How many companions will there be in total?

[SonicMage117]

I'd expect at least one or two new companions through dlc that nobody here knows of yet.

[molotov.]

11 in total - 7 companions 4 sidekicks -and I hereby say what my intuition is telling me: the sidekicks will be much more appreciated than the companions resulting in a violent revolt on the forums.

Konstanten will be a true dwarf.

Fassina will have the best one liners.

Rekke will be the best character in the game.

And Ydwin... oh Ydwin... she will be the main reason for the revolution.

[wolfrider100]

You get 11 companions in total. 3 of them are returning from Pillars Of Eternity, the other 4 of them are new to Deadfire,

 

plus you get 4 sidekicks. I also have a good feeling that the 3 new DLC expansions will bring a few companions with them.

 

(Do like that Eder, Pelegina and Aloth are all returning for Pillars Of Eternity II: Deadfire. I loved them in Pillars Of Eternity.)

Edited April 7, 2018 by wolfrider100

[Yosharian]

 

example 1:

Somebody asks me: " I need this document. Can you tell me the way to the parliament?"

I tell him correctly the direction to the parliament. But I know that you need to go to the city hall to get the document and the city hall is in the opposite direction, but I do not tell this.

I did not lie because I gave him the correct direction to the parliament.

This is actually great for explaining the D&D methodology of alignment.  You split it into two answers though.

 

Lawful: You give them accurate directions to the parliament.

Neutral: You probably give them directions if you know them, but you aren't particularly concerned if they are perfect.  If you dislike the person you probably refuse.

Chaotic: Maybe you give directions, maybe you don't, maybe they are accurate, maybe they aren't.  It depends on whether you like the guy or feel incentivized pretty much.

 

Good: You also tell them, uh this has to go to city hall, not parliament.

Neutral: Maybe you tell them to go to city hall instead, assuming you know that, but you gave them the info they wanted so *shrug*

Evil: You omit that they have to go to city hall, and depending on law/chaos/etc maybe even lie and say they have to go to some fake non existent office that doesn't exist.

 

 

This is reasonable but I prefer to look at alignment through motivation rather than actions.  My actions may differ greatly from moment to moment based on circumstance, but my overall motivations should stay reasonably consistent, although they too may change depending on context.

 

So:

 

Axis of morality

Good: you act according to what is beneficial for individuals, or communities/societies as a whole

Neutral: you act principally for your own benefit

Evil: you take actions that specifically harm others

 

So for example, in your hypothetical situation, a 'good' character might help the person by telling them where they really need to go, but they also might do the opposite.  What if the man is a slaver, and is attempting to present a bill of sale for some slaves to the correct authority?  In this case, a 'good' character might do everything in their power to hinder this man, since slavery is an evil act.

 

However, a good person might also see slavery as a necessary, economic, evil in order to benefit civilization as a whole.  The rights of the individual, in this case, are trumped by the needs of civilization.  This might particularly be the case if owning and selling slaves was lawful in that particular area.

 

So 'good' is not a black and white choice here but rather two 'good' characters might come up with completely different actions, both based on the principal of helping others.

 

That's why I think alignments should be flexible.  The world isn't always so simple.

 

To continue, a 'neutral' person might first ask: "What's in it for me?"  They might tell the person that they know where the document really needs to go, but they wish to be recompensed for the exchange of information first.

 

This speaks to the fundamental need for 'quid pro quo' when it comes to human interactions.  Not everyone expects their back to be scratched when they scratch someone else's, but most do.  Neutral characters are at least willing to engage in an exchange in order to get the money or power that they desire.

 

An 'evil' person might do the same thing, but then send the person in completely the wrong direction, perhaps towards a dark alley where they can then murder the NPC and steal all their belongings.  An evil person isn't bound by conscience: they desire money, power, whatever, just like the neutral individual, but they aren't afraid to kill, blackmail, etc in order to get those things.

 

Axis of law

Lawful: you obey the law or a personal code, or are consistent in your actions

Neutral: you sometimes obey laws or personal codes, or are inconsistent

Chaotic: you rarely obey laws, have barely any personal code whatsoever, or are extremely inconsistent

 

A 'lawful' character might send the NPC to the correct place (maybe after demanding payment for the information?), but also they might do the complete opposite.  What if they follow a personal code which entails personal freedom as the ultimate ideal?  This would put them at odds with a slaver, for sure.  There are many ways a lawful character might act in this situation.

 

However, whatever the reason for this character being 'lawful', one thing that should remain constant is the consistency with which the character follows the law, or code.  A lawful character wouldn't break the law, or their personal code, or would avoid it wherever possible.

 

A 'neutral' character might follow the same laws, or also have a code, but they'd be willing to break the rules from time to time if a good enough reason presented itself.  For example, a neutral character might see a lawful obligation to send the hypothetical NPC to the right place, but then might notice a rather fat coinpurse hanging from the NPC's belt.  Maybe just this once...

