Clerics of Shar don't have to be evil. for example, Viconia could be turned from Neutral Evil to Neutral via romance while still remained faithful to Shar.
Evil characters are almost universally cruel to those who they perceive as weak. In BG3, approval is a good indicator of alignment and Shadowheart approves greatly when you are kind to animals or when you weasel your way out of combat with your wit. She also cares about tiefling's plight though not enough to go out of her way to help them. Sure, she may treat you poorly at times. Insult you once or twice but there is fine line between her being a bitch vs EVIL bitch.
Astarion is more likely to be considered Neutral Evil as he can be cruel and he values power above all else. He is also prideful and vein.
Lae'zel is pretty much what you expect from her race. She follows cruel and strict code so she is lawful but she respects laws of her kind, not every type of goverment you may come across.
Gale is Neutral Good - no doubt about it. He likes helping those in need with little to no regard to laws or regulations that could prevent hm from doing that.
Wyll is Chaotic Good character. While his power comes from dark pact, he is using it primarly to help people in need. He likes attention and fame like any Chaotic Neutral would, but his heroism is genuine, that's why I'm putting him in "good guys club".
Yeah, I think a character could be a world-class Je...nuinely not a kind person, but not many would consider him truly evil, like Dr Who, Sheldon cooper, Dr House, etc... It seems you need something more.
Laezel would definitely be lawful evil, she likes the laws of his race and would like to apply them to any society and any being in the universe. This black/white approach and lack of empathy will put her in the LE spectrum.
Shadowheart behaves like a cold-hearted bitch, she´s hard on people, particularly the enemies of her faith, dislikes helping people just for the sake of it; but she seems to have a soft spot for animals and disapproves of the kill-everything approach on things. I do not see her as something truly evil. Self-centered, and cold-hearted, yes, evil...well Have you play Wenduag of PF: WoTR?
Not only she ate people to make herself stronger, but she also manipulates people to eat other people and make them stronger, and she is proud of it
Astarion has a total disregard for humans and anything that is not his well-being, but to be fair he´s a vampire. I mean, living creatures are food and you do not call someone being unmoved about the death of a chicken or a cow an evil person (unless you´re a hardcore vegan). He seems pretty tame for the standards of the vampire spawns/vampire lords of the Forgotten Realms setting, but I understand he could be considered evil from human standards.
Wyll seems to be the prototype of an idealistic, good person, in a "Let´s help and get things done, rules be damned" and he seems to put people before institutions and himself, so, CG.
Despite the fact that larian stated that in the beta we would only see the neutral and evil companions, I think Gale deserves to be in the "good guys club" too, even if it´s only by comparison with the others.
Yeah, I think a character could be a world-class Je...nuinely not a kind person, but not many would consider him truly evil, like Dr Who, Sheldon cooper, Dr House, etc... It seems you need something more.
Laezel would definitely be lawful evil, she likes the laws of his race and would like to apply them to any society and any being in the universe. This black/white approach and lack of empathy will put her in the LE spectrum.
Shadowheart behaves like a cold-hearted bitch, she´s hard on people, particularly the enemies of her faith, dislikes helping people just for the sake of it; but she seems to have a soft spot for animals and disapproves of the kill-everything approach on things. I do not see her as something truly evil. Self-centered, and cold-hearted, yes, evil...well Have you play Wenduag of PF: WoTR?
Not only she ate people to make herself stronger, but she also manipulates people to eat other people and make them stronger, and she is proud of it
Astarion has a total disregard for humans and anything that is not his well-being, but to be fair he´s a vampire. I mean, living creatures are food and you do not call someone being unmoved about the death of a chicken or a cow an evil person (unless you´re a hardcore vegan). He seems pretty tame for the standards of the vampire spawns/vampire lords of the Forgotten Realms setting, but I understand he could be considered evil from human standards.
Wyll seems to be the prototype of an idealistic, good person, in a "Let´s help and get things done, rules be damned" and he seems to put people before institutions and himself, so, CG.
Despite the fact that larian stated that in the beta we would only see the neutral and evil companions, I think Gale deserves to be in the "good guys club" too, even if it´s only by comparison with the others.
Nope. Gale and Wyll are neutral at best, and a priestess of Shar is the very definition of evil.
We currently have 3 evil and 2 neutral companions. So the remaining 3 yet to be revealed companions have to all be good if there is to be balance in the game and no favoring of the evil side.
Nope. Gale and Wyll are neutral at best, and a priestess of Shar is the very definition of evil.
We currently have 3 evil and 2 neutral companions. So the remaining 3 yet to be revealed companions have to all be good if there is to be balance in the game and no favoring of the evil side.
Wyll, the one that is training children and wants you to risk his life and yours to save some people he just met by storming a goblin encampment is "neutral at best"? O.O Uh, I do not think you played with him much... You did not even give reasons for your statements, so I do not know what else to say, but I respectfully disagree.
IIRC he doesn't even own the game. We once discussed this on this subforum: sometimes, it's just impossible to judge something without playing and experiencing the game content for hours, yourself.
Yeah, I think a character could be a world-class Je...nuinely not a kind person, but not many would consider him truly evil, like Dr Who, Sheldon cooper, Dr House, etc... It seems you need something more.
Laezel would definitely be lawful evil, she likes the laws of his race and would like to apply them to any society and any being in the universe. This black/white approach and lack of empathy will put her in the LE spectrum.
Shadowheart behaves like a cold-hearted bitch, she´s hard on people, particularly the enemies of her faith, dislikes helping people just for the sake of it; but she seems to have a soft spot for animals and disapproves of the kill-everything approach on things. I do not see her as something truly evil. Self-centered, and cold-hearted, yes, evil...well Have you play Wenduag of PF: WoTR?
