Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Lack of Forgotten Realms Ambiance / Depth

First of all, I'm a fan of both Baldur's Gate and Divinity series and I was very excited about that Larian is the company that makes BG 3.

But, It's not BG 3. Not because of the mechanics, but soul. Let me explain this a bit.

This article consists of

intro: Forgotten Realms Mythos and Game Scenario
1. Story Telling/Scenario
2. Examples and Comparison between BG 2 and 3
3. Content

Before I start, I want to say BG 3 is really promising. And I wrote this because I got still hope that future content and Arcs, at least expansions might be more profound.

Intro: Forgotten Realms is a Mythos and that is the main thing

BG series are legend. Its because of story, profound psychoanalytical and ontological theme and most importantly, MYTHOS. Baldur's Gate series, and generally Forgotten realms lore is actually a myth and the primary function of a myth is to construct a reality scheme about the existence, universe, self, ego, reality, etc. For example, I remember myself thinking like "Ok, let me pass this umberhulks quickly with a cloudkill, then see what creature/phenomena will come afterwards!" So combat in BG series was even just an obstacle sometimes, not the main point of the game. As you know, old school RPG's was not about combat, but the profound fantastic experience, as we can experiencen a very "unreal" reality.

I manage a software company, so I am completely aware that on a project of this scale, It's too hard to see the big picture. I think you did a great job at game mechanics (It can be polish to be smoother, but still great!), story telling, cinematic experience but; what is the story behind the mechanics and story telling? It's a very regular scenario. Goblins threat druids, there are migrant problem, childs in danger and we got heroes. Oh, sure, we got strange things in brain so its complicated? I'm sorry but its not like that. I'm going to delve into this a bit with examples from BG 2.

BG 2 Exp 1: Rielev, Dryads, Bedroom of Ellesime, Dungeon: We start to know about Irenicus, our captor with Rielev. He "awarded" Rielev with an oath to make him immortal for his loyal service. And he "sustained" him. But in the end, he always experimented on different subjects, and he did not want to remember him. Why? Because he fears the truth, he cannot fulfill that wish in a meaningful way (Because he fears the possibility that he cant do it on himself too) so he forgot him. And a promise of immortality, sustained experience of self reduced Rielev in a shadow. Thats what Ä°renicus do to people. On the contrast, we learn that Ä°renicus lacks the "self" experience. He tries to creat it again and again (Dryads, aesthetic bedroom, memory of love). Thats how we start to know of our captor! And when we inspect our dungeon we got the impression that: "Oh ok, an advanced mage is trying to solve mysterios about Ego, Life, Death, Essense, and he experimented on things we cannot grasp of. We are very far of understanding our captor". Ä°n dialogue of Imoen and Irenicus, its stressed again: "Torture? sily girl, you just dont understand what am i doing, do you?"

BG 2 Exp 2: Dreams, Psychoanalytic approach, emphasis on experience: I do now want to write an article so long, so i'll try to make it short. Remember the dream Ä°renicus started with "Life is strength". He tackled the subjects: Life, Pragmatism, Teleology, Power, existence, choice in mere 1.5 minutes. So if your divine self is your Id, murder (in a freudian sense) if you let it consume you to make you immortal (By making you effecting everything, thus make you infinite) is it worth losing your ego? Or what will you become then? The game asks you this questions. What are you? What make you, you? What are you working for, really? The great part is, the game uses and alternate reality, where people like Ä°renicus can make experiments on the fabric of reality and game tries to drag you into that, different multiverse, reality.

Divinity 2, BG 3: Oh man, I played many of the combats on divinity again and again. It was so fun, profound tactical experience and many things to do. But when we delve about philosophy, reality? It is just flavor. Good flavor i suppose, for it did not disturb me. But it was not Faerun. That world is CONSTRUCTED FOR THE GAME. BUT BG 2 IS CONSTRUCTED FOR US TO EXPERÄ°ENCE THE FORGOTTEN REALMS AND ITS MYTHOS. Because the reality in forgotten realms is different from our daily life. Where our daily life existantial problems and ontological things are just philosophy, in Faerun, its a reality in a mythological sense.

And that is the i think, most important part. If you inspect the phenomena in BG 2: its a burst of content THAT IS FOCUSED ON PROFOUND LORE EXPERIENCE. NOT FLAVOR. What i meant is: In BG 3 there is stereotypical hero advanture of any regular game. But, characters and monster are from DND universe. And thats it. I cannot experience what Silvanus is. What he represents (We did in BG, we UNDERSTOOD what Amaunator is, what is the importance of life, its contrast to "shadow begins, what is the function of Helm and it represents by keeping chaos, madness and evil at bay, we saw a cult of mass hysteria (Cult of the unseeing eye) started by a creature from a "crazed" reality (far realms). ) BG 2 was bursting with Forgotten realms lore and phenomena. Instead, we got a statue of an animal, and if we insert the correct rune, gate opens? Man, come on! Is this shooter FPS with "open the red gate with red card" concept? Think about the mad mage at watchers keep, liches that even forgotten theirselves, planar prison, PERSONALITY of demons, contrast of many different cultures. I EXPERÄ°ENCED A DIFFERENT REALITY, FAERUN PROFOUNDLY, in BG 2. But BG 3 is a 5e DND game with fine combat mechanics, also got forgotten realms flavor, its just flavor and monster types (Can you tell me what would be different if there were no elves, goblins, druids, in the game but just bad guys, good guys, mobs? Answer is: nothing)

I mean, BG 2 opens with prophecies, philosophy... Where are these things? I repeat, main thing in Forgotten realms is not the mechanics. We played different tabletop rules as community always, but main focus on the Fantasy roleplay, dont forget that please.


You might think that "Ok, we know these stuff but that would make the scenario really complex and we need to sell it to average players". But then why is this game BG 3? People that loved and played BG 2 is generally RPG players who adores profound RP experience. Your storytelling is the BEST! But story and itself is too weak.

Good thing is, mechanis is hard to change, content is not! So i still got hope!

This was very well put into words, I can't say I disagree with any of it.