 

A chaotic character is capricious and unpredictable: they barely have any kind of personal code, or they rarely give any thought to laws.  It's not hard to come up with a possible response for a chaotic character, but it is hard to predict how they might respond.  A chaotic character might stab the NPC through the neck just for being slaver scum.  Or not.

 

Anyway, that's how I see alignment.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Yosharian

[Drowsy Emperor]

You guys realize the system is absurd right?

 

Everything but the middle describes only extreme, fringe, individuals and even for them, sometimes applies only in specific circumstances. Human conduct is heavily influenced by circumstances, perceptions of good and bad are often dependent on societal norms, the actions of others are difficult to judge and may depend on perception and position of the beholder.

 

I mean, surely, you understand that these categories are utter bullcrap, except for the basic distinction between good and evil, and even that is a philosophical problem of the highest order.

 

Also, thinking in these labels makes for bad roleplaying and is more likely to produce cookie cutter characters rather than nuanced characters whose actions are the result of the complex mesh of upbringing, personal ideals, societal norms and specific circumstance that real human beings all have to contend with. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Drowsy Emperor

[SonicMage117]

You guys realize the system is absurd right?

 

Everything but the middle describes only extreme, fringe, individuals and even for them, sometimes applies only in specific circumstances. Human conduct is heavily influenced by circumstances, perceptions of good and bad are often dependent on societal norms, the actions of others are difficult to judge and may depend on perception and position of the beholder.

 

I mean, surely, you understand that these categories are utter bullcrap, except for the basic distinction between good and evil, and even that is a philosophical problem of the highest order.

 

Also, thinking in these labels makes for bad roleplaying and is more likely to produce cookie cutter characters rather nuanced characters.

We shall see what the reviewers and critics make of it. Their opinions are probably more important than backers and fan boys (like myself) since their opinions are not so tainted and reasoning is more sound - for they have no attachments to Obsidian or the game itself.

 

So far, seems like more and more backers are becoming upset about things, just as you but we won't knw how widely these systems are accepted til the game has been officially been released.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I was talking about the DnD system, I didn't even know that Obs is implementing morality in PoE2?

[VincentNZ]

I am still not sure if sidekicks will be all that deep as we expect them to be. I mean in BG2 there were a few characters I would identify as sidekicks as well, like Mazzy and Cernd but they all were part of a pretty deep sidequest. I think Cernd had a miscallenous task attached as well.

 

I have only played through BG1 once, but I recall there being a few more characters that were not much more than templates. I have to say though I only used the ones that I had access to in BG2 as well, so I do not know much about interaction.

 

From what I read on the sidekicks, they could really be not much more than that...

[Drowsy Emperor]

I imagine them to be somewhat like BG1 companions, but likely with more banter.

 

To be honest, I think it's not a bad thing. Obligatory companion quests put stress on the designers and on the character him/herself as well as the PC - because:

1. The quest has to be significant and compelling (ideally)

2. It has to somehow tie into the main quest or at least the protagonist's experience

3. It has to introduce some change that is the result of PC agency

 

All of these can lead to great things, but also to very railroaded, game-centric experiences. You will pursue the quest because you feel compelled to find out about the character, because there is the promise of a reward, and the reward will always tend to be the same - some sort of 'fundamental' change in the character or his perceptions. So it becomes a rote, predictable experience. It also puts a bit too much power in the hands of the player. Sure, the Nameless One may have been a demigod of sorts, and therefore exerts tremendous influence on his companions for one reason or another... but was the PC's seeming omnipotence in unwrapping the minds and issues of companions as convincing in KOTOR II? Dragon Age? Mass Effect? It's debatable.

 

Case in point - I pursued companion quests in PoE less because I was interested in the stories (they were, in fact, quite boring), and more because I felt it was 'the right way to play', and, because I've always done so. It left me unsatisfied because neither the road toward the reward, nor the reward themselves were, well, rewarding.

 

Conversely, what made Minsc so popular was his essential simplicity as a character and staunch refusal to add much depth to it. This is often the case in popular media - many characters are immensely interesting precisely because they have some specific quirks (Jack Sparrow) that seem fresh... and nothing else. 

E.g. Ripley has Sigourney Weaver's masculine looks, attitude and novelty of gender role reversal. John McLane has a troubled relationship, uncompromising attitude and an endless supply of smartass jokes.

Etc. Etc.

If done well, it's more than enough. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Drowsy Emperor

[Progressive_Stupidity]

Is there any information on voice actors for the new companions (or major characters)?

[Night Stalker]

Is there any information on voice actors for the new companions (or major characters)?

I don't think so, though there may be an announcement coming about this shortly.