Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Need More Masculine Characters

Why I don't have a problem with the companions we have now, I agree with some here, that Wyll should change class. Everyone is referring of him as the Blade and he is always bragging about his rapier skills. That just does not mix well with the warlock class. I would adjust his back story, that he na be made a deal with a demon for talent or something like that and make him a fighter or rogue. Astarion could as easily be the warlock, it would not change anything about him.

Not a warlock player myself, but wouldn't Wyll's issue be moot once Pact of the Blade is introduced? You could add on top of that a Paladin multiclass and he should be fine in that regard. It's not like you need to play him like a melee fighter, more in a skirmishing role, finishing enemies off with the blade.

I think Wyll is very much an unfinished character. He is a fiend warlock though, and that's here to stay unless they want to rewrite the whole Mizora thing.

I 100 percent agree. Laezel is the only one with testosterone. Gale is as weak as they come. He might as well hold a magic speaker over his head that only plays "baby come back" on repeat. It's pathetic. Wyll sold his soul to kill a goblin. Can't respect that. He should have sold his soul and become a Paladin of Vengence if was too lazy to do a training montage. I know Karlach is supposed to be the paladin, but she should have been a warlock with a pact with Zariel. It could have been a brand new Baldur's Gate exclusive warlock subclass. It would generate a lot of buzz. She already has a pact etched into her skin, but they want to act like it's paladin stuff. Astarion is a girl in a dude skin. I'm not sure if he chose to become a vampire or not, but if he did he is an idiot. Elf souls reincarnate for as long as the Elf god wants. I heard he was evil before turning so maybe he was already exiled cosmically.

I mean I'll play along, but if anything can be done I'm open to it. I want Baldur's gate to introduce new stuff in addition to the base things. Somehow I doubt WOTC is that cool though. They seem more concerned about political correctness than anything.

No. Just no.

Warlocks aren't the only ones making deals with fiends. Oathbreaker and Paladins of Conquest also serve fiends, including the baatezu. Xanathar's Guide to Everything even mentions paladins of conquest serving Bel, the former overlord of Avernus.
More like a description of a typical Fiend Warlock.

We define masculinity and femininity as they apply to humans - not other species. Humans and elves would be the same species - as half-elves aren't sterile - but Githyanki were born on another plane of existence and are unlikely to be mammals as they lay eggs - there is no reason to suspect you could have a human/Githyanki hybrid. But their society is very much based upon toxic masculinity - like the Spartans you mention - and if the stories about the Spartans are true and not simply made up by Athenians, then I wouldn't consider the ancient Spartans, not to be confused with their modern descendents who don't act like that, human either in terms of humanity rather than biology. These traits are excessive versions of those commonly caused by how testosterone affects most male human minds - if Githyanki hormones affect all members of their species in the same way it makes sense that none of them would object and they would soon develop it to a toxic nature. Someone like Lae'zel born human would likely consider themselves to be a trans man, but Githyanki biology being different, there is no reason to suspect that Lae'zel considers herself such.

>entire race liberated from slavery by a warrior womyn
>ruled by a lich queen for millenia
>culture somehow ruled by toxic masculinity
Well that just makes sense given how Laezel is just a dude with boobs.

Because we define masculinity by human standards, not gith standards. By human standards it is men who hunt generally, yet by lion standards it is the women who hunt. Different species have different standards - and when we talk about masculinity we are going to use human standards.

Sure but we should note that the typical pattern, the standard, is not hard coded and so the word 'species' doesn't help very much. There are societies where women hunt more than men and societies where the typical pattern is inverted.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/684127?seq=1

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/culture-of-jeju-haenyeo-women-divers-01068

The Githyanki are the Aliens though in the truest sense of the word. So they will "bow down" to our worlds, or rather Fae'run's standarts.
Dunno what those are though. LoL
Drow society is full of "toxic feminimity" too though. So its not just the Gith.

I wonder why we talk about this even?
Hopefully not to have a few forum-users (me included) say stuff like Lae'zel is the ideal, most feminim Woman, we want her to step on us and ooooh god is she hot and we love her "deep, brilliant design" so much.
Cause that... is not going to happen!


Also out of context, but... Alfira spills the beans.

I mean if you are a fan of him then you are a fan of him, but yes he is all feminine. Not a single thing right down to the way he speaks, acts, and carries himself is masculine.

@BuckettMonkey I guess since the franchise has been around for so long they ran out of ideas and decided to just make everything evil. Evil clerics, evil paladins, evil druids(who I thought were suppose to remain neutral), etc. It's whatever I guess. Disappointing really to be quite honest. Is Zariel not special? I know she is not the first angel to join hell but I thought they were different. Like the Difference between and Erinys and a fiend. I know the fallen angels are succubi, Erinys, and Asmodeous(maybe since he is all about lies). I know that they have a choice to turn into true fiends. Are there any more? I'm curious. I've only been following Dnd for like a year or so on and off. I've read a lot of lore but Bg3 has made me pretty distracted to I put my research on hold to focus more on things related to Bg3.