Cult of the Absolute can be analagous to the Cult of the Unseeing Eye, let that arc develop. The quest with the Paladins of Tyr who were corrupted by Zariel screams what you are describing. If you read all the books you pick up they are building up Shar vs Selune pretty significantly besides the Avernus story line, seems like more will happen there perhaps even with a good side redemption storyline for Shadowheart (i am looking at you the book in the first dungeon that described the priestess of Shar who was forgotten). There was some serious ontological stuff if you look, but it doesnt necessarily smack you in the face like BG 1 and 2 or PST. You have the Zhents and the Flaming Fists and other things that play out their place in the realms rather well. It did not feel as overwhelmingly Faerun as 1 and 2 but it felt like Faerun to me.

I see what you're getting at and I do agree; granted we've only seen Act 1. It is somewhat worrying that none of this is present over the course of what - for all we know - is actually the entirety of Act 1 sans polish/additional cutscenes. The game is pretty fun, but it lacks "Forgotten Realms" feeling to it all almost as if it could be any D&D setting at the moment.

One thing I hope they change is the amount of serious literature versus funny non-lore stuff...it’s obvious Shar and Selune are going to play a pretty big part and I’ve found a handful of books describing short encounters by their worshippers but nothing deep about their differences. Light good - dark bad is boring and honestly lazy when you have so much material and back story available.

Maybe have the non Shar loving companions comment more on the desecration in the goblin camp. Treat the gods with respect and not just a variable to be filled on their character sheet. It feels like instead of worship they are thinking in belief...these gods exist in Faerun, it isn’t a matter of who believes what, they are real ‘beings’ and not to be scoffed at.

Great post, OP. As a die-hard FR fan and FR lore junkie, I agree with you on the missing FR atmosphere/tone.

Really great post and constructive Criticism, I agree completely, I like the game, a lot. Still missing its soul or what would make it memorial, specially when it comes to the FR. It is still not there in the department of "I can play the FR campaign I always dreamed of"

I guess I'm going to go against the trend here, but I personally think the game does FR better than BG1/BG2 did.

Reading the OP, I just see someone who doesn't like what part of FR the game is going after and how the lore is presented. The mindflayer tadpole is "strange things in brain", but a creature from the far realms is super awesome in BG2 somehow. Compares Amaunathor which gets a full dungeon with a shadow dragon info-dumping to receiving a rune to open a vault?

Why don't you talk about Auntie Ethel?
About the temple of Jergal?
About the temple of Selûne?
About what the Dark Justicars did?
About what is going on in the Underdark?
About the Black Network agents?

About Gale having a relationship with a god?
About Shadowheart acting like a proper Shar worshipper?
About being able to lose yourself to the tadpole to gain power which work quite similar to the Slayer stuff in BG2, dream included (but you need to use it).

And that doesn't cover everything in the EA.

regarding Gale's relationship with a god

@Macadami Well said

I don't think BG3 lacks soul either, the story feels amazing for me and with the fun combat I'm enjoying BG3 way more than BG1 and BG2.

I don't want too much backstory brought into the start of the game, because that will bog down the whole introduction and make it all boring. OP let the story present itself, see if it lacks soul when you see the rest of the story.

I don't want the story ruined because people are saying there is not enough lore dump at the start of the game >.<.

Bioware did a great job in making you feel like you were part of a much greater world. And while more focused on combat than plot Icewind Dale did as well. This one does feel more generic... You make a great point that this one feels more like the setting was created for the sake of the game.

Just old people being old here next thread please

Baldurs Gate is not morrowind...

I also totally agree.

A feeling, atmosphere and tone is not only about what you read or hear in the game...
I think Larian actually failed to give us a consistent FR adventure even if many things about the lore are in the game.

It looks like they took what they want from D&D/FR and implement them in their vision of a story and their vision of gameplay.
It actually looks like a custom game based on D&D in a custom world based on the FR...

D&D and the FR deserve more than being tools in which you pick things everywhere to mix them to create your custom experience. They should be the base material of BG3.

Just look at the bestiary and the area in which the game leads us to understand what I'm talking about. It's not consistent in regards of the FR (LVL 1-4 => Hell+Underdark+Bulette+Mindflayer+OP goblins and Gnolls + other creature/location they found cool to have in their game).

I played Baldurs gate 1 when it came out, but I dont have rose tinted glasses.

I like bg3 better than bg1 and 2.

nevertheless I would like to have more mysterious books / dialogue and things to discover aswell.

I'm not certain how "young" you are, but a good story is very much part of a good game. If you want mindless hack and slash, that is on you, and you can go find that in Halo, or whatever the FPS of the second is. To make an unconstructive comment like this solely for the point of being "insulting" (if you can call it that. To quote Sharwin and every girl you ever dated "Is that the best you can do?")...please do go to the next thread, you insignificant, pathetic little boy, because the adults are talking here and we don't need to hear your whining, whimpering, temper-tantrum backside here. You will be ignored from this point forward.

That said, I'm basically walking into this game from nothing. I didn't play either of the first two BG games, and the last D&D game I played was NWN2 (a few decades ago). The descriptions I read about this game said it's set 100 years after the events of BG2, so if you are into those story lines and arcs, I think you should expect those to be, at best, fading way into the background and, at worse, completely eliminated. For example, and maybe it's just that I don't know FG very well, but I thought Shar was the "evil" one and "Selune" was the good one...now, I have no clue which is which. That is to be expected 100 years later. Consider what has changed with regards to how humans see things over the past 100 years:

1- We went from most major societies having a firm belief in some type of God to about half of "civilized" society is "spiritual". and probably about 15% fully atheist.
2- Alternate sexuality was discussed in very hushed tones, if at all, to this game actually integrating it in.
3- Computers didn't exist 100 years ago. Just the theory of computing, but an actual computer did not. Now, look how we're talking.

That's just for starters. I would expect the same of a game set 100 years after the previous title. When I read that, the thought that came to mind was "Larian is doing a complete reset" of the storyline. Granted, it's not a complete reset, but I think OP should realize that the "soul" sought is different than the one this game is presenting. Come at BG3 from that point of view: 100 years later and things are definitely going to be different.

