So far I am looking and have several hours in..

I hate the companions.

99% of them are evil, and I do not get why a party trying to save the world would be filled with hell knights, undead, torturers, and assorted aristocratic psychopaths.

Can I ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ have just a party of goodly people for once? Can I have decent classes? WHy is it the first character I pick makes my favorite class redundant (paladin)

Even the good characters are all horrible multicultural obnoxious ♥♥♥♥♥.

Why, why do people hate the basics so much? Elf, dwarf, paladin, cleric, wizard...just give me that, just give me the basic standard good DND group. I don't wanna run with rainbow haired shetwink parties of fox people...

If you want a whole party of nearly identical crusader types you might as well go to Hilor and make your own. They won't have dialogue, but if all you want is a bunch of same same goody guys made of tin and the holy light you might as well imagine them nodding in silent approval of your every good deed.

that thread is just a whole next level of trolling.

Originally posted by Lethe:

I agree that companions as a whole do not fit crusade in the slightest. In trying to make everyone and everything interesting, they forgot about the "commonplace" or "expected" values of the world

You'd expect more cavaliers, fighters, clerics, warpriests, etc instead you get
a beggar off the streets
an assassin you have seen fail a job and one that openly does not care about crusade at all.
a psychopath shaman
a cleric with anger issues ( that lead nowhere)
a succubus
a sociopath wizard
a thief that steals from his family and one that openly does not care about crusade
you might be meeting more of the supposedly rare dark elves than normal elves

its the fifth crusade, moral before was low and preparation was non existing, so you recruit whatever you get, i would call that realistic

and about elfs, around the third crusade they got burned on sight by the crusaders on a stake, so ya most elfs probably avoid that area

Originally posted by Gorwe:

Originally posted by Player#2201:

troll post

While PF and, consequentially, WoTR are very progressive, fully agreed with you. You know it is a troller when either "multiculturalism" or "LGBT+" are useed out of context.

its not a troll.

Does it shock you that people don't want the ♥♥♥♥ political show of the current world hamfisted into our fantasy escapism game?

Can, can I maybe just focus on saving the world without having to deal with every weird degenerate abomination filling up my party with their emo angst, weird torture fetish, flat out evil behavior?

Amazingly the character i have the least problem with is the succubus, the idea of a demon trying to redeem herself and go the other way is at least interesting. If angels can fall why cant demons redeem themselves and rise?

But the rest, admittedly I am not 1/3 of the way in and im struggling to continue as I listen to them. Furthermore I hate the snowflake classes. I realize I can retrain them into something I want, but I feel weird seeing a portrait of the character as a monk and turning them into a useful ranger.

Originally posted by Sgt. Giggle Mittens:

Even the good characters are all horrible multicultural obnoxious ♥♥♥♥♥.

poor baby is mad that the paladin is black lmao

seelah ain't evil, so who are the other 99 companions?

I'm just curious which fictional video game characters triggered you so much

Why does Seelah make you redundant(there are multiple archetypes of Paladin for a good reason)? Also, what super evil party(imo, half is good, half is evil ; pick GOOD)? Diversity? About diversity, care to renew your knowledge about Pathfinder? If LoTR is classical, D&D typical and Warhammer ironic / sarcastic / cynical, Pathfinder is progressive. It is what is.

Well. they already had relatively standard party in the previous game. It's only fair for them to try something new this time around.

I agree that companions as a whole do not fit crusade in the slightest. In trying to make everyone and everything interesting, they forgot about the "commonplace" or "expected" values of the world

You'd expect more cavaliers, fighters, clerics, warpriests, etc instead you get
a beggar off the streets
an assassin you have seen fail a job and one that openly does not care about crusade at all.
a psychopath shaman
a cleric with anger issues ( that lead nowhere)
a succubus
a sociopath wizard
a thief that steals from his family and one that openly does not care about crusade
you might be meeting more of the supposedly rare dark elves than normal elves

Originally posted by Lethe:

I agree that companions as a whole do not fit crusade in the slightest. In trying to make everyone and everything interesting, they forgot about the "commonplace" or "expected" values of the world

You'd expect more cavaliers, fighters, clerics, warpriests, etc instead you get
a beggar off the streets
an assassin you have seen fail a job and one that openly does not care about crusade at all.
a psychopath shaman
a cleric with anger issues ( that lead nowhere)
a succubus
a sociopath wizard
a thief that steals from his family and one that openly does not care about crusade
you might be meeting more of the supposedly rare dark elves than normal elves

Only Regill and Seelah fit imo. Everyone else is a misfit of a sort for an undertaking of CRUSADE's type. Ok, maybe Daeran fits the political aspect.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game but these are jarring points in story and I hope owlcat tries to add at least a couple more suitable companions with dlc

as for OP, seelah does not make oyu redundant as you can easily run her as a skald or cavalier (or even a cha based caster) if you don't want to share same classes. having a 2 level paladin dip wouldnt hurt her performance.
Same with lann, his stat seems redundant and spread out but enables him to spec into many other classes with ease.

Counting only the core companions (not the ones you get from paths or late game, and leaving out camellia spoilers) :
There are 3 good (seelah, sosiel, ember),
5 neutrals (lann, greybor, arue, nenio, woljif)
3 evil (regill, wenduag, daeran)

Or the law/chaos axis we have :
3 lawful (seelah, lan, regill)
6 neutral (ember, sosiel, nenio, geybor, daeran, wenduag)
2 chaotic (woljif, arue)

And about arue, her quest will make her shift either toward chaotic good or chaotic evil.
Wenduag can shift toward true neutral.

So it's kind of balanced

My main issue really is with the 2 late game companions (the one you can get at chapter 4 and the one you can get at chapter 6..., both after resolving quests in certain ways). They could have both been introduced earlier to add more choice and be more useful (instead of chapter 4, having him locked the ivory sanctum in chapter 3 would have been better, and for the one at chapter 6, a good char should have been able to get her at chapter 2 and have a way to make her stay in chapter 3 and 4).

Nurah, staunton and ciar should have also been made available at chapter 3 under certain mythic paths (other than lich for ciar and staunton, nurah is a missed opportunity imo, especially for trickster), especially becasue of their class (having a bard, a cavalier and a warpriest in the pool would have been good for people not wantign to use mercenaries or main for those).

troll post

Originally posted by Player#2201:

troll post

While PF and, consequentially, WoTR are very progressive, fully agreed with you. You know it is a troller when either "multiculturalism" or "LGBT+" are useed out of context.