Not only she ate people to make herself stronger, but she also manipulates people to eat other people and make them stronger, and she is proud of it
Astarion has a total disregard for humans and anything that is not his well-being, but to be fair he´s a vampire. I mean, living creatures are food and you do not call someone being unmoved about the death of a chicken or a cow an evil person (unless you´re a hardcore vegan). He seems pretty tame for the standards of the vampire spawns/vampire lords of the Forgotten Realms setting, but I understand he could be considered evil from human standards.
Wyll seems to be the prototype of an idealistic, good person, in a "Let´s help and get things done, rules be damned" and he seems to put people before institutions and himself, so, CG.
Despite the fact that larian stated that in the beta we would only see the neutral and evil companions, I think Gale deserves to be in the "good guys club" too, even if it´s only by comparison with the others.
Nope. Gale and Wyll are neutral at best, and a priestess of Shar is the very definition of evil.
We currently have 3 evil and 2 neutral companions. So the remaining 3 yet to be revealed companions have to all be good if there is to be balance in the game and no favoring of the evil side.
Original BG2 has on the other hand very few evil aligned NPCs compared to good and neutral aligned. I dont't remember you complaining about the lack of balance.
Yeah, I think a character could be a world-class Je...nuinely not a kind person, but not many would consider him truly evil, like Dr Who, Sheldon cooper, Dr House, etc... It seems you need something more.
Laezel would definitely be lawful evil, she likes the laws of his race and would like to apply them to any society and any being in the universe. This black/white approach and lack of empathy will put her in the LE spectrum.
Shadowheart behaves like a cold-hearted bitch, she´s hard on people, particularly the enemies of her faith, dislikes helping people just for the sake of it; but she seems to have a soft spot for animals and disapproves of the kill-everything approach on things. I do not see her as something truly evil. Self-centered, and cold-hearted, yes, evil...well Have you play Wenduag of PF: WoTR?
Not only she ate people to make herself stronger, but she also manipulates people to eat other people and make them stronger, and she is proud of it
Astarion has a total disregard for humans and anything that is not his well-being, but to be fair he´s a vampire. I mean, living creatures are food and you do not call someone being unmoved about the death of a chicken or a cow an evil person (unless you´re a hardcore vegan). He seems pretty tame for the standards of the vampire spawns/vampire lords of the Forgotten Realms setting, but I understand he could be considered evil from human standards.
Wyll seems to be the prototype of an idealistic, good person, in a "Let´s help and get things done, rules be damned" and he seems to put people before institutions and himself, so, CG.
Despite the fact that larian stated that in the beta we would only see the neutral and evil companions, I think Gale deserves to be in the "good guys club" too, even if it´s only by comparison with the others.
Nope. Gale and Wyll are neutral at best, and a priestess of Shar is the very definition of evil.
We currently have 3 evil and 2 neutral companions. So the remaining 3 yet to be revealed companions have to all be good if there is to be balance in the game and no favoring of the evil side.
Original BG2 has on the other hand very few evil aligned NPCs compared to good and neutral aligned. I dont't remember you complaining about the lack of balance.
In D&D, and especially the FR setting, the 'good' side is the default side. So a D&D game favoring the 'good' side makes perfect sense. The reverse does not.
Furthermore, despite Swen imploring people to play 'evil' in the EA so they can get more data, Swen himself has admitted that more than 80% of players are playing 'good.'
IIRC he doesn't even own the game. We once discussed this on this subforum: sometimes, it's just impossible to judge something without playing and experiencing the game content for hours, yourself.
It's nice that at least on the Larian BG3 forum the mods go out of their way to repeatedly emphasize that people who are not playing the game have the same right as anyone else to comment on or critique the game and that their comments and critiques are just as welcome and valid as anyone else's.
@kanisatha , We are pretty similar in our opinions, based on things you've said. I personally am having an issue with Larian's apparent affinity for edginess and "darkside" or "evil" based role play. This comes down to a matter of taste in what kind of stories we like and what kind of characters we want to play or watch, in my opinion. The same tastes would likely be reflected in what movies, television shows, and books we enjoy or would enjoy.
Every time I go to a BG 3 website or forum, I am greeted with a banner at the top of the page showing a vampire who is the only rogue in the game (for now at least, and heck no), a priestess of Shar for a cleric (absolutely not), a guy with a succubus licking his neck (ew, squick), a warrior woman from a monster race that has been one of the antagonists in every D&D game I've ever played (maybe, under the circumstances, but I wish she were githzerai instead of githyanki), and the one guy who looks somewhat normal casting a spell (probably the only one of the bunch I'd maybe like.)
One thing I've heard is "Well, you're all forced to work together because of the parasite, despite your conflicting alignments." Okay, maybe, but I don't care for that kind of story in my D&D game. It's not an invalid opinion or anything. Again, it's just not to my taste for my entertainment hours.
I've read that there are only three more companions planned - as you've pointed out, they need to all three be paragons of good, and one needs to be an Imoen-like rogue (not necessarily the standard Bioware cute girl, playful and effective, but basically harmless rogue - but at least not...well, a vampire), or I am simply not going to be able to play this game. I have nothing really against Larian or the people who share their tastes, but it is just not for me. I don't want to spend my leisure time, when I'm supposed to be relaxing and having fun, with aesthetics and writing that are making me feel disgusted and/or angry.
Real life darkness and evil are depressing enough as it is. I play games to escape from all that, not to have more of it.
In a nutshell, edginess and dark tones make me feel bad, and I avoid them. I want brightness, color, and light, because they make me feel good. Facing evil and defeating it, or watching a cast of characters defeat it, makes me feel good.
I have yet to see the promised good characters that are supposed to be coming, but I am highly skeptical given that they've already marketed the game as dark/edgy. I really don't see how they can provide an alternative experience to that for people like me when they're this far in.
It's just useful to put some critical opinions into perspective. I don't own the game yet either, and if people comment on companions or gameplay, it helps me immensely to know if that person has read comments and watched clips like I did, or if that person spent dozens or hundreds of hours actively traveling, fighting, talking to and interacting with those companions.
