1) Do you enjoy these sorts of companions? Is there a single element common to them in RPG's which you simply must have, or which you would prefer to do without?
2) Is there a particular type of companion character you feel hasn't been done (or done enough) and which you'd like to see? You can make this as specific to D&D as a setting or not, as you like.
Okay. My list of feedback short and sweet.
1) I need companions (Interesting, give more options, add to story etc).
BUT... There has been a tendency for overpowered NPCs or NPCs with special powers. Such as Dorn an illegal half-orc black guard. Minsc and his beserker ability. I could continue.
How about the companion you absolutely don't need, because they are useless, apart from having the ability to open that one door at the bottom of the ninth layer of hell that will stop the world from imploding into quiche (rubbish but tasty example) You could have some interesting, thought provoking play with this. (Such as then placing a really strong character beyond said door and making the character choose who to fight through hell and back to the surface...)
2) HUMANS AND ELVES HAVE HAD THERE FILL! Okay. I know that they are popular but what about the little guys @David_Gaiter ? Okay. The EEs have addressed this somewhat. But still no romanceable Halfling or Dwarf. Still no Gnulliet for my Gnomeo! WHY DO YOU MAKE US SUFFER SO!
As for type of class. I'm not as fussy. I'd rather build the character first and then think what class that character would choose (or be forced to become)
I do think we have seen too many thieves though. Let the player be forced to go over traps and set them off. (Or hey! You could make that useless one go first!)
1) Do you enjoy these sorts of companions? Is there a single element common to them in RPG's which you simply must have, or which you would prefer to do without?
More than a few Icewind Dale players have noted a lesser degree of engagement compared to other IE games, simply because you go through that entire game with six silent protagonists who have no story arc, no characterization, no intra-party relationships, and are distinguished only by the player's process during character creation. They're empty bodies used for purely mechanical purposes - the tank, the healer, etc. You don't feel upset if something bad happens to them, or happy when they get what they want. This is useful if you want to draw more attention to the setting, but it's not a tactic I'd recommend for games longer than 12 hours.
If there's a common element I'd strongly recommend, it's the notion that the player can directly influence the companion's fate, by completing personal quests or simply through dialogue. Cullen and Iron Bull from Dragon Age: Inquisition are excellent examples - it's not just the fact that you help them, it's how you choose to help them that matters in the end, and their stories change accordingly. Every party member in Pillars of Eternity had three or four variant epilogues dependent entirely on your interactions with them. As expressions of roleplaying agency go, that's both relatively simple to implement and can have a real impact on how the player engages with the game.
2) Is there a particular type of companion character you feel hasn't been done (or done enough) and which you'd like to see? You can make this as specific to D&D as a setting or not, as you like.
No, seriously. You look at Racter from "Shadowrun: Hong Kong" or Durance from "Pillars of Eternity", and it's painfully clear that nuanced Evil companions just aren't something D&D games have ever really been able to pull off. It'd be nice if potential Evil party members were written with the same depth and care as the default heroic party.
Oh, and one more thing - again to do with the prospective length of a game.
Here's a recent example that irritated me: I'm playing Dragon Age: Inquisition with a female PC, and I meet Dorian Pavus. We talk, we get along, all well and good. Around 30 hours in, his dad shows up, we go talk to him, personal quest complete. Dorian underwent no further character development until Trespasser, some 70 hours later. I had him with me on practically every mission, but because I was romancing Iron Bull he didn't get that subplot either. So nothing happens to him for almost the entire duration of a very, very long game.
If you're setting up companions that are going to be an active part of the story for more than an act/chapter, you need to parse their development along multiple stages, not cluster everything together in one sequence of exchanges or one sidequest.
This is actually something Beamdog has done very well so far. Dorn has to massacre a wedding and then ambush a Helmite camp and then go to Resurrection Gorge and then attack Lunia. Neera has to find Adoy, then meet other Wild Mages, then get payback on the Red Wizards. Each is a stage in their ongoing storylines, and you spend a sizable chunk of the game building them up.
