She does come across as extremely petty. I expect her to be the group's Worf, but Worf is so much less petty than her.

Joined: Feb 2021
E
Erendil Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
E
Joined: Feb 2021
I am not going into some political discussion, but I tend to agree with Peterson and other people with similar view on the world. If you don't, then that's fine too. If you are arrogant and pretend that you are being righteous, then that is wrong. The same as to limit people and pretend you are protecting them (not a referrence on nowadays RL, not at all. Because as I said, I don't want to be political here).

It's not about houseplants at all. Why are people changing good, nice and feminine for passive and weak? A woman can be feminine and strong at the same time, can have good character and integrity, going through a tough times and not being a bitch.
People like SH and LA? Ok, I get it, you think they are cool. Although it is true that Larian already changed SH because people didn't like her whining about everything...
My point the whole time is that I am missing other female companions with different personalities. You know, sometimes it's good to have more stuff so everybody can pick what they like. Really don't understand why it has to be such a big deal...

Joined: Jan 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2021
Real and fictional ladies and people writing ladies -- if you are going through a tough time please remember not to be a bitch. Just be gentle, nice, good and feminine, please. The key word here is likable, as if you were going to raise some babies (think of your tadpole as your baby if you need to). Men can be aggressive so that they protect the family (I guess the tadpoles too), and that is very stressful work, so ladies should always have your right arm ready to help them relax. There's that precious Stepford smile, perfect, never change, my darling sweetheart.


Joined: Oct 2020
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Agree there's no need to bring politics into this. Regardless of what any of us believes is "normal gender behavior", it's faulty to apply behavioral traits from the real world to a fantastical place like D&D/Toril. For better or for worst, the characteristics that we observe from our companions are due to the fantastical settings of Forgotten Realms and Larian's narrative design choices.


The Setting:
It's hard to imagine "traditional" gender roles existing in Toril as strongly as our world considering that they evolved very differently. Real gods and magic and limited sexual dimorphism vastly shifts the variables (i.e. reproduction strategies) that created any gender roles we see in our world. There is no reason why either gender should default to any class. We also need to account for how vastly different the species of D&D are. E.G. - as a Githyanki, Lae'zel was hatched from an egg. She hails from a martial, matriarchal society (ruled by an undead lich queen) where the weak are literally culled during training. To expect her behavior to be "soft" and "passive" would be world and immersion breaking.

Also, we're looking only at adventurers - a very self-selected group (and the 1% of this setting). Level 1 characters represent people on a very dedicated path to power (and thus already behave differently from typical commoners). These people kill for a living (heroically or not), and do not represent the general population. They are like the serial entrepreneurs of this world - their drive and convictions would likely define them far more than their gender.

Now with that said, it's not impossible for more soft, gentle, caring women to be our adventurers in this setting, but it would be a rarity. I would not be surprised if we do get a companion that fit this mold. But I would say it makes a lot of sense that the neutral/evil aligned female companions (the ones we have right now), would NOT fit into the mold of a gentle caretaker (and neither does a good-aligned companion necessarily need to fall into that mold either).



The Narrative Design:
More importantly, the companions we have now are designed for the narrative that Larian is trying to write.

I don't really think of our current companions as "masculine" or "feminine". To me, they all just represents different shades of insecurities. They employ different strategies to hide their unresolved trauma - Lae'zel's machismo is just as much a lie as Wyll's hero facade. They are all lack real confidence and power, and are thus susceptible to temptation - a core theme in this game.

This is one of the downsides of "Origin Characters = Companions" (at least for now) - because each companion is designed to be a main character too. The theme of power - its temptation, the illusion that it is the solution, and what we're willing to do for it - is deeply entrenched in the story we're presented. Thus, the player character needs to come from a place of lack and/or insecurity in order to give this theme weight. They all need to be at the same level of their emotional journey, and there are similarities that must be kept between them for narrative consistency.

This is why none of our companions/origin characters are more mature, self-actualized people - it goes against the arc set-out for the player character. In other RPGs, you normally get a more varied set of companions in terms of where they are in their life and emotional journey because they don't have to be introduced all at once, nor are they the main character. I.e. in BG2 you had Keldorn, Wynne in DA:O, Landry in Tyranny, "old-fart" companions that are more chill and with way less to prove, that balances out the more volatile, prideful youths.