I think we have all had situations where we formed opinions about some games or movies from other sources and then changed or adjusted that opinion after firsthand experience.
IIRC he doesn't even own the game. We once discussed this on this subforum: sometimes, it's just impossible to judge something without playing and experiencing the game content for hours, yourself.
It's nice that at least on the Larian BG3 forum the mods go out of their way to repeatedly emphasize that people who are not playing the game have the same right as anyone else to comment on or critique the game and that their comments and critiques are just as welcome and valid as anyone else's.
Right, you've been able to do that here just fine. But judging about NPCs' personalities without having them in the party is not something I believe you can do, really. I don't stop your criticism, I just want to encourage people pay more attention to posts like the one by @PsicoVicabove.
Every time I go to a BG 3 website or forum, I am greeted with a banner at the top of the page showing a vampire who is the only rogue in the game (for now at least, and heck no), a priestess of Shar for a cleric (absolutely not), a guy with a succubus licking his neck (ew, squick), a warrior woman from a monster race that has been one of the antagonists in every D&D game I've ever played (maybe, under the circumstances, but I wish she were githzerai instead of githyanki), and the one guy who looks somewhat normal casting a spell (probably the only one of the bunch I'd maybe like.)
As you sortof noted later in your post, those are (for now) the only character's currently in the game. It makes sense that the banner's art would reflect the current companions available in EA, and those being intentionally evil (mostly, with Wyll and Gale as possible exceptions) should probably indicate that.
If Bioware had followed a similar approach, you'd possibly see a Drow Priestess (of Shar, no less), a Red Wizard of Thay (hard to get more evil/horrible than them) and a chaotic evil dwarf that's probably a psychopath. I dont think it would be terribly fair to judge all of BG2 because of those three characters(I could go on, but I think the point is made).
I've read that there are only three more companions planned - as you've pointed out, they need to all three be paragons of good, and one needs to be an Imoen-like rogue (not necessarily the standard Bioware cute girl, playful and effective, but basically harmless rogue - but at least not...well, a vampire),
5e as a platform doesnt really require a rogue as core class in the conventional sense of older (read, 2.5) D&D. I suspect there will be at least one character of the 3 yet to be announced which will have proficiency with Thieves' tools and possibly stealth as skills, without necessarily needing to be a rogue. Their class will probably align to this in some way (Ranger perhaps? Bard? Monk?) though.
I think the only true requirement we'll end up needing to see in the remaining 3 characters is a non-evil healing character. I'm not entirely sure what form that will take (Maybe druid, or perhaps a Paladin can provide enough healing to cover that role in BG3 as the game goes on?).
As with rogues, the idea of a dedicated "heal-bot" character is less required in 5e than before. However, this being a videogame abstraction of the system makes me think it will be a soft requirement to include meaningful healing capability in your party.
As a closing thought - I think some people tend to gloss over some of the many ways in which BG1,2 and TOB were pretty grimdark in concept and execution. I mean, you are the bhaalspawn - given to the basest impulse of murder and mayhem. Your father more or less raped his way across the realms to reincarnate himself. You literally lose your soul and become the incarnation of murder at one point, with the ability to consistently become that thing as time goes on. Your father figure is murdered 20 minutes into the game.
In some ways, I think Larian is more visceral than the above in their approach to BG3, but so far -it looks and feels very thematically consistent with a lot of Bioware's approach and vision.
I'm not looking to invalidate your opinions here, just providing my personal opinion/context in response.
..
As a closing thought - I think some people tend to gloss over some of the many ways in which BG1,2 and TOB were pretty grimdark in concept and execution. I mean, you are the bhaalspawn - given to the basest impulse of murder and mayhem. Your father more or less raped his way across the realms to reincarnate himself. You literally lose your soul and become the incarnation of murder at one point, with the ability to consistently become that thing as time goes on. Your father figure is murdered 20 minutes into the game.
In some ways, I think Larian is more visceral than the above in their approach to BG3, but so far -it looks and feels very thematically consistent with a lot of Bioware's approach and vision.
This is correct. BG1 opens with a bloody death cinematic. And BG2 opens with a cinematic about kidnap and torture. The whole series is very grim in its main plot.
@BelgarathMTH, don't let the criticisms here in this forum of your absolutely valid preferences get you down. Over on the Larian forum, the overwhelming majority of posters--including strongly pro-BG3 posters--agree (a) that the current five companions do not represent the 'good' side (which btw Swen Vincke has attested to as well by saying Larian chose to release only the evil and neutral companions first; so it's not just me saying those five don't include any 'good' companions), and (b) that the game needs to provide enough 'good' companions to allow players to create a fully 'good' oriented party.
The only problem is that Larian's interpretation of 'good' characters includes characters that are "flawed" (which is nonsense-speak for bad/evil characters and what passes for Larian as character "complexity" and "depth") but who have 'good' somewhere deep within them, and it is the job of the PC to find this good in them and bring it forth. I'll bet you anything this is how both the vampire and the Sharess will eventually turn out (as well as a werewolf character as one of the yet-to-be-revealed companions).
To put D&D alignment system into perspective, I recommend this post.
And if "flawed" equals "evil" (a very simplified generalization in my opinion, which would make companions with realistic character development impossible and a game more boring to me), then in BG2 you have an evil Keldorn, Valygar and Anomen (even after being knighted).
And if "flawed" equals "evil" (a very simplified generalization in my opinion
I didn't say anything along the lines of "flawed" equals "evil." Please don't misrepresent what I said.
I said Larian believes their 'evil' characters are not truly 'evil' but instead are just "flawed." In this way they try to get around having to admit that those characters are in truth 'evil.' For example the vampire and priestess of Shar characters, characters that are indisputably 'evil' per longstanding D&D lore, but Larian tries to sell them to me as: "Hey, they're not really evil, they're just flawed." Well, no sale.