So I'm going to play BG to Nashkell, and then write a review about how "incomplete" it feels. Maybe I should stop at the Friendly Arm Inn?

What does "feel like FR" mean? Let's be clear here, I played all of BG, all of IWD, all of NWN, and all of NWN 2. I played the Neverwinter MMO. I also played DDO, but initially it had no FR content, that didn't come until much later. So when I sit down for a session here, what is it that I'm supposed to believe makes it FR?

What we do have is an extraplanar creature using us as a means of reproduction. Hi tadpole. How similar is this to being the bhaalspawn? Ok, so the perceived end result is that we won't become a God. However, that doesn't remove the connotation that a creature from another plane of existence is using us to reproduce. The end result of Bhaal's plan was to be reborn, after all. I wonder how many table top sessions around the world have wound up with wilder story lines than even what we're going to get here? So what I see are a lot of subjective judgements based on one act of a game that's not even in true beta yet. This is about as close to alpha as you can get, and still release something. How much of what we're playing now is going to change once we get out of EA?

Some obvious things that have already been pointed out:

How much reading are people doing? There's a lot of lore presented in books, and I have a backpack that is absolutely full of them. Some are just love letters, or other types of correspondence, but there are a lot of books that aren't story flagged, but do contain lore about both the current situation in the Realm, and FR in general. I'm starting to get a ME Andromeda pre-release vibe here, where "it's not Shepard, so it's not ME" was the prevalent argument. The old BSN had "Warden Wednesday" for both Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition, and those games were "not Dragon Age, because Warden". I have to wonder if "it's not FR, because no Bhaalspawn"?

The Bhaalspawn is a tiny part of the Forgotten Realms, Forgotten Realms has hundreds of novels on top of all the D&D materials. Also, BG1/BG2 were not about becoming gods. That's Throne of Bhaal ignoring the Bhaal's prophecy from BG1 to make a copy of Highlanders.

The Baldur's Gate content moved beyond the original games into official pnp modules the last of which was Descent to Avernus and that module is referenced a lot in the EA.

Please do. There are many, myself included, that would be more than happy to tear this apart at the seams and bury it permanently.


I suggest you start here : https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Ca...mp;qid=1603203613&s=books&sr=1-2


Become a God? How about not the spawn of a god, not involved in a 4d chess conspiracy by a God, not having people hunt you down to take your god powers for themselves, having your entire life and home destroyed by these said people. Why don't you talk about how the tadpoles are not working the way they are, the nautiloids are not working the way they are, the illithid are not working the way they are, the ullitharid are not working the way they are or the incredible suspension of disbelief you have to make for the excuse presented for this, or how the tadpoles are manifesting powers they shouldn't have, or how you should never have been able to survive this experience, or how the universe ignores the fact that you have a living tadpole in your brain that isn't killing you which would be the subject of instant desire for many major players including figures such as Vlaakith CLVII or the entirety of Thay?

Why don't we talk about Gale who is in love with Mystra or how any magician would be aware that in FR any mortal that Mystra considers worth trusting would be a Chosen of Mystra and that despite his obsession with her he is content to travel with an open Sharite(shadowheart) so shortly after the spellplague? I can go on if you want.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here or how it's relevant so I'd like to ask you to rephrase it more eloquently.

Maybe not fair to compare BG3 to BG2 since BG2 starts in the middle of the story. Maybe BG1 would be more appropriate.


And what do we have in Act 1 of BG1? Investigating an iron shortage. Kobold in a mine. Bandits. Some monsters. Some mysterious dreams. Fairly basic stuff and similar to what we have in BG3 Act 1.

Part of what made BG series great was building from that basic DnD starting adventure module in BG1 Act 1 to the super epic stuff in BG2/ToB.

Let's give it time. Right now we only have Act 1 to judge.

I both agree and disagree. First off, Baldur's Gate started not in irenecus dungeon but in a kobold hunt in the neeshkal mines. It's important because this is a start of a new adventure and the stakes should reflect it, even if you have some more important things behind the scenes (same as in bg1! Replace mystery assassin with mystery tadpole and you can't ignore the parallels).

The issue is not with the story, world, or characters as far as I can tell. The issue is with how much Larian cares for it. I discussed it at length on this forum, and the more I discuss it the clearer it is to me, that Larian's problem with the story and lore is that they don't particularly care whether it all comes together. This is an issue above the pay grade of the writers. It seems like Larian's lead designers just don't care about how much of the story you get, and only care about allowing you to explore and experiment the game world. If you stumble upon the story it's fine, but if not it doesn't matter to them.

It's the way quests work, the way you can do whatever you want in whatever order you want. All of these things are not wrong per se, provided the developers cares enough about the story to fit it to these design philosophies

When I first played BG II a lot of the thematic story development went right over my head. The hints were indeed all there in the opening dungeon, but I was much more busy figuring out how to use my spells, scout areas ahead, and avoid goblin arrows. Only later did I piece it all together, and went "oh, now I get it ..." That is indeed how you use foreshadowing. Wonderful!

One theme that I did catch onto quickly, however, was the Tale of the Fateful Coin. Forgive me if I re-post some of this: It starts with Firebeard's book in Beregost, it underlies all the dream sequences in BG I, and it goes right up to the ending in Throne of Bhaal. That theme tied BG I & II together because it directly concerned the player character. I liked that quite a bit, and I hope I see something like it in BG III.

Yet in this basic first act stuff we have a rich world history and atmosphere. Candlekeep (Candlekeep was a towered library-fortress that stood on a crag overlooking the Sea of Swords. ... Aside from the edicts dictated by the stronghold's Keepers throughout the years, Candlekeep had but one absolute rule: "Those who destroy knowledge, with ink, fire, or sword, are themselves destroyed...) , Beregost inn, the wild to get lost into, day/night cycles with weather added so much atmosphere...

