Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by kanisatha
If I as the player find her to be evil, then she is evil.

lol, sry this just reminded me of the anakin quote from episode three

i actually dont think i disagree with your overall sentiment - i just think that alignment should be a working function of a bg3 game based on 5e. if larian includes/improves it where it impacts the gameplay in a meaningful way that, as you said doesnt set up biased roadblocks within the game preventing you from treating SH as evil, i think it will be real successful - i just want to see it first.


Alignment has virtually no rules in 5th edition. It is barely a thing at all. There are no spells or abilities that have anything to do with alignment, and there are a tiny handful of legendary items that can change your alignment. Outside of those, alignment has been functionally removed from D&D.

Now it is more a feature of the lore than anything else.

Yes I agree. It is no longer a feature in the rules because it is left up to DMs and players to determine them.
i dont want to make the alignment discussion derail op's original intent for this thread - i actually am not opposed to a more permanent 6person party after the first act, im just concerned with how larian is going to pull it off and want to provide feedback as part of ea (ex. i hope they draw more inspiration from ME1&2 than dos2 for this specific topic) - but there is actually what i find to be a pretty good u tube video by Web DM about alignment in 5e (Nov. 1,2017) that ppl may find interesting via a quick web search (id post the link but being new to the forums i dont want to break any rules...yet wink ). the vid is ~27min but i think their discussion hits on alot of the points also made here about alignment's place and function in a dnd game and wanted to share for any interested.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Online Sad
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Originally Posted by Nicottia
People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way

Way to kill your credibility. Anyone who doesn't do things your way is ignorant and shallow. What a load of bull.


I might've worded it better, english being about my 4th language learned. But still, it's up to the person to roleplay how they see fit, I'm not here to pass judgement on people 'not doing things my way', hell it wasn't even the intention of my post, but it also shows quite a bit of your character that you grasp at anything possibly perceived as negative/offensive to try to insult someone. All I was doing was trying to explain it to Abits that there are different ways of playing with alignments, more nuanced or less so.

To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't. Astarion doesn't introduce himself as 'hi there, I'm Astarion, a vamp spawn and I'd like to suck your blood' or Shadow doesn't say 'I'm Shadowheart, priestess of Shar' it's up to your character to figure that out. Altho, I still think the name 'Shadowheart' is such a stupid name. And on top of that, she doesn't really act like a classic priestess of Shar, you can tell she's quite conflicted inside. My prediction is, if you let her live and don't murder or toss her away for being a Shar priestess, that she might somewhere down the line be swayed to the light.

Seriously? You insulted people like me as ignorant and shallow, and then you want to try and turn it around on me? I have said nothing to insult you. In fact, I have gone the extra mile to not insult you. In an earlier post you said that redemption stories are your thing. I consider redemption stories to be the silliest of RPG tropes. Furthermore, I believe some things that you do (like pledging yourself to a god like Shar) are so terrible that they make you ineligible for any sort of redemption. Nevertheless, at no point did I attack or insult you for having your preference for redemption stories. Because that's just not my way. You should play your game in whatever way makes you happy, redemption stories and all. As should I. So don't try and turn this on me. You are the one who insulted anyone who decides they want to role-play good-alignment as it has long been defined in D&D history and FR lore.

As for these specific characters, I have never said I would react a certain way based on meta knowledge. I have actually posted in several threads against role-playing based on meta knowledge. So if, upon first meeting any of these characters, I don't have enough information to identify what they are, I will just keep role-playing my very good aligned character. But, and specifically in SH's case, the moment I do find out she's a Sharan, I'm done with her at that point (unless she renounces Shar right then and there). By contrast, I can see myself being willing to keep open a relationship with the likes of Astarion and Lae'zal until such time as my exclusively good actions come into conflict with them, because I would be open to seeing exactly what kind of vampire/githyanki they are (the good kind, perhaps?). But someone who says she stands by Shar? No benefit of the doubt can be extended to such a person.

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Originally Posted by Nicottia
People who don't take characters into their group cause 'oh no, Astarion is a vamp spawn/tried to knife me, therefore he is evil' or 'Shadowheart follows Shar, therefore she must be evil' are either ignorant, or choose to role play their characters in a shallow way

Way to kill your credibility. Anyone who doesn't do things your way is ignorant and shallow. What a load of bull.


