Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Story is Bad (spoilers)

I have commented this as well. Makes me so utterly dissappointed in people that so many can be so incredibly simple minded that they swallow everything raw as long as there is enoguh simp material.

Well I agree. I made a thread outlining specifically things that need to be improved here : https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=897086

But tbh I grew tired of maintaining it, as it seems like Larian is not listening or acknowledging how bad it is.

And if I may add, there were tons of things on top of what I wrote there, that I completely forgot, because the game is like 90 hours long..

The way I interpreted Ketheric is as a competent mortal that the gods compete over. A bit like football clubs trying to score the top players for their team. So I didn't really see it as a plot hole.

Ok, granted, that is another way to look at it, though I would be weary, that he jumps ship in a crucial moment.

I think it would've been much better, but still just like Ixal I hate the consequence-free tadpoles. I still remember back in EA when Nere could dominate your character purely on how deeply you went with using tadpoles (and the only things preventing it from happening was a) being a purist aka not using tadpole powers at all, b) using that mind shielding ring from Omeluum). I loved seeing consequences of my actions and just how far they would reach.

As it is currently, act 2 is still my favorite, but would've turned from being great to being exceptional only if there were more consequences at play. Like currently, you can slaughter the entire undead Thorm family and Ketheric doesn't know that or gives 0 shits. It could be one of those parts where actions have consequences (his reaction upon meeting us being similar to if we attacked him during the cutscene - "Z'rell, kill this fool"), but no.

Also, when it comes to Isobel, there is one glaring plot hole. Shouldn't she be an undead like the rest of her family? Sure she could still worship Selune but she could also hate her new 'unlife', it would make for a much more compelling plot. But no, all we know is that she has frequent nose bleeds and coughs blood, why? It's never answered and quickly forgotten about after she's reunited with Ailyn. My personal theory is that she's still dying, and sure, she was fully resurrected, somehow, but is suffering some consequences of that resurrection. It'd be much better explained if she was undead and then you'd have Ailyn battling with her love for Isobel and the fact that the love of her life is an undead. Very interesting conundrum and conflict, but nah.

The game is full of these weird moments where something is brought to our attention to be later entirely forgotten about soon after. It just really feels like the lead writer of this game suffers from some major ADHD, they bring all these cool ideas to play around with only to drop them 3-4 quests later. I don't even know how to explain it better. I legit preferred EA version of this game for this very reason. Sure, there were some holes on but as a whole it made logical conclusions of given plot points, instead of just jumping around like a hamster on coffee.

Exactly. Orin mentions Ketheric’s “crypt breath” when he’s close… seeing Isobel make out with Aylin was… ew.

And there are actual rules concerning full resurrection in DnD, you have few days tops, depending on the power of the cleric, condition of the body, soul departing etc… after 100 years Isobel would barely be a skeleton, let alone a pretty young woman. Also! She says after death all went black… again, not DnD. She would’ve become a petitioner in City of Judgement and would’ve been taken by Selune to her domain. Her death wouldn’t have been “blackness”, she would remember those things.



As for changing what happens after ACT 2… I’d actually start with ACT 2, in which you fight the illithids in Moonrise, not Thorm, so:

1. Remove Thorm, Emperor, Orin and Gortash, remove the crown and all nonsense connected to it, just make illithids and their Grand Design an actual big bad. PC motivation - remove tadpole, avoid becoming a mind flayer.

2. Develop Durge subplot x100, make it canon - Bhaal wants you to be a murder machine, wants to corrupt your soul but also wants you to die in the end to take it, because if you become a mind flayer - you lose the soul, Bhaal would not want that. So you’re fighting your heritage and the illithid domination, you’re fighting for YOUR OWN SOUL.

3. Good Ending - you defy both the Grand Design and Bhaal, save yourself, Neutral Ending - you commit to daddy, beat the illithids, but become Bhaal’s chosen full time and go to his domain after death, and Bad Ending - you become a mind flayer, lose your soul, planar war breaks out etc.

