Characters

Characters

Dorothy, Paracelsus and the Oz candidates: who is confirmed in Wonders of O, who is teased, and who exists only in fan expectation.

3
Confirmed cast
1
Teased figures
7
Oz candidates

Introduction

Characters splits into two groups that should never be mixed: the cast the series has already established and the Oz figures the studio has not touched at all. The first group is documented and includes Dorothy, who is named in the predecessor's post-credits scene and shown only from the ankles down; Paracelsus, the alchemist who operated behind the merchant identity Giangio and who is still searching for her when the game ends; and the puppet protagonist, who is Collodi's creation under a different name. The second group is a list of public-domain possibilities drawn from L. Frank Baum's novel: the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, Toto, Glinda, the Wicked Witch and the ruler Ozma. None of them appears in any official material about this project, and the interesting question is not whether they will appear but how a studio that renames its protagonists would rework them to fit a world of clockwork and alchemy. This category keeps the two lists apart and marks the reasoning behind every entry.

Cast Status Board

CharacterSeries roleStatus in sequelEvidence
DorothyThe figure the antagonist is searching forTeasedNamed and shown at the ankles in the closing scene
ParacelsusAlchemist, hidden behind the identity GiangioConfirmedDrives the predecessor's plot and closes it still searching
The puppet protagonistPlayer character of the predecessorConfirmedCentral to the released game, adapted from Collodi
Geppetto, Sophia, GeminiSupporting cast of the predecessorUnknownNo statement about returning characters exists
Oz cast (Scarecrow and others)Public-domain figures from Baum's novelSpeculationNo official material mentions any of them

Cast Dossiers

Dorothy

teased

Named once, never shown above the ankles

Who They AreThe figure Paracelsus is searching for when the predecessor ends, established by name in dialogue and by image in a rooftop shot showing ruby slippers and a heel click over the city of Krat.
StatusTeased. She is the single strongest link between the two games and the reason the Oz theory existed before the trademark did, but no role, design or voice has been attached to her.
Why They MatterWhatever the sequel is, she is at the centre of it. The antagonist is looking for her, the camera saves her identity for a reveal, and the imagery is the most recognisable thing in the entire closing sequence.
Open QuestionWhether she is playable, an antagonist or a supporting figure, and whether the studio keeps her name or renames her the way it renamed its own protagonist.

Paracelsus

confirmed

Alchemist, manipulator, and the man still searching

Who They AreThe alchemist whose actions helped destroy Krat, present for most of the predecessor as Giangio, a travelling merchant who offers help and information while concealing his identity and his purpose.
StatusConfirmed in the predecessor, and the only major character left with an active goal when it ends. No sequel casting or story statement has mentioned him.
Why They MatterHe is the structural bridge between the games. His final scene sets up the sequel's premise, and his habit of operating under a false identity matches the way the series handles its literary source material.
Open QuestionWhether he remains the antagonist or becomes something more ambiguous. The ending leaves him pursuing a goal rather than opposing anyone, which is an unusual position for a series villain.

The Puppet Protagonist

confirmed

Collodi's creation, adapted and renamed

Who They AreThe player character of the predecessor, a constructed being built by a woodcarver father figure, capable of lying, and never once called Pinocchio despite being unmistakably that character.
StatusConfirmed in the predecessor and central to it. Nothing has been said about whether the sequel continues this character or introduces a counterpart in the same spirit.
Why They MatterThe adaptation method they embody is the strongest available clue about how Oz figures will be handled. If the pattern holds, the next cast will be recognisable whatever they are called.
Open QuestionWhether the sequel keeps a single continuing protagonist or shifts to a new adapted lead, which the rooftop scene leaves genuinely open.

The Inherited Supporting Cast

unknown

The woodcarver, the guide and the lamp spirit

Who They AreThe recurring figures of the predecessor: the woodcarver who built the protagonist, the woman whose voice guides the journey, and the small spirit who lives in the lamp and comments on events.
StatusUnknown. They are documented in a released game and entirely absent from every statement, filing and report about the sequel.
Why They MatterThey are the emotional memory of the series, and their return or absence would define how much of the previous story the sequel treats as its own history rather than as background.
Open QuestionWhether the sequel continues their story or references it from a distance. Neither choice has been signalled, and the rumour traffic about returning cast members has no documentary basis.

Oz Candidates

speculation

Scarecrow, Tin Man, Lion, Toto, Glinda and the witches

Who They AreThe public-domain cast of Baum's 1900 novel, free for any studio to adapt and instantly recognisable to readers and film audiences alike.
StatusSpeculation. Not one of them has been mentioned in official material, and no hiring, filing or interview points towards any particular member of the group.
Why They MatterThey are the most likely source of the sequel's new roster if the series continues adapting classic children's literature, and their defining traits map neatly onto systems the predecessor already built.
Open QuestionWhich of them, if any, appear and under what names. A studio that renamed its own protagonist could plausibly introduce the whole group without using a single familiar name.