I might've worded it better, english being about my 4th language learned. But still, it's up to the person to roleplay how they see fit, I'm not here to pass judgement on people 'not doing things my way', hell it wasn't even the intention of my post, but it also shows quite a bit of your character that you grasp at anything possibly perceived as negative/offensive to try to insult someone. All I was doing was trying to explain it to Abits that there are different ways of playing with alignments, more nuanced or less so.

To me, murdering people in games, for the sake of 'goodness' is still murder. Whenever I play D&D games I like to think things through (like 'what would my character do in this situation?') and I do my best to try to talk my way out of difficulties rather than attack on sight (that's what zealots do), or in case of characters like Astarion/Shadowheart give them the benefit of doubt.

You, as the player, know that Astarion is a vamp spawn or that Shadow is a priestess of Shar, but your character doesn't. Astarion doesn't introduce himself as 'hi there, I'm Astarion, a vamp spawn and I'd like to suck your blood' or Shadow doesn't say 'I'm Shadowheart, priestess of Shar' it's up to your character to figure that out. Altho, I still think the name 'Shadowheart' is such a stupid name. And on top of that, she doesn't really act like a classic priestess of Shar, you can tell she's quite conflicted inside. My prediction is, if you let her live and don't murder or toss her away for being a Shar priestess, that she might somewhere down the line be swayed to the light.

Seriously? You insulted people like me as ignorant and shallow, and then you want to try and turn it around on me? I have said nothing to insult you. In fact, I have gone the extra mile to not insult you. In an earlier post you said that redemption stories are your thing. I consider redemption stories to be the silliest of RPG tropes. Furthermore, I believe some things that you do (like pledging yourself to a god like Shar) are so terrible that they make you ineligible for any sort of redemption. Nevertheless, at no point did I attack or insult you for having your preference for redemption stories. Because that's just not my way. You should play your game in whatever way makes you happy, redemption stories and all. As should I. So don't try and turn this on me. You are the one who insulted anyone who decides they want to role-play good-alignment as it has long been defined in D&D history and FR lore.

As for these specific characters, I have never said I would react a certain way based on meta knowledge. I have actually posted in several threads against role-playing based on meta knowledge. So if, upon first meeting any of these characters, I don't have enough information to identify what they are, I will just keep role-playing my very good aligned character. But, and specifically in SH's case, the moment I do find out she's a Sharan, I'm done with her at that point (unless she renounces Shar right then and there). By contrast, I can see myself being willing to keep open a relationship with the likes of Astarion and Lae'zal until such time as my exclusively good actions come into conflict with them, because I would be open to seeing exactly what kind of vampire/githyanki they are (the good kind, perhaps?). But someone who says she stands by Shar? No benefit of the doubt can be extended to such a person.



"You are the one who insulted anyone who decides they want to role-play good-alignment as it has long been defined in D&D history and FR lore."

Just nope. Ever heard of nuance? It's easy to write a paladin of Tyr for example, it's hard to write a fleshed out one, their reasoning as to why they follow Tyr (why not Helm? Torm? Illmater?), their struggles, their past, their family situation. What could possibly corrupt such a person? Take a look at Aribeth de Tylmarande from NWN, in base game she was an alright paladin but seemed to have fallen to darkness too easily, that's an example of bad writing, but the expansion HotU seems to have fleshed out her fall out of grace. Also your line of thinking about alignment is a bit too rigid. There are so many ways to interpret different situations.

''You insulted people like me as ignorant and shallow, and then you want to try and turn it around on me?''

I'm not the one who immediately went ahead and snapped on a complete stranger because of two simple words that were given as an example. But ...if out of my entire post about different ways of roleplaying the only bad thing you seem to have cherry picked is ''shallow and ignorant" and your feelings got hurt because of it, then I'm sorry, like I wrote earlier: I didn't mean to offend anyone by that. But don't pretend that you didn't try to insult me by calling my line of thinking 'an utter bull', I understand, I unknowingly offended you and you lashed out, it's fine. But a little advice for the future: don't be so easily offended by what someone across the globe writes about something you both enjoy. Different cultures, different ways of expressing one's thoughts. Also, if I expected anyone to get offended over something, it'd be the 'lawful stupid' line.