I actually think that the blackness she described was evidence that something about her death and afterlife was actually strange and improper, not just Larian being wrong about the lore. They don't actually follow up on it, which I find a waste and annoying, but that blackness points to something disrupting her soul's proper journey, which is I'm guessing how she was able to be fully resurrected. The way Kethric talks it's clear that Myrkul directly acted to bring her back, and I'd say that even if he's not a full god, he's still a death entity with power that goes beyond even a level 20 cleric, so I don't think him being able to break or bend some rules to fully resurrect Isobel is unbelievable. And regarding the crypt breath thing specifically, I of course can't be certain but I assumed that was just Orin being poetic, since she does talk in a very theatrical, metaphor and simile-laden manner (which I actually really enjoy.)

So I don't think the way things are breaks the fiction all that much, but would making Isobel specificaly undead have been better? I don't think so. I think it would have just made her a more complicated side character. I think if there was more focus on her and her story and character then that idea could be interesting, but as she's presented currently, she doesn't warrant any further twists and turns. She doesn't have a plot, she's herself a plot point in the act 2 story. She doesn't do things, things happen to her. She's got character and is fun to talk to, but once act 2 is over, she really doesn't see any growth, and really she doesn't see any growth in act 2 either. So making her outright undead would just add uneeded complexity in a game that's already got far too much of that as it is.

It’s unbelievable, at least for me as a person somewhat knowledgeable about the lore. Yeah it’s a magic fantasy world, but it has rules even gods can’t bend. Resurrection 100 years later is impossible, there’s no body, the soul departed…finita. Reincarnation, as in taking a petitioners soul and implanting it into a newborn with all the knowledge from previous life - yes. But the soul would most likely be VERY unhappy having to live a mortal life again, after experiencing afterlife.

That aside - the whole thing is just convoluted, over complicated and unnecessary. Why resurrect the dead, instead of just having normal villains? The villainous trio, along with the emperor and the crown nonsense is just a fail.

I do like Orin though. A proper psycho maniac. She is the best of the trio. Just bcos she’s pure, without too much unnecessary over complications (altho larian did make her a child born of incest rape… why? Can’t keep things simple, eh?).

Hence why I think they should have been more explicit about what went on with Isobel's soul, since they seem too imply setting weird but leave it unanswered. As for why bring back the dead, he's the chosen of Myrkul, whose whole thing is necromancy and bringing back the dead. It makes perfect thematic sense why he would resurrect someone rather than pick someone already living. I think you're missing the forest for the trees here a bit; there's nothing about the current villain set up that inherently can't work. The problem is that Larian put it all together badly. The problem is so few of the individual elements and strings of this game we've together, resulting in a story that feels messy and overcomplicated when if you lay it out, it's not really got that much of consequence going on.

Let’s try to make the positive cases for our own positions without taking digs at others who don’t share our takes.

And do fellow forum members the courtesy, if we are going to bring sexuality into the discussion, of not doing so in a heated way (and yes, that’s how dismissing something as an “absolute joke” comes across), given that topic’s clear relevance for very personal parts of people’s real lives.

Stupid thing is that Thorm worshipped Selune, then Shar. He never worshipped Myrkul while he was alive, he himself was never a necromancer, an evil mage or even a grave digger, he was a Selune worshipper who turned to Shar, got rekt and died. According to Ketheric himself, he became a chosen, in return for bringing back his daughter, which is absurd. Because he was also dead and buried at that point . How did he get in touch with Myrkul to arrange his own and daughter’s resurrection? Why would Myrkul agree? Nonsense. It absolutely can’t work. And as I said before, it is impossible to resurrect someone who died 100 years ago.

Myrkul would’ve chosen a proper powerful necromancer with lust for power and conquest, not some failed village elder who never worshipped him.

[I actually talked about this jn an earlier post in case you missed it.


As for how they got in contact, I'd assume Myrkul reached out to him, since I would think communicating with a spirit would be a fairly easy thing for Myrkul himself. Why he picked Kethric specifically I don't think matters too much since he clearly wanted a general for the Absolute's forces and Kethric fit that description. In fact Kethric is probably a better choice than some necromancer with a lust for power because its far easier to be sure of his loyalty and that he won't pull some kind of betrayal for more power. However you do make a good point about how Kethric was resurrected, since unlike Isobel I don't think we even get a hint of his death being anything unusual. So yeah the rules of resurrection there are even more clear broken.

It kinda makes sense, if you really want to justify larian decisions and assume stuff, but at the same time - it doesn't.

It all has to do with souls, and Gods, who are EXTREMELLY petty, greedy and jealous for them, even more so than Demons and Devils. Gods only care about HOW MANY people worship them, and have complete disregard for those who do not, especially the Evil Gods.

