Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
Lawful Good tends to get along well with Neutral Good; at worst, the former will insist that the latter respect conventions more frequently.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Originally Posted by kanisatha
But that's exactly my issue. Why do all "good" companions have to be characters who have questionable morals and judgment at a minimum, and it is my job as the PC to fix them and help them redeem themselves and thus become "good"? I am utterly tired of that trope. I just want companions who are undeniably good and don't require any redeeming or fixing on my part.

I agree that trope is overplayed, but I don't think it's in play here specifically. Larian has said that these aren't the good companions, and that they'll be introduced later. So while they may still do what you suggest, my view of what we have now is that these are companions that aren't explicitly good but have the potential to be good.
Well I truly hope so. But given how Larian has done things thus far, I am in the "very deeply skeptical" box (on pretty much everything related to BG3).

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by ArcaneHobbit
Originally Posted by kanisatha
No. None of these companions can be justified in a truly good party, especially SH.

There are zero satisfactory companions for a good-aligned party right now, and I am deeply skeptical we will get any.
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Wyll stinks like demon worshipers, when I first meet him I almsot kileld him on sight. Wyll is strange and crazy mage even if he want do good things often he made mroe harm. Shadowhearth probably will die in late game with selfsacrifice if you let her do good things or some one will sacrefice her if you chose evil way for her.
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Paladin is not in game yeat because there is no single companion that will work with typical Paladin. You cannot join githiyanki to LG paladin, you cannot have vamprie that drink blood, demon worshipper is also big NO. Gale is unstable mage, so he can be treath to civilans. Shadowheart is worshiper of evil good, but she is doing good things, mabe paladin will try make her convert to good alightment. In the end there is no way to make good alightment party.
I don't really see why a paladin wouldn't be able to ally with some of these characters. Gale and Wyll in particular are characters that most paladins would gladly accept into their parties. Neither are really evil aligned and accepting them into their party wouldn't threaten to break a paladin's oath or conflict with the tenets of most good aligned deities.

Gale is hardly an unstable person. The main reason he's a threat to others is the bomb in his chest which is very clearly something that's out of his control (it's not like he wants to explode). Aside from that he's very clearly shown to be a well meaning person, if not a little arrogant, who demonstrates pretty sound morals that most paladins would agree with. A traditional LG paladin would gladly accept his help. In fact I'd reckon a devotion or redemption paladin (as well as paladin of good aligned gods such as Torm, Tyr, Ilmater, and Lathander in the forgotten realms) would feel obligated to try and help him solve the issue with the netherese destruction orb since doing so would obviously be a good act that would help him as well as countless others around him. In particular, I'd say that the Tenets of honor and compassion in a devotion paladin's oath would apply here and not just allow but motivate devotion paladins to accept him into their party.

Wyll is a warlock with a fiendish patron, but that does not by definition make him a bad person. Warlocks after all can be of any alignment, with a person's morality instead being defined by what they choose to do with their powers (their actions) rather than where they came from. In this case, Wyll used his demon-gifted powers in order to do good, becoming a famous hero who has helped people. While his motivations aren't exactly pure (the man does love his glory), that still doesn't change the fact that he did quite a bit of good. Some paladins (specifically redemption paladins, ancients paladins, and those of gods such as Lathander and Ilmater) might disagree with some of his methods such as torturing goblins in order to extract information, but they'd still be willing to ally with him in order to try and rein him in. Wyll also isn't a demon worshipper. In fact, it's the opposite. He very obviously regrets his decision to form a pact with Mizora and his entire motivation for finding her is to try and sever it.

Shadowheart is a bit of interesting case since she is a cleric of an evil deity, but that by itself doesn't necessarily mean she's a bad person or that a paladin wouldn't ally with her. Redemption paladins and those of a lot of good gods would try to help redeem her, especially after seeing how she acts. While traditional LG paladins would probably be a little wary of her, they'd still probably be able to accept her help with how dire the circumstances are and the fact that her behaviour for the most part tends to be good. Having her in a party wouldn't put them at risk of breaking their oath.