You don't like my 'naive and nice to everyone' way of playing, you don't like 'redemption stories' either, that's totally fine by me. I don't enjoy playing an overzealous character who's ready to dump/murder someone unless they renounce their ways. We're different people, different playstyles. Also, the only way I would justify doing what you'd do to Shadow is if I played a cleric of Selune (obviously Shadow would clash with that character eventually) or a paladin. But something like a chaotic good sorcerer or a neutral good wizard, I really don't think they'd care as much and would be willing to give her the benefit of doubt, they might judge her negatively or distrust her, sure, I think they don't really care as much for the "petty" squabbles between gods. Ooh, also I heard that if you play cleric of Selune and keep Shadow around, you might actually get Shadow to hate Selunians less and slowly change her outlook. So I dunno, you do you boo.

As much as we may disagree, I think it's time we'd agree to disagree... and agree to one thing: we should stop derailing this topic further.

Last edited by Nicottia; 17/10/20 10:35 PM.
Joined: Oct 2021
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by odesseiron81
Greetings all. I was reading through the EA FAQ again and I noticed the last question from Jess from Larian.

Quote
Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

I'm not sure how everyone else feels about this or even noticed it. Things move at a breakneck speed in these forums. I'm not sure I like this. At all. Now this is all baseless speculation at this point, so I don't want to be overly negative.

[..]
Based on the wording from Larian, it leads me to believe that anyone who isn't with you at the end of Act 1 is going to die or otherwise become unavailable. We're then "forced" to complete the rest of the game with one party. Who knows. Maybe at the end of Act 1, you get some kind of delay for the tadpole removal in the Towers. Any members not with you will turn into Illithid. Yes, that's a very big assumption on my end. It's just a guess.

It also leads me to believe that there will not be all that many companions (if any) after Act 1. In BGI/II you met people everywhere. Meeting everyone in the same Act seems a bit too convenient.

If that happens, our ability to diversify our party based on needs will go out the window. Paired with the fact there are only 4 party members. I'm not saying you need 6, but 5 would be a nice happy median. You have that extra utility slot. But this post isn't about that. My concern is that it will get very stale dealing with the same party for another 60-80 hours, versus being able to keep things fresh with adding and removing party members at will.

For all I know though, this will fit in with the story they are weaving. I could also be entirely off base though. I just figured it would be worth bringing up. At the end of the day this is their game they are crafting and not ours and I 100% respect that, but some of that BG feel goes out the window if we have a set party locked. You can't please everyone. I'm happy either way in knowing I'll more than likely be getting a great game.


I read the post by Larian differently than the interpretation I see in this and another, similar thread: 'During act 1 you can switch companions out without consequences. After act 1 you will have to commit to the character(s) you want to romance, just like in real life.

After all, in real life, there is only one person you normally commit to, right? Your significant other. Or significant others, if you are polyamorous.

This interpretation of the quote has a strong analogy with BG2, where most of the romances would be broken off if you kicked a character with an active romance out of the party.


It is quite possible that the other interpretations suggested in this and the other thread are correct - such as the risk of your non-party companions being lever-transformed into mind flayers, but I would have expected Larian to word the reply differently, if that were the case. If the party limit were to be enforced by the companions no longer being available, I'd not have worded that as ' you have to commit' but as 'your options may be limited at some point', for instance.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by malecentaur
Quote
Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

I read the post by Larian differently than the interpretation I see in this and another, similar thread: 'During act 1 you can switch companions out without consequences. After act 1 you will have to commit to the character(s) you want to romance, just like in real life.
That is however not what was asked, and not what was answered. There was no mention of romance or relationship - just if we can freely switch our party composition, and according to the dev just like in D:OS2 it will be possible only in act1, and after that we will have to choose a permanent party. And considering that everything that we have seen about BG3 is D:OS2 v2.0 that wouldn't be unlikely.

Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Frumpkis
I just finished Wasteland 3 which adds new companion choices all the way through the game, even up to around 75% of the game being finished. By that halfway point, I've already settled into combat strategies for my companions and it's hard to integrate a new one as a replacement. Especially if they're auto-leveled to match the current party, which may be a mix of skills and attributes you wouldn't choose for them.

The companions in Baldur's Gate III don't have their skills and spells automatically set for them when they go up in level to match the party's level.

Originally Posted by Frumpkis
Again using Wasteland 3 as an example, and other games work like this too -- you sometimes get a side-quest as you move through the game that's designed around one of the companions. You ideally want that one in your party to get the full dialog and best outcome. This can mean re-hiring one you've dismissed just for that quest, then dismissing them again afterwards.

