Keep "tell my story" but also give me options like "there was this time in chapel when we were supposed to be entirely silent . . ."
I wonder if there's a way for Character Creator to let us select a few memories? Like a list of "what were the most defining events in your life" (Sorcerer/Wizard Example Choice: "That time I accidently exploded my sister's cat"). Rather than having to code for all variations and background minutia, which devs claimed was too much (understandably), several preset "short stories" could be selected and then brought up in dialogue. These could be mixed and matched depending on background, and would help with the feeling I got that the "conversations" I had with companions weren't simply monologues for them to talk about, well, themselves. Which is fine, because they're all way cooler and more interesting than my character, who couldn't even share how/why she became a warlock to Diet Cthulu.
I don't need to be the Chosen One/Gorion's Ward or anything--but it's hard not to feel like I won't be missing out by not playing as a companion. Whom are all, so far, a little *too* special?
Even Shadowheart, the one I loved for being a semi-normal non-special cleric to an evil deity, has some glowy stuff happening. And amnesia, which automatically makes her 40% main protagonist material right there.
How did my character get grouped in these folks? Why are they listening to anything I say when it's seems one of them should be the leader?? Why are they agreeing to go back to my camp and just trusting me to get stuff done? There's no compelling reason for them to follow me, even if we're all seeking the same thing.
I adore Gale (and all the other companions except Lae'zel, whom I'm going to give another shot), but it is true that my character Blanky Tav McBlanderson feels out of her league given all her travel companions have interesting backstories/secrets/superpowers.
Even the tadpole ability I got was centered around them.
The only thing my character had that made her unique (other than my unacknowledged backstory for her) was being the only tiefling in the camp, which I'm sure will change once more companions are introduced and a there's a "more special" tiefling.
As much as I love the companions and their writing . . . it is wearying to feel so constantly overshadowed. If Larian can't make my custom character special . . . can I at least have another rando to commiserate with? Maybe a bartender from The Blushing Mermaid who is equally unnerved by our head worm and travelling partners. Because if the rest of the companions are also suuuuper unique, I could see myself quickly becoming exasperated with a well-written crew whom I'd otherwise love.
This 100%. It's a HUGE issue with D:OS2 as well IMO, the origin characters have a load of work put into them, and if you make your own, you're a pretty blank slate by comparison. IMO They really need to drop the origin character thing, make these true NPCs (they can keep their crazy backstories) then have custom character have a far more central and important role to the actual main plot than they do. Again, doesn't need to be quite on the BG level of child of a god etc, but make the protagonist feel like a protagonist without playing someone elses pretty horrible character..
yes. Ditch the concept of companions main characters and make some origins for your main (like in DAO, but less extensive).
Would love this. Companions only as NPCs and a more fleshed out custom character experience, less overshadowed by the flashy characters of the devs. Most of them i find quite interesting. Quite jealous of their backstories if my main is a blank state who didn't have a life before the game..
Well the problem with any "redemption" story arcs is that that is meta-gaming. If you don't engage in meta-gaming, then you should be role-playing your character in the here and now, and reacting to the things your companions say and do in the here and now. And in that role-playing I don't see how a good-aligned PC can justify continuing to adventure with a vampire or a Sharan beyond the necessity of the first bit of the game. It's not like Volo comes to you tells you: Hey, don't be concerned. These companions can become nicer/good later on the game if you keep at it with them.
Yes you are right but in my head my wizard is thinking that she sees the good in shadowheart and is secretly hoping to bring her into the light. Likewise my cleric believes that if Astarian can get free of his master then he can be resurrected and redeemed. (which, from memory, was one of the possible outcomes of the original Strahd module). I don't have high hopes on the second.
This exactly. I would love to see Astarion's master dying and Astarion possibly turning our PC into a vamp spawn. Also, another idea, give us a goody-two-shoe paladin a'la Aribeth and given the right conditions - corrupt the paladin to become a blackguard, just like it had happened in NWN1, but not an exact replica of course. But something along these lines.
can we also have "corruption" arcs for non-LE/NE/CE ones? Some of them appear to be in desperate need of spiritual liberation.
My guess is that Wyll is on such an arc. Here's what happens when I let him take over conversations:
1. He kills the goblin boss after he surrendered
2. He tortured an innocent man just to get more info on his patron
Wyll's a bit more concerned with looking good than acting good -- that's the flaw that could be his undoing.