Like the only people a (devotion) paladin would be extremely hesitant to have in their party is Astarion and Lae'zael. For everyone else (and especially Gale and Wyll), you'd need to be a Lawful Stupid "stick in the mud" sort of paladin to not even consider accepting their help in such dire circumstances.
Certainly. I get the point that sometimes, in any party-based game, you just have to suck it up and play with whatever companion options you have been given by the game devs even if those options are all sucky. The issue here at hand, though, is whether those of us who want to play with a good-only party can expect to get enough companions that we LIKE and WANT to have in our party. These five companions we have been shown thus far are all universally unlikeable to me. They are all irritating and annoying at a minimum, and I really don't want to have to play with any of them. But I also will not play with empty-suit mercs. So I am stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. By contrast, in the original BG games, we got so many companions, and an amazing range of them to boot, that pretty much any player was going to be able to find that certain group of companions to take along with them that made them happy. I sincerely and seriously doubt we will get that in BG3.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
I mean, I can understand Larian wanting to release the evil/neutral companions for the EA first in order to get much needed testing and feedback for them. But considering it's been about a year and a half since EA began, and we still don't know anything about any of the good aligned companions outside of datamining or any hints that they'll be playable any time soon... It kind of starts to sound like an excuse for a deeper design problem, and one cannot blame people for doubting Larian's writing ability in that department going off of their prior history.

Joined: Jul 2021
W
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
W
Joined: Jul 2021
I have doubted for some time now we will get any decent good companions.
If only they would stop with the whole origin/tadpole BS and give us real companions!
Maybe a bard who is joining us just for his lust for adventure, or a paladin who just want to help us rid the world of the mindflayer scourge that is plaguing the sword coast, or maybe some evil mage that is "helping" us for his own nefarius reasons.
Now it just feels like everybody is tagging along because they have no choice.
And please no more no more over the top edgelord companions (but looking at the datamining it feels like i am shit out of luck regarding that wish)!

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by williams85
And please no more no more over the top edgelord companions (but looking at the datamining it feels like i am shit out of luck regarding that wish)!
This is, as people on these forums have said before, a symptom of the Origin system, same as in DOS2. To justify each party member potentially becoming the main character, all of them had to be designed with some rather over the top qualities to justify them taking the lead. But there is such a thing as over-designing to the point where they seem like they're just shouting over each other for attention, rather than synergizing.

But trying to tell Larian to ditch the system and focus on things that everyone can actually potentially see in their first playthrough, instead of shoving exclusive cutscenes behind each of the companions becoming the main character for an attempt at adding replay value, is probably the most futile fight of all.

Probably the greatest irony is that player characters like the Warden, Inquisitor, the Watcher, the Baron, and the Commander of the 5th Crusade are probably way more memorable than any of these origin characters, and also mean vastly different things to people. And none of them diminished the quality of their fellow companions at the same time. (And let's face it, none of the DOS2 characters lit the world on fire, and I doubt BG3's companions will either.)

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 16/05/22 06:53 PM.
Joined: Jul 2021
W
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
W
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by williams85
And please no more no more over the top edgelord companions (but looking at the datamining it feels like i am shit out of luck regarding that wish)!
This is, as people on these forums have said before, a symptom of the Origin system, same as in DOS2. To justify each party member potentially becoming the main character, all of them had to be designed with some rather over the top qualities to justify them taking the lead. But there is such a thing as over-designing to the point where they seem like they're just shouting over each other for attention, rather than synergizing.

But trying to tell Larian to ditch the system and focus on things that everyone can actually potentially see in their first playthrough, instead of shoving exclusive cutscenes behind each of the companions becoming the main character for an attempt at adding replay value, is probably the most futile fight of all.