The only problem is that Larian's interpretation of 'good' characters includes characters that are "flawed" (which is nonsense-speak for bad/evil characters ...
I also agree that we shouldnt misrepresent each other points, which is why I'm going to point out that at the beginning of your post you included the following:
@BelgarathMTH, don't let the criticisms here in this forum of your absolutely valid preferences get you down.
Which implies that someone criticized BelgarathMTH's preferences when no one did. In fact, I'm the only one who responded directly t his post and I even included this at the beginning to ensure that was absolutely clear I was not offering any criticisms:
The only problem is that Larian's interpretation of 'good' characters includes characters that are "flawed" (which is nonsense-speak for bad/evil characters ...
Where I don't say anything equating the two; rather, only that one is being conflated with the other.
Uh, for whatever it's worth, I haven't felt attacked by anyone for expressing my opinion.
Sometimes a minority opinion can get kind of dogpiled on, in this forum, so occasionally I will express my minority opinion in solidarity with the other person who seems to feel that way, so they know they're not alone.
I fully expect when I say something I know to be unpopular, other people are likely to chime in and say, "Okay, but I have a different opinion, and I don't agree with you." That's fine. It doesn't make me feel attacked or anything like that, because I knew I was inviting that when I said something I knew good and well was a darned unpopular thing to say.
@kanisatha , We are pretty similar in our opinions, based on things you've said. I personally am having an issue with Larian's apparent affinity for edginess and "darkside" or "evil" based role play. This comes down to a matter of taste in what kind of stories we like and what kind of characters we want to play or watch, in my opinion. The same tastes would likely be reflected in what movies, television shows, and books we enjoy or would enjoy.
Every time I go to a BG 3 website or forum, I am greeted with a banner at the top of the page showing a vampire who is the only rogue in the game (for now at least, and heck no), a priestess of Shar for a cleric (absolutely not), a guy with a succubus licking his neck (ew, squick), a warrior woman from a monster race that has been one of the antagonists in every D&D game I've ever played (maybe, under the circumstances, but I wish she were githzerai instead of githyanki), and the one guy who looks somewhat normal casting a spell (probably the only one of the bunch I'd maybe like.)
[...]
I've read that there are only three more companions planned - as you've pointed out, they need to all three be paragons of good, and one needs to be an Imoen-like rogue (not necessarily the standard Bioware cute girl, playful and effective, but basically harmless rogue - but at least not...well, a vampire), or I am simply not going to be able to play this game. I have nothing really against Larian or the people who share their tastes, but it is just not for me. I don't want to spend my leisure time, when I'm supposed to be relaxing and having fun, with aesthetics and writing that are making me feel disgusted and/or angry.
Back on track. right now we do not really know the vision of Larian´s writers about the good characters, because we do not know them ingame. Since the ones that are supposed to be "neutral" are like:
All of these could change in the final game or we could discover more in the final version of the game, but right now with the info we have in the beta...
Gale seems to dislike violence, he favours a diplomatic approach almost all the time. He dislikes cruelty. The only moment he seems to lose it is when a kid is about to be sentenced to capital punishment for robbery. He´s the only one that seems to try to actively seek the others and assist the MC and the other infected with advice and help. He seems to get along with the others despite their race or religious beliefs. He has an orb that can level a city in his chest and he fleed to find a way to stop it and do not die or harm anyone. and it´s actively trying to stop it with the less loss of lives possible
Wyll was infected by a parasite, and the first thing he does is start helping refugees and training children even knowing that he has a limited time before being turned; He´s the only one that jumps into the fray in a heartbeat when MC´s group is attacked outside the gates instead of staying with the other tieflings in the safety of the wall, inside the druid grove. Will literally drops from a 30ft rampart in the middle of a goblin war party to help your group. He wants you to risk his life and yours to save some people he just met by storming a goblin fortress. He refuses to retire if you want to abandon people in need. He disapproves if you negotiate with creatures that prey on helpless humans.
Honestly, the points that could make him evil, ie. the pact with a demon even has a naive reason, born of good intentions. He looks more a childish man than a wicked one. And he is trying to get rid of the pact.
I´m honestly curious about what would be the approach about "good-hood" in BG3, seeing how the others are...
About the evil companions, I do not know what are the preconceptions about them, being a priestess of shar, a vampire and a Githyanki. Yeah, they are what is classically considered evil, but they are not as distasteful to talk to or travel with as expected
Laezel seems to be clueless about the world she is in, and she´s very self-conscient about it, that makes some hilarious scenes. The vampire´s story is one of a victim more than a torturer. And he usually behaves like a lothario more than a monster. The sharran still has an icy demeanour, and she´s brutally honest to the point of rudeness, a hard woman, does not like to help the people but he also disapproves of violent behaviour without reason.
As I stated before, so were dr House, Sheldon cooper, Dr Who, etc, and many people find them likeable characters and some could not consider them bad people.
@BelgarathMTH, don't let the criticisms here in this forum of your absolutely valid preferences get you down. Over on the Larian forum, the overwhelming majority of posters--including strongly pro-BG3 posters--agree (a) that the current five companions do not represent the 'good' side (which btw Swen Vincke has attested to as well by saying Larian chose to release only the evil and neutral companions first; so it's not just me saying those five don't include any 'good' companions), and (b) that the game needs to provide enough 'good' companions to allow players to create a fully 'good' oriented party.
In the only official Larian forum I know of ( And I`ve been on it for 5 years or so, I have the same nick there) I had a very different experience than the one you describe here, all those "overwhelming" opinions, those strong pro-bg3 posters, the moderators facilitating toxic behaviours.... to be honest, I do not recall seeing all those things you usually describe in your posts but maybe we just read different threads.
Just to be sure, I only say that I did not see anything of the sort in the forum that I remember of and I have a different view of the forum in general than the one you usually describe, it´s not intended as an attack.
