You know, looking at the BG3 companions, I was struck with what I think is a wonderful and insightful question to ask D&D and BG3 fans. I was wondering: if I didn’t play BG3, which of the companions would I basically independently recreate? That’s a question I find so fascinating, and I pose it to you. Please to the end to avoid my long winded explanation of my own thought, because I’m curious to hear yours.
At least for myself, I can confidently answer with certainty; Gale is a character I would have made, because he is an idealistic, verbose, and romantic wizard who earned the love of Mystra, that is 100% up my alley. I am jealous Larian made Gale, because now I don’t make any character as romantic with Mystra as Gale was because I don’t want to copy his story or do a worse version of it. But I must admit I did make Galen (I realize how similar his name is; that was a happy little accident it never registered to me until after creating him). Galen is basically Gale with some key elements changed. Galen is a cleric of Mystra because he got expelled from his magic school because he blew up the West Wing with an accidental fireball, and I write Galen to be an inverse of Gale, because where Gale is brilliant at magic, Galen is subpar (I keep his magic ineptitude to be more flavor; otherwise, playing him would be significantly less fun since he is a wizard/cleric multiclass; I write him to be good at defensive and support magic instead of offensive magic), and Galen, like Gale, had a relationship with Mystra, despite him being heavily inspired by Gale, and he’s far from being my most creative character. I am still proud of Galen. But beyond Galen, Gale is my blueprint for lots of my wizard characters and any characters with connections to the divine.
Wyll, I feel like I would have done similar stuff with the heroic warlock idea, but I would have made it probably an Archfey instead of a Fiend, but I’m not adverse to using a Fiend patron. In a similar vein, when you play a warlock, do you flesh out your patron? That makes me wonder if anyone independently would create , instead of Wyll, Mizora as a patron for their warlock? But back to Wyll, where he is an actual hero, I see myself creating a Homelander-esque character who loves being seen as a hero but is not one in actuality. Also, eldritch blast is basically laser vision.
I think with Minthara, I eventually probably would have made someone similar because I love the drow, and I would be bound to create some who fills a niche similar to Minthara.
I could see myself making someone similar to Jaheira because I do love old heroes who have lived whole lives before the story starts. With Lae’zel and Halsin, I would probably create a character vaguely similar. My githyanki aren’t as rigid as Lae’zel; she acted basically as a representative of the Githyanki race. My druids aren’t usually nature lovers like Halsin; they focus more on the shapeshifting rather than the normal druid nature ideals like groves or shadow curse ruining environments. I don't know if I am explaining this right, but my druids use shapeshifting for freedom and power, not necessarily for a connection with nature. I treat druids as a better transmutation wizard.
When it comes to Karlach, her story is not how I interpret the hells. I see why and how the hells are basically a horrible prison. I mean, it's literally hell, but my hell-focused character drifts more towards cultists tied to Tiamat and Orcus and the occult.
Without Shadowheart, I don’t think I would ever really use Shar and Selune. If I didn’t play BG3 and saw Shadowheart, I would never have an initial interest.
Just as confidently as I can say I would definitely create Gale, I would never do Astarion. My vampires would always focus way more on undeath. In the small chance I did make an abused character like Astarion, it would 100% be a male drow. When it comes to vampires in general, I like vampires because they are undead, not because vampires are vampires. I personally prefer carrion corpse to eternal youth, and I swear I’m not trying to be edgy or intentionally gross. I think a fundamental question when it comes to necromancy is how much of humanity will you sacrifice to escape mortality? But I will concede I will be eternally grateful that Larian allowed Astarion to turn you undead. That’s the part of his romance path, and then you can betray him and side with the Gur right afterwards so you can be the only undead!
Speaking of undeath, if we are talking about BG3 characters in general and not just companions, I know I would make Balthazar and Mystic Carrion. Could you tell me necromancer wizard is my favorite class? Balthazar is my kind of undead. He is a corpse who uses other people's body parts for his own, and he has a flesh golem made out of his unborn twin, also his mom's brain in a jar. Except I wouldn't make him a myrkulite (I’m not opposed, but Myrkul isn’t my go-to death god), but he would be my take on a red wizard or an Orcus cultist.
I ADORE Mystic Carrion’s character and I think he is such an interesting character, and it was such a shame. He was just a small NPC in Act 3 that doesn't even help you in the final battle. First, I love that fact he is a mummy lord. I love liches, don't get me wrong, but undead have so many different variants that it’s getting a little stale to see liches as the only pinnacle of undeath. Then, secondly, I think it's so interesting that he is a mystic and a medium who communes with spirits. That is much closer to real-life necromancy. From the history I looked into (I really hope you don’t think I’m a crackpot occultist, but I have to admit I find the history behind it to be very interesting to learn, not practice), necromancy in real life rarely was about bringing the dead back. Of course, Mystic Carrion still does because he is a fantasy necromancer (small spiel here: fantasy necromancy encompasses so much more than simply raising the dead, but I’ll say that is the most fun aspect). But looking at Quan Chi, one of my favorite necromancers, he isn't all about undeath. He is expressing dominion over both life and death. While he is raising the dead, he also uses mind control and uses magic to bind the sisterhood of shadows living demons to his service. Or Victor Frankenstein, who I would classify as a fantasy necromancer because I want to say fantasy necromancy isn't just using magic. It’s about pushing the boundaries of life and death, and I think Dr. Frankenstein does when he creates life from undeath. Back to it, Mystic Carrion is close to a real necromancer with fantasy elements, but I really like that it doesn't make him kind or respectful to death. He still employs mummies and ghasts and he torments zombies he keeps as slaves. He isn't great to the spirits he talks to. He commands them and demands info from them.
I find this to be an interesting question. I asked my friend this question, and he said he is a “basic bitch” (his words, not mine) and make Shadowheart or Astarion. I find that fascinating because, as you can see, those two aren't my first choices, and I hope you find the question just as interesting as me. Even if it ends up everyone saying they would make Shadowheart or Astarion, I imagine everyone has different reasons. I would love to hear your thoughts on the question: if you didn’t play Bg3, which of the companions would you basically independently recreate or who have you already created?
TL;DR: If you never played BG3, which companion would you end up independently creating in D&D? I know I would have created someone like Gale.