By the D&D definition, I don't think Shadowrun's Racter can be considered evil. Misguided perhaps, but his motives are actually less self-centred and more altruistic than the other companions. He wants to make humanity better.
My current favorate companion is Lathander, the dwarven rogue from SCL. It's a shame such a well written character is in such a crummy game!
By the D&D definition, I don't think Shadowrun's Racter can be considered evil. Misguided perhaps, but his motives are actually less self-centred and more altruistic than the other companions. He wants to make humanity better.
I'd suggest looking more closely at his dialogues and the truth of his "condition". Get into enough conversations with him and he'll openly admit that
his lack of essence stems from being a full-blown clinical psychopath, and completely amoral; his desire to "improve" humanity stems from the belief that he's above humanity.
Lawful Evil would be my guess, though obviously Shadowrun characters aren't designed with D&D alignment systems in mind.
But having differently strong/ useful characters is a way to subtly apply difficulty levels. If you wanna play on easy you pick Meta Knight. If you wanna play on hard you pick Pichu. Though it only really make sense when having a huge roster of characters.
BUT... There has been a tendency for overpowered NPCs or NPCs with special powers. Such as Dorn an illegal half-orc black guard. Minsc and his beserker ability. I could continue.
I like companions with illegal class/kits/stats. It makes them more unique. But yes, please no overpowered characters.
Eeeek... Not being clear. I like the uniqueness too! Just think we also need to go the other way... Uniquely underwhelming, as well.
Oh, and one more thing - again to do with the prospective length of a game.
Here's a recent example that irritated me: I'm playing Dragon Age: Inquisition with a female PC, and I meet Dorian Pavus. We talk, we get along, all well and good. Around 30 hours in, his dad shows up, we go talk to him, personal quest complete. Dorian underwent no further character development until Trespasser, some 70 hours later. I had him with me on practically every mission, but because I was romancing Iron Bull he didn't get that subplot either. So nothing happens to him for almost the entire duration of a very, very long game.
If you're setting up companions that are going to be an active part of the story for more than an act/chapter, you need to parse their development along multiple stages, not cluster everything together in one sequence of exchanges or one sidequest.
This is actually something Beamdog has done very well so far. Dorn has to massacre a wedding and then ambush a Helmite camp and then go to Resurrection Gorge and then attack Lunia. Neera has to find Adoy, then meet other Wild Mages, then get payback on the Red Wizards. Each is a stage in their ongoing storylines, and you spend a sizable chunk of the game building them up.
As I was reading this, before I got to the last paragraph, I was thinking of quoting this and citing the exact examples you went on to do to show Beamdog knows how to do this well.
I, for one, and am pretty pumped for Beamdog's Next Big Thing for a lot of reasons, but I think a big one for me is because we know we can rely on the awesome conversation/quest pacing they've established with the EE companions.
By the D&D definition, I don't think Shadowrun's Racter can be considered evil. Misguided perhaps, but his motives are actually less self-centred and more altruistic than the other companions. He wants to make humanity better.
I'd suggest looking more closely at his dialogues and the truth of his "condition". Get into enough conversations with him and he'll openly admit that
his lack of essence stems from being a full-blown clinical psychopath, and completely amoral; his desire to "improve" humanity stems from the belief that he's above humanity.
Lawful Evil would be my guess, though obviously Shadowrun characters aren't designed with D&D alignment systems in mind.
That would make him neutral, not evil. Evil want's to improve only itself, at the expense of society.
He certainly aint lawful either. It's pretty difficult for any Shadowrunner to be lawful, since it is inherently unlawful. Only the protagonist's ex-cop brother qualifies as lawful. Oh yeah, the secret companion is lawful too, but they aren't shadowrunners by choice.
Eeeek... Not being clear. I like the uniqueness too! Just think we also need to go the other way... Uniquely underwhelming, as well.
Joke Characters aren't a new concept. Most players tend to sideline them once the novelty wears off.