This feels incredibly "gamey." If we have to commit to the party at the end of Act 1, Larian can just block off all the quests for companions you're not using. We'll never see those awkward notices about "be sure to have Companion XXX in your party" when receiving a new quest notice. Any companion quests will be smoothly integrated for just your current party.

Quests designed around a companion shouldn't be a problem as long as there are alternate resolutions to those quests, and there's no need to give notices telling you that you should bring a certain companion with you (although, it'd be helpful to mention the companion in the quests area of the journal).

I'm not sure why it matters if the extra events and best outcome for a quest aren't available without a specific companion.
As for adding a companion just for one quest, fast traveling to get a companion from camp wouldn't be as difficult as finding them again, which is what you have to do in some games, and if you don't want to go get them, you wouldn't have to.
The quests wouldn't be available at all if they were blocked the way that you're suggesting.

There's really no good reason to not let players choose different companions later.

Originally Posted by Ocece
I'm fine with the party being set in stone, somewhat as if it was an actual tabletop campaign (with players you can count on). It will be a difficult choice but I don't mind it at all.

The difference with video games is that what the party members do and say is also set in stone.

Last edited by EliasIncarnation; 24/10/21 01:56 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Wormerine
according to the dev just like in D:OS2 it will be possible only in act1, and after that we will have to choose a permanent party.
Source, please?


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Dec 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Wormerine
according to the dev just like in D:OS2 it will be possible only in act1, and after that we will have to choose a permanent party.
Source, please?

Quote
Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=677277

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Soo ... to use his own words against him:
"There was no mention of choosing a permanent party."

Or in more general way to put it ...
We have no idea what this "commitment" is.


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Dec 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Soo ... to use his own words against him:
"There was no mention of choosing a permanent party."

Or in more general way to put it ...
We have no idea what this "commitment" is.

You're either purposely being ignorant, or just misunderstanding how English works. Someone specifically asked if you can change your party members throughout the ENTIRE game. He responded with "in the first act, yes, THEN (implying something changes), you'll have to COMMIT (as it, stick with one party)".

Last edited by Boblawblah; 24/10/21 03:30 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
This thread seems to be starting to be a lot of uppity against eachother and allegations of ignorance, shallowness and other lingo in either directions.

Let's stop that.

The current status quo is a vague statement of:

Quote
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

Though I do remember some mentions of henchmen, so from my impressions there might be ways to change around and add some new blood to a party after, just not the companions with individual story progression attached to them. But I was never a fan of that in DOS2 either, so I'm hoping that party progression as a whole gets a redesign at some point. Not a deal-breaker for me though ^^

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Or in more general way to put it ...
We have no idea what this "commitment" is.
The question was about being able to swap party members freely and the topic of the answer is the same. So what else could it be about, but having to "commit" to whom we want to have in our party after act1?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Exactly ...

I mean Shadowheart specificly tells us that once the parasite will be dealth with, we will go our separate ways ...
IF every companion feels that way, wich we dont know since Shadowheart is for some unknown reason the only person in the whole Faerun we could ask what will she do after. O_o

That "commitment" could just as easily mean that after finishing Act 1 we will follow our choosen Origin character (singular intended) in his, or hers story ... and let EVERYONE ELSE go their way.
We will meet other companions and will be able to switch them in and out freely ... still we will be commited to that chosen Origin character. :P


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Exactly ...

I mean Shadowheart specificly tells us that once the parasite will be dealth with, we will go our separate ways ...
IF every companion feels that way, wich we dont know since Shadowheart is for some unknown reason the only person in the whole Faerun we could ask what will she do after. O_o

That "commitment" could just as easily mean that after finishing Act 1 we will follow our choosen Origin character (singular intended) in his, or hers story ... and let EVERYONE ELSE go their way.
We will meet other companions and will be able to switch them in and out freely ... still we will be commited to that chosen Origin character. :P

I doubt that you'll only be able to follow one of the Origin characters.
Unless the Origin stories are long and very different from each other, that would be even worse than what they did in Original Sin II.

Also, considering that...
Every "solution" to removing the parasites has been a wild-goose chase.
The game is only supposed to have three acts according to the FAQ.
It mentions "the adventure" not "adventures" in the FAQ.
...I'd say the characters will be stuck with the parasites for a long time, and none of the characters will be leaving without some catalyst.