For the record, I quite like these origin character/companions - and think they do the job of being origin characters swimmingly. My hope is that because we're also going to get non-origin companions, those companions will bring perspectives that will balance out the youthful angst we're currently have.

Last edited by Topgoon; 15/02/21 06:15 AM.
Joined: Jan 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Agree there's no need to bring politics into this. Regardless of what any of us believes is "normal gender behavior", it's faulty to apply behavioral traits from the real world to a fantastical place like D&D/Toril. For better or for worst, the characteristics that we observe from our companions are due to the fantastical settings of Forgotten Realms and Larian's narrative design choices.


The Setting:
It's hard to imagine "traditional" gender roles existing in Toril as strongly as our world considering that they evolved very differently. Real gods and magic and limited sexual dimorphism vastly shifts the variables (i.e. reproduction strategies) that created any gender roles we see in our world. There is no reason why either gender should default to any classes. We also need to account for how vastly different the species of D&D are. E.G. - as a Githyanki, Lae'zel was hatched from an egg. She hails from a martial, matriarchal society (ruled by an undead lich queen) where the weak are literally culled during training. To expect her behavior to be "soft" and "passive" would be world and immersion breaking.

Also, we're looking only at adventurers - a very self-selected group (and the 1% of this setting). Level 1 characters represent people on a very dedicated path to power (and thus already behave differently from typical commoners). These people kill for a living (heroically or not), and do not represent the general population. They are like the serial entrepreneurs of this world - their drive and convictions would likely define them far more than their gender.

Now with that said, it's not impossible for more caring, maternal women to be our adventuring companions in this setting. I would not be surprised if we do get a companion that fit this mold. But I would say it makes a lot of sense that the neutral/evil aligned female companions (the ones we have right now), would NOT fit into the mold of a gentle caretaker.



The Narrative Design:
More importantly, the companions we have now are designed for the narrative that Larian is trying to write.

I don't really think of our current companions as "masculine" or "feminine". To me, they all just represents different shades of insecurities. They employ different strategies to hide their unresolved trauma - Lae'zel's machismo is just as much a lie as Wyll's hero facade. They are all lack real confidence and power, and are thus susceptible to temptation - a core theme in this game.

This is one of the downsides of "Origin Characters = Companions" (at least for now) - because each companion is designed to be a main character too. The theme of power - its temptation, the illusion that it is the solution, and what we're willing to do for it - is deeply entrenched in the story we're presented. Thus, the player character needs to come from a place of lack and/or insecurity in order to give this theme weight. They all need to be at the same level of their emotional journey, and there are similarities that must be kept between them for narrative consistency.

This is why none of our companions/origin characters are more mature, self-actualized people - it goes against the arc set-out for the player character. In other RPGs, you normally get a more varied set of companions in terms of where they are in their life and emotional journey because they don't have to be introduced all at once, nor are they the main character. I.e. in BG2 you had Keldorn, Wynne in DA:O, Landry in Tyranny, "old-fart" companions that are more chill and with way less to prove, that balances out the more volatile, prideful youths.

For the record, I quite like these origin character/companions - and think they do the job of being origin characters swimmingly. My hope is that because we're also going to get non-origin companions, those companions will bring perspectives that will balance out the youthful angst we're currently have.

Beautiful analysis.

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Topgoon
The Narrative Design:
More importantly, the companions we have now are designed for the narrative that Larian is trying to write.

I don't really think of our current companions as "masculine" or "feminine". To me, they all just represents different shades of insecurities. They employ different strategies to hide their unresolved trauma - Lae'zel's machismo is just as much a lie as Wyll's hero facade. They are all lack real confidence and power, and are thus susceptible to temptation - a core theme in this game.

This is one of the downsides of "Origin Characters = Companions" (at least for now) - because each companion is designed to be a main character too. The theme of power - its temptation, the illusion that it is the solution, and what we're willing to do for it - is deeply entrenched in the story we're presented. Thus, the player character needs to come from a place of lack and/or insecurity in order to give this theme weight. They all need to be at the same level of their emotional journey, and there are similarities that must be kept between them for narrative consistency.