No. Deekin was a joke character. Minsc in some aspects is a joke character. I want the daughter of the king, the noble fop and the scared seamstress finding herself in control of some strange power. Squishy maybe. But story rich.
Why should we all expect 6 super arcane magic weapon weilding super heros?
About NPC's, here's what would make it fresh for me:
1: NPC's with drawbacks. BG had it fairly welldone with NPC's having non-stellar atribute points, though what they failed at (IMHO) was allowing all of them to reach god-like levels. Make NPC's level slower or cap out earlier than the CHARNAME. This of course depends on what CHARNAME is, a normal chum or the child of a god etc. I would like to choose NPC's based on their personality rather than just picking the best team, but that would require some godlike writing from your side though To make all NPC's so interresting that I would choose a "weaker" one over a "better" one because he or she intrigues me more. One can dream though, right?
Examples of NPC's with a layer of personality that make them more interresting than the standard trope: * Keldorn's family issues. A great way to show how dedication to your profession add's strain to your private life. * Jan Jensen's serious side. The former lover and her new man. Even the ending is great as no matter what you do, it doesn't end with the classical "good" ending. Love doesn't conquer all. * Half of the NPC's in dragon age and mass effect are very well-written, with flaws and quirks that make them feel alive. Examples of NPC's that feel one-dimensional and boring whom I only pick because of their battle prowess: * Kagain. Need I say more? * Korgan. Yeah, yeah, I know some argue he has more than one dimension, but really.. he's the very architype of a dwarf seen so many times now (though, it was ofc more uncommen back then, when he was written) * Dorn. The story around him is kinda interresting, but the character himself is one-sided and quite unintriguing.
2: Allow us a stronghold/campsite like in dragon age, but take it further. Allow me, as the leader, to send out my companions on missions of their own. I will take the important sites with a party but I can also send out the remaining companions on sidemissions, like defending a village under my protection if I am good, or roughing up the countryside for protection money if we are evil. Maybe even allow me to issue a second in command, like if I appoint a Jaheira-type as my second, she will steer the camp in one direction while I am gone but if I appoint an Edwin-type, something entirely different happens. Would increase the immersion for me if these seasoned adventurers weren't just sitting idle by the fire waiting for me to come back, instead they would go out and gain their own experience and gold/items or build up the camp, research stuff, smithing, recruit on their own etc etc. Also, using the camp site in between larger quests/chapters was in IMHO a quite clever way to incrementally add to NPC's stories, the wouldn't open up the next level of interaction/dialogue until the next chapter etc. Not a huge fan of the (nowadays) usual influence-system, but it works good enough most of the times.
3: Allow NPC's to take actions themselves, like a rogue in your party swiping gold from a noble's purse if you don't watch him closely. I have no idea how this could be implemented in a party-based game though, since you would have to remove the classic party and instead go for the protagonist+henchemen theme I guess, which I don't particularly like.. but the idea of NPC's being actual beings of their own intrigues me. Them having motives of their own, interrests of their own and also taking actions of thier own. Actions which may or may not be aligned to what YOU want them to do. So, if you pick NPC's not fully aligned to your alignment and goals, you need to be wary that it might also lead to some.. unexpected situations.
1. have all the party members be fleshed out not just the love interests.
2. have the story be personal it does not have to be a save the world story bg works as it's about your character's life.
3. make the villain a foil to your main character.
4. make the human party members just as interesting as the other races. an issue with mass effect was the alien party members showed the down sides of the more bland humans. not to say all the human npcs in mass effect are boring mind.
5. have the party have a real reason to join you. one of my favorite things about pst is with the execption of fall from grace every npc has a reason to fallow you plot wise. contrast that with every bio ware game post kotor where only the first two party members [ the main love intrests.] are the only ones of importance and everyone else is along for the ride.
6. have a well fleshed out world.
7. no filler outdoors areas. i may be in the minority here but most of bg1's out door areas are pointless.
No. Deekin was a joke character. Minsc in some aspects is a joke character.