When i played i thought he was a strictly gay romance, to be honest. It'd be kind of interesting if he was, strictly because i wonder if his hyper-effiminate characterization would be seen as offensive then.

And what's the problem with evil druids and priests, for example? The same druids, for the most part, worship nature and the Gods associated with it. And the list of these Gods often includes Talos and Malar. Also, nature itself can be cruel.
She is as special as Mammon or Baalzebul (By the way, he was also a celestial). The fact that she was once an angel does not distinguish her from the other Lords of the Nine.
Erinyes are baatezu, fiends. I don't know what difference you are talking about. Of course, in the third edition, the legend was told that the first Erinyes were fallen angels, but now they are only devils. They also had good career opportunities, up to pit fiends. I cannot remember any other unique qualities of Erinyes.

What is this thread, even?


I understand that some people might prefer the standard, stereotyped character over the full-of-nuances one and that's fine. I agree too, having a stereotyped masculine character could add to the story as much as the other companions do. However, I see absolutely no point in complaining about characters having too much backstory, being too feminine or too masculine. What the hell?
First of all, most characters are gonna have their own issues. You can't write a story with only one dimensional beings, otherwise it feels flat and outright bad. That's just not going to happen. Second, being too masculine or feminine is just a matter of perspective - and in the d&d universe I suppose that also varies a lot depending on one's race. Yes, discussing whether the characters presented so far should me more likeable is absolutely right, even though Larian has already said they have only released the 'bad guys' first, and that their alignment will also change in the course of the story. But my point is that this is a sugestions & feedback subforum and there are some heavy personal nitpickings on this thread. This discussion seems pointless and bait-y.

@BuckettMonkey To me the problem is it shifts the balance between good and evil quite a bit in favor of evil. It use to be as a player you play for the good side and you face off and defeat evil. Clerics and Paladins being the pinicle of good. In order to play as evil-ish you had to be a warlock or necromancer. Then it's like you're playing evil against evil. In the end it's a sour victory. Now more evil options are up and it feels wrong. Now some want evil to be everything and fight other evil. To me it's kind of depressing. No more new good classes but many new evil ones. While the adversarys only grow darker. A lot less room to be good these days is all i'm trying to say basically. Hell tieflings(literal hellspawn) have the loudest fan base. Again it's whatever. I'll stick to what Iike.

Being neutral included some cruelty. At least in older editions.

So Zariel is plain then. Its just a recent story but she is nothing special. Ok got it. Disappointing. I thought she was more... something. Oh well.

At least in early editions they had a choice to become devils. They have a high rank but never desire to rise. I know they also can freely realm hop which was a huge boon in hell. If an Erinyes chooses to become a devil they transform to something else and lose that ability. I forgot the name of the fiend. I know they are also the only lawyers who wont cheat you in hell due to the angel part of them. They aren't nice and if you run from hell they are the ones most likely to chase you if you manage to leave hell. Don't know if 5e changed any of this. I wouldn't be suprised really.

The more I learn about 5e the less I like.

As we should. Males of other species are not men, they are males. There is a qualitative difference between males and men.
Also if it's wrong for a man to do X then isn't it also wrong for a woman to do it?
Does gender really matter here? I mean Laezel is a toxic bitchbaby no matter how you slice it but you still somehow insist that men are the problem, when in fact they are the solution that this game so badly needs.

People telling Larian what they want, and whiny babies shouting them down because they hate men.

Evil fights evil all the time - there was a whole alignment system and sometimes you don't want to play the good guy - it gets stale. I've played BG1 and BG2 as both good and evil. I played KOTOR as good, as evil, and as each switching at the midpoint revelation. You don't want to limit people and actual DnD games have mixes of characters.
No one is saying that men are the problem. No one has said that anywhere in this thread nor in any I have seen. You keep throwing that straw man out there - speaking to a fragile masculinity. What this thread is would be people complaining that there aren't enough macho men - the characters don't exude power and dominance except for Lae'zel. Normal people aren't hypermasculine or hyperfeminine - there is a mix. Astarion is an entrenched low noble who dealt with non-manual labor for years before being turned into a puppet - he isn't a warlord noble - this is not a controversial character. Gale is an intellectual and uses his mind rather than body and intimidation. Wyll is plenty masculine in a traditional way. These are realistic personalities. Shadowheart is a bit bitchy, but most of that comes from her being a priestess of Shar and being extremely secretive.

It's not that I'm a fan, it's that he's not feminine. He's emotional. It's not the same, I don't see femininity in him. And even if Astarion has some feminine traits, it's not the same as saying "a Girl in a man's skin". Choose your expressions, he is still a male character, and this can be seen not only in his body type.