That said, I do not know the experience of other people with BG3, but based on the time I spent playing the game I think you will have enough characters to create a good party. I mean, I will love to have more characters than 8 companions and I prefer a bigger party than 4, but if we have to make a party of 4 good characters, that would be the MC and 3 others. or an origin character and 3 others.
For the reasons stated above, I think Gale and Wyll will fit in a good-aligned party and we will expect to have two-three "goodies" more as promised
Based on the data mining the bets are in Kalach the wounded tiefling you find in the risen road. you can actually talk to her in the beta and learn that he has tadpole in the head like the others, indeed. To be honest
Other info seem to point to a tiefling called Helia and our favourite ranger, Minsc. The latter would definitely be a fine good character.
So I think we will have enough people to choose from, a pool of 4- 5 to fit 3-4 slots.
More will be welcome but I think you can make a full evil party or a full good party since in BG3 you only have a party of 4.
Myself, I prefer to mix alignments and watch them argue =p
Back on track. right now we do not really know the vision of Larian´s writers about the good characters, because we do not know them ingame. Since the ones that are supposed to be "neutral" are like:
All of these could change in the final game or we could discover more in the final version of the game, but right now with the info we have in the beta...
Gale seems to dislike violence, he favours a diplomatic approach almost all the time. He dislikes cruelty. The only moment he seems to lose it is when a kid is about to be sentenced to capital punishment for robbery. He´s the only one that seems to try to actively seek the others and assist the MC and the other infected with advice and help. He seems to get along with the others despite their race or religious beliefs. He has an orb that can level a city in his chest and he fleed to find a way to stop it and do not die or harm anyone. and it´s actively trying to stop it with the less loss of lives possible
Wyll was infected by a parasite, and the first thing he does is start helping refugees and training children even knowing that he has a limited time before being turned; He´s the only one that jumps into the fray in a heartbeat when MC´s group is attacked outside the gates instead of staying with the other tieflings in the safety of the wall, inside the druid grove. Will literally drops from a 30ft rampart in the middle of a goblin war party to help your group. He wants you to risk his life and yours to save some people he just met by storming a goblin fortress. He refuses to retire if you want to abandon people in need. He disapproves if you negotiate with creatures that prey on helpless humans.
Honestly, the points that could make him evil, ie. the pact with a demon even has a naive reason, born of good intentions. He looks more a childish man than a wicked one. And he is trying to get rid of the pact.
I´m honestly curious about what would be the approach about "good-hood" in BG3, seeing how the others are...
About the evil companions, I do not know what are the preconceptions about them, being a priestess of shar, a vampire and a Githyanki. Yeah, they are what is classically considered evil, but they are not as distasteful to talk to or travel with as expected
Laezel seems to be clueless about the world she is in, and she´s very self-conscient about it, that makes some hilarious scenes. The vampire´s story is one of a victim more than a torturer. And he usually behaves like a lothario more than a monster. The sharran still has an icy demeanour, and she´s brutally honest to the point of rudeness, a hard woman, does not like to help the people but he also disapproves of violent behaviour without reason.
As I stated before, so were dr House, Sheldon cooper, Dr Who, etc, and many people find them likeable characters and some could not consider them bad people.
@BelgarathMTH, don't let the criticisms here in this forum of your absolutely valid preferences get you down. Over on the Larian forum, the overwhelming majority of posters--including strongly pro-BG3 posters--agree (a) that the current five companions do not represent the 'good' side (which btw Swen Vincke has attested to as well by saying Larian chose to release only the evil and neutral companions first; so it's not just me saying those five don't include any 'good' companions), and (b) that the game needs to provide enough 'good' companions to allow players to create a fully 'good' oriented party.
In the only official Larian forum I know of ( And I`ve been on it for 5 years or so, I have the same nick there) I had a very different experience than the one you describe here, all those "overwhelming" opinions, those strong pro-bg3 posters, the moderators facilitating toxic behaviours.... to be honest, I do not recall seeing all those things you usually describe in your posts but maybe we just read different threads.
Just to be sure, I only say that I did not see anything of the sort in the forum that I remember of and I have a different view of the forum in general than the one you usually describe, it´s not intended as an attack.
That said, I do not know the experience of other people with BG3, but based on the time I spent playing the game I think you will have enough characters to create a good party. I mean, I will love to have more characters than 8 companions and I prefer a bigger party than 4, but if we have to make a party of 4 good characters, that would be the MC and 3 others. or an origin character and 3 others.
For the reasons stated above, I think Gale and Wyll will fit in a good-aligned party and we will expect to have two-three "goodies" more as promised
Based on the data mining the bets are in Kalach the wounded tiefling you find in the risen road. you can actually talk to her in the beta and learn that he has tadpole in the head like the others, indeed. To be honest
Other info seem to point to a tiefling called Helia and our favourite ranger, Minsc. The latter would definitely be a fine good character.
So I think we will have enough people to choose from, a pool of 4- 5 to fit 3-4 slots.
More will be welcome but I think you can make a full evil party or a full good party since in BG3 you only have a party of 4.
Myself, I prefer to mix alignments and watch them argue =p
Firstly, to correct something you say here, I did not say in my post that the Larian forum moderators facilitate toxic behaviors. I said exactly the opposite, that they do a really good job of moderating that forum. However, in your case, I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood me, and only ask that in the future you kindly read my posts more carefully.
Back to the BG3 companions,
Wyll made a pact with a devil. He is automatically out of consideration for any party of mine. Helia is, to my understanding, a werewolf. Werewolves, vampires, githyanki, and priestesses of Shar all have no place in a good party. So that leaves exactly Gale ("it's all about me!!"), Kalach (aggravating disposition), and Minsc (annoying idiot). Not a party that I would be excited to go adventuring with.
@PsicoVic , Thanks for the clarification of Wyl's and Gale's characters in the spoiler. That additional information does make me more likely as a player to at least give them a fair chance to show they can be redeemed. I'm not worrying about reading spoilers at this point, because I've become disinclined to ever play BG3, based on surface information and marketing information, and I'd like nothing more than to be convinced I can find good in these characters.