Probably the greatest irony is that player characters like the Warden, Inquisitor, the Watcher, the Baron, and the Commander of the 5th Crusade are probably way more memorable than any of these origin characters, and also mean vastly different things to people. And none of them diminished the quality of their fellow companions at the same time. (And let's face it, none of the DOS2 characters lit the world on fire, and I doubt BG3's companions will either.)
Yeah i know it is futile, at least for this game, but if enough people voice their concerns, maybe we wont have to deal with a BG4(or something else) that only caters to horny meme-makers and twitch streamers and actually tries to replicate what made the first games so good.

Last edited by williams85; 16/05/22 07:22 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by williams85
And please no more no more over the top edgelord companions (but looking at the datamining it feels like i am shit out of luck regarding that wish)!
This is, as people on these forums have said before, a symptom of the Origin system, same as in DOS2. To justify each party member potentially becoming the main character, all of them had to be designed with some rather over the top qualities to justify them taking the lead. But there is such a thing as over-designing to the point where they seem like they're just shouting over each other for attention, rather than synergizing.

But trying to tell Larian to ditch the system and focus on things that everyone can actually potentially see in their first playthrough, instead of shoving exclusive cutscenes behind each of the companions becoming the main character for an attempt at adding replay value, is probably the most futile fight of all.

Probably the greatest irony is that player characters like the Warden, Inquisitor, the Watcher, the Baron, and the Commander of the 5th Crusade are probably way more memorable than any of these origin characters, and also mean vastly different things to people. And none of them diminished the quality of their fellow companions at the same time. (And let's face it, none of the DOS2 characters lit the world on fire, and I doubt BG3's companions will either.)

The characters in DoS2 were quite well written (except for Beast, but it's a hopeless case that even DE couldn't fix it).
Characters have quite a lot of development during the game, even the Red Prince ceases to be annoying afterwards.
You might not like the fact that Fane or Prince are terribly cocky, even though it fits their story.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Certainly. I get the point that sometimes, in any party-based game, you just have to suck it up and play with whatever companion options you have been given by the game devs even if those options are all sucky. The issue here at hand, though, is whether those of us who want to play with a good-only party can expect to get enough companions that we LIKE and WANT to have in our party. These five companions we have been shown thus far are all universally unlikeable to me. They are all irritating and annoying at a minimum, and I really don't want to have to play with any of them. But I also will not play with empty-suit mercs. So I am stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. By contrast, in the original BG games, we got so many companions, and an amazing range of them to boot, that pretty much any player was going to be able to find that certain group of companions to take along with them that made them happy. I sincerely and seriously doubt we will get that in BG3.


Well, in the case of BG1, most of the companions were literally a few sentences of history, which is not much different from mercenaries.
BG2 improved it significantly, but from what I can remember it reduced the number of available companions by about 50%. Still, the characters were terribly uneven, and some got much more than others.
I omit that some of the characters were written only as memes.
The full version of the game has to be at least 8 companions, which is a good result for a group of 4 and considering that the game has full voice acting.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 17/05/22 03:12 AM.
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
The characters in DoS2 were quite well written (except for Beast, but it's a hopeless case that even DE couldn't fix it).
Characters have quite a lot of development during the game, even the Red Prince ceases to be annoying afterwards.
You might not like the fact that Fane or Prince are terribly cocky, even though it fits their story.

I actually liked Fane. He had the most interesting background and has development that's front and center throughout the entire game. Red Prince was probably my second favorite. I think those two helped build the world in some very interesting ways.

The rest were mostly sad stories and/or a bunch of edge taken up to 11. Except for Beast who is just utterly forgettable, I never actually got to the end of the game with any playthrough that had him in it, so I don't know if his character arc actually has any payoff at all.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
The characters in DoS2 were quite well written (except for Beast, but it's a hopeless case that even DE couldn't fix it).
Characters have quite a lot of development during the game, even the Red Prince ceases to be annoying afterwards.
You might not like the fact that Fane or Prince are terribly cocky, even though it fits their story.

I actually liked Fane. He had the most interesting background and has development that's front and center throughout the entire game. Red Prince was probably my second favorite. I think those two helped build the world in some very interesting ways.