Yeeees. This is why I love Wyll so much. His sense of morality is so much more interesting than most NPCs in most games. He does good and righteous acts but is driven by a selfish desire for adulation. It is great.
After reading through this thread, I think I will say something here. Dungeons and Dragons, is a unique thing, but its also takes from actual folk lore and some of this folk lore actually hurt innocent peoples or people actually got killed because of it. So d&d draws from that and though it is interesitng they use it for a fun storytelling dice game. The actual reality is they have used real life superstiions that really do get people killed. They use what these people believed about them to place them under alignments. This the basis for the alignments of the lycanthropes and vampires for example. But the way its done with werewolves is discrimatory to actual animals because of the lore on this. In fact the lore seems to suggest they are not are not evil because of the curse they are evil or treated that way because wolves were considered evil thus this makes werewolves evil. Rats carry disease so wererats are evil. Werebears I think them being good aligned had something to do with a certain bear shifter in some other genre. The game was designed for being a hero saving the day slaying the monster, alignment used as to justify killing the monsters as murder hobos without taking in any considation for it.
Examples of how D&d does things that are not only unrealistic it basically is saying because this person is this or that. They are are defined under this. Chromantic dragons are based on legends of dragons burning down villages, Metallics are based upon more noble dragons seen in more asian folklore I think. The point is D&D has done what I would call sterotypical placing, which hinders actual interesting stories. Because its a red dragon its default Chaotic evil because its a red dragon. If its a Gold Dragon its lawful good because of its color. Now Lycanthropes I mentioned this up above. Lycanthropes have a curse that turns them into a beastial hybrid of man and whatever subtype they are. They vary some are born and have control others do not. Now if thye become that most of the time they say oh, they are always this alignment because it was believed in real life or in the setting that wolves are evil and thus this lycanthrope is evil based on that belief.
I see Wizards moving away from that a good thing and all of these companions what or who they are does not define them. Each one of them has free will. One of them regained free will. They have the path to choose, to a more redeeming path for themselves or a darker path. Our interactions and our way of doing things may infuence them and their outcomes. Who you pick and what race you are maybe even class does seem to matter on their opinion of you. For my Drow cleric of Eilistraee I made, Shadowheart seemed ruder and not as trusting. But with my Tiefling ranger, she seemed not nearly as supicious and more friendly. So just because you experiance something on one character does not mean that will be the same on another. So each unique playthrough should be interesting and that is even how they react to you it seems.
Shadowheart and Astarion, are what I would consider to be more morally ambiguous. Shadowheart as a Cleric of Shar, I think is conflicted not sure about her choices and our interactions may impact if she goes full on evil cleric or maybe redeems herself and turn away from the Goddess. Astarion was a vampire spawn who was forced to do evil things from his evil master. Like Jandar Sunstar and he does seem to have that struggle. I don't think he was as morally good as Jander. He is also at a turning point and I think our own actions will actually either redeem him or make him become true monster.
So I think each character is more complex then just a label. They are intentionally doing this by the way, and Wizards asked them not to define them by alignement. Larian was going to do a lot with alignment. But Wizards said no that is why the characters are more like this. To be honest maybe its a good thing if they don't do an alignment system.
So I think each character is more complex then just a label. They are intentionally doing this by the way, and Wizards asked them not to define them by alignement. Larian was going to do a lot with alignment. But Wizards said no that is why the characters are more like this. To be honest maybe its a good thing if they don't do an alignment system.
tbh, i dont think this is the best choice for a BG game to remove alignment and id personally want to see it still included in the game, even if it wasnt that important to the gameplay just for roleplaying purposes, but its just another head scratching decision in a rather long list by wotc if you ask me, even outside of BG3. like, if alignment isnt important, why so much emphasis by larian to start ea with evil characters and do evil playthroughs? and why were there 'evil cleric' tags in earlier game updates? even tho they seem to have been removed or hidden now. it just comes across as an unfinished system and conflicted messages for the player base so i hope larian takes feedback during ea to improve on the dynamics as i think alignment (and expansion of the character tag system in general) would go a long way in enhancing the overall gaming experience
My template for well done companions is still Shadows of Amn, but there were some serious shortcoming. Some of the highlights for me in BG:2 Anomen and Viconia, where you could influence them to undergo some serious character changes, but even here you see the limitations, such as gating serious involvement with character arcs to romance plotlines. And speaking of romance, the trope of "say what they want to hear to make them like you" is both reinforced and refuted depending on the character in BG:2.