If Minsc becomes a joinable companion, that would be a huge plus in the plus column for me, since I've always loved Minsc, and it doesn't feel like BG without him in all my parties when I do a run in classic BG. I'm willing to go along with WotC's petrification device under suspension of disbelief for fun's sake. I already met de-petrified future Minsc in the Neverwinter mmo game, where he has several instanced scenarios where you take him along on an adventure, and I enjoyed those. Playing with new Minsc material was one of my pleasures I took away from that game, where I had very mixed experiences.
It may come down to gameplay style after all for me. I tried very hard to like Divinity: Original Sin 2, and I made it to the end of the first act there before I simply couldn't make myself interested in moving on to act two. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it was about that game that caused me to lose interest. I did have fun with it through most of act one, before it started to wear on me.
I think younger me would have liked it very much, and I'd think present me should like it. I think it's the turn-based combat with the environmental gimmickry. I prefer faster-paced combat resolution, nowadays. Also, as I've expressed elsewhere, the cast of characters just wasn't doing it for me.
Despite all my misgivings, I'll probably wind up buying BG3 when the price is right. I don't think I would pay full price for it right now, but that could change if the hype machine starts back up next year at full release, and I start to see things that intrigue me about it.
However, given that he used that power for good (presumably), it could be that he believes that the ends justify the means. With that in mind, it seems likely he would classify as Chaotic Good.
I might be totally wrong here but isn't this a misconception about Neutral Good vs. Chaotic Good? The way I see it:
Neutral Good means that laws, rules, customs, traditional morals, etc. don't *really* concern you, but there's also no reason that you would recklessly break them for no actual reason. You will play along them so long as they don't get in the way of doing good, so you might end up not breaking a single rule in your life, but on the other hand, if you feel that you really must due to the circumstances, you will in turn end up breaking every rule to do good.
Chaotic Good, on the other hand, means that you have a particular dislike of rules, pushing you to break them for the sake of breaking them. You actually want good for other people, so you'll try not to do anything *really* reckless that clearly endangers others, but you do really want to break those damn rules, because they grind your gears. You want to spit in the face of authority, not because that authority is necessarily evil or prevents you from doing good, but because the very concept of authority pisses you off.
So a CG character, when posed with the option to deal with a devil to gain powers they may use for good, is likely to just go "heck yeah!" An NG character on the other hand will consider how this will make others perceive them, and what repercussions it might have, so they're much more likely to decline than the CG person.
So to come back to Wyll:
If he greedily and readily accepted the pact with the devil because he immediately thought "more power = doing more good = win" then he's Chaotic Good.
If it was a rather hard decision for him to make that pact with the devil, and he only ended up agreeing because he determined that this would allow him to do significant good, then he's Neutral Good.
Comments
Evil characters are almost universally cruel to those who they perceive as weak. In BG3, approval is a good indicator of alignment and Shadowheart approves greatly when you are kind to animals or when you weasel your way out of combat with your wit. She also cares about tiefling's plight though not enough to go out of her way to help them. Sure, she may treat you poorly at times. Insult you once or twice but there is fine line between her being a bitch vs EVIL bitch.
Astarion is more likely to be considered Neutral Evil as he can be cruel and he values power above all else. He is also prideful and vein.
Lae'zel is pretty much what you expect from her race. She follows cruel and strict code so she is lawful but she respects laws of her kind, not every type of goverment you may come across.
Gale is Neutral Good - no doubt about it. He likes helping those in need with little to no regard to laws or regulations that could prevent hm from doing that.
Wyll is Chaotic Good character. While his power comes from dark pact, he is using it primarly to help people in need. He likes attention and fame like any Chaotic Neutral would, but his heroism is genuine, that's why I'm putting him in "good guys club".
Laezel would definitely be lawful evil, she likes the laws of his race and would like to apply them to any society and any being in the universe. This black/white approach and lack of empathy will put her in the LE spectrum.
Shadowheart behaves like a cold-hearted bitch, she´s hard on people, particularly the enemies of her faith, dislikes helping people just for the sake of it; but she seems to have a soft spot for animals and disapproves of the kill-everything approach on things. I do not see her as something truly evil. Self-centered, and cold-hearted, yes, evil...well Have you play Wenduag of PF: WoTR?
Astarion has a total disregard for humans and anything that is not his well-being, but to be fair he´s a vampire. I mean, living creatures are food and you do not call someone being unmoved about the death of a chicken or a cow an evil person (unless you´re a hardcore vegan). He seems pretty tame for the standards of the vampire spawns/vampire lords of the Forgotten Realms setting, but I understand he could be considered evil from human standards.
Wyll seems to be the prototype of an idealistic, good person, in a "Let´s help and get things done, rules be damned" and he seems to put people before institutions and himself, so, CG.
Despite the fact that larian stated that in the beta we would only see the neutral and evil companions, I think Gale deserves to be in the "good guys club" too, even if it´s only by comparison with the others.
We currently have 3 evil and 2 neutral companions. So the remaining 3 yet to be revealed companions have to all be good if there is to be balance in the game and no favoring of the evil side.
Wyll, the one that is training children and wants you to risk his life and yours to save some people he just met by storming a goblin encampment is "neutral at best"? O.O Uh, I do not think you played with him much... You did not even give reasons for your statements, so I do not know what else to say, but I respectfully disagree.
IIRC he doesn't even own the game. We once discussed this on this subforum: sometimes, it's just impossible to judge something without playing and experiencing the game content for hours, yourself.
Original BG2 has on the other hand very few evil aligned NPCs compared to good and neutral aligned. I dont't remember you complaining about the lack of balance.
Furthermore, despite Swen imploring people to play 'evil' in the EA so they can get more data, Swen himself has admitted that more than 80% of players are playing 'good.'
