Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by prop85
I dislike all of the current companions, most of my issues with them were listed before so I'll mention some other things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plotholes and the relationship between gameplay and narrative. This is going to be about Gale.

Gale has a True Resurrection scroll which is the exact solution he needs for all of his problems. It creates a whole new body (mirroring the original with full health) that your soul can inhabit. It's also a cure for vampirism if we can even call it a cure.

Gale somehow went from an archmage who could use Power Word: Blind to a level 1 wizard barely able to cast a single magic missile. This made him lose his proficiency bonus and knowledge about Arcana. The gameplay doesn't support this kind of "depowerment". The only way I can imagine this is through irreversible mind-wipe, that would have more to do with messing around with the soul rather than the actual mind of a character. (I also want to mention that I find it incredibly weird that Mystra seems to "groom" wizards now when she only got interested in Elminster when he was in his prime.)

The above makes it evident that Larian doesn't care about the DnD lore interacting with the mechanics. I guess special special tadpoles are a good explanation for everything now. (there are characters who have special tadpoles but our tadpoles are even specialer) It's like nanomachines.

I have a feeling that the writers themselves want to one-up eachother when it comes to companion backstories. If Karlach is going to be a thing, we could sit around the campfire and watch our companions bicker about their "better-than-yours" backstories while we get to tell them that Tav is indeed from Baldur's Gate.

Gale's introduction is so infuriating that I usually kill him on the spot (there are no repercussions for it). Every camp scene he has feels incredibly forced and awkward, especially his "Go to Hell" monologue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Little bit about Astarion.

From what I know, a vampire is basically a distorted mirror image of the original person. This means that the person we call "Astarion" is not actually Astarion but a disgusting joke trying to mimic who he was. I find it incredibly difficult to justify having a vampire in the party. Astarion is only likely to survive in a merciful Neutral Good party that doesn't know a single thing about vampires, and if the player is not a paladin or a cleric of Kelemvor. Evil parties are very likely to just kill him as soon as they find out that Astarion is a threat to them, Lawful Good/Any Neutral parties would behave similarly.

He hits all the clichés from both teenage vampire romances and flamboyant gay coded evil characters and I'm honestly sick and tired of seeing this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current group of companions feels incredibly dysfunctional.

They all bring with themselves a bunch of extra baggage/danger. I'm really not sure why the party would stick together after finding out that our tadpole is dormant, or after we find out the whole truth about them and what they are good for. Each one of them has a different idea of what to do with it. If this ends with having to do skillchecks to have party members stay, there's a chance that we might end up with less than a full party later on.

I'm not sure if a Lawful Good main character would have anyone left in the party, considering that all of the companions have committed serious crimes.

Interesting take on Gale and Astarion. Not sure how you feel about the other three although you said you don't like any of the current companions.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kethlar
Okay, I'll play as well.

I'm not going to restate opinions about the companions that have already been stated here. Assuming that Larian keeps a 4 person party, I'll base my choices on whom I'd quickly replace if/when someone else comes along.

Laezel - I use her because she makes the most sense as a tank in the EA. I don't particularly like or hate her, but I always feel that I'm the one that's replaceable when someone better comes along. I love what she brings to the party as far as combat and her jumping ability goes. But when I can replace her, I'm pretty sure she's gone unless her story takes a different turn. I might not tell her to leave, but if there is someone better, she's unlikely to get much party time.

Shadowheart - I generally like her, but she is in and out of my party as necessary whenever I need Gale or Wyll instead. I wonder if her personality is affected by whatever is hiding her memories as well. Like others, I believe she is a Selune disciple brainwashed to believe she is a Shar follower. I most likely will keep her in my group the entire game.

Asterion - I generally dislike him, both because he's a vampire and because I don't see Rogues and the like as so prissy. I use him in my group mostly because my playstyle uses magic less and combat tactics more and Asterion makes a good scout and ranged specialist. When someone else comes in I like better (probably Haslin because Shadowheart can take care of locks). I'll replace him and tell him to leave.

Gale - I generally like Gale. My opinion of him mirrors what Niara has posted. I will keep him my group and will play him as necessary. Since I'm not exactly sure what class my MC will end up being, he may be more of a camp follower and sometimes party member or may always end up in the group. But I generally like his character.

Wyll - Just never warmed up to Wyll. I have a bit more sympathy to him I guess than many here, but his character class is just one I struggle with. I do like a good redemption story, but I'm just not sure Wyll IS one. He's a Hero wanna be and seems just too defensive of his actions. If Larian is reading this, maybe they can do better with him. But for now, probably will rarely use him as a party member and he'll end up being a camp body or I'll tell him to leave.