You're confusing joke characters with comic relief characters. Deekin and Minsc are funny, but in terms of gameplay they were designed to be competent, useful companions from the moment you meet them. Same goes for Edwin, who finds himself in quite a few amusing situations throughout BG but is nevertheless one of the best spellcasters in the game.
I'd also like to see checks during dialogue but not just for the main char but also for the guys you have in your party so that if one of your party members has an appropriate skill or attribute while your main char has not then let this party member throw in a line during dialogue so that other party members aren't just useful during combat but also in dialogues.
It would be nice if there was a separation of "party leader" and "party spokesman". That way the tanky fighter would be in the lead during combat, but the high charisma bard would be the one talking to storekeepers and city guards without having to switch the characters around in the party order.
assigning different companions to six different "role slots" for conversation would be really cool (i.e. "the menacing thug" for Strength, "party leader" for Charisma, "loremaster" for Int, "Philosopher" for Wis, etc, etc)
Yes, and it would be nice to also save combinations of party order and formation type under hotkeys, so that I could have e.g. F1) my thief up front with others following at a safe distance for trap checking, F2) tank(s) up front and party in two columns for normal marching/pre-combat, F3) paladin/bard etc. up front and the rest in close formation inside inns, pubs and stores for talking/buying/resting, F4) follow the leader formations for navigating narrow winding passages with tanks on bookends, etc.
1) I would like a game that constantly reacts to what my character is or did (race, class, choices, etc).
2) A twisted, mindblowing plot.
3) The illusion of being free to do what I want and go where I want.
4) Last, but not least, I want to be able to grow feelings for the npcs I meet. Sadness, hate, admiration, love, surprise, happiness and so on. The deeper the better. Jon Irenicus, Mordin Solus, Morrigan, Sephiroth, etc are great examples.
Best of luck
#3) reminds me of two things: the _passwall_ spell and a magic item we had in my first ever PnP AD&D 1st ed. game: the portable hole, a magic foldable tablecloth-like object that could be spread over a wall to create a 10' deep, 10' diameter hole. It would be nice to have the ability to _change_ the map (at least temporarily), i.e. put a hole through a wall with _passwall_ or _disintegrate_ (or our portable hole) to get into an otherwise unreachable area. But I'm sure that would be hard to implement, especially with fixed-artwork isometric maps. This also goes along with the general thread here about having non-combat spells that are useful for something else in the adventure.
A couple more points regarding companions and the antagonist that I would like to see avoided/attempted:
Please don't do the whole James Bond cliche where the antagonist captures you, gleefully explains his plans for global domination then buggers off and leaves you to escape, ala spellhold dungeon.
If multiple meetings with the antagonist are required to flesh out their character then please avoid the generic rpg cliche where they say "oh hello great threat to my plans, I'm really busy just now so I'll give you some exposition then leave some lackeys to kill you, bye bye."
Regarding companions, by all means there should be complicated characters that can be redeemed but there should also be characters that can be corrupted and characters who will never change their views.
It would also be an interesting mechanic if there were characters that will attempt to do either of these things to the protraganist perhaps even changing the PCs alignment depending on dialogue choices (or actions that result from said choices.)
One last thing that doesn't relate to character development per se but seems to prevail in modern games is a lack of permadeath. Having characters that are unable to die unless the whole party does really removes any sense of tension or fear about their fate for me. (It's also a crappy gameplay mechanic imo).
1) Do you enjoy these sorts of companions? Is there a single element common to them in RPG's which you simply must have, or which you would prefer to do without?
A must have is certainly a multi-faceted, somewhat plausible and authentic personality. I want NPCs who don't automatically flock to you, who don't tell you their entire story of their life just because you're the big magnetic personality hero everyone aspires to be. As others have already said, they need to have their own motivations, desires and views of the world, which in consequence should mean that a lot of them shouldn't become your friend or even your bedmate. There's no need for "friendship paths" or "romance paths" for every single one of them. Interesting dialogues/relationships can be had outside of that. I, for one, could very well live without any of that romance crap, and games like Fallout:NV have proven you can have great companions without it. Since a lot of people seem to need these elements to enjoy their game(and to have to game world completely centered around their protagonist, yuck), I'm at least hoping it's going to be presented in a more subtle and plausible way than in BG2, where you have your cheesy romance theme kicking in minutes after you left the prologue dungeon.