This is why none of our companions/origin characters are more mature, self-actualized people - it goes against the arc set-out for the player character. In other RPGs, you normally get a more varied set of companions in terms of where they are in their life and emotional journey because they don't have to be introduced all at once, nor are they the main character. I.e. in BG2 you had Keldorn, Wynne in DA:O, Landry in Tyranny, "old-fart" companions that are more chill and with way less to prove, that balances out the more volatile, prideful youths.

For the record, I quite like these origin character/companions - and think they do the job of being origin characters swimmingly. My hope is that because we're also going to get non-origin companions, those companions will bring perspectives that will balance out the youthful angst we're currently have.

Honestly the best post on the forum right here.

Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Agree there's no need to bring politics into this. Regardless of what any of us believes is "normal gender behavior", it's faulty to apply behavioral traits from the real world to a fantastical place like D&D/Toril. For better or for worst, the characteristics that we observe from our companions are due to the fantastical settings of Forgotten Realms and Larian's narrative design choices.


The Setting:
It's hard to imagine "traditional" gender roles existing in Toril as strongly as our world considering that they evolved very differently. Real gods and magic and limited sexual dimorphism vastly shifts the variables (i.e. reproduction strategies) that created any gender roles we see in our world. There is no reason why either gender should default to any class. We also need to account for how vastly different the species of D&D are. E.G. - as a Githyanki, Lae'zel was hatched from an egg. She hails from a martial, matriarchal society (ruled by an undead lich queen) where the weak are literally culled during training. To expect her behavior to be "soft" and "passive" would be world and immersion breaking.

Also, we're looking only at adventurers - a very self-selected group (and the 1% of this setting). Level 1 characters represent people on a very dedicated path to power (and thus already behave differently from typical commoners). These people kill for a living (heroically or not), and do not represent the general population. They are like the serial entrepreneurs of this world - their drive and convictions would likely define them far more than their gender.

Now with that said, it's not impossible for more soft, gentle, caring women to be our adventurers in this setting, but it would be a rarity. I would not be surprised if we do get a companion that fit this mold. But I would say it makes a lot of sense that the neutral/evil aligned female companions (the ones we have right now), would NOT fit into the mold of a gentle caretaker (and neither does a good-aligned companion necessarily need to fall into that mold either).



The Narrative Design:
More importantly, the companions we have now are designed for the narrative that Larian is trying to write.

I don't really think of our current companions as "masculine" or "feminine". To me, they all just represents different shades of insecurities. They employ different strategies to hide their unresolved trauma - Lae'zel's machismo is just as much a lie as Wyll's hero facade. They are all lack real confidence and power, and are thus susceptible to temptation - a core theme in this game.

This is one of the downsides of "Origin Characters = Companions" (at least for now) - because each companion is designed to be a main character too. The theme of power - its temptation, the illusion that it is the solution, and what we're willing to do for it - is deeply entrenched in the story we're presented. Thus, the player character needs to come from a place of lack and/or insecurity in order to give this theme weight. They all need to be at the same level of their emotional journey, and there are similarities that must be kept between them for narrative consistency.

This is why none of our companions/origin characters are more mature, self-actualized people - it goes against the arc set-out for the player character. In other RPGs, you normally get a more varied set of companions in terms of where they are in their life and emotional journey because they don't have to be introduced all at once, nor are they the main character. I.e. in BG2 you had Keldorn, Wynne in DA:O, Landry in Tyranny, "old-fart" companions that are more chill and with way less to prove, that balances out the more volatile, prideful youths.

For the record, I quite like these origin character/companions - and think they do the job of being origin characters swimmingly. My hope is that because we're also going to get non-origin companions, those companions will bring perspectives that will balance out the youthful angst we're currently have.