Every time I go to a BG 3 website or forum, I am greeted with a banner at the top of the page showing a vampire who is the only rogue in the game (for now at least, and heck no), a priestess of Shar for a cleric (absolutely not), a guy with a succubus licking his neck (ew, squick), a warrior woman from a monster race that has been one of the antagonists in every D&D game I've ever played (maybe, under the circumstances, but I wish she were githzerai instead of githyanki), and the one guy who looks somewhat normal casting a spell (probably the only one of the bunch I'd maybe like.)
One thing I've heard is "Well, you're all forced to work together because of the parasite, despite your conflicting alignments." Okay, maybe, but I don't care for that kind of story in my D&D game. It's not an invalid opinion or anything. Again, it's just not to my taste for my entertainment hours.
I've read that there are only three more companions planned - as you've pointed out, they need to all three be paragons of good, and one needs to be an Imoen-like rogue (not necessarily the standard Bioware cute girl, playful and effective, but basically harmless rogue - but at least not...well, a vampire), or I am simply not going to be able to play this game. I have nothing really against Larian or the people who share their tastes, but it is just not for me. I don't want to spend my leisure time, when I'm supposed to be relaxing and having fun, with aesthetics and writing that are making me feel disgusted and/or angry.
Real life darkness and evil are depressing enough as it is. I play games to escape from all that, not to have more of it.
In a nutshell, edginess and dark tones make me feel bad, and I avoid them. I want brightness, color, and light, because they make me feel good. Facing evil and defeating it, or watching a cast of characters defeat it, makes me feel good.
I have yet to see the promised good characters that are supposed to be coming, but I am highly skeptical given that they've already marketed the game as dark/edgy. I really don't see how they can provide an alternative experience to that for people like me when they're this far in.
It's just useful to put some critical opinions into perspective. I don't own the game yet either, and if people comment on companions or gameplay, it helps me immensely to know if that person has read comments and watched clips like I did, or if that person spent dozens or hundreds of hours actively traveling, fighting, talking to and interacting with those companions.
I think we have all had situations where we formed opinions about some games or movies from other sources and then changed or adjusted that opinion after firsthand experience.
Right, you've been able to do that here just fine. But judging about NPCs' personalities without having them in the party is not something I believe you can do, really. I don't stop your criticism, I just want to encourage people pay more attention to posts like the one by @PsicoVic above.
As you sortof noted later in your post, those are (for now) the only character's currently in the game. It makes sense that the banner's art would reflect the current companions available in EA, and those being intentionally evil (mostly, with Wyll and Gale as possible exceptions) should probably indicate that.
If Bioware had followed a similar approach, you'd possibly see a Drow Priestess (of Shar, no less), a Red Wizard of Thay (hard to get more evil/horrible than them) and a chaotic evil dwarf that's probably a psychopath. I dont think it would be terribly fair to judge all of BG2 because of those three characters(I could go on, but I think the point is made).
5e as a platform doesnt really require a rogue as core class in the conventional sense of older (read, 2.5) D&D. I suspect there will be at least one character of the 3 yet to be announced which will have proficiency with Thieves' tools and possibly stealth as skills, without necessarily needing to be a rogue. Their class will probably align to this in some way (Ranger perhaps? Bard? Monk?) though.
I think the only true requirement we'll end up needing to see in the remaining 3 characters is a non-evil healing character. I'm not entirely sure what form that will take (Maybe druid, or perhaps a Paladin can provide enough healing to cover that role in BG3 as the game goes on?).
As with rogues, the idea of a dedicated "heal-bot" character is less required in 5e than before. However, this being a videogame abstraction of the system makes me think it will be a soft requirement to include meaningful healing capability in your party.
As a closing thought - I think some people tend to gloss over some of the many ways in which BG1,2 and TOB were pretty grimdark in concept and execution. I mean, you are the bhaalspawn - given to the basest impulse of murder and mayhem. Your father more or less raped his way across the realms to reincarnate himself. You literally lose your soul and become the incarnation of murder at one point, with the ability to consistently become that thing as time goes on. Your father figure is murdered 20 minutes into the game.
In some ways, I think Larian is more visceral than the above in their approach to BG3, but so far -it looks and feels very thematically consistent with a lot of Bioware's approach and vision.
This is correct. BG1 opens with a bloody death cinematic. And BG2 opens with a cinematic about kidnap and torture. The whole series is very grim in its main plot.
The only problem is that Larian's interpretation of 'good' characters includes characters that are "flawed" (which is nonsense-speak for bad/evil characters and what passes for Larian as character "complexity" and "depth") but who have 'good' somewhere deep within them, and it is the job of the PC to find this good in them and bring it forth. I'll bet you anything this is how both the vampire and the Sharess will eventually turn out (as well as a werewolf character as one of the yet-to-be-revealed companions).
And if "flawed" equals "evil" (a very simplified generalization in my opinion, which would make companions with realistic character development impossible and a game more boring to me), then in BG2 you have an evil Keldorn, Valygar and Anomen (even after being knighted).
I said Larian believes their 'evil' characters are not truly 'evil' but instead are just "flawed." In this way they try to get around having to admit that those characters are in truth 'evil.' For example the vampire and priestess of Shar characters, characters that are indisputably 'evil' per longstanding D&D lore, but Larian tries to sell them to me as: "Hey, they're not really evil, they're just flawed." Well, no sale.
I also agree that we shouldnt misrepresent each other points, which is why I'm going to point out that at the beginning of your post you included the following:
Which implies that someone criticized BelgarathMTH's preferences when no one did. In fact, I'm the only one who responded directly t his post and I even included this at the beginning to ensure that was absolutely clear I was not offering any criticisms:
No one is attacking anyone here.
Sometimes a minority opinion can get kind of dogpiled on, in this forum, so occasionally I will express my minority opinion in solidarity with the other person who seems to feel that way, so they know they're not alone.