2) Is there a particular type of companion character you feel hasn't been done (or done enough) and which you'd like to see? You can make this as specific to D&D as a setting or not, as you like.
I'm certainly tired of the endless reincarnations of the Viconia/Aerie/Jaheira templates we'd gotten to see in all subsequent Bioware RPGs. Whether they are rebranded as Morrigan or Tali or whatever, those salvation seeking damsels have been explored well enough. I'd also like to see more non-stereotypical character concepts. Not every Gnome has to be a quirky weirdo, and a Paladin without the usual self-righteous holier-than-thou attitude wouldn't hurt, just as examples. In general, NPCs shouldn't be tied to the obnoxious 9-drawer alignment system. I don't want to recruit an NPC, look at his alignment and see "ok, that one is LG, that one is CE" and perfectly know what I can expect from them. Surprise us, make the discovery of them interesting.
A gnome who was not a quirky weirdo with respect to humans would be a quirky weirdo with respect to other gnomes. Ergo such a thing is impossible. In all seriousness, gnomes are the most alien of non-human races, I wouldn't want one to act like a human.
As for paladins, as of 5th edition they are no longer required to be lawful stupid, so there is more flexability there. (NB have you encountered the paladin companion in SCL?)
Paladins have never been required to be lawful stupid. Now, there are lots of players and GMs who don't really understand paladins and play them that way, but that's not a flaw in the class design, nor a flaw in the required alignment.
How about, rather than romancing a companion, we romance the villain instead, like Avon/Servalan in Blake's 7.
Ooh, interresting.. a sort of love/hate relationship. Could be a good reason for introducing battles between the two several times during the campaing. Neither can really finish of the other one due to feelings.. and then in the end there's a huge, climatic battle where you are forced to face off anyways.
I really like it when the hero discovers the villain he's fighting is someone he knows and may even be one of his friends. The unexpected villain may be a really good tool to throw some hard decisions on the hero.
Comments
1) I need companions (Interesting, give more options, add to story etc).
BUT... There has been a tendency for overpowered NPCs or NPCs with special powers. Such as Dorn an illegal half-orc black guard. Minsc and his beserker ability. I could continue.
How about the companion you absolutely don't need, because they are useless, apart from having the ability to open that one door at the bottom of the ninth layer of hell that will stop the world from imploding into quiche (rubbish but tasty example) You could have some interesting, thought provoking play with this. (Such as then placing a really strong character beyond said door and making the character choose who to fight through hell and back to the surface...)
2) HUMANS AND ELVES HAVE HAD THERE FILL! Okay. I know that they are popular but what about the little guys @David_Gaiter ? Okay. The EEs have addressed this somewhat. But still no romanceable Halfling or Dwarf. Still no Gnulliet for my Gnomeo! WHY DO YOU MAKE US SUFFER SO!
As for type of class. I'm not as fussy. I'd rather build the character first and then think what class that character would choose (or be forced to become)
I do think we have seen too many thieves though. Let the player be forced to go over traps and set them off. (Or hey! You could make that useless one go first!)
If there's a common element I'd strongly recommend, it's the notion that the player can directly influence the companion's fate, by completing personal quests or simply through dialogue. Cullen and Iron Bull from Dragon Age: Inquisition are excellent examples - it's not just the fact that you help them, it's how you choose to help them that matters in the end, and their stories change accordingly. Every party member in Pillars of Eternity had three or four variant epilogues dependent entirely on your interactions with them. As expressions of roleplaying agency go, that's both relatively simple to implement and can have a real impact on how the player engages with the game.
No, seriously. You look at Racter from "Shadowrun: Hong Kong" or Durance from "Pillars of Eternity", and it's painfully clear that nuanced Evil companions just aren't something D&D games have ever really been able to pull off. It'd be nice if potential Evil party members were written with the same depth and care as the default heroic party.