I like the theory about Shadowheart, that makes her a little more interesting, although I don't like her ability to pick locks as she is a Cleric and that is usually attributed to rogues or rangers. One thing I will say is, I noticed a lot of people here in the forums who don't like Astarion give the reason of not liking him for being a vampire. I'm curious to know why is that an issue? The majority of vampires that I have read stories on, usually behave the same way. Some may think it's cliche but I think the reason why they are written like that is because that is the most recognizable trait of a vampire. They are seen as extremely seductive, some are bi-sexual like Astarion, and sassy but they also can take a different turn very fast depending on a circumstance.

Last edited by Lady Avyna; 02/11/21 04:31 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Dexai
That makes me wonder, if we take the hearsay as true that Larian said they developed all origins in twos (like Laessie and Shadowheart are obviously counterparts and relevant to each other's story) if Astarion might be Wyll's story partner rather than Karlach (who I had previously assumed it was because of the obvious fiendish connection). Astarion I had thought previously would be partnered with the werewolf (because curses) or Minsc (because his BG2 favoured enemy was vampires).

If i may, i'll channel Cassandra Pentaghast for a moment. Ugh. If that's true, some bitter fucking irony in the only thing ported from the OGs being the worst possible thing. Having to recruit a character i don't like, or one i'm indifferent to, for the sake of one i do is so backwards.

Not that i ever wanted to recruit Minsc or Dynaheir, but goddamn Khalid man.

Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I like the theory about Shadowheart, that makes her a little more interesting, although I don't like her ability to pick locks as she is a Cleric and that is usually attributed to rogues or rangers. One thing I will say is, I noticed a lot of people here in the forums who don't like Astarion give the reason of not liking him for being a vampire. I'm curious to know why is that an issue? The majority of vampires that I have read stories on, usually behave the same way. Some may think it's cliche but I think the reason why they are written like that is because that is the most recognizable trait of a vampire. They are seen as extremely seductive, some are bi-sexual like Astarion, and sassy but they also can take a different turn very fast depending on a circumstance.

Watch Midnight Mass, then compare and contrast.

But anyway, as far as i'm concerned he's just a bad blend of annoying and pathetic. A 200 years old lvl 1 murder hobo, all of that quite literally, who's written and acted like he's hot shit yet just comes accross as... well, a 200 years old lvl 1 murder hobo. Basically Lae'zel, but done badly.

Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I'm gathering from what you are saying is you think these characters aren't well written so you have love and hate relationship with them. That's more of a writing issue but also I feel that depends on you perspective. The point of this discussion to to talk aboutwhy we like or do not like a character. Once again you seem to be dissecting Larian's writing and character development. That's a whole separate discussion.

I didn't give you what you were after, I'll try a bit harder. I'm actually quite generous when it comes to the writing here, since I'm basically judging it by the standards of an 80s action adventure film not like Greek tragedy hehe. I think the writing is actually fairly strong for what it is, for each of the 5. Actually let me rephrase, I think the performances are strong even if the writing perhaps isn't. In the same way that a good actor can elevate weak material, and a poor actor can trash great material, the same applies here. I think the 5 actors are doing pretty great thus far. But again, not what you're after. So I'll just talk about Gale.

What I like about him. I enjoy that he's a pedantic know-it-all right out the gate. How he just walks out the portal and dives straight into it. I like how he assumes we'll still enjoy his company, no matter who we are. How he'll continue to try and ingratiate himself, even if we balk at him (and I like that there's an option for that at each step in the initial conversation.) I like that he says "most excellent!" like Bill or Ted If we agree to take him on, and how he seems dejected if dismissed.

I also enjoy that he acknowledges that there's someone else standing next to me, (at least if Shadowheart's along for the ride), how that gets kinda awkward talking about her deep dark eyes, and her rebuff. All good stuff.

He basically serves in the role of camp sage, and is a better story teller than the Bard we don't have. I appreciate his digressions and split infinitives, which remind me of myself. Also his hair, and his slightly fancier than average purple Wizard's robe. Slick look there.

He's got a great death interlude, and does some impressive self eulogizing if that should occur and all around fits the part of the wizard with an appetitie. I'd list a few things I don't like, but then my concern is that Larian would read that and fixate on it - assume they need to change something - which would annoy me, and which I would interpret as weakness on the part of the studio execs for not backing up their writer/director/actor. I suppose that was the point I was trying to make before. Also that my meta impression as a player is rather different than my impression as a player character, and my likelihood to take Gale into the party or not, would depend not on my meta impression but the player character one. That's why its different here than a movie or a book, which seems to be the standard of judgement. Things that make the character serviceable for me depend largely on the context of the playthrough and what I'm after. Which is a frustrating non answer to be sure, but still at the heart of it for me.