Core Mechanics

Character discussion in this fandom runs on a specific method, and understanding it is what separates a reasoned guess from a wish. Start with what the predecessor actually did: it took a well-known cast, renamed it, and rebuilt each figure around a mechanical or alchemical idea, so the woodcarver becomes an engineer and the puppet becomes a clockwork construction. Apply that same transformation to Oz and you get a workable set of predictions rather than a wish list. The Scarecrow, a figure defined by the absence of a brain, maps onto a puppet or automaton whose intelligence is contested. The Tin Man, defined by a missing heart, maps onto the humanity mechanic the series already built. The Cowardly Lion maps onto a beast or hunting construct, and the Wicked Witch onto an antagonist with the same kind of hidden machinery the alchemists used. That is speculation, but it is speculation with a stated method, which makes it checkable: if the sequel introduces a cast that follows this pattern, the reasoning was sound, and if it does not, the reasoning was wrong for identifiable reasons rather than merely unlucky.

Advantages

Working from the predecessor's cast gives this category a solid floor that most pre-release topics lack. Dorothy, Paracelsus and the protagonist are all documented, their relationships are established in a released game, and the central tension, an antagonist hunting a woman who has arrived in the city he ruined, is already written. That is enough material for character pages that stand on their own, independent of anything the sequel announces. The public-domain half of the list has a different advantage: because Baum's characters are free to use, they can be discussed and illustrated without the legal caution required for licensed properties, and they are familiar enough that readers arrive already knowing who they are. Between the two, this category is well placed to publish useful work both before and after a reveal, and to revise itself quickly when the cast is finally shown.

Challenges

The honest weakness is that most of the page count is about characters who may not appear. The Oz cast is attractive to write about precisely because it is familiar, and familiarity is not evidence, so there is a constant risk of a speculative roster being read as a confirmed one. The predecessor's supporting cast presents the opposite problem: Geppetto, Sophia, Gemini and the rest are documented but their return is entirely unknown, and building speculation on them is as ungrounded as the Oz predictions while looking more authoritative because the names are real. There is also a spoiler cost. The ending that carries the only hard character evidence is the ending of a game many readers have not finished, so any discussion of Dorothy has to spoil it to be useful, and this category warns rather than pretending otherwise.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Dorothy the protagonist of Wonders of O?+
Unknown, and the ending is composed to keep it that way. Dorothy is named by Paracelsus and shown only from the ankles down, which establishes that she exists and that she is in Krat without revealing whether she is playable, an antagonist or a supporting figure. The playable-character reading has obvious appeal, since the predecessor put its own adapted protagonist at the centre, and the alternative reading is that she is the quarry in a chase driven by Paracelsus. Both are consistent with everything currently known, and any page stating one as fact is going beyond the evidence.
Will characters from Lies of P return?+
There has been no statement about returning characters in either direction. Paracelsus is the strongest candidate on narrative grounds, because the closing scene leaves him actively pursuing the next story, and the city of Krat itself reappears in that scene, which makes a fully new setting less likely. Beyond him, the predecessor's supporting cast, including the woodcarver, the guide and the lamp spirit, have no confirmed role and no reported involvement. It is worth remembering that a sequel which keeps its setting can still replace its cast, and a sequel that moves somewhere new can bring anyone along, so the two questions are independent of each other.
Which Oz characters is the studio legally free to use?+
All of the ones in the 1900 novel, which is in the public domain: Dorothy, Toto, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, Glinda, the Wicked Witch of the West, Ozma, the Emerald City and the Yellow Brick Road. What is not free is material created specifically for the 1939 film, most notably the ruby slippers, which replaced Baum's silver shoes and remain protected. The predecessor's ending is interesting for exactly that reason, because it uses the film's slippers alongside the novel's character, which suggests the studio is comfortable referencing both. That is an observation about one scene rather than a statement about licensing either way.

Quick Tips

💡

Keep confirmed and speculative names in separate lists. Mixing Paracelsus, who is documented, with the Scarecrow, who is not, is how a speculative roster starts to look like a leaked one after enough repetition. Two columns on one page is enough to prevent it, and the habit pays off at the moment of a reveal, because you can immediately see which of your expectations the studio met and which it never hinted at.

💡

Watch how the predecessor renamed things. The series adapted a famous story and gave its lead a different name, so the useful question about any Oz figure is not whether they appear but what they would be called. Applied to Baum, that method suggests the famous roles will be recognisable through behaviour and costume while the names may be invented, which is precisely how the closing scene handles Dorothy herself.

💡

Check whether a claim about returning cast traces to a source. Almost every rumour about the woodcarver, the guide or the lamp spirit comes from a wish rather than a document, and the studio has said nothing either way. This is one of the easiest claims to check, because a returning character is information that a store page, an interview or a cast list would have to mention, and none of those currently exists.

💡

Remember that Dorothy is the only name the series has actually spoken. Everything else in the Oz column is a reader's expectation, however well reasoned, and the difference is worth stating whenever the topic comes up. Keeping that in mind also protects you from the opposite error, which is treating a strong thematic parallel as proof of nothing at all; the connection is real, it is simply narrower than most discussion of it implies.

Explore More