Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Character Motivation

What motivates you to play a long CRPG? I am sure the Larian game writers talk about this quite a bit. I guess BG III starts out with the PC getting stuck with an Illithid worm or something, with only a few days to live unless it can be removed. That is certainly a direct and easy way to provide an impetus to play the game for any type of character persona, but in general I am not a big fan of the "play or you're gonna die" type of motivation. In NWN Mask of the Betrayer I removed the spirit eater stuff entirely because I could not stand the constant state of anxiety.

I prefer different motivations. One of my favorite is to pursue the solution to a mystery. JK Rowling mentioned years ago that everybody loves a good "whodunnit" story, and she is right. Another motive is when a well-written NPC that I care about has a problem that needs solving, or just wants to have fun! Narlen Darkwalk comes to mind, of course. Another motive is the advancement of my alignment philosophy, whether it be survival of the fittest, justice for the downtrodden, or the triumph of the natural order and preservation of balance. What motivates you?

Let's see, my favourite starting motivation is 'let's go on an adventure!' and see where it goes from there. Yes it's simple, but it gives the character some excitement about the situation they are in (although they might grow to regret it later), it's playful, and it doesn't give the start of the experience an air of obligation. It also fits almost any setting.

As for the standard motivations, well, I can definitely see why duty or threat to PC's life are widely used, they leave most room for interpretation of the character, since unless they want whatever horrible fate to befall them, they have no choice but to participate. I don't mind these, since they tend to lead to more fun shenanigans.

Usually I just want to explore the developer's creation. For me, a main quest is a hook to help describe the environment and give context, but I'm rarely bothered that much about it; particularly as many main quests are not particularly good.

I'm definitely a side-quest-and-sandbox sort of person, in keeping with the original ideas behind tabletop DnD. I am less keen on very linear games, with overly cinematic presentation, and rarely like to be forced into action against my will.

Depends on the setting and game honestly. In DOS2 I played as Lohse, and I was deeply invested in helping be rid of her demon because I cared about her as a person and the feeling of sheer terror and horror whenever the entity took control really unnerved me. She's a light-hearted girl who was dragged into a horrible situation, so I am invested in saving her. Working alongside my party of Sebille, Beast and the Red Prince made me realise that they were my friends supporting me despite the fact I had a demon puppeteering my body around made me want to help them in turn, because they were my friends.
Obviously the main objective to start within BG3 is get rid of the tadpole asap. Once that that sword of Damocles has been solved then I will have time to take a breath and ponder. Why was I infected? Why did the normal symptoms not happen as per the norm? Can I trust these new friends and allies of mine? Should I help them and can they help me? What should I do now? Hopefully, when we learn more we will be to form our own motivation as the story unfolds.

I agree with the OP. In MotB I also always used the mod to remove the spirit eater entirely from my game. I generally hate the "you have X days to do this or you die" impetus. I always like doing side quests and open exploration first before doing that chapter's/area's main quest part.

Agree with the OP as well. I'm hoping the tadpole thing is over at some point in Act 1... sort of like removing the source collar in DOS2.

Always appealing for me was the growing feeling - through a slow reveal and as events unfold - that your char is caught up in times greater than themselves, and through actions and choice can shape the outcome.

We know that tadpole you get is not the usual tadpole. It was made up to accomodate needs of the game. I will wager that we won't be able to remove it that easily, out initial attempts will fail, because it is a different kind of tadpole and it will remain through the enitre or most adventure.

It's been said that giving into tadpole give power but corrupts - as well as taking or rejecing this power will be one of main throughlines in BG3. I don't think it is a big jump to claim that tadpole and embracing or rejecting Illithid is BG3's version of Bhaal heritage. I also think it can be very much like source in D:OS2 - something that ties companions and coop players together and includes them in narrative, over-riding any personal needs or motivations an origin or custom character might have.

There are too many things tied to the tadpole (explanation for your superhuman abilities, connection to companions, ability to read each other mind and share experiences) to just remove it in first act. Collar in D:OS2 supressed abilities acting as a tutorial gate in some way. Tadpole is the source - it is through it that gameplay system are being implimented/explained.

Maybe we learn it’s not actually killing us or just killing us very slowly? Or maybe we’ll be able to remove or neutralize it while the effects it had on us remain?