I don't want them to change anything about Gale. If they feel they missed some opportunities somewhere, or he's not popular enough or whatever, then I want them to make another Wizard so Gale can have a rival. Or so that if I choose to play a wizard myself that we can each stake out our own territory without upstaging each other at every turn. That's all I meant by the other stuff. I think it applies to each of these characters in equal measure.

Last edited by Black_Elk; 02/11/21 05:03 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Dexai
That makes me wonder, if we take the hearsay as true that Larian said they developed all origins in twos (like Laessie and Shadowheart are obviously counterparts and relevant to each other's story) if Astarion might be Wyll's story partner rather than Karlach (who I had previously assumed it was because of the obvious fiendish connection). Astarion I had thought previously would be partnered with the werewolf (because curses) or Minsc (because his BG2 favoured enemy was vampires).

If i may, i'll channel Cassandra Pentaghast for a moment. Ugh. If that's true, some bitter fucking irony in the only thing ported from the OGs being the worst possible thing. Having to recruit a character i don't like, or one i'm indifferent to, for the sake of one i do is so backwards.

Not that i ever wanted to recruit Minsc or Dynaheir, but goddamn Khalid man.

Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I like the theory about Shadowheart, that makes her a little more interesting, although I don't like her ability to pick locks as she is a Cleric and that is usually attributed to rogues or rangers. One thing I will say is, I noticed a lot of people here in the forums who don't like Astarion give the reason of not liking him for being a vampire. I'm curious to know why is that an issue? The majority of vampires that I have read stories on, usually behave the same way. Some may think it's cliche but I think the reason why they are written like that is because that is the most recognizable trait of a vampire. They are seen as extremely seductive, some are bi-sexual like Astarion, and sassy but they also can take a different turn very fast depending on a circumstance.

Watch Midnight Mass, then compare and contrast.

But anyway, as far as i'm concerned he's just a bad blend of annoying and pathetic. A 200 years old lvl 1 murder hobo, all of that quite literally, who's written and acted like he's hot shit yet just comes accross as... well, a 200 years old lvl 1 murder hobo. Basically Lae'zel, but done badly.

Midnight Mass made the vampire look more dark, giving it the bat/demon look. Whereas, Astarion has more of appealing vampire look. Dracula didn't look hideous when romancing Mina or even vampires from Anne Rice' s Vampire Chronicles, they have an attractive, seductive look. Also, why do you view Astarion as a "murder hobo" ? Is it because he attacks you when you first meet when he assumed that you were responsible for what happened in the ship? That doesn't make him a murder hobo, that was a one time deal. As for him trying to drink your blood, he does tell you that he never intended to hurt you. I can understand that for him being a vampire, it's a must for him.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I'm gathering from what you are saying is you think these characters aren't well written so you have love and hate relationship with them. That's more of a writing issue but also I feel that depends on you perspective. The point of this discussion to to talk aboutwhy we like or do not like a character. Once again you seem to be dissecting Larian's writing and character development. That's a whole separate discussion.

I didn't give you what you were after, I'll try a bit harder. I'm actually quite generous when it comes to the writing here, since I'm basically judging it by the standards of an 80s action adventure film not like Greek tragedy hehe. I think the writing is actually fairly strong for what it is, for each of the 5. Actually let me rephrase, I think the performances are strong even if the writing perhaps isn't. In the same way that a good actor can elevate weak material, and a poor actor can trash great material, the same applies here. I think the 5 actors are doing pretty great thus far. But again, not what you're after. So I'll just talk about Gale.

What I like about him. I enjoy that he's a pedantic know-it-all right out the gate. How he just walks out the portal and dives straight into it. I like how he assumes we'll still enjoy his company, no matter who we are. How he'll continue to try and ingratiate himself, even if we balk at him (and I like that there's an option for that at each step in the initial conversation.) I like that he says "most excellent!" like Bill or Ted If we agree to take him on, and how he seems dejected if dismissed.

I also enjoy that he acknowledges that there's someone else standing next to me, (at least if Shadowheart's along for the ride), how that gets kinda awkward talking about her deep dark eyes, and her rebuff. All good stuff.

He basically serves in the role of camp sage, and is a better story teller than the Bard we don't have. I appreciate his digressions and split infinitives, which remind me of myself. Also his hair, and his slightly fancier than average purple Wizard's robe. Slick look there.

He's got a great death interlude, and does some impressive self eulogizing if that should occur and all around fits the part of the wizard with an appetitie. I'd list a few things I don't like, but then my concern is that Larian would read that and fixate on it - assume they need to change something - which would annoy me, and which I would interpret as weakness on the part of the studio execs for not backing up their writer/director/actor. I suppose that was the point I was trying to make before. Also that my meta impression as a player is rather different than my impression as a player character, and my likelihood to take Gale into the party or not, would depend not on my meta impression but the player character one. That's why its different here than a movie or a book, which seems to be the standard of judgement. Things that make the character serviceable for me depend largely on the context of the playthrough and what I'm after. Which is a frustrating non answer to be sure, but still at the heart of it for me.

