Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General My name is SaveScummer and I'm a Goodyholic

Wrong. The Origin characters you play are as evil/neutral/good as you make them. Also wrong about the number of good companions. And also wrong on the female romances (Why did you point out lesbian romances? On the other hand, I don't think I want to know.)

I'm going to have a blast playing my chaotic good character and I don't feel as this game is not designed for a good playthrough. It is.

But it also has a fleshed out (more then most RPGs) evil path and it seems like finally we won't have to be chaotic stupid to actually enjoy it. Is it designed for evil characters? Yes, the same as any others.

Sorry, if you bring it up you get the details. Lesbians have been portrayed as non-existent or evil for hundreds of years so enforcing that in fiction is problematic. We're normally outside the times when lgbt romances in games are excluded to appease bigots so it's also frustrating that Larian are still developing like it's 1999.

As for the origin characters if it's anything like DOS2 you can try and twist them from their roots but you don't get a lot of freedom to do so. You can just not pick their specific dialog but that only mitigates who they are and if you never pick their specific dialog they don't feel like origin characters. You get wiggle room with the evil characters (Wyll, Gale and Karlach), but the stupid evil ones can only really be stupid evil or inconsistent.

It is a pity that RPGs are burdened with the concept of good versus evil. In the real world, very few people see themselves as evil. Right wing conservatives see left wing progressives as evil, and vice versa. In RPGs, the goodies kill the evildoers, and vice versa. It's the same difference.
The real differences, the differences that are far more interesting to explore, have to do with basic moral values. In a fantasy world, just like in the real world, people can have different beliefs in what the ultimate value is, the thing that must be protected at all cost. One might believe that life is precious, another one might feel the same about culture, knowledge, liberty, diversity, their close relatives, or their own wellbeing. With that in mind, it should be possible to create multifaceted conflicts between characters and factions that are much more interesting and believable than the artificial, onedimensional good versus evil meme.

I could have worded it better, sorry. I am just done with men fetishizing lesbians (and the ther way around) and every time this is brought up all my red flags go off. Now that you explained it's hard to disagree, on the other had Larian prosimed us that all those charatcers go both ways with a little nudge from the player. So I think that Lae'zel still won't be cuddling kitties on the streets of Baldur's Gate in the end, but won't be a raging rasist if you decide to be her positive influence.

Same with Shadowheart, she doesn't even come off as completely evil to begin with, egoistical, but not cruel. Pretty much a standard human being, or I just have bad luck meeting good people

And Karlach is already on the lookout for those kitties to cuddle, so nothing to say here

Again, if companions have a shiftable worldview than so will the player. I just refuse to belive we will be forced into any kind of situation (excluding Dark Urge here!) we didn't want. Even if you play Lae'zel you cannot be possibly forced into hating on everyone's nose or battle prowess. Sure, you might miss out on the flavor of the character, but in the end playing a good character is often missing out on cool stuff - that is part of the experience, as I learned

I don't play evil characters. I find it hard to even make "morally gray" choices, though it's easier if I've already planned out a redemption arc for my character. I like to do good and feel good and spread happiness.

I'm generally playing very good-aligned characters. Or so I thought, until one time it struck me, as I was wandering the streets of Athkatla, that while my quest was just and my goals noble and righteous, it might actually be a little tough on that otherwise very friendly armorer that he's now down a suit of full plate mail, whereas I'm up thousands of gold because of all the stuff people just leave laying around and gathering dust. It was sort of a fleeting thought, though. Didn't really have the time to dwell on it, because my potion of master thievery was wearing out and I had more discount coupons that I needed to cash in.

But beyond a generally flexible attitude towards omnidirectional redistribution of wealth initiatives, I really don't enjoy hurting regular people trying to get by or people who are genuinely trying to help others.

Hi,

My name is Save81Scummer and i'm a ChaoticGoodyholic.

If it's like DOS2 you're going to get an additional option as Laezel to be racist, or kick puppies or burn down orphanages. You won't have to do them, but those will be the moments Laezel expresses herself as Laezel. Not doing them is an option but also doesn't fit with the person you're trying to play as. Playing against them at every turn is unsatisfying in DOS2 and I'd expect the same here. You can sand down the edges but the core remains the same.

Shadowheart is lying about who she is. At the start of EA she wasn't competent at it but after refinements she's got some semblance of manipulation going. If you're not seeing her as full on stupid evil then that shows the manipulation is working.

Karlach is a closed book but all the other origin characters are evil I can't imagine she's an exception. There's going to be some very grim stuff in her backstory for sure and much of that is still bubbling along.

What frustrates me more is while all of this makes it hard to embody any of the female characters in BG3 the guys fetishising lesbians have at least three conventionally attractive options.

I usually pick Chaotic Good alignment for much this reason; while I will generally help people and be kind to them, I'll also loot their house after finishing their quest. Because CRPGs generally expect us to, and it definitely isn't a very Lawful thing to do. Though in later years they have gotten better at discouraging this with actually flagging things as belonging to the poor NPCs.

Welcome, OP. I also am someone who will NEVER play a character even just slightly evil, or do action/dialogue/quest options that are evil-leaning. And my concern in this regard in this game is that to the extent we're able to play being good, (a) it will be some form of 'stupid chump who gets taken advantage of' good, and (b) our game rewards and story/quest outcomes for playing good will be lesser/inferior to what you get playing evil.

NG everytime--except for some brief attempts at playing a paladin, probably because I generally find the question of how to be good more interesting than to be evil (barring the stupid and the obvious).

That's not really how I read her. She's from a harsh culture, but also rather naive. We haven't seen the Githyanki yet, but I suspect somehting terrible will happen there that your Laezel can go with, or against. Either will 'feel fine' and develop her path from there. Kicking kittens is on you, but not really how I read the character; she's more pragmatic than purely evil. Making fun of Dwarves is, though. I'll grant you that.