So far I like how much more assertive the personalities in BG:3 appear to be, so I'm interested in seeing how these relationships will develop.
Unlike in a lot of games where you have to play the min/maxing approval game, I'm not afraid a character's story will just end because I didn't massage their ego enough. so kudos
Fine I guess... But at least to me as a none dnd player, alignments seems stupid and restrictive.
In general I would agree with you. However, D&D is a game system, and a pretty vast one at that. And within that system you are going to need to have some guidelines for stories and characters and lore where you're not having to repeat descriptions again and again. What I mean, for example, is let's say you are going to print a book on all the gods of D&D. To repeat detailed descriptions again and again for each entry about what kind of a god each one is would be very cumbersome. Much easier and more easily understood to be able to say: X is LN, Y is CE, Z is NG, etc., where people have some understanding of what each of those labels means.
If you're talking about their alignment, it's too soon to tell as we only have access to the first act. Based on what I have seen so far, I don't think your companions are completely evil but I do think they have a lot of skeletons in their closet.
Shdowheart is the first one I meet and since I tried to help her on the ship, she was not a mean as when I didn't. She was a lot nicer. I think she's very misunderstood and if you talk to her about her devotion to her Goddess and you seem like you really want to know. She likes you even more and is also nicer. For now I think she's Neutral Evil.
My third companion is Gale. He's a loyal companion and especially after how angry he gets for what Nettie does to you. I felt flattered that he cared about my character's well-being. I think he's good and I would place him at chaotic good with his eating artifacts.
Then I met Astarion, he is a very big flirt. I wonder is that is part of his vampirism. I also think he's not 100% evil and I do feel bad for him when he describes his master and how he's a slave to him. Astarion to me is Chaotic Neutral.
Afterwards I bumped into Lae'zel, she's a tough one to read and I think she's very into her own beliefs. She believes in everything her race does but there is a scene where I do feel bad for her, the way she was treated by her kind. I would say she's Lawfully Evil.
Finally we have Wyll. There something about him that doesn't sit well with me. Apparently he's connected to a certain demoness. He also has skeletons in his closet. I would place him at Chaotic Good.
I've been hanging around steam and Reddit for the last couple of days, and the one criticism I just can't agree with so far is regarding the companions.
The main things people say about them is that they are too evil. And this claim is super strange to me. There are a total of five party members so far. Let's go over them.
Layzel - Okey layzel is super evil, bitchy and angry. First of all I don't think it's so wrong to have one of those. Aside from that, I don't know what did you expect. I know almost nothing about the forgotten realms and the bit of knowledge I do have comes from bg1 and 2. And based on the githenki in bg2 Layzel is just right, scheming, evil, and follows a rigid code of honour to the letter. So she is not a good character, but she is not badly written.
Shadowheart - the reception for shadowheart is really confusing for me. Now based on her deity I assume she is an evil character, but in the game itself she doesn't really strikes me as particularly evil. She is selfish and secretive, but that's about it. In the part of the game we have she mostly cares about the tadpole, which is fair. Most of all she reminds me of Morrigan from Dragon Age Origins, but she is more subtle, less flirty and less over the top. Most of all, I see a lot of potential for growth with her.
Astorian - aside from the very flashy (and super buggy) introduction, Astorian strikes me as kind of a cool gay guy. The only evil thing he did in my playthrough was to try to feed on me, and afterwards he claimed that he usually only feeds on animals which is Eduard level good. He seems to me like chaotic neutral at the most.
Gail & Wyll - these two are good, not much room for speculation. I'll just say that all the companions are not "Jesus good" or "Lucifer bad", and all of them are more complexed than that, which is a good thing.
So to summarize - we have one evil party member, 2 who are possibly bad but the jury is out right now, and two good party members. and all of the characters are fun and interesting, even though we haven't seen much of them yet.
I Like all the character. I hope they have several layer that I can peel that make them memorable. Will might be a bit bland at time, though, not as edgy as I'd expect from a warlock.
If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Fine I guess... But at least to me as a none dnd player, alignments seems stupid and restrictive.
Not trying to start a fight, just giving an alternative understanding
For me without alignment it's not really D&D -- we saw how fans reacted when alignment was eliminated in 4th ed, WotC was forced to bring it back. Without alignment Faerun seems less magical -- it just seems like some variant on / analogue to our world. I like fantasy -- the idea that that there is a spiritual battle for souls between Selune and Shar and that our actions on the material plane tip the balance towards one side or the other makes the world that much more interesting.