So what you're saying is, for all the "it doesn't feel like the FR, there's an awful lot of FR here"? Because that's what I came away with. I guess I can take your route, and tear this whole notion of "Not feeling like the FR" apart at the seams? I mean, the first poster that quoted me left out the whole plotline of BG being all about how Sarevok was trying to "be the Highlander". That's what drives the entire story, he was wiping out Bhaalspawn everywhere he could find them, so that he could be the only one. I guess I have to take that into consideration, the lack of the ability to comprehend narrative, when I read a "review", something we all should do. My point about stopping at Nashkell, or the Friendly Arm is that I'd be taking the beginning of a game out of context from the rest, and making my conclusions based on that. I'm supposed to believe that someone has this magical, mystical comprehension of what it means to "feel like the FR" when they can't even pick up on simple subtext? I don't. What I read was a rage post about how "you're not allowed to call my views into question".

There are a lot of things "missing" from this game. Once again, some subtext(ish) type stuff: A lot of the game is missing. Hey, check it out, that clearly defines the subtext in what I said about a BG review, what a coincidence. Except it's really not. In fact, it was my whole point. How am I supposed to sit here and believe that it's my problem that I don't see your point, when something as simple as "We only have Act I, and it's in what amounts to an Alpha stage" flies right over your head? Sorry, that's not going to happen. Wait, no, I'm not sorry, that's just not going to happen. I'll do a "deep dive" into how much it's "The FR" when I've played the whole game, instead of Act I, with no context to what's driving the different factions, other than some surface level "we're here, and we're working against you/trying to capture you". You know, like writing a review about BG, but only playing to the Friendly Arm Inn?

Actually, it's the opposite. mechanics are easy to change, when your taking reference on an existing model. Its merely changing the code, content is long and hard to produce.

You could have summed up your post in '' I don't like the story of Baldurs gate3 , please make it more like baldurs gate 2'' . and ''Make the narration better''.


Not every stories are alike. You don't need a story similar to BG2 to make it work. But I do agree that I'd like a bit more meaning and symbolism in the whole product, and less ''everyday'' feeling.

I used examples from the Game about how things from FR that are implemented(Tadpoles, Nautiloids, Illithid, Ullitharid, Mystra etc) where not implemented correctly or how they are represented in FR. This means that they are FR intellectual property missing source material or lore and in most cases having their source material or lore altered without explanation to fit a plot point that also had to have the source material or lore altered in order for it to be even remotely believable or even possible in universe. I'm not sure how you misconstrued this but then again I have seen you endorsing save scumming in another thread so I'm not surprised.


That is a you problem and I am not here to teach people reading comprehension.


Confirmed for not playing the game.


I gave you several examples of things that cannot be changed by full release without Larian rewriting the main story arc from scratch that deviate from FRCS/D&D lore and detract from the feel/aesthetic. Your point has already been invalidated.


Again, you are quick to throw shade about comprehension but did you even read what I wrote? It's not just about stuff missing, it's about how lore and source material has actively been changed to facilitate their narrative and story. This only needs to happen because of the specific choice they made and there are many ways that they could have used source material and lore to explain this without having to alter it or ignore it not to mention that THEY CHOSE A VERY BAD STARTING POINTS FOR NO REASON THAT REQUIRES THEM TO ALTER THE SOURCE MATERIAL.

Please explain to me how full release will fix any of those issues I pointed out to you before. Please explain to me how Gale can be in love with mystra but not know who the chosen of mystra are or why he is okay travelling with a Sharite so close after the spell plague. Please explain to me how full release will change this? I am going to assume you have no idea what I mean by the spellplague of why someone that loves mystra would hate the sharites so please read this : https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Spellplague
I am also going to assume you don't know this so BG3 is set 1492DR.

I really stopped reading at "Confirmed for not playing the game".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYoRmGHIxA4&ab_channel=Joseph965

That's the opening cinematic for Baldur's Gate. What is depicted there? Sarevok, killing a Bhaalspawn. What is it that forces you to leave Candlekeep? Gorion gets word of what's happening, and knows it's time to get out, a bit late, however, yes?

"Hand over your ward". Why? Because you're a Bhaalspawn, and he's going to end you. So unless you meant that you didn't play the game, maybe learn a bit more about being able to follow a narrative, and pick up on subtext before you try to educate someone else?

1) People are hunting you down. You meet some of them.
2) The universe doesn’t ignore any of this. Characters explicitly remark how your tadpoles aren’t working as they should and have been tampered with. The mystery of who did this and why is the game’s story.
3) The tadpole in your head would be an intense desire to many powerful factions in Faerun, but it literally just happened.

I’m sorry, but your post is largely gibberish.

I know you think you are clever, but you're going to have to actually put something behind your argument and debate like an adult if you want to be taken seriously. Address at least one of the criticisms or points I've brought up and I'll explain to you in great detail why you are wrong.

1) Vlaakith CLVIII and the red wizards of thay are not people. If you know nothing about the setting don't pretend otherwise.
2) And the nautiloid, illithid and ullitharid? Or in your infinite wisdom did you miss how I also said that the reason the game is giving you also detracts from the source material thereby detracting from the feel of FR?
3) Again, if you know so little about the source material don't pretend to otherwise.

I'm sorry, but your posts is largely ignorance.

😂😂😂😂

1. I never said that Vlaakith and the Red Wizards of Thay are people.

You said: “not having people hunt you down to take your god powers for themselves.”

I just pointed out that there are people hunting you down.

2. Auto-correct botched a sentence which I corrected after you quoted me. I said none of this is being ignored. These discrepancies are mysteries. We don’t know the reasons yet, so we don’t know if they detract from the source material. The story was written in collaboration with WotC. They have approved everything to make sure it fits the lore.

3. Why are you like this? Who hurt you? 😂

Why would I waste my time doing that, it's not like there's another adult involved in this conversation. I'm going to continue to address you the same way I would my 10 year old granddaughter, because that's who you most remind me of.

And clearly missed the point that the significance of characters like this is how incredibly powerful they are or for example how Vlaakith is the queen of the gith and has a psionic link to all of them and would immediately know about the existence of Lae.


Oh dear you should really read more often. This was in response to someone comparing the bhaalspawn powers to the tadpole. You may notice how when I addressed this point in the context of BG3 I said, and I quote myself here, "major players including figures such as Vlaakith CLVIII or the entirety of thay". Are you aware of what Thay is?