I fully expect when I say something I know to be unpopular, other people are likely to chime in and say, "Okay, but I have a different opinion, and I don't agree with you." That's fine. It doesn't make me feel attacked or anything like that, because I knew I was inviting that when I said something I knew good and well was a darned unpopular thing to say.
Namaste, everyone.
Back on track. right now we do not really know the vision of Larian´s writers about the good characters, because we do not know them ingame. Since the ones that are supposed to be "neutral" are like:
Gale seems to dislike violence, he favours a diplomatic approach almost all the time. He dislikes cruelty. The only moment he seems to lose it is when a kid is about to be sentenced to capital punishment for robbery. He´s the only one that seems to try to actively seek the others and assist the MC and the other infected with advice and help. He seems to get along with the others despite their race or religious beliefs. He has an orb that can level a city in his chest and he fleed to find a way to stop it and do not die or harm anyone. and it´s actively trying to stop it with the less loss of lives possible
Wyll was infected by a parasite, and the first thing he does is start helping refugees and training children even knowing that he has a limited time before being turned; He´s the only one that jumps into the fray in a heartbeat when MC´s group is attacked outside the gates instead of staying with the other tieflings in the safety of the wall, inside the druid grove. Will literally drops from a 30ft rampart in the middle of a goblin war party to help your group. He wants you to risk his life and yours to save some people he just met by storming a goblin fortress. He refuses to retire if you want to abandon people in need. He disapproves if you negotiate with creatures that prey on helpless humans.
Honestly, the points that could make him evil, ie. the pact with a demon even has a naive reason, born of good intentions. He looks more a childish man than a wicked one. And he is trying to get rid of the pact.
I´m honestly curious about what would be the approach about "good-hood" in BG3, seeing how the others are...
About the evil companions, I do not know what are the preconceptions about them, being a priestess of shar, a vampire and a Githyanki. Yeah, they are what is classically considered evil, but they are not as distasteful to talk to or travel with as expected
As I stated before, so were dr House, Sheldon cooper, Dr Who, etc, and many people find them likeable characters and some could not consider them bad people.
In the only official Larian forum I know of ( And I`ve been on it for 5 years or so, I have the same nick there) I had a very different experience than the one you describe here, all those "overwhelming" opinions, those strong pro-bg3 posters, the moderators facilitating toxic behaviours.... to be honest, I do not recall seeing all those things you usually describe in your posts but maybe we just read different threads.
Just to be sure, I only say that I did not see anything of the sort in the forum that I remember of and I have a different view of the forum in general than the one you usually describe, it´s not intended as an attack.
That said, I do not know the experience of other people with BG3, but based on the time I spent playing the game I think you will have enough characters to create a good party. I mean, I will love to have more characters than 8 companions and I prefer a bigger party than 4, but if we have to make a party of 4 good characters, that would be the MC and 3 others. or an origin character and 3 others.
For the reasons stated above, I think Gale and Wyll will fit in a good-aligned party and we will expect to have two-three "goodies" more as promised
Other info seem to point to a tiefling called Helia and our favourite ranger, Minsc. The latter would definitely be a fine good character.
So I think we will have enough people to choose from, a pool of 4- 5 to fit 3-4 slots.
More will be welcome but I think you can make a full evil party or a full good party since in BG3 you only have a party of 4.
Myself, I prefer to mix alignments and watch them argue =p
Back to the BG3 companions,
If Minsc becomes a joinable companion, that would be a huge plus in the plus column for me, since I've always loved Minsc, and it doesn't feel like BG without him in all my parties when I do a run in classic BG. I'm willing to go along with WotC's petrification device under suspension of disbelief for fun's sake. I already met de-petrified future Minsc in the Neverwinter mmo game, where he has several instanced scenarios where you take him along on an adventure, and I enjoyed those. Playing with new Minsc material was one of my pleasures I took away from that game, where I had very mixed experiences.
It may come down to gameplay style after all for me. I tried very hard to like Divinity: Original Sin 2, and I made it to the end of the first act there before I simply couldn't make myself interested in moving on to act two. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it was about that game that caused me to lose interest. I did have fun with it through most of act one, before it started to wear on me.
I think younger me would have liked it very much, and I'd think present me should like it. I think it's the turn-based combat with the environmental gimmickry. I prefer faster-paced combat resolution, nowadays. Also, as I've expressed elsewhere, the cast of characters just wasn't doing it for me.
Despite all my misgivings, I'll probably wind up buying BG3 when the price is right. I don't think I would pay full price for it right now, but that could change if the hype machine starts back up next year at full release, and I start to see things that intrigue me about it.
I might be totally wrong here but isn't this a misconception about Neutral Good vs. Chaotic Good? The way I see it:
Neutral Good means that laws, rules, customs, traditional morals, etc. don't *really* concern you, but there's also no reason that you would recklessly break them for no actual reason. You will play along them so long as they don't get in the way of doing good, so you might end up not breaking a single rule in your life, but on the other hand, if you feel that you really must due to the circumstances, you will in turn end up breaking every rule to do good.
Chaotic Good, on the other hand, means that you have a particular dislike of rules, pushing you to break them for the sake of breaking them. You actually want good for other people, so you'll try not to do anything *really* reckless that clearly endangers others, but you do really want to break those damn rules, because they grind your gears. You want to spit in the face of authority, not because that authority is necessarily evil or prevents you from doing good, but because the very concept of authority pisses you off.
So a CG character, when posed with the option to deal with a devil to gain powers they may use for good, is likely to just go "heck yeah!" An NG character on the other hand will consider how this will make others perceive them, and what repercussions it might have, so they're much more likely to decline than the CG person.
So to come back to Wyll:
If he greedily and readily accepted the pact with the devil because he immediately thought "more power = doing more good = win" then he's Chaotic Good.
If it was a rather hard decision for him to make that pact with the devil, and he only ended up agreeing because he determined that this would allow him to do significant good, then he's Neutral Good.