I agree that powers/corruption will likely stick with us throughout the game, but I expect the idea of a ticking clock will be resolved by end of act 1 (if there is such a thing).

While I like having a sense of purpose (or one of several purposes) to drive the story, too much urgency and impending doom can make it hard to justify wasting time exploring and dicking around in the game world for your character. You always feel you should just get on with dealing with your problem.

Also I’m not sure that the thing you discover in the opening cutscene should be your main motivation throughout the whole game. I’d prefer some unexpected turns in the story. Continually trying and failing to remove the tadpole doesn’t sound all that appealing.

I think the tadpole storyline is going to culminate around the end of Act 1; I don't think it's going to have an arching storyline across the whole game. Whether you keep it in or not, I think it's going to have lasting effects like no sunlight sensitivity to those that would normally have it (drow, Astarion, etc). I think it's a great way to introduce the antagonists and giving us a reason for hunting them down...if illithids are the main protagonist of the whole game.

The second gameplay hinted that the tadpole also gives you several abilities (like the force persuade that Lae´zel used several times) and that the use of those powers could have consequences, so I think the tadpole would be in the entire game providing plot hooks and "powers".
I´m also curious how deep the infernal meddling would be in the ceremorphosis storyline.

theres a chance that the whole tadpole thing is a red herring and all the cultist stuff is related to the dead three

I wouldn't say red herring but they don't seem to be alpha and omega of BG3

For me it's about the endless slaughter of your inferiors. To laugh maniacally as I roflstomp my way to fame and fortune. To grow powerful and rich beyond your wildest imaginations. What else is there really?

Oh, that and the comradery of your fellows and the love of a good, though not necessarily "good" woman.

Except that I don't see anything yet that signifies *meaningful* consequences. I don't see any meaningful reason for any player to not use the tadpole. And that is terrible game design.

I think ( not entirely sure ) I remember the final time Lae'zel used the persuasion ability, the game narration offered a stronger message about the effect she was feeling. It's typical in RPGs that something that will "eventually" be a problem is progressively flagged as worsening. An example would be the poisoning by Marek in Baldur's Gate in BG1.

While we don't exactly know where enbracing tadpoles power would lead us, tadpoles biting into our brain as we use it doesn't seem great. Reminds me very much of Slayer form from BG2.


https://youtu.be/XSc17QXxfyU?t=5007

Perhaps. As I said in my post, I don't *yet* see any evidence of meaningful consequences. It may be there. We'll see. Meaningful consequences for me would be that the ceremorphosis process is completed and you become a mindflayer, with your own body, mind, personality and soul completely destroyed in the process. I have my doubts that that is what we'll see.

After only two gameplays and with the game not even in EA I do not think we have enough information to judge that.

Sounds like you have the review of the game already made. Gotta love the doomsayers of the crystal balls and tarot cards.

Agree that it adds to the game in choices and trade-offs when they offer you some “uses” that derive from having a condition that may prove lethal, but they come at a cost. Also agree the cost, just as the use of this “power,” should have real meaning.

I'd consider permanent stat or ability loss to be meaningful ... A binary win-lose seems much less interesting to me than increasing risk of possible impairment--with neither the number of required uses or the nature of the impairment being fixed, so that even on subsequent playthroughs you're uncertain what the long-term consequences of your choices may be.

<shrug> It's opinion either way. But stat/ability loss is, to me, extremely minimal. After all, it is something you can easily make up for with spells or items. That as the trade-off for the kind of power you get from the tadpole is very uneven. That would be a no-brainer that using the tadpole is the ONLY way to go.

Lookout, Blackguard on the loose!

Please tell me that this gorgeous pun was intentional.

Glad someone got it.

A mystery really motivates me such as what the OP mentioned in their post. Or like in BG2 when you wake up in Irenicus's dungeon and you're trying to work out who this guy is, what's happened, why you're locked up, what all these people in jars are doing etc. Then you finally get out of his hideout and then he disappears!

And then you get so much fun sidequests to do, that you forget about Imoen and Irenicus completely, until you recruit a new companion, and your PC says: "but you should know that my priority is to track down an evil wizard and rescue my friend!"... oh yeah, that was a thing. I supposed I had enough money to pay the thief guy like 10 hours ago. Whatever, what are other quests I can do...