Not only that, but I think that the context of what was said in the FAQ makes the meaning of the words abundantly clear.

"Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life."

The question deals with being able to swap members in and out of the party throughout the adventure.
Right after saying that you can swap companions in and out of the party, it says "however", meaning that what's said after is contrasting with the previous statement.
So, after the first act, there won't be anymore party member swapping (so there won't be any new companions to swap with after the first act either), and you'll have to commit to whatever party you have.

Last edited by EliasIncarnation; 25/10/21 04:57 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I mean Shadowheart specificly tells us that once the parasite will be dealth with, we will go our separate ways ...
You do some impressive mental gymnastics.

What makes you think that we will deal with the parasite in act1? Parasites are on which every narrative/mechanic contrivance lies. they are not going away - that’s an easy bet.

I would expect something more along the lines of characters not in our party at the end of the act1 to be taken under Absolutes control, or something like that.

Last edited by Wormerine; 25/10/21 09:39 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Unless the Origin stories are long and very different from each other, that would be even worse than what they did in Original Sin II.
Why whould they need to?

I mean, look what quests we have right now:
- One is helping Minthara slaughter the groove ... and other is helping Halsin slaughter the Goblin leaders ...
- One is helping Kagha drive out Tieflings ... and other is helping Zevlor get rid of Kagha (no matter how) ...
- One is helping Karlach against so called Paladins ... and other is helping so called Paladins against Karlach ...
And lots and lots things is happening around.

From this i say we can expect that our companions would have their own quests ...
They would all be happening in same space (Baldur's Gate specificly i bet), and it would be changing based on wich one you pick ... just the same as it does right now.

Just examples out of my head, feel free to see this as Wild Speculation:
You pick Gale ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for some magical way to cure his Nethereese orb.
You pick Astarion ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Cazador.
You pick Shadowheart ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Sharites.
You pick Lae'zel ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Shadowheart's artefact, bcs Vlaakith wants it back! :)¨
You pick Karlach ... you go to Baldur's Gate to settle her debts, as she said. smile
You pick Wyll ... no idea laugh ... but maybe you go to Baldur's Gate to somehow resolve his pact with Myzora, or to gain back his Honor ... or maybe, just maybe, we find out in Moonrise Towers that army of the Absolute is allready marching on Baldur's Gate with all that gunpowder they buyed from Zhentarims, and Wyll will go there to protect his city ... or just go there to clean it from True Souls ... w/e

Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Also, considering that...
Every "solution" to removing the parasites has been a wild-goose chase.
I know ... but i do believe it was only to push us to Moonrise Towers, nobody knows if this one would be the right or not ...
And since both Good and Evil game was pointing us that way, i wish to believe there is some reason behind that.

Quote
The game is only supposed to have three acts according to the FAQ.
It mentions "the adventure" not "adventures" in the FAQ.
...I'd say the characters will be stuck with the parasites for a long time, and none of the characters will be leaving without some catalyst.
I mean it would hardly be an "Act 2" if you would keep dealing with the same problems as you did in Act 1. :-/
Therefore i do believe:
Act 1 - Tadpole problem ... (probably temporary) resolved in Moonrise Towers somehow ... notice that i DIDNT say that it will be removed, just the pressing threat of turning into Mind Flayer will be reduced to minimum.
Act 2 - Step aside ... Origin characters problem ... resolved in the city, probably showed that there is much bigger plot than you think at first, probably even show us why those characters were picked for tadpolisation.
Act 3 - Reveal of big bad boss ... killing it ... end. laugh

Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Not only that, but I think that the context of what was said in the FAQ makes the meaning of the words abundantly clear.

"Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life."
Yes i heard this many times before and it didnt convinced me ... mo matter how much bold or underline you use. laugh
I cant help the feeling that if Larian would like to say us that our party will be permanent after Act 1 ... its nothing easier, and clearer than simply telling us. "your party will be permanent after Act 1". laugh

But they didnt do that ...
So i would like to believe that there is some message we are missing here.

Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
The question deals with being able to swap members in and out of the party throughout the adventure.
Right after saying that you can swap companions in and out of the party, it says "however", meaning that what's said after is contrasting with the previous statement.
The only difference here i see is that you seem to believe you will not be able to switch your party since this option will be simply removed and nothing else will change.
I believe that this option will be present, but you will no longer be able to switch between those companions ... since you loose every Origin companion, except that one you commit to. wink

After all, remember that Larian promissed us mercenaries ...
It would not have much reason to have Mercenaries, if you dont have a option to take them with you since "your party is locked". laugh

Originally Posted by Wormerine
What makes you think that we will deal with the parasite in act1? Parasites are on which every narrative/mechanic contrivance lies. they are not going away - that’s an easy bet.
Multiple things i listed abowe and elsewhere ...

- Everyone is pointing at Moonrise Towers ... Minthara, Halsin, Volo, that Zhentarim vendor in Goblin camp, every single Goblin that is talking about it, Duergars, Florrick ... and i bet i forget someone.
- All other solutions was like "sure i can help you, for a prize" ... but this one is more like "this is where all is happening, if you can find your solution ... it will be there".
- Plus ... and that is also important, they all were thinking they are dealing with regular tadpole ... at Moonrise Towers, we would probably be right by source of this problem.
- We also know, i mean Swen told us some time ago, that all companions were created in pairs ... meaning every companion have other companion that will be somehow important for him ... so far the only pair that is obvious is Shadowheart and Lae'zel ... that also makes me believe that our Origin characters will have important role in Act 2 story. wink

Also i never sid we will "get rid of the parasite" ... i just presume our problems with it will be resolved.
Meaning we will probably no longer have to fear that we could turn any moment. smile
I mean some Nethereese magic is keeping our parasite from turning us right now ... i believe all we need to do is to change this from "curetnly in stasis" to "permanently in stasis". laugh

But! Even if we get indeed rid of our parasite ...
I believe that in Act 2 or maybe 3 ... we find out that all that time we spend with it in our head changed us, and we still will have to fight the Absolute.

Originally Posted by Wormerine
I would expect something more along the lines of characters not in our party at the end of the act1 to be taken under Absolutes control, or something like that.
Its possible ...
But since so many people allready expressed their concerns about this scenario, i dont believe that Larian would make the same misstake twice.


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Apr 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2020
Careful RagnarokCzD, you might want to use spoiler tags when talking about quests

Last edited by Gt27mustang; 25/10/21 01:36 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Just examples out of my head, feel free to see this as Wild Speculation:
You pick Gale ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for some magical way to cure his Nethereese orb.
You pick Astarion ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Cazador.
You pick Shadowheart ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Sharites.
You pick Lae'zel ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Shadowheart's artefact, bcs Vlaakith wants it back! :)¨
You pick Karlach ... you go to Baldur's Gate to settle her debts, as she said. smile
You pick Wyll ... no idea laugh ... but maybe you go to Baldur's Gate to somehow resolve his pact with Myzora, or to gain back his Honor ... or maybe, just maybe, we find out in Moonrise Towers that army of the Absolute is allready marching on Baldur's Gate with all that gunpowder they buyed from Zhentarims, and Wyll will go there to protect his city ... or just go there to clean it from True Souls ... w/e
Yes, that's very much how D:OS2 worked. So 3-4 origin sidequest we "commit to" (amount depending if you go custom or origin ourselves) for playthrough. There is nothing to indicate that our companons won't want our help if we won't sleep with them, as you suggested. I am sure Gale will happily keep eating my artefacts, even if we won't end up in bed.


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
After all, remember that Larian promissed us mercenaries ...
It would not have much reason to have Mercenaries, if you dont have a option to take them with you since "your party is locked". laugh
Yes, it was the same in D:OS2.
In act1 we can switch between companions (though not as conveniently as in BG3). At the transition between act1&2 all companions not in your party were killed (reappearing briefly against you later in the story)
but instead we gain the ability to hire-merceneries. You know, in case of the companions dies or we just want to branch out.



Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Also i never sid we will "get rid of the parasite" ... i just presume our problems with it will be resolved.
Meaning we will probably no longer have to fear that we could turn any moment. smile
I mean some Nethereese magic is keeping our parasite from turning us right now ... i believe all we need to do is to change this from "curetnly in stasis" to "permanently in stasis". laugh
Yes, that I think we agree on. The final of act1 will be confirmation of what we more or less know, plus maybe reveal of the Absolute and what the game is REALLY about. It would make sense based on what we have and again, would follow D:OS2 formula, where
we are all revealed as godwoken, and are introduced to gods
. I expect more or less something like that for finalle of BG3. Still, parasite will remain an issue and rejecting/using its powers will remain the central point of the story. We ain't getting done with it yet. It's "seduction" is yet to be developed.