The rest were mostly sad stories and/or a bunch of edge taken up to 11. Except for Beast who is just utterly forgettable, I never actually got to the end of the game with any playthrough that had him in it, so I don't know if his character arc actually has any payoff at all.

I found such a little reddit poll

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Joined: May 2022
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: May 2022
Ultimately, my problem with Origin stories is that it doesn't feel like my character anymore. If by chance there is an Origin character who I like it help. But specifically D:OS 2 make things worse by hiding things from you that your main character knows until certain points in the story, without there being a plot reason like the common amnesia trope. It creates separation between me and my character, which I dislike very much.

To elaborate, if the Shadowheart speculations are true it is fine for me to learn that later in the game, but I wouldn't want to learn about a demon pact my character made or Gale's background late in the game. We'll see how it will work out.

The Dragon Age version didn't have this issue - you developed a good feeling about where your character is from right in the Prologue.

The positive effects like variation between playthroughs can be achieved otherwise, e.g. choosing a Mythic Path in WotR feels huge but it is a choice I take in the game.

Last edited by MarcAbaddon; 17/05/22 01:00 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Certainly. I get the point that sometimes, in any party-based game, you just have to suck it up and play with whatever companion options you have been given by the game devs even if those options are all sucky. The issue here at hand, though, is whether those of us who want to play with a good-only party can expect to get enough companions that we LIKE and WANT to have in our party. These five companions we have been shown thus far are all universally unlikeable to me. They are all irritating and annoying at a minimum, and I really don't want to have to play with any of them. But I also will not play with empty-suit mercs. So I am stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. By contrast, in the original BG games, we got so many companions, and an amazing range of them to boot, that pretty much any player was going to be able to find that certain group of companions to take along with them that made them happy. I sincerely and seriously doubt we will get that in BG3.


Well, in the case of BG1, most of the companions were literally a few sentences of history, which is not much different from mercenaries.
BG2 improved it significantly, but from what I can remember it reduced the number of available companions by about 50%. Still, the characters were terribly uneven, and some got much more than others.
I omit that some of the characters were written only as memes.
The full version of the game has to be at least 8 companions, which is a good result for a group of 4 and considering that the game has full voice acting.
If we're going to compare then we should do it fairly. The original BG games were made more than 20 years ago, and on budgets that--even adjusting for inflation--were a tiny fraction of BG3's budget. So it is eminently reasonable for me to have expectations of BG3 that greatly exceed what I got from BG2. Eight companion choices, some of whom may even be locked out after Act 1, is utterly piss-poor by any standard.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
If we're going to compare then we should do it fairly. The original BG games were made more than 20 years ago, and on budgets that--even adjusting for inflation--were a tiny fraction of BG3's budget. So it is eminently reasonable for me to have expectations of BG3 that greatly exceed what I got from BG2. Eight companion choices, some of whom may even be locked out after Act 1, is utterly piss-poor by any standard.

Not by any standard. Some modern RPG I played had this" issue" . Mass effet series come to mind here(there were 5 companions I think? maybe 6). Skyrim had 1 follower and it was a meme(not exactly the same type of games granted). Dragon age with a DLC had up to 15 apparently! But no idea how they turned out cause dragon age was rendered unplayable for me by the camera. I gave up fighting with it at some point i just uninstalled.

BG3 might suffer from Mass effect syndrome. Sometimes less is more I guess. But idk, I have to say I would prefer to have at least 15-ish companions with distinct characters +interactions even if it means ( for obvious reasons) more shallow personal quests.

Maybe we will all be proven wrong by Larian at the end though(Also keep in mind the max number is an assumption....we still don't actually know how many companions there will be).

More companions and more good - alligned characters is a sure thing though. How many and when? We will discover all of that and much more....In the next panel of Hell! Or ...the next one. Or the next one. Or on release.


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by kanisatha
If we're going to compare then we should do it fairly. The original BG games were made more than 20 years ago, and on budgets that--even adjusting for inflation--were a tiny fraction of BG3's budget. So it is eminently reasonable for me to have expectations of BG3 that greatly exceed what I got from BG2. Eight companion choices, some of whom may even be locked out after Act 1, is utterly piss-poor by any standard.