Yes, communicating with a spirit is easy for Myrkul, but Ketheric wasn't a spirit, he died, and his soul was supposed to be taken by Shar to her domain, and she would never EVER allow another God to just take him.

OK - let's assume Shar never cared to take Ketheric (there's a book describing how Lady of Loss sometimes abandons her worshippers for lols), and he was wandering Kelemvor's domain, never receiving judgement, so Myrkul took him in. Still my question is valid - 1. Why him? He's a failure. Myrkul immediately abandons Ketheric after we kick his ass in Moonrise, Evil Gods have 0 tolerance for failure. 2. After 100 years wandering on Fugue plane, Ketheric would most likely be approached by Devils or Demons, to "save" him from oblivion (cos that is the fate of unclaimed souls) and send him to Blood War, bcos of his military experience.

But we are going too deep into nerdy stuff, long story short - what Larian did doesn't make sense for anyone who is familiar with Lore and DnD Canon.

Dude, any and all mention of word "gay" or "lesbian" is heated for you, you gotta chill. I'm not talking about people's personal lives, I am talking about prevalence of gay relationships in a fantasy DnD game (majority of relationships shown are gay, and straight ones are shown in a bad way - why didn't this part of my comment bother you, your eye only caught on "gay") and it's effect on DnD fantasy immersion.

You're an absolute joke btw, you are projecting your own insecurities here. You gotta stop my dude - your perception is way too biased to form independent opinions and I am seriously tired seeing your prejudiced quotes for my comments, you're annoying. You're bringing stuff up from last page which nobody is discussing and everyone moved on, why are you bringing it up?

I'm very much like you. I have only a small number of cRPGs that I like, and I'd much rather just replay those games than waste my valuable time on a (new) game that I know I won't like. Happy for you that BG3 falls into your liked-games box. Sad (given my love of the old BG games) that it does not for me.

No offense but you seem to interpret any and all comments including the word "gay" as a slight towards a certain group of people.

I don't think choosing Kethric is that crazy. Firstly Myrkul doesn't have access to every great general in history as you point out- and I agree - he shouldn't have access to Kethric either. His pool of choices is limited not only to souls he can access, but souls who would want to rise again to serve him. And from that subset, they also have to be loyal, and Kethric's loyalty is very easy to buy for reasons I've gone over before.


Also, don't be insulting the mods. If you have issues with her maybe PM her without insulting her? Since you also missed the part of her complaint where she told you to refrain from those kinds of personal insults and jibes. Beyond not being smart generally, it's also just rude and unnecessary.

Yeah, I'm sorry, this game isn't for you, but I 'm hopeful, that there might be some new RPGs in the future.
I'm always amazed, how people move so quickly from one game to another. A lot of people, I know, went from BG3 to Starfield to the new Cyberpunk DLC in two month. I'm still on my second BG3 playthrough ( did Tav first, now Durge).
I'm especially looking for games, that keep me occupied fora while. When there is nothing and I don't want to replay old games, then I play short story games like what remains of Edith Finch or The Shore, but I can't jump from blockbuster game to blockbuster game.

I do want to add, that I like discussing with you. We are often of different opinions, but you are always really chill, I really appreciate that.

I absolutely agree in general with your observations that this plot after careful analysis is convoluted, incoherent and not cohesive.

I particularly like your second point and fully support it. I always felt that the Dark Urge story should have been the canonical story both for contiguity with the previous two chapters and for richness of interaction between your avatar and the created game world.
I think the problem with this lack stems from the multiplayer nature that this game and the latest Larian games in general want to have. Therefore if a player hosts his game he would become the protagonist of the story while the others who join the game would be comprimarios. I completely understand this, but it is undeniable that when playing in single player mode there is a certain lack of involvement and centrality of your avatar in the game. With Dark Urge this is slightly mitigated, but by choosing Tav as the origin it becomes overt. All the characters around you are more important than you and more considered than you, and it seems as if your avatar never had a past and isn't even the advocate of its future.
In that sense I much prefer the simpler, but better written story of the first two BGs and the sense of involvement of my avatar is enormously greater, while BG3 still remains a great game.

Clearly personal attacks on moderators are a bad idea and a quick way to get a suspension.

As always, if you have any comments or queries about moderation guidance, please PM us.