Again, you should read more often. Not only does your correction not account for any of this but it does not account for the multiple alterations or ommissions to the source material which was the crux of my point. I would suggest reading more slowly.


Don't start nothing won't be nothing. Don't play innocent after looking for trouble, otherwise I'll have to start asking questions about your age and if your parents would approve of the content of this board.


No worries kid, you keep savescumming an RPG and running away form having to put your money where your mouth is at and I'll just go back to having discourse with adults.

I feel bad for you. Good luck to you.

Bye bye, next time don't come with an attitude if your skin is paper thin.

I'm just going to run with the context provided here. You didn't know what Baldur's Gate was about, didn't understand the overarching story line, and yet, claimed that I hadn't played the game. When I demonstrated your lack of knowledge, suddenly I'm the one that has issues? I do have an issue. it's an issue I take. I take issue with someone that is totally uninformed trying to educate me on storylines. You see, the problem with your previous post here is that I provided video evidence of what I was claiming. Video that's been available for a very long time. So far, all you've provided is a rant that reminds me of my granddaughter when she doesn't get a toy she wants. I take issue with someone that can't understand a straightforward narrative, with a whole game to base it on, trying to make claims about something else that requires more nuance than they're capable of understanding. You think you're counting coup, with all the insults and slights. I find it hilarious, in context with the dialog. You see yourself as some kind of hero, and I see someone that's struggling to keep up with the actual conversation.

[/quote]
Why would I waste my time doing that, it's not like there's another adult involved in this conversation. I'm going to continue to address you the same way I would my 10 year old granddaughter, because that's who you most remind me of.[/quote]
No worries kid, you keep savescumming an RPG and running away form having to put your money where your mouth is at and I'll just go back to having discourse with adults.
[/quote]

First off, anyone that choses to save scum or play any way other than you deem appropriate does not invalidate arguments. Saying so absolutely really invalidates YOUR arguments. IE you should avoid doing that, it makes you look bad.

Second, this is an incomplete product with many aspects missing in it's current state. There is a chance much of it will remain as it currently is, but that is not certain.

And lastly, Wizard of the Coast is working closely with Larian to make this game. Setting, story and continuity it is ALL ran by checked and approved by Mike Mearls current Creative Director of Dungeons & Dragons at Wizards of the Coast. This would make any story elements canon, and if it's canon then you would be amiss stating source material changes Larian is making is wrong because WoTC are the ones approving it.

Please see link for source of collaboration claims: https://fextralife.com/baldurs-gate-3-interview-with-larian-and-wizards-of-the-coast/
There are other sources for this collaboration claim, but this is easier to get context from actual verbal communication.

No I told you you didn't play the game because you made the claim that the plot line of BG1 was all about sarevok trying to be the highlander which is reductive reasoning at best and also incorrect. One of the plot points of the game and perhaps the most important pivotal moment would be Sarevok's attack on candlekeep. The plotline follows the events of the time of troubles and the prophecy of Alaundo.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate_(game)#:~:text=Baldur's%20Gate%20is%20a%20computer,in%201998%20by%20Interplay%20Entertainment.&text=The%20plot%20of%20Baldur's%20Gate,of%20the%20Time%20of%20Troubles.
"The plot of Baldur's Gate revolves around the main character, Gorion's Ward, and deals with the politics of the city of Baldur's Gate, as well as the aftermath of the Time of Troubles."



Really? Because you don't know the difference between a plot line and a plot point and are presenting the inciting incident of the story as the main plot line.


You provided video evidence around the inciting incident that kickstarts the main characters adventure. This is not the plot line but a plot point.


You were the one that began being derogatory so I think that accusation suits you better. Furthermore, you are guilty of cherrypicking your arguments up to this point as you have yet to address ANY of the other points I have brought up or the omission and alterations of source material in the examples I provided which where the crux of my original argument and fall in line with the OP's argument.
You are guilty of reduction ad absurdum, arguing from ignorance, cherry-picking, conflation, misrepresentation and argument from ignorance as well as a few more.

I am also still waiting for the video you said you would make.


Oh I'm just having some fun but if you would like I could return the attacks against my character with similar sentiments.


I listed multiple examples of things that cannot be changes in EA without rewriting the starting points, meaning that if they are not changed now they will not be magically changed by a full release. You are welcome to go back into the thread and challenge these arguments but so far everyone glosses over them and pretends not to see them because the simple truth is that the EA argument falls flat in light of them and no one wants to walk face first into a wall like that after making the claim.

Actually Savarok trying to be the Highlander sounds about right. It's actually a very cool way to think about it.

I think you are mixing the hero's journey and the setting itself. BG1 started with a classical hero's journey, leading you from humble beginnings to an interesting set up, slowly exposing you to the lore and the world. However, it was so simple that you could have easily changed the setting and the story would not have much differed. Replace Candlekeep with any other library-fortress, replace kobolds with some other small angry creatures, iron shortage is fairly universal (i.e. not FR specific), etc.

The main difference with BG3 is that it throws you in the middle of action dumping all the lore on you from the start. I would argue that BG3 is actually way more Forgotten Realms than BG1 since you are presented with some of its key inhabitants and quirks - Githyanki, Illithinds, Nautiloid, ceremorphosis, which are not present in any imaginary setting out there. But its does not take you slowly through the lore, its throws you mercilessly in the middle of the conflict.

Alas without evidence tis no more than fancy.

it is
Here is the post from one of Sarevok's concept artist, admitting that he was a rip-off from Highlander's Kurgan: https://www.deviantart.com/uncannyknack/art/Sarevok-359439963

This proves the highlander was an inspiration for Sarevoks design, not that Sarevok trying to be the highlander is the plot line of BG1 Try again.

@robertthebard
Don't type fast at me if you don't see a reply until tomorrow because I have actual children I need to go take care of. You are welcome to PM me as well if you would want more immediate attention.

There is literally "there can be only one" premise sprinkled throughout the first game with him killing all the other Bhaalspawn out there, including the dude in the opening cinematic. Try again.