At least, that was my first BG2 experience.

I've got to agree with that, there's just so much to do and see you get lost in it. And then when you do have the money, it's like ''one more quest'', ''yeah but I wanna do x, y and z first''. Is immersing the right word, to describe it? Its pretty immersing and it's good that it doesn't force you to rush after Irenicus. You can do it all at your own pace.

I actually always saw it as a weak point - I think the only "big" picture issue I can indentify with BG2 (there are smaller things which I think aren't as good as they could be, but I don't think they hurt the overall experience). This lack of urgency and distraction goes against the narrative and your character motivation. From narrative perspecitve the side jobs are only there to get money to pay for saving Imoen, and it doesn't make sense for the the Bhaal Spawn to be a freelance adventurer for longer then he needs - no matter if his motivation is care for Imoen or revenge. It makes even less sense if you save up sidequests for after the underdark.

I thought Witcher3 got around that problem nicely, but giving player excuses to not progress the story "Hey, Ciri is safe for now, and if you rescue her the hell will break loose. So you know, make sure you are prepared for it first wink, wink".

Interesting that you say that. I personally do like the lack of urgency, the benefits are freedom and more replay-ability but I do agree with you. It is a weak point. I disagree on the Bhaalspawn freelancer part, if the Bhaalspawn is evil and doesn't care about saving Imoen or going after or getting anything from Irenicus, then I can see the Bhaalspawn sticking around gaining more power money, powerful items and more benefits.

I do have a question for you, most people prefer SOA to Throne of Bhaal because TOB rushes you and forces you to go about the Bhaalspawn saga. Whereas Shadows of amn has a lot of freedom. What are your thoughts on TOB? Do you like the story/narrative and how they went about it?

I might be wrong, but as far as I remember, when you recruit new companion your options are more or less: "But you should know that my real objective is saving my friend" or "But you should know that my real objective is getting revange on an evil Wizard". I don't remember there being a neutral option "at the moment I am just doing stuff". Getting to Spellhold is our protagonist objective, even if we get distracted from it (I think intro is short enough for new players to forget about it. That what happened to me on my first playthrough). I see it as imposed limitation on player - just as it is assumed that Shepard wants to stop reapers, Geralt wants to save Ciri, PC in Kingmaker cares for his kingdom. Though it is true that PC has no reason to think Imeon or Jon are going anywhere, and so he can take his time. I generally struggle playing evil characters in Bioware games (there is not enough logical explanation nor incentive for being evil). Still, I think there is a disconnect between what narrative wants you to care for, and what the game makes you care for. Still, it is a small sin compared to other RPG, like Pillars or Kingmaker.

As to ToB, yeah I don't like it. It has "Return of the Jedi" syndrome - not great, but well concludes our protagonist story, so it's essencial. ToB biggest problem is big story, contained in an expansion - there is too much happening for it to have proper time to breathe. It also dips into cosmic stuff, which to me who is unfamiliar with FR universe, and even less so at that time as it was my first FR game was rather difficult to relate. Too many straight up exposition dumps (and now a ghost of Gorion with tell you all the backstory), too many Bhaalspawn I never care for to kill, and an underdeveloped villain. It's also all too "high level for me" with planes, superduper monsters. Big stakes and yet rather underwhelming.

I like it when the main plot progresses even if my PC is not directly involved. That gives a sense of being in a living world ... where Narlen Darkwalk and Gorpel Hind and Drizzt are out there doing their own things whilst my PC is trying to gain enough experience to be able to go after the main objective. I would love to see recurring random appearances by familiar characters in BG III. In fact, you could set them up with a sort of "Mad Lib" set of dialogs, where certain dialog words are randomly determined from a list. "Whoa, I just got back from a (dragon) lair and you'll never guess what we found! It was a (ring) once possessed by the late (queen) of (etc.)..."

And then when the main plot requires action from my PC, there are many ways to deliver the notice. BG I used the dream sequences quite a bit, and BG II had a lot of messengers running around Amn trying to find me. And of course sometimes Elminster would show up with advice. Those are all great devices to pull the PC back into the main storyline.