I don't want them to change anything about Gale. If they feel they missed some opportunities somewhere, or he's not popular enough or whatever, then I want them to make another Wizard so Gale can have a rival. Or so that if I choose to play a wizard myself that we can each stake out our own territory without upstaging each other at every turn. That's all I meant by the other stuff. I think it applies to each of these characters in equal measure.

I appreciate you response and I also understand where you come from in terms of the writing and character development as this is Larian's biggest video game project compared to Divinity.

Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Sidetracker but Midnight Mass lost me exactly at the point where all our protagonists decided to reject the vampirism when it was obviously a killer deal, and the head vampire seemed like a pretty alright guy all things considered. Also how they just shamefully under-used their best character right at the point when she was stealing the show and elevating it next level (of course I mean crazy church lady.) And that's coming from a genuine dyed in the wool dog lover too! Not sure how that would color anything else I've said in this thread, but for what its worth. Also Lestat over Louis, always. Jessica over everyone, if it's gotta be HBO vamps. Twilight, sorry didn't have a use for it. But if love never dies, I'll take Lucy over Mina, any night of the week. Thanks!

Hehe

Last edited by Black_Elk; 02/11/21 05:31 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
I define him a murder hobo because he's evil and an idiot, basically. And since i have a deep fondness for Lawful Evil, i mostly take offense to the latter.

To be brief, nothing he does, approves of, or champions for make any sense in any practical, if not moral, way. Literally the first thing he does is trying to trick and ambush someone he thinks was his jailer, infront of the people who strolled up to him with them. Like, there are goblins smarter than that, and in their dumb evilness not any goblin pretends to have anything more than 7 charisma and 4 intelligence.

Also, dude sucks you dry if you don't stop him, and happily drinks kids' blood if you slaughter the people at the grove. It's not a phase.

Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Sidetracker but Midnight Mass lost me exactly at the point where all our protoginsts decided to reject the vampirism when it was obviously a killer deal, and the head vampire seemed like a pretty alright guy all things considered. Also how they just shamefully under-used their best character right at the point when she was stealing the show and elevating it next level (of course I mean crazy church lady.) And that's coming from a genuine dyed in the wool dog lover too! Not sure how that would color anything else I've said in this thread, but for what its worth. Also Lestat over Louis, always. Jessica over everyone, if it's gotta be HBO vamps. Twilight, sorry didn't have a use for it. But if love never dies, I'll take Lucy over Mina, any night of the week. Thanks!

Hehe

I'll be honest, i'd have gone for it too.

But, morals and shit. Some people are real attached to those. Just rob a blood bank Masquerade style and live a happy unlife, i say.

Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
I mean right? Nothing is more annoying than a super villain with super villainous powers over-burdened by pedestrian pangs of conscience and retrograde morality. Particular proclivities, a sense of style, or discerning tastes, sure! But don't backtrack on the vampirism itself! Like just get with it! I mean have a heart if you have to, but also have a heart! They can't all be Gary Oldman or Tom Waits I guess, but don't saddle me with yet another wishy washy 'I wish I wasn't' vampire. It was pretty brilliant before they decided to just torch all their set up and hard work allegorizing right when it was coming into genuine focus. That's a cardinal Midnight Mass sin right there hehe.

I won't go there too much with Astarion, but you can probably guess what my criticisms would be from his introduction. It has nothing to do with him trying to bite us, and a lot more to do with the wild boar. I hope it comes back at some point, as a vampire boar, just to rub it in a bit lol

Last edited by Black_Elk; 02/11/21 05:49 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
I think Astarion has poor impulse control, and a blood-thirsty disposition. He could be a murder hobo if he didn't have any inhibiting companions around. I view him as being in a state of arrested development since being in thrall to Cazador, so a lot of his behavior can be childish, in a way that doesn't view the ramifications actions beyond how they immediately gratify.

Last edited by Sozz; 02/11/21 05:51 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I define him a murder hobo because he's evil and an idiot, basically. And since i have a deep fondness for Lawful Evil, i mostly take offense to the latter.

To be brief, nothing he does, approves of, or champions for make any sense in any practical, if not moral, way. Literally the first thing he does is trying to trick and ambush someone he thinks was his jailer, infront of the people who strolled up to him with them. Like, there are goblins smarter than that, and in their dumb evilness not any goblin pretends to have anything more than 7 charisma and 4 intelligence.