.
This premise applies to all Bhaalspawn and is both the prophecy of Alaundo and a consequence of the time of troubles. Furthermore, posting an artists saying that he took inspiration for his design from a highlander still doesn't support the premise that this is the plot line of BG1. Please google the following terms as I have to leave now:

Inciting incident
Plot point
Plot hook
Plot line
Pivotal incident

Third times the charm

why are you so against it? it's not like it's a bad thing...

He is trying to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier but doesn't come across as anything other than passive aggressive.

Oh god last one.

I'm not. Factually, however, it is not the plot line of BG1 even if you use reductive reasoning. I'm just tired of people throwing around wet blanket excuses to dissuade discussion and criticism that does not suit their narrative or viewpoints rather than actually challenging and refuting these points with evidence, reasoning and fact. This doubles for the "it's just EA" argument because not only are we adults and know this and don't need someone to nanny us and remind us three to five times a thread, but it is extremely condescending and patronizing. Just for that I will argue to the highest of semantics.


I'm not the one abandoning discourse to fling personal insults
It's starting to be a bit difficult to be civil though.

No so much passive. He is openly performing the motions of an old school 90s nerd caricature. The kind of apoplectic person who gets bellicose about proving he is right about a silly fantasy setting but doesn’t have the self-awareness to understand how ridiculous this behavior is. Just let him stew. He isn’t worth talking to.

"The Kurgan" was much funnier than Sarevok. I can see the Highlander parallels, except for Viekang. What ever happened to Viekang? Last time I saw him was Saradush, where I spooked him out.

I don't think we're ever told what happens if he escapes. Either an oversight or a plot point, who knows...

It doesn't have to be the exact same thing to clearly be an inspiration. Think about the Bhaal saga in simple terms - you have a lot of people with special powers who are connected to each other, and once only one of them is left he gets a big prize. of course, there is much that's going on if you zoom in, but in the macro level it's quite the same, and I don't see what's wrong with it. Highlander is a great movie with a great premise, and so is BG.

Canonically Viekang survives and either kills Gorion’s Ward (Abdel Adrian) and becomes the Slayer or Abdel kill him and becomes the Slayer. Either way, the player party in the campaign Murder in Baldur’s Gate kills the Slayer, and this kicks off the events of that campaign.

I‘m hoping that none of this is mentioned in BG3 so I can just ignore it.

Amen

Ah I did not know about the Murder in Baldur's Gate.

I know its silly to think so but I prefer to pretend that Abdel Adrian does not exist and my Bhaalspawn is chilling happily on the Planes.

I do like the fact that any mention of Gorion's Ward in the game is very ambiguous right now, just that they existed, but who they were was left out. I can only hope it stays that way.

I don’t think that is silly. I concur completely. Murder in Baldur’s Gate gives a conclusion to the story of Gorion’s Ward that follows neither of the endings from ToB, and that pretty much no fans like. And Abdel is pretty universally reviled. I have my own head canon, too, so I hope that Larian finds a way to address the date of the Bhaalspawn in a way that is general and doesn’t intrude too much on the imagination of fans from the old games.

Larian knows better than all of you wanna be experts

Are you quite certain? Sir Christopher's Lee Tolkien knowledge surpassed that of Peter Jackson

Yeah, that is a reference to something another poster said, hence I put it in quotes initially. It does a fairly good job of summarizing his motivations, since, in the end, his goal was for there to be only one.

As the game mechanics are so much different from it's predecessors, to justify the name you really have to embrace the setting. And not only of BG1, but mostly BG2, which was the last entry and surely more popular. So just a few hints here and there surely would not cut the mustard. So locations, characters, items, stories, quests, lore etc. need to be revisited and retold. Otherwise you can not really call it BG3, if there is little continuation or connection to the previous stories. There is also SoD now, I suppose, although I do not know if any of this is canon.

Right now I feel like a random decent RPG when playing the game. I would put mostly down to the first act, although I have to say, with apparently only three acts and these huge maps, I do not know if we will see a whole lot of things that would remind the players of the places they visited 20 years ago.

I regret they chose to name this game "Baldurs Gate III", it gives an impression that it is a sequel to BG1 and BG2. It is not really that. When I saw the announcement I thought "Oh, Cool. They are doing another D&D game in the Baldurs Gate area." and not "Wow my Bhaalspawn is coming back." I hate that they give these games 1 and 2, etc. It should have been called: Dungeons and Dragons: Forgotten Realms - Rise of the Illithid or something.

Does the game feel like it is in the Forgotten Realms? To me, yeah so far so good. Does it look Realms like? Underdark was awesome. IS the area we crash in well described? Not that I can find. From what I know we are somewhere along the north side of the Chionthar between Elturel and Baldurs Gate. Map shows it being green, hills and plains looking with some scattered vertical relief. Does the starting area look like that? Yeah pretty much. So it looks like forgotten realms. What about the gear we have found, does that resemble artwork for the realms? Pretty much and swords look like swords and not WOW huge things, so that is cool.

Is there lore for the area/setting to be found? Yes. I have several books that talk about gods, etc. all set within the forgotten realms. The crypt we go into at the beginning was a church of Jergal. So the lore is there, and it looks like the realms. As we are in the first act, levels 1-4, have we met any famous people yet? I met Volo so far.

So that leaves us with what is it about BG1 and BG2 that are absolutely VITAL to making a game feel like the realms? What do you HAVE to put in your tabletop sessions to make sure your players know they are in the Realms? Because when I have read the sourcebooks there is little to no mention of them. (memory not that good, I do not remember any mention, but could be some). No do not get me wrong, those games are awesome. They got me into playing computer games. I enjoyed BG2 more than BG1, but loved both. Irenicus was an awesome villain. I did not care for IWD as there was no party banter and the voices in my head refused to play along and entertain me with ad lib banter. Neverwinter Nights was awesome, I spent untold hours playing both the OCs and Persistant worlds, mostly hard core rule servers. NWN2 is also a favorite game of mine, along with all of its expansions. BUT to say that I would HAVE to put stuff from ANY of those games into a Tabletop game to make it feel like the realms is ludicrous. So why then does a new game have to?