Her story is that she's a spy whose memory was wiped by the Sharrans. Now, she may or may not suspect that, but not saying who she really is, isn;t exactly lying either. She's not very trusting, as befits both a spy and a Sharran; but shes conflicted more than most when taking the evil path, so, her actual heart might not be all that shadowy.

Probably, but she's also the one that wants to go out on dates and discuss marriage and children and such. Again, I think it'll feel natural going either way. I can see her slaughter hundreds in a fit of rage when betrayed or pushed too far, too. I think this is the one most tailored to modern audiences.

I genuinely think you should approach it differently; instead of picking Paragon or Renegade just for the colors - Try and pick what feels most natural to you and your character. Who benefits in my party? Who do I trust? It'll make for a far better experience, regardless of who you play. They said in one video or another that no playthrough is truly good, and no playthrough is truly evil. Although the Urge might have something to say about that.

Yes, well. It's the same options you have.

For my first play-through, I like to play lawful good because there's a lot of conflict there, and also because I generally prefer to see justice prevail in a story.

FR is a points-of-light setting where civilization is separated by vast expanses of wilderness and tribalism. BG3 captures this well with the Tieflings harrowing journey from Elturel to Baldur's Gate. (Why don't they take common river route??) So anyway, how does a LG paladin behave in this wild space? The laws and customs of civilization basically extend only 5'.

I see the druid trader Arron support casting the refugees out into the wilderness because there's not enough to go around, and then his inventory is full of resources. Customs dictate fair trade, but concern for the innocent tells me he's a greedy hoarder that could do with some selective trimming. Can't say exactly what I'll do, but I'll hmm and hrr over things like this that don't seem right.

Basically, I play as if my MC has to face judgment himself at the end and must show an overwhelming pattern of justice and altruism.

And I'll do the same for following play-through; decide on a particular moral outlook, e.g. CN or LE, and work out a consistent pattern of behaviour.

Same.

And OP - I'm also a I'm a save scumming lover good vs evil stories. I'm waiting on a dark urge playthrough until others report that it's possible to run it as a good character. Right now it looks like you don't get a wisdom check to avoid killing small animals - that needs to change before I'll play it.

Anyway - for goodness! *throws flowers around the room and starts dancing*

I always play good and I'm not able to play evil. At last according to my own morals.

I must admit that I have a slight worry in regards to BG3. Hopefully I'm wrong and I can play as a good character (by my definition).

My reason for being worried is that grimdark, dark fantasy and their siblings are very popular in written fantasy at the moment. I have a niggling feeling that Larian is leaning in to this. So their definition of good might not always sit well with me. It would be more of a pragmatic "grey" at best.

It has been a long time since I played EA but I do seem to recall that there were conversations where the "good" option might have been seen as good by Larian (from a grimdark/dark fantasy perspective) but to me it was the lesser of the evils. There is a chance I'm confusing this with other games I have played though so not entirely sure this was the case for BG3.

It depends on the game. I didn't like Inquisition, but let it be said that needlessly evil responses were often funny. The same goes for Fable. If a game doesn't take itself too seriously, I'll find myself wanting to do such a run. Which is also why I'm drawn to the dark urge. I don't think I'd want to play Tav much darker than true neutral/chaotic neutral... with some biases. Capable of a grudge or two.

I am also one of those "always good" players. But definitely Chaotic Good. I don't recall ever playing a strictly evil playthrough in any game, some choices here or there might have been "the lesser evil" as some others have described it.
I'm not really worried that this won't be possible in BG3, just maybe a tad apprehensive that Larian got a bit carried away with designing the "evil" stuff and we will end up feeling shortchanged. We'll have to wait and see..

I'm really curious how the upcoming iteration of Pathfinder 2e will play out, cause they will get rid of alignment completely (iirc). Is something similar planned for OneD&D (or whatever they call it)? Does anybody know?

true evil as in bat shit nuts kill, kill, kill isn't normally my thing but yes the that is my jam but i don't sugest you are playing it wrong so much as we just enjoy different options... again, I'm pro choice

Did you guys play the EA? If not, I can understand the worry.

If you did however... do one more run. There is obviosuly a way to play a good character, just because you are presnted with a variety of choices, some of them evil, doesn't make the good ones suddenly go away.

I think games in general led people to believe that being good means being this heroic, shiny paragon of justice and BG3 being all kinds of grey gets people confused.

Ah, so it's about their looks, not morals. Gotcha.

No, the exact opposite of that. If I only cared about looks there'd be no issues at all. The problem is in the way the characters are all too evil for me to comfortably play as or with. But on release I'm sure there'll be fetish bait all over the internet.

Laezel is naive but that doesn't really give any room for her not to be fullon stupid evil. She's happiest when she's kicking puppies for fun. Take away the structure of Gith society from her and there's no reason for her to be any less evil.

When I say Shadowheart is lying about who she is, it's in terms of her pretending to be less evil than she is. She was less guarded about being full on evil in the first iteration but when this was pointed out to be ill fitting she was changed to seem less evil. That makes her a far more compelling villain but doesn't let her fit any better into a good party for longer than a few hours.

I'm not thinking of this in terms of paragon and renegade for the colours (the game doesn't even have colours) but in terms of who do I trust? The psychopath? The devotee of lies planning to destroy the world? The serial killer? The mass child murderer? If I don't metagame then Karlach is the only character who can fit in my party but I'm either playing a vanilla character or as her and at some point there's going to be a major problem when I discover her villainy.

As for the options being the same it's true, but who is better served here? Me who doesn't care what the characters look like if their personalities are twisted or someone who doesn't care that their personalities are twisted as long as they are conventionally attractive?