Also, dude sucks you dry if you don't stop him, and happily drinks kids' blood if you slaughter the people at the grove. It's not a phase.

I don't think his situation is a phase either. I just don't see him in such a negative light like some do. I see him as a rogue and a traditional vampire, although he's classified as a vampire spawn who is a slave to a full blooded vampire. Astarion even tells you that he doesn't have all the good attributes of a vampire but mostly the negative ones, such as not being able to walk in sunlight, no reflection, must be invited to walk into someone home, and the constant hunger for blood and he can not turn someone into a vampire, which only a true vampire can do. Astarion is actually very open about what and what he is.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sozz
I think Astarion has poor impulse control, and a blood-thirsty disposition. He could be a murder hobo if he didn't have any inhibiting companions around. I view him as being in a state of arrested development since being in thrall to Cazador, so a lot of his behavior can be childish, in a way that doesn't view the ramifications actions beyond how they immediately gratify.

That goes back to Astarion being a vampire spawn and not a full vampire. In DnD lore, they are bound to their master until their master releases them or is killed by their spawn. Once a spawn is free from their master's chains, they can choose to live in whichever way they want. I even read that in DnD some may choose to live regular lives, not necessarily evil. Not all of them turn to a life of a bloodthirsty monster but live civil lives if they choose. The fun part of DnD is you can create a character and give it whatever back story you want, nothing is said in stone.

Joined: Dec 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
[quote=Innateagle][quote=Dexai]

Midnight Mass made the vampire look more dark, giving it the bat/demon look. Whereas, Astarion has more of appealing vampire look. Dracula didn't look hideous when romancing Mina or even vampires from Anne Rice' s Vampire Chronicles, they have an attractive, seductive look. Also, why do you view Astarion as a "murder hobo" ? Is it because he attacks you when you first meet when he assumed that you were responsible for what happened in the ship? That doesn't make him a murder hobo, that was a one time deal. As for him trying to drink your blood, he does tell you that he never intended to hurt you. I can understand that for him being a vampire, it's a must for him.

Sorry, I have to pitch in again. Astarion is a murder hobo, because he likes to murder people, simple as that. He says it multiple times. And you get disapproval, if you try to choose a solution, that avoids bloodshed. I would say, that he is at leas a wannabe murder hobo (wannabe, because you will mostly block him, when you play a good character).

And about Dracula (a pet peeve of mine, since I like the book so much) and generally 'traditional vampires':
Dracula doesn't have a romance with Mina - she is food for him. I'm referring to the original novel by Bram Stoker, there is no romance other than between Jonathan and Mina and Lucy and her suitors (I don't remember atm, if she decides on one of them). Dracula is actually really hideous and looks only slightly better, when he drank enough blood - again original Bram Stoker not Coppola (I'm actually mostly ok with the movie apart from the fact of the stupid romance plot that doesn't make sense) and he stinks of death (that one never changes).
The real vampire stories mostly aren't about some sexy tropes, but about often hideous creatures. I blame Bela Lugosi, who forever made Dracula a gentleman, I don't think, there was ever a book faithful adaption of the count afterwards - if you know Friedrich Murnaus Nosferatu - that is one of the more faithful adaptions. And I think, they did a decent job in portraying Dracula in Penny Dreadful (and vampires in general).

I'm mostly ok with how vampires are portrayed in games like Vampire the Masquerade, because they tried to fit every kind in and it is up to the people playing it, to decide, if it will become a horror story or a romance.

Midnight Mass is one of the few newer examples of vampires btw, I can get behind again. Another one is the book and movie 'Let the right one in'.

I'd say since Bela Lugosi played Dracula as an elegant gentleman, the sexy vampire trope was born, but it is a relative new development.

Last edited by fylimar; 02/11/21 06:10 PM.

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

Doctor Who
Joined: Aug 2021
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Aug 2021
Just not a fan of vampires. After killing them in every D&D game since the 1st edition rules came out, I just don't like them. Not a fan of the lich style cleric either, but in his case, he's basically a game feature to allow players to revive dead characters if they run out of scrolls (something I've never had to do). Like Asterion, I can deal with him, but just not a fan. Loved the events surrounding getting him though.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
[quote=Innateagle][quote=Dexai]

Midnight Mass made the vampire look more dark, giving it the bat/demon look. Whereas, Astarion has more of appealing vampire look. Dracula didn't look hideous when romancing Mina or even vampires from Anne Rice' s Vampire Chronicles, they have an attractive, seductive look. Also, why do you view Astarion as a "murder hobo" ? Is it because he attacks you when you first meet when he assumed that you were responsible for what happened in the ship? That doesn't make him a murder hobo, that was a one time deal. As for him trying to drink your blood, he does tell you that he never intended to hurt you. I can understand that for him being a vampire, it's a must for him.