Now for the setting of this game. I believe it is somewhere around 1492ish. Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 took place over 130 years ago. Any human involved is gone, in 130 years much of what happened would be totally unreliable information, passed on from those who knew over and over until it has changed almost beyond what it was. Some could say the Bhaalspawn was a demon sent from beyond to punish the unfaithful, appearing on High Harvest to take bad children to the underworld. Others may say how the Bhaalspawn came to deliver the faithful from the corrupt Cyric, etc. It has become myth by now.

Unpopular opinion incoming, but nothing. BG/2 did a fairly decent job of wrapping up their stories, and what wasn't was covered elsewhere in the timeline. At this point, 100 years later, and given we're not actually in Baldur's Gate, or Athkatla at the time, there's not much that could tie it directly to either one. We're not playing the same character, for obvious reasons, nor are we supplementing that with making one of the surviving NPCs from those games the protagonist here, so that level of attachment isn't there either. What we don't know is "Who's on the table for later". I mean, I met Minsc and Boo in the Neverwinter MMO. But even with their addition, Neverwinter looked a whole lot different than it did in NWN. Then there's those games, which I'm not sure where they fell in the timeline, not to mention the console games between then and now. So a whole lot has changed over that century.

In the end, I'm left with what lore we do get, which isn't a trivial amount, considering we're barely scratching the surface of the game, and the overall environments. I'm not disappointed. What trepidations I do have will be addressed after release, and I get a chance to play the entire game, instead of basing my opinion on it's overall feel on a third of it.

It's post Descent to Avernus which was started in 1494 according to FR wiki.

+1 to robertthebard. BG1 never actually set foot in Baldur's Gate until WELL into the game. BG2's main connection to Baldur's Gate was a continuation of the characters story from BG1, not a connection to Baldur's Gate itself. BG3 is a tale involving an entire NEW protagonist and set of characters, that we know will at some point have us set foot in Baldur's Gate.

I have no problem seeing this as carrying on the stories, tales and lore of Baldur's Gate and it's region. Even with just a partial, alpha test environment, the game presents us with a ton of lore derived from the Forgotten Realms, the Sword Coast and Baldur's Gate. The fact that some of the events we are presented with do not jibe with past lore is the entire point of the tale. If Illithids and Zhents and Shar and the other potential foes were merely repeating past plots, schemes and behaviors, what would be the point? A tale calls for some form of growth, whether in the protagonist, their companions, their enemies, the cultures or all of the above. Here, some odd things are happening. Tadpoles, Illithids etc. are NOT acting as they have in the past, and thereby hangs the tale. And as we have only been provided a taste of that tale, I don't see how anyone can complaint at this point that the plot isn't D&D, or FR or BG - but is DoS; or is sub-standard or incorrect FR.

If folks judged Star Trek based solely on the pilot episode, we might not have 50+ years of TV, books, movies, comics and so on spread before us. And if you don't care for Star Trek, feel free to substitute with any such comparable cultural phenomenon.

I'm not sure people who are talking here think this, or if it's just my impression.
But

I get a feeling many of you think Forgotten Realms is a setting unique to the Baldur's Gate series? You do know Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter etc.

Forgotten Realms is the biggest and one of the oldest DnD official campaign settings, which is why Baldur's Gate was set in that realm.

It's also a setting that's progressed a lot since BG1 and BG2 came out.

I get the original post was talking about what he liked from the original games and equate that to the Forgotten Realms, but it's more about "how a story is told" not "how stories should be told in the Forgotten Realms". To me that's more about personal preference than what "Forgotten Realms is all about"

Heck so far we are introduced to something going on between Shar and Selune. We have met Druids worshiping Silvanus, who has taken in refugees from Eltured the City that got pulled into Avernus. We are also being pulled into a plot where Mind Flayer tadpoles no longer work as expected.

Only argument I have heard, that I personally don't really agree with, is that we are experiencing too much "not for lvl 1 characters" things in the opening sequence. But honestly, this isn't too far from any other "you are trapped in a dungeon and need to escape" style opening. It's a story telling device setting up the plot.

As for the "deeper stuff", I think we have only scratched the surface. I really recommend joining the Absolute if you want more of a taste of things to come I think. To me this feels like Forgotten Realms.

Yeah you are not wrong. It is set in the Forgotten Realms, like many other games before. Still Neverwinter Nights and Icewind Dale did make some nods here and there to the other games set in the series, but they played in different times and/or regions, hence the different name according to their setting.

It is also safe to assume that many players of BG1 and 2 have never played or read anything else in this setting, I sure never did. It was just an RPG to me at that time so that is all that I know of the setting and the lore. Therefore I associate the city of Baldur's Gate and the name directly with the story that unfolded in these games, this includes locations, characters, items etc.. So now we have a game that is distinctly and deliberately called Baldur's Gate 3. So I am expecting not a game that shares the same setting like Neverwinter Nights, or the gameplay like Icewind Dale, or the spiritual successor like PoE, but a real successor to the games. Now I do not need a continuation of the story, as the arc seemed finished, but a game that is clearly defined by the events of the story and the BG1+2 game itself. At this moment in time there is nothing really. It is just a Forgotten Realms RPG.
I am assuming there will be more things that are added, I just do not think it is enough to put a town (Baldur's Gate) in and a character (Minsc), to justify the Baldur's Gate 3 name.

I disagree with all of it. Funny how different folk are, right?

Very nice rebuttal I agree with you.

It's entirely possible that we get a lot. It's also entirely possible that we don't get much at all. Given that the story arc for 1 and 2 has been neatly wrapped up, we could spend this entire game in the Shadowfell, and keep getting askance references, and I'd be fine with the name. All of the Dragon Age games have been centered around different parts of Thedas, with a different protagonist, and yet, they are all Dragon Age games. This may seem like an apples/oranges comparison, I thought so myself as I was typing it, but the parallel is that we are running in a game, in a realm that has a history that predates anything we've actually played in it, the same for Thedas, and we're plopped in at a, and I'm going to say random here for lack of a better term, random point in the timeline.