Not by any standard. Some modern RPG I played had this" issue" . Mass effet series come to mind here(there were 5 companions I think? maybe 6). Skyrim had 1 follower and it was a meme(not exactly the same type of games granted). Dragon age with a DLC had up to 15 apparently! But no idea how they turned out cause dragon age was rendered unplayable for me by the camera. I gave up fighting with it at some point i just uninstalled.

BG3 might suffer from Mass effect syndrome. Sometimes less is more I guess. But idk, I have to say I would prefer to have at least 15-ish companions with distinct characters +interactions even if it means ( for obvious reasons) more shallow personal quests.

Maybe we will all be proven wrong by Larian at the end though(Also keep in mind the max number is an assumption....we still don't actually know how many companions there will be).

More companions and more good - alligned characters is a sure thing though. How many and when? We will discover all of that and much more....In the next panel of Hell! Or ...the next one. Or the next one. Or on release.
No, you are blatantly comparing apples to oranges here. None of those other games are comparable because this is D&D. In D&D we have many classes, many subclasses and archetypes, many races, and for this discussion here also good-evil and lawful-chaotic alignments. It's in the cotext of all this that one must discuss number of available companions in the game.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Online Confused
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by MarcAbaddon
Ultimately, my problem with Origin stories is that it doesn't feel like my character anymore.
Nor did they feel like companions.

My main issue with playing as an origin in D:OS2, was that the game never bothered to put me, the player, on the same page as the character. I discovered story, opinion and relationship to other characters as they happened, creativing a massive divide between me and the character.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
All the best games didn't have companions that just filled in the spreadsheet of class and alignment, they were representatives of factors and factions in the world. This has been a strength of Bioware style NPCs; because their worlds are typically, pretty well thought out and realized, that their characters can bring you into their worldview all the better.

Even if you don't want to compare BG3 with Mass Effect then maybe compare Baldur's Gate, Planescape and Baldur's Gate II with each other, and then with BG:3. I have a pretty easy ranking, but it seems there plenty of people here that would prefer Icewind Dale.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Online Confused
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Sozz
they were representatives of factors and factions in the world.
That Larian is likely to cover like they did in D:OS2. All existing companions seem to have connections to larger story/factions at play.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Sozz
All the best games didn't have companions that just filled in the spreadsheet of class and alignment, they were representatives of factors and factions in the world. This has been a strength of Bioware style NPCs; because their worlds are typically, pretty well thought out and realized, that their characters can bring you into their worldview all the better.
This wasn't true at all for the original BG games, or the NwN games, or even the DA games. In the D&D games it was always all about providing players with enough class and alignment diversity in companions such that they could create whatever type of party they wanted. The big difference between the DA games and the D&D games was precisely that DA doesn't really have classes, and as such you can get by with only a small number of companion options.

Yes, comparing BG3 with BG2 is ideal, and in that comparison BG3 fails miserably (for now).

Last edited by kanisatha; 18/05/22 01:29 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Sozz
All the best games didn't have companions that just filled in the spreadsheet of class and alignment, they were representatives of factors and factions in the world. This has been a strength of Bioware style NPCs; because their worlds are typically, pretty well thought out and realized, that their characters can bring you into their worldview all the better.
This wasn't true at all for the original BG games, or the NwN games, or even the DA games. In the D&D games it was always all about providing players with enough class and alignment diversity in companions such that they could create whatever type of party they wanted. The big difference between the DA games and the D&D games was precisely that DA doesn't really have classes, and as such you can get by with only a small number of companion options.

Yes, comparing BG3 with BG2 is ideal, and in that comparison BG3 fails miserably (for now).

When was it like that? If it were so, it would be possible to get the whole group if you played the evil character in bg2.
With NWN HotU, you haven't had a single evil companion.
There is nothing to mention about the original campaign.

Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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