That is a really good post, thank you for that.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Jan 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2021
In fact, we do get to protect a lady: it's Mayrina. Even though she is very stubborn about the idea of getting saved, the way she acts is very real for a person in trouble. She is mourning, desperate and made a bunch of stupid decisions because of that desperation. This is also what makes the entire process of saving her bittersweett. The hag is dead (but not really and she will be very pissed when she comes back), Mayrina is miserable, you don't get any praise. However, you saved a woman from being tortured by a monster (I have no doubt that Auntie Ethel would have eaten Mayrina's unborn baby before her eyes or did something equally wicked) and removed a huge menace from the swamps. So yes, going against a powerful, sadistic, manipulative and very vindictive magical creature just to save a random woman makes you a hero.

As for the current female companions...personally, I thought them to be more boring than male ones. Not because they weren't warm or accommodating: I really liked Morrigan in DA:O because there were so many layers to her. She was sarcastic, cynical, pragmatic, vain and disapproved all selfless/kind-hearted decisions, but at the same time befriending her felt very rewarding. And I'm saying befriending because I liked how I didn't have to romance her to see her warm up to my protagonist. You could see that she wasn't used to genuine affection, it was great to see her open up with every meaningful gift and realize why she turned out to be the way she is. Additionally, she never rejected her ambitions or goals because of the protagonist, she stayed true to them while enjoying her relationship/acknowledging her friendship.

With SH, it took me a while to get interested. The game was intent on punishing me for trying to learn more about her, so I kinda gave up on talking and prying - as a result, the "I'm a cleric of Shar" reveal happened around the time I was about to sail the boat. I plan on making her my constant party member in my next playthrough and see how it turns out, but I can understand people who would rather make their PC a cleric and choose brighter party members over SH. It's not that she isn't sweet or feminine enough, it's that they don't know what to do with her and don't see why they should care.

Lae'Zel is more interesting because she speaks a lot about githyanki and their culture, but I'm afraid that if Larian go along with inevitably parting ways with party members that aren't actively used or have low approval, I'll inevitably lose her. Even though I play as a neutral character, I don't do enough stuff that she likes - and when I do stuff that she doesn't like...Well, I lost a chunk of approval by not letting her bully Zorru. I mean, you can only confront her, without trying to be diplomatic. For example, the PC could play up to her warrior pride and say "Come on, this guy is about to piss himself and you're acting like he is your duel opponent. Really?" or remind her that there is an entire camp of tieflings and druids who won't appreciate an alien-looking outsider going around and threatening people, no time to fight them all.

One the one hand, it should be that way: she is a literal alien, while you're a simple Faerun adventurer (if you didn't pick Githyanki as a race), there is like 0.5% probability of you having encountered Gith before, so you have no experience. On the other hand, I wish there were multiple ways to approach her. For example, in DA:O Sten would try to challenge you and take over (low-to-medium approval), but once you win the fight, he finally acknowledges you. This is why I feel that a githzerai companion would've worked better. Githzerai are still aliens. They fight mindflayers wherever they see them, they're secretive and don't trust outsiders, but at the same time they're more philosophical and meditative, which provides more opportunities for interaction and bonding.

In general, I don't mind companions that aren't gentle or get along with you as soon as they see you. In fact, I often pick companions that clash with my player character- it's fun to gain their approval and explore their layers, to see how my character's personality mixes with theirs.

This is why Astarion is my favorite companion so far - I don't have to be a Douchebag Mc'Murderhobo to please him (at the same time I don't have to worry about losing approval because I was extremely mean to extremely mean people), he keeps dropping new facts about himself (and those facts rise even more questions) and I have no clue where I'll end up with him. It's quite a ride.


I didn’t invest any points into self awareness
Joined: Feb 2021
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by FuryouMiko
Righteous and honourable usually comes across as arrogant and narcissistic, you know? Or at the very least... feth, what's the word? Like how the Brits used to look down on the conquered territories as savages who could be almost as good as people with the right education. Not patriarchal, but similar.

I think you're describing a different archetype here. The obnoxious, self-righteous paladin whom nobody could ever stand being around. There's different types of righteous and honorable, not just the "look how bad absolutes are" strawman that most modern fiction is so busy trampling under foot - ironically, with the same tone of arrogance as the archetype they hate. "Absolutes are bad, we know better!" The subversion of them also makes for an absolute, by the way - if you make every character a self-serving do-no-good, you're no better off.