Sorry, I have to pitch in again. Astarion is a murder hobo, because he likes to murder people, simple as that. He says it multiple times. And you get disapproval, if you try to choose a solution, that avoids bloodshed. I would say, that he is at leas a wannabe murder hobo (wannabe, because you will mostly block him, when you play a good character).

And about Dracula (a pet peeve of mine, since I like the book so much) and generally 'traditional vampires':
Dracula doesn't have a romance with Mina - she is food for him. I'm referring to the original novel by Bram Stoker, there is no romance other than between Jonathan and Mina and Lucy and her suitors (I don't remember atm, if she decides on one of them). Dracula is actually really hideous and looks only slightly better, when he drank enough blood - again original Bram Stoker not Coppola (I'm actually mostly ok with the movie apart from the fact of the stupid romance plot that doesn't make sense) and he stinks of death (that one never changes).
The real vampire stories mostly aren't about some sexy tropes, but about often hideous creatures. I blame Bela Lugosi, who forever made Dracula a gentleman, I don't think, there was ever a book faithful adaption of the count afterwards - if you know Friedrich Murnaus Nosferatu - that is one of the more faithful adaptions. And I think, they did a decent job in portraying Dracula in Penny Dreadful (and vampires in general).

I'm mostly ok with how vampires are portrayed in games like Vampire the Masquerade, because they tried to fit every kind in and it is up to the people playing it, to decide, if it will become a horror story or a romance.

Midnight Mass is one of the few newer examples of vampires btw, I can get behind again. Another one is the book and movie 'Let the right one in'.

I'd say since Bela Lugosi played Dracula as an elegant gentleman, the sexy vampire trope was born, but it is a relative new development.

The first real vampire story is Dracula and Dracula lore does not come from Bram Stoker but from Romania. The book Dracula was inspired by the Romanian stories of Vlad the Impaler whose real name was Vlad Tempes. One of the stories that made him a vampire, is said that he would dip his bread in a cup of blood of his impaled enemies. In Romania where some do believe he is a vampire and a protector, they don't depict him in a hideous form but his regular human form.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kethlar
Just not a fan of vampires. After killing them in every D&D game since the 1st edition rules came out, I just don't like them. Not a fan of the lich style cleric either, but in his case, he's basically a game feature to allow players to revive dead characters if they run out of scrolls (something I've never had to do). Like Asterion, I can deal with him, but just not a fan. Loved the events surrounding getting him though.

You lost me at "he's basically a game feature to allow players to revive dead characters is they run out of scrolls." What do you mean by that?

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I define him a murder hobo because he's evil and an idiot, basically. And since i have a deep fondness for Lawful Evil, i mostly take offense to the latter.

To be brief, nothing he does, approves of, or champions for make any sense in any practical, if not moral, way. Literally the first thing he does is trying to trick and ambush someone he thinks was his jailer, infront of the people who strolled up to him with them. Like, there are goblins smarter than that, and in their dumb evilness not any goblin pretends to have anything more than 7 charisma and 4 intelligence.

Also, dude sucks you dry if you don't stop him, and happily drinks kids' blood if you slaughter the people at the grove. It's not a phase.

I don't think his situation is a phase either. I just don't see him in such a negative light like some do. I see him as a rogue and a traditional vampire, although he's classified as a vampire spawn who is a slave to a full blooded vampire. Astarion even tells you that he doesn't have all the good attributes of a vampire but mostly the negative ones, such as not being able to walk in sunlight, no reflection, must be invited to walk into someone home, and the constant hunger for blood and he can not turn someone into a vampire, which only a true vampire can do. Astarion is actually very open about what and what he is.

I mean, if he'd lied about his being the loser sort of vampire like he lied about the sucking dry bit it probably would have been a good thing. Would have made him more intimidating for around 0.6 seconds, the time needed to figure out he was lying.

Joined: Dec 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
[quote=Innateagle][quote=Dexai]

Midnight Mass made the vampire look more dark, giving it the bat/demon look. Whereas, Astarion has more of appealing vampire look. Dracula didn't look hideous when romancing Mina or even vampires from Anne Rice' s Vampire Chronicles, they have an attractive, seductive look. Also, why do you view Astarion as a "murder hobo" ? Is it because he attacks you when you first meet when he assumed that you were responsible for what happened in the ship? That doesn't make him a murder hobo, that was a one time deal. As for him trying to drink your blood, he does tell you that he never intended to hurt you. I can understand that for him being a vampire, it's a must for him.

Sorry, I have to pitch in again. Astarion is a murder hobo, because he likes to murder people, simple as that. He says it multiple times. And you get disapproval, if you try to choose a solution, that avoids bloodshed. I would say, that he is at leas a wannabe murder hobo (wannabe, because you will mostly block him, when you play a good character).