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
But since so many people allready expressed their concerns about this scenario, i dont believe that Larian would make the same misstake twice.
Q&A was a while back, so it is not impossible that Larian will walk back on the statement they made. The removal of spare companions in D:OS2 was especially puzzing to me, as they didn't seem to really find time to make advantage of the killed companions. Perhaps, they have some unfulfill vision/ideas that they want to explore fully in BG3. It might not be terrible if they end up doing something unique and cool with abandoned companions.

Considering how many parrarels can be drawn between D:OS2 and BG3, I find it silly to argue they won't do what they pretty explicitly "hinted" at. Nothing but to wait and find out, I guess.

Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Unless the Origin stories are long and very different from each other, that would be even worse than what they did in Original Sin II.
Why whould they need to?

I mean, look what quests we have right now:
- One is helping Minthara slaughter the groove ... and other is helping Halsin slaughter the Goblin leaders ...
- One is helping Kagha drive out Tieflings ... and other is helping Zevlor get rid of Kagha (no matter how) ...
- One is helping Karlach against so called Paladins ... and other is helping so called Paladins against Karlach ...
And lots and lots things is happening around.

From this i say we can expect that our companions would have their own quests ...
They would all be happening in same space (Baldur's Gate specificly i bet), and it would be changing based on wich one you pick ... just the same as it does right now.

Just examples out of my head, feel free to see this as Wild Speculation:
You pick Gale ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for some magical way to cure his Nethereese orb.
You pick Astarion ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Cazador.
You pick Shadowheart ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Sharites.
You pick Lae'zel ... you go to Baldur's Gate to search for Shadowheart's artefact, bcs Vlaakith wants it back! :)¨
You pick Karlach ... you go to Baldur's Gate to settle her debts, as she said. smile
You pick Wyll ... no idea laugh ... but maybe you go to Baldur's Gate to somehow resolve his pact with Myzora, or to gain back his Honor ... or maybe, just maybe, we find out in Moonrise Towers that army of the Absolute is allready marching on Baldur's Gate with all that gunpowder they buyed from Zhentarims, and Wyll will go there to protect his city ... or just go there to clean it from True Souls ... w/e

Of course, they'll likely have their own quests, but in Original Sin II...
...you could do all of the side quests for the companions who didn't die.
If they take that down to one companion's quest in Baldur's Gate III, yet the companion quests aren't very long, and they revolve around the same main quests without greatly affecting them, then it would be even worse.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Also, considering that...
Every "solution" to removing the parasites has been a wild-goose chase.
I know ... but i do believe it was only to push us to Moonrise Towers, nobody knows if this one would be the right or not ...
And since both Good and Evil game was pointing us that way, i wish to believe there is some reason behind that.

It's possible, but even if the Moonrise Towers is the place where the parasites are removed, I doubt that you'll have to choose one companion.
The reason that both paths pointed that way might be because the party split where you'll likely have to choose which party members to save will probably happen there.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Quote
The game is only supposed to have three acts according to the FAQ.
It mentions "the adventure" not "adventures" in the FAQ.
...I'd say the characters will be stuck with the parasites for a long time, and none of the characters will be leaving without some catalyst.
I mean it would hardly be an "Act 2" if you would keep dealing with the same problems as you did in Act 1. :-/
Therefore i do believe:
Act 1 - Tadpole problem ... (probably temporary) resolved in Moonrise Towers somehow ... notice that i DIDNT say that it will be removed, just the pressing threat of turning into Mind Flayer will be reduced to minimum.
Act 2 - Step aside ... Origin characters problem ... resolved in the city, probably showed that there is much bigger plot than you think at first, probably even show us why those characters were picked for tadpolisation.
Act 3 - Reveal of big bad boss ... killing it ... end. laugh

In Original Sin II...
...the collar issue did end before the second act, but the companions' quests didn't affect the story as greatly as you're saying the quests of the companions would in Baldur's Gate III.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Not only that, but I think that the context of what was said in the FAQ makes the meaning of the words abundantly clear.

"Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life."
Yes i heard this many times before and it didnt convinced me ... mo matter how much bold or underline you use. laugh
I cant help the feeling that if Larian would like to say us that our party will be permanent after Act 1 ... its nothing easier, and clearer than simply telling us. "your party will be permanent after Act 1". laugh

But they didnt do that ...
So i would like to believe that there is some message we are missing here.