Here's a recent example that irritated me: I'm playing Dragon Age: Inquisition with a female PC, and I meet Dorian Pavus. We talk, we get along, all well and good. Around 30 hours in, his dad shows up, we go talk to him, personal quest complete. Dorian underwent no further character development until Trespasser, some 70 hours later. I had him with me on practically every mission, but because I was romancing Iron Bull he didn't get that subplot either. So nothing happens to him for almost the entire duration of a very, very long game.
If you're setting up companions that are going to be an active part of the story for more than an act/chapter, you need to parse their development along multiple stages, not cluster everything together in one sequence of exchanges or one sidequest.
This is actually something Beamdog has done very well so far. Dorn has to massacre a wedding and then ambush a Helmite camp and then go to Resurrection Gorge and then attack Lunia. Neera has to find Adoy, then meet other Wild Mages, then get payback on the Red Wizards. Each is a stage in their ongoing storylines, and you spend a sizable chunk of the game building them up.
My current favorate companion is Lathander, the dwarven rogue from SCL. It's a shame such a well written character is in such a crummy game!
Lawful Evil would be my guess, though obviously Shadowrun characters aren't designed with D&D alignment systems in mind.
If you wanna play on easy you pick Meta Knight. If you wanna play on hard you pick Pichu.
Though it only really make sense when having a huge roster of characters.
I, for one, and am pretty pumped for Beamdog's Next Big Thing for a lot of reasons, but I think a big one for me is because we know we can rely on the awesome conversation/quest pacing they've established with the EE companions.
He certainly aint lawful either. It's pretty difficult for any Shadowrunner to be lawful, since it is inherently unlawful. Only the protagonist's ex-cop brother qualifies as lawful. Oh yeah, the secret companion is lawful too, but they aren't shadowrunners by choice.
Why should we all expect 6 super arcane magic weapon weilding super heros?
1: NPC's with drawbacks. BG had it fairly welldone with NPC's having non-stellar atribute points, though what they failed at (IMHO) was allowing all of them to reach god-like levels. Make NPC's level slower or cap out earlier than the CHARNAME. This of course depends on what CHARNAME is, a normal chum or the child of a god etc. I would like to choose NPC's based on their personality rather than just picking the best team, but that would require some godlike writing from your side though
Examples of NPC's with a layer of personality that make them more interresting than the standard trope:
* Keldorn's family issues. A great way to show how dedication to your profession add's strain to your private life.
* Jan Jensen's serious side. The former lover and her new man. Even the ending is great as no matter what you do, it doesn't end with the classical "good" ending. Love doesn't conquer all.
* Half of the NPC's in dragon age and mass effect are very well-written, with flaws and quirks that make them feel alive.
Examples of NPC's that feel one-dimensional and boring whom I only pick because of their battle prowess:
* Kagain. Need I say more?
* Korgan. Yeah, yeah, I know some argue he has more than one dimension, but really.. he's the very architype of a dwarf seen so many times now (though, it was ofc more uncommen back then, when he was written)
* Dorn. The story around him is kinda interresting, but the character himself is one-sided and quite unintriguing.
2: Allow us a stronghold/campsite like in dragon age, but take it further. Allow me, as the leader, to send out my companions on missions of their own. I will take the important sites with a party but I can also send out the remaining companions on sidemissions, like defending a village under my protection if I am good, or roughing up the countryside for protection money if we are evil. Maybe even allow me to issue a second in command, like if I appoint a Jaheira-type as my second, she will steer the camp in one direction while I am gone but if I appoint an Edwin-type, something entirely different happens.
Would increase the immersion for me if these seasoned adventurers weren't just sitting idle by the fire waiting for me to come back, instead they would go out and gain their own experience and gold/items or build up the camp, research stuff, smithing, recruit on their own etc etc. Also, using the camp site in between larger quests/chapters was in IMHO a quite clever way to incrementally add to NPC's stories, the wouldn't open up the next level of interaction/dialogue until the next chapter etc. Not a huge fan of the (nowadays) usual influence-system, but it works good enough most of the times.