You can have interesting and genuinly well-meaning characters who struggle with their own flaws and confusion about what is the right thing to do, but they are difficult to write. In the right light, Minsc could be considered a fanatic. But could Imoen?

Joined: Apr 2013
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Charisma also affects intimidation. Charisma doesn't define a character as friendly, just having a "je ne sais quoi" that makes them influential in one way or another. It can be charm, manipulation, how affable they are, etc. but not limited to that.

Lae'zel is a Githyanki and they are DnD's Klingons. She does come across as extremely petty. I expect her to be the group's Worf, but Worf is so much less petty than her.

Charisma also affects persuasion and deception though and Shadowheart acts like she has perma-disadvantage on all checks involving those. If you're talking about a "je sais quoi" that would make her an imperious leader or intimidating presence then she clearly has neither. As a character so focussed on trickery and deception her charisma should give her an air of trustworthiness. She's intensely secretive about being a worshipper of Shar and absolutely terrible at hiding it.

Originally Posted by Topgoon
This is one of the downsides of "Origin Characters = Companions" (at least for now) - because each companion is designed to be a main character too.

...

This is why none of our companions/origin characters are more mature, self-actualized people - it goes against the arc set-out for the player character. In other RPGs, you normally get a more varied set of companions in terms of where they are in their life and emotional journey because they don't have to be introduced all at once, nor are they the main character. I.e. in BG2 you had Keldorn, Wynne in DA:O, Landry in Tyranny, "old-fart" companions that are more chill and with way less to prove, that balances out the more volatile, prideful youths.

I don't want to go too far into this because I haven't played much of D:OS2 and this system is not implemented in BG3 but this could be a much worse problem. At the moment Lae'zel and Shadowheart are the only female origins and they're both chaotic stupid. If I don't want to spend time with these avatars of toxic masculinity I even less want to inhabit them. With the way the menus are laid out there's one more female origin to come so that's at best one female character with an origin story available and potentially the only way to play as a female character is with a harem of himbos.

I'm also not sure how the main character needing to have an arc is going to work out. Maybe D:OS2 nailed it but player characters tend to be Gary Stus because most people are uncomfortable having their flaws reflected in their surrogate.

Rack #756177 15/02/21 04:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
That's not really how Charisma works,
Originally Posted by Rack
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Charisma also affects intimidation. Charisma doesn't define a character as friendly, just having a "je ne sais quoi" that makes them influential in one way or another. It can be charm, manipulation, how affable they are, etc. but not limited to that.

Lae'zel is a Githyanki and they are DnD's Klingons. She does come across as extremely petty. I expect her to be the group's Worf, but Worf is so much less petty than her.

Charisma also affects persuasion and deception though and Shadowheart acts like she has perma-disadvantage on all checks involving those. If you're talking about a "je sais quoi" that would make her an imperious leader or intimidating presence then she clearly has neither. As a character so focussed on trickery and deception her charisma should give her an air of trustworthiness. She's intensely secretive about being a worshipper of Shar and absolutely terrible at hiding it.

Charisma isn't an air of trustworthiness, some games may treat charisma that way but not always. Also a +2 modifier is nice but not good or great, she's slightly charismatic. "Je ne sais quoi" is just a quality that can't be described, an x-factor. It's not what makes someone an imperious leader.

David Bowie had a "Je ne sais quoi" about him, people were drawn to him for various reasons that we can't explain well with words. Also David Bowie would have a +10 modifier for charisma.

An average person would have a +0, but +1 is very average as well. +2 is just above average.

  • +2 modifier is equivalent to the charisma of having worked two years at Starbucks
    +3 is a successful waiter at a restaurant who helps eaters buy food that brings revenue to the restaurant
    +4 would be a successful Sommelier, Maitre D' wink (or politician)
    +5 would be Steve Jobs levels of Charisma
    +10 is David Bowie levels of Charisma


Edit: Thanks Dexai for the correction smile

Last edited by DragonSnooz; 15/02/21 05:03 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Pretty sure David Bowie had at least +10 CHA


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Dexai #756180 15/02/21 05:02 PM
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Dexai
Pretty sure David Bowie had at least +10 CHA
You're right xD, Let me fix this.

Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5