What they said was just a different way of saying that the party would be permanent after the first act.
The reason that they said it that way instead of the way that you said is probably because they wanted to justify limiting the party like they did in Original Sin II, instead of going with many companions like Baldur's Gate I&II.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
The question deals with being able to swap members in and out of the party throughout the adventure.
Right after saying that you can swap companions in and out of the party, it says "however", meaning that what's said after is contrasting with the previous statement.
The only difference here i see is that you seem to believe you will not be able to switch your party since this option will be simply removed and nothing else will change.
I believe that this option will be present, but you will no longer be able to switch between those companions ... since you loose every Origin companion, except that one you commit to. wink

After all, remember that Larian promissed us mercenaries ...
It would not have much reason to have Mercenaries, if you dont have a option to take them with you since "your party is locked". laugh

That's true.
Still, I doubt that there will be more companions after the first act.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Wormerine
So 3-4 origin sidequest we "commit to" (amount depending if you go custom or origin ourselves) for playthrough.
Eh ... no, or at least that is not what i expect.
I litteraly said single main-story-quest depending on who you will "commit to" ...

Originally Posted by Wormerine
There is nothing to indicate that our companons won't want our help if we won't sleep with them, as you suggested.
Did i?
Can you please quote me that part where i did that? Since im not aware of that ... i gues you simply missunderstand me somewhere.

Originally Posted by Wormerine
Yes, it was the same in D:OS2.
In act1 we can switch between companions (though not as conveniently as in BG3). At the transition between act1&2 all companions not in your party were killed (reappearing briefly against you later in the story)
but instead we gain the ability to hire-merceneries. You know, in case of the companions dies or we just want to branch out.

I didnt play any D:OS ... and just for the record im not even planning it, those game dont feel appealing to me in any way. frown

Not sure what you mean by this ...
So, if you wanted to get Fighter to your group bcs it needed Fighter, you had to get rid of someone permanently?
Why is that a problem? I mean, if your group desperately need a Fighter, but have no use for Rogue, why would you need to keep the Rogue around? O_o

Originally Posted by Wormerine
we are all revealed as godwoken, and are introduced to gods
That would probably not surprise me either. laugh

Originally Posted by Wormerine
I expect more or less something like that for finalle of BG3. Still, parasite will remain an issue and rejecting/using its powers will remain the central point of the story. We ain't getting done with it yet. It's "seduction" is yet to be developed.

That is certainly one scenario im working with ...
Another one would be that we will remove our parasites and think we are all finaly safe ... but then, our tadpole dream will come back ... and we find out that even tho we are not tadpoled anymore (and therefore cannot turn to Mind Flayers), the amount of time we carried it changed us so much, so the Absolute still posses a threat against us.

And therefore we will continue in all this you mentioned ... rejecting/using its powers, "seduction", etc.
We might even end as either part of the Absolute (since it dont seem like single deity to me) ... or its destroyer.

Originally Posted by Wormerine
Q&A was a while back, so it is not impossible that Larian will walk back on the statement they made. The removal of spare companions in D:OS2 was especially puzzing to me, as they didn't seem to really find time to make advantage of the killed companions. Perhaps, they have some unfulfill vision/ideas that they want to explore fully in BG3. It might not be terrible if they end up doing something unique and cool with abandoned companions.
I really hope they will not die ...
My biggest hope quite honestly is that we will indeed in Act 1 go our own way everyone, but as we "commit" to someone, someone else (the second Origin character that was made in pair with him) will come later in the story to bite us in the ass. laugh

The perfect example here is Shadowheart:
If you pick her ... somewhere in the future, you will be ambushed by Githyanki raiders that will go for her artefact ... and one of them will be Lae'zel ... unless you killed her before ... in that case Beretha, unless you killed her before too ... and in that case probably that Kith'rak (since i doubt we will fight with so high rank anytime sooner). laugh
On the contrary ... if you pick Lae'zel, you will be Ambushing Sharites that are suppose to posses the artefact ... and one of them will be Shadowheart.

This kind of twists i really like and really hope to see. :P

Originally Posted by Wormerine
Nothing but to wait and find out, I guess.
Well, that is without a doubt. laugh
But we can theoretize meanwhile. :P


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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