3: Allow NPC's to take actions themselves, like a rogue in your party swiping gold from a noble's purse if you don't watch him closely. I have no idea how this could be implemented in a party-based game though, since you would have to remove the classic party and instead go for the protagonist+henchemen theme I guess, which I don't particularly like.. but the idea of NPC's being actual beings of their own intrigues me. Them having motives of their own, interrests of their own and also taking actions of thier own. Actions which may or may not be aligned to what YOU want them to do. So, if you pick NPC's not fully aligned to your alignment and goals, you need to be wary that it might also lead to some.. unexpected situations.
2. scarce economy
3. dark tone
2. have the story be personal it does not have to be a save the world story bg works as it's about your character's life.
3. make the villain a foil to your main character.
4. make the human party members just as interesting as the other races. an issue with mass effect was the alien party members showed the down sides of the more bland humans. not to say all the human npcs in mass effect are boring mind.
5. have the party have a real reason to join you. one of my favorite things about pst is with the execption of fall from grace every npc has a reason to fallow you plot wise. contrast that with every bio ware game post kotor where only the first two party members [ the main love intrests.] are the only ones of importance and everyone else is along for the ride.
6. have a well fleshed out world.
7. no filler outdoors areas. i may be in the minority here but most of bg1's out door areas are pointless.
Please don't do the whole James Bond cliche where the antagonist captures you, gleefully explains his plans for global domination then buggers off and leaves you to escape, ala spellhold dungeon.
If multiple meetings with the antagonist are required to flesh out their character then please avoid the generic rpg cliche where they say "oh hello great threat to my plans, I'm really busy just now so I'll give you some exposition then leave some lackeys to kill you, bye bye."
Regarding companions, by all means there should be complicated characters that can be redeemed but there should also be characters that can be corrupted and characters who will never change their views.
It would also be an interesting mechanic if there were characters that will attempt to do either of these things to the protraganist perhaps even changing the PCs alignment depending on dialogue choices (or actions that result from said choices.)
One last thing that doesn't relate to character development per se but seems to prevail in modern games is a lack of permadeath. Having characters that are unable to die unless the whole party does really removes any sense of tension or fear about their fate for me. (It's also a crappy gameplay mechanic imo).
As others have already said, they need to have their own motivations, desires and views of the world, which in consequence should mean that a lot of them shouldn't become your friend or even your bedmate.
There's no need for "friendship paths" or "romance paths" for every single one of them. Interesting dialogues/relationships can be had outside of that.
I, for one, could very well live without any of that romance crap, and games like Fallout:NV have proven you can have great companions without it.
Since a lot of people seem to need these elements to enjoy their game(and to have to game world completely centered around their protagonist, yuck), I'm at least hoping it's going to be presented in a more subtle and plausible way than in BG2, where you have your cheesy romance theme kicking in minutes after you left the prologue dungeon.
I'm certainly tired of the endless reincarnations of the Viconia/Aerie/Jaheira templates we'd gotten to see in all subsequent Bioware RPGs. Whether they are rebranded as Morrigan or Tali or whatever, those salvation seeking damsels have been explored well enough.
I'd also like to see more non-stereotypical character concepts. Not every Gnome has to be a quirky weirdo, and a Paladin without the usual self-righteous holier-than-thou attitude wouldn't hurt, just as examples.
In general, NPCs shouldn't be tied to the obnoxious 9-drawer alignment system. I don't want to recruit an NPC, look at his alignment and see "ok, that one is LG, that one is CE" and perfectly know what I can expect from them. Surprise us, make the discovery of them interesting.
As for paladins, as of 5th edition they are no longer required to be lawful stupid, so there is more flexability there. (NB have you encountered the paladin companion in SCL?)
Speaking of Avon, he is a good example of how to do a non-good party member with a good aligned party leader.