And about Dracula (a pet peeve of mine, since I like the book so much) and generally 'traditional vampires':
Dracula doesn't have a romance with Mina - she is food for him. I'm referring to the original novel by Bram Stoker, there is no romance other than between Jonathan and Mina and Lucy and her suitors (I don't remember atm, if she decides on one of them). Dracula is actually really hideous and looks only slightly better, when he drank enough blood - again original Bram Stoker not Coppola (I'm actually mostly ok with the movie apart from the fact of the stupid romance plot that doesn't make sense) and he stinks of death (that one never changes).
The real vampire stories mostly aren't about some sexy tropes, but about often hideous creatures. I blame Bela Lugosi, who forever made Dracula a gentleman, I don't think, there was ever a book faithful adaption of the count afterwards - if you know Friedrich Murnaus Nosferatu - that is one of the more faithful adaptions. And I think, they did a decent job in portraying Dracula in Penny Dreadful (and vampires in general).

I'm mostly ok with how vampires are portrayed in games like Vampire the Masquerade, because they tried to fit every kind in and it is up to the people playing it, to decide, if it will become a horror story or a romance.

Midnight Mass is one of the few newer examples of vampires btw, I can get behind again. Another one is the book and movie 'Let the right one in'.

I'd say since Bela Lugosi played Dracula as an elegant gentleman, the sexy vampire trope was born, but it is a relative new development.

The first real vampire story is Dracula and Dracula lore does not come from Bram Stoker but from Romania. The book Dracula was inspired by the Romanian stories of Vlad the Impaler whose real name was Vlad Tempes. One of the stories that made him a vampire, is said that he would dip his bread in a cup of blood of his impaled enemies. In Romania where some do believe he is a vampire and a protector, they don't depict him in a hideous form but his regular human form.


Nope, that is not even remotely the first vampire story, but one of the later ones. And Vlad the Impaler was a romanian noble, fighting the turks. Stoker made him a vampire, there were no legends of that kind beforehand Vlad the Impaler

Vampire stories exists since old Greek, old China and old India and probably even sooner (I'm pretty sure, I've read a Mesopotamian vampire legend somewhere)

Last edited by fylimar; 02/11/21 06:32 PM.

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

Doctor Who
Joined: Dec 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Kethlar
Just not a fan of vampires. After killing them in every D&D game since the 1st edition rules came out, I just don't like them. Not a fan of the lich style cleric either, but in his case, he's basically a game feature to allow players to revive dead characters if they run out of scrolls (something I've never had to do). Like Asterion, I can deal with him, but just not a fan. Loved the events surrounding getting him though.

You lost me at "he's basically a game feature to allow players to revive dead characters is they run out of scrolls." What do you mean by that?

he's referring to the undead guy that stalks you and rezzes you at camp. the OP was comparing their indifference with the skeleton guy to his feelings of Astarion (i think).

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I like them all and am fairly certain that almost everyone has judged them as this or that without having the slightest idea who they really are. We get some snippets of who they are here and there in EA, but I think these characters are much deeper than any of us thinks.

And I've heard a lot of complaints about how they are all so grand with big issues and none of them is normal. What I don't see a lot of is people saying, "Um... I think that's intentional."

Do you think that Tav is the ONLY one of the origin characters who is special? Right now, it seems like wherever you go, Tav is the shiz-nizzle. Tav gets everyone's attention, everyone is like, "You're my hero," even Minthara if you play your cards right. Gut even says, "Now here's someone special." She doesn't say you're another True Soul. You're "special" it seems to everyone, and your tadpole is amazing.

But why were you chosen to receive the tadpole? Why was Gale? Why was Lae'zel? Why was Shadowheart? It is mentioned a few times that every one of the origin characters was chosen. It wasn't just Tav. So, why would the Absolute, or whoever's behind it, choose random, ordinary people to be some sort of Special True Souls? No. He/She'd pick special people who have deep, special backgrounds and powers. Why? Who knows, but it is certainly to fulfill some super grand purpose.

This said, my favorite is probably still Lae'zel. Ironically, my wife and kids hate her so much. I like her because I don't see her the way a lot of people see her. They see her as some brute annoying, nagging thug who is cutting and condescending and nasty. I see her as a desperate, hurting individual who is fighting to overcome the weaknesses inside herself and who is trying desperately to escape a fate she has made for herself; not just the tadpole, but whatever it was that she did to become what she is now. Lae'zel has a lot more complexity about her than people think, I believe, and though she definitely does not share my beliefs, I like her nonetheless.

Astarion is actually my second favorite. I didn't like him at first, but he grew on me quickly. I also think he's underestimated. I think he does it on purpose, and everyone just thinks he's some flamboyant idiot. I'm fairly certain he either IS Cazador, or he's much more than he tells you that he is; perhaps a rival of Cazador's or something. What I think is someone made a deal with devils in regards to him, and it is written all over his back in his scars. The mind flayers chose him for a reason, so I'm thinking that he is lying through his teeth a LOT during EA. He's playing a weak jokester who is subservient and is desperately in need of your help to escape his former master and just wants to be your friend and for you to trust him, but whether he actually is enslaved by Cazador or not, he's using you all the way. You trust him, he'll literally bite you in the end. No doubts. He's evil to the core underneath it all. Is he savable? Maybe. Either way, I think he's totally underestimated.

Besides, he makes me laugh. I love the "How would you like to die," conversation. "Strangulation. Poisoning." smile

Shadowheart is probably next on my list. I'd like her more if she was a bit less witchy. One minute she's all like, "Hi friend. Let's talk." The next she's, "Kiss my butt! Don't talk to me. That's my business." But, I figure, she's just unsure of who she really is. She's a Sharran who is finding out that she's not really a Sharran. No doubts. She feels guilty about all sorts of things and finds herself caring for people like the tieflings. She's no Sharran, but she thinks she is and is tormented by it. So, I like the conflict, even if she is rather obvious about EVERYTHING.

I think I'd like Shadowheart more if they actually made her entire plotline more subtle and UN-obvious. If we met her in the pod and on the beach, and she was wearing normal armor that didn't scream Shar, and she lied and said she was a cleric of some other trickery god or goddess, and she didn't make it so plain she had nothing but contempt for Selune ALL the time, I think the big reveal would be much more shocking and fun. If she was sweat and nice and you just love talking to her, and she's sweetly lying to your face every time you chat with her, and you are totally clueless, and you're thinking she's a cleric of some good god or goddess of trickery or whatever and then suddenly she hits you hard with her reveal? Yeah. That would have made her so much more awesome to me.

Like, "Hi, I'm Shadowheart. I'm a cleric of Meliran Tiromen, goddess of bards and such. Her domains are trickery and life and light. Blessings from Meliran upon you."

Later, "Meliran doesn't approve of Selune, actually," Shadowheart says sweetly. "She thinks Selune is a moon-witch. Hah! The way she looks at things, Shar is like an older sister who was just enjoying herself in her room in the peaceful dark. Suddenly, Selune bursts in screaming and fussing and shining her bright light in her face. Then when Shar got mad, Selune screamed to all the other gods and got them to side with her. Now everyone hates Shar. That's how Meliran views it. People think Shar's at fault for everything, but it's really Selune, ya know."

Then later, "I'm a cleric of Shar."

"What?" But... dang! You're too sweet to be a cleric of an evil goddess."

"Well, you wanted to know," Shadowheart says, now acting totally uncharacteristically vicious. "There it is. I serve the Mistress of the Night. I am a cleric of the Goddess of Loss. You've convinced me to reveal my biggest secret. Now. What are you going to do about it. Are you going to try to kill me? If so, let's get it over with." Then she grips her mace and shield and prepares to kill you. You have a choice, either you accept her for who she is or kill her. No in between.

Man! What a shock that would be. Sure, she could drop subtle hints here and there and not be sickly sappily sweet the whole time. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that I think she'd be much cooler if she was a normal person in the beginning who is nice and acting all good and soft-hearted only to find out she's been lying to you the whole time.

Gale and Wyll, I want to like them more, but maybe I just don't know enough about them. Of all the characters in the game, I trust Gale the least. I'm fairly certain he's a Netherese mage who is just looking to gain as much power as he can for some totally diabolical scheme he's got concocted, and I'm fairly sure he's a two-faced liar manipulator. But then, every time you do something bad, he disapproves. So, is he good? Hard to say. I just don't trust him in the slightest.

And did anyone else notice that Gale is the ONLY origin character that you do NOT immediately connect with in terms of the tadpole? You connect with each and every one of the others, but not Gale. What's up with that? Is his maelstrom of anti-magic preventing you? Is he even infected? He seems to be. He acts like he is, but is he really? What if he is actually not infected, and he's just using his tadpole to get close to you to find a way to control you and manipulate you. But then, he can also gain tadpole powers... so...

And Wyll is a nice guy and all, but he also seems to be lying a lot to me. I think he's a huge fake as well who WANTS to be this hero but he really isn't. Deep down, he's a monster in his own way. Maybe I don't like him because like Gale, he seems fake to me and he seems like he's pretending to be good just so he can manipulate and control you.

I could, of course, be reading into all of them too much, but whatever. That is my ranking of the characters and why.

Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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