For Thedas we started in the 5th blight, but the game has a history that stretches out well before that, and here, we started with the Bhaalspawn saga, and moved forward in time. The only issue I have with the position of "some people may not have played anything but BG and BG 2" is that that doesn't nullify everything else that has happened in the FR in the interim. We may well end up with players that have never played either one of them. Canon novels, games and table top modules have happened between then and where we are now in the timeline. There's also the "more things will be added", and I'd like to add "where does the rest of the game take place?" to the mix. Along with that, who, as NPCs, play a prominent role in the rest of the story beyond what we're playing with here? The "where" may not even be as important as the "who". Again with my parallel to the Dragon Age series, where there is a common thread throughout that ties them all together, aside from just the setting. Where we're at right now doesn't actually lend itself to giving too much of that away, and it's a safe bet that that's why we are where we are.

So before I start thinking "this isn't a BG game", I'm going to play the rest of the game first. The bard in me says I don't want to judge the game based on what amounts to a really long teaser trailer. The part of me that sat in the theater and literally cried when Peter Jackson revealed Rivendell for the first time in Fellowship believes that there is plenty of time to tie this game to it's name. It also secretly hopes that I don't have to eat these words later, because that's not outside the world of possibility. However, given how much of the game we don't have, and have no real clues about, I'm willing to sit back and say "let's see where it goes before we throw it under the bus".

Ehh, I agree with those of you who say it's too early to judge the game, especially that we haven't got access to the entirety of act 1 (we can't explore the mountain pass where the gith creche is located and it's supposed to be one of 3 ways to reach the Moonrise Towers, so far we only got the Underdark as 1/3 ways to reach those damn towers). And it does feel like a FR game for sure, but it doesn't feel like a BG game tho.

In BG1, right out of the Candlekeep you meet Sarevok - your adversary, THE antagonist of the game, in BG2 you are awakened by Irenicus, THE main antagonist of that game, and in both these games you set out to explore what the hell is going on, why you are the one targeted and it all always leads to the main showdown between you and Sarevok/Irenicus. Some would say - your hatred/curiosity of Sarevok/Irenicus drive the main plot forward... there is nothing like that in BG3, you don't know how you were captured, you don't know why were you captured (was it just bad luck or is 'the Absolute' handpicking 'her' victims?), all you know is that mind flayers are responsible, later we discover they are working with something that calls itself ''the Absolute''. So there is some mystery about the plot, but we don't have this one figurehead to blame and hate. No, we have a whole bunch of them. Mind flayers, everyone working with them, the 'Absolute' - whatever that being even is.

And well, the main jarring thing to me is that at lvl 1 you fight intellect devourers, if I remember correctly, they aren't something you'd throw on lvl 1 adventurers in a classic D&D setting, unless you want people to die... In NWN1 just one of them messed up the entire district of the city, and you get to explore that problem in NWN1 around lvl 3-6. Not a goddamned lvl 1 character vs a bunch of intellect devourers. The game's pacing is a little bit weird if you ask me. And hopefully it will get addressed.

Edit: Fixed a bunch of typos/grammar errors.

The devourers in the wreckage can wreck you. Ironically, they wrecked the dev that was playing in one of the streams before EA too. If the one we can "recruit" is any indication, however, they are low CR for the type. Ideally, these probably wouldn't be out and about, but since the ship crashed, they're on their own far sooner than they might be otherwise.

Yes, I remember that, but also in our current version of the game some of the devourers start at like half hp, some at 75%ish, so they are weakened, sure, I remember that the devourers on that stream had full hp, but still. I find the idea ridiculous from the lore perspective. Also, I dunno about you guys, but these devourers didn't cause me much trouble, even when I went solo as a wizard against them, tried sneaking on the ledge, they caught me, and still the entire fight was too easy. Sure, it's the beginning of the game, that fight is meant to be easy. But eh, why not replace the devourers with some human scavengers, or something. Like the fishers who are trying to save that mind flayer deeper in the ship.

I think it makes sense, all things considered. The fishermen were drawn there by that mind flayer. But the devourers were on the ship already. You can see several of them running around while you're heading for the helm, and I suspect that these are those. I don't know though, but it seems logical given the circumstances. Now maybe the circumstances may seem illogical, but it's the story we have, and the plotline they're working from.

Again, story wise, sure, there could be 100s of heavily nerfed intellect devourers roaming around, but I stand by my point: lore wise it makes no sense to come across more than 1, 2 would be pushing it, and not as early as lvl 1. Like they could've replaced these intellect devourers with mind controlled humans or whatever, and it would make much more sense than what we have now. I know, killing intellect devourers and seeing walking brains is much cooler than whatever I suggest... Also, don't you find it weird that Shadowheart somehow has 4 dead brains at her feet and 5th very close by but if you send her against those in the ship, she'll most likely go down? Ah, one of these little mysteries that will most likely never be explained.

I don't see that much differently than I see Jack's introduction in ME 2, which came up earlier somewhere. She's an absolute juggernaut of destruction, until we recruit her. Along with this are other things we don't know. How many of them came at her at once? If you can pull them one at a time, they're not all that hard to beat. If it's a swarm, yeah, kinda blows that up, but we just don't know. If I'm going to venture a guess, knowing what I know, I'd say one at a time is more likely, and what I know is that I can't see her beating 3 at once, let alone 4 or 5 of them, unlike what happened with Jack, where we actually see some of what she's presented to be. So I can't jump automatically to "it's improbable that she could beat them", because while I do believe it's improbable that she beat them all at once, I don't know how those devourers wound up dead. I presume, based on the dialog that she killed them, but the specifics aren't provided, or even hinted at, other than making an assumption that she killed them all at once simply because they're all dead, and she's not.

Its a bit weird to see Shadowheart surrounded by dead Intellect Devourers but I just assume they died by some other means, maybe a crash, since there are fisherfolk bodies scattered around as well. We are not shown that she fought them and she does not state so either, so...

Edit: fighting them later on yes, does suspend your disbelief, as a first level character you should be completely decimated.

Yep, I pointed out that my impression is just that of the first act or the part we played and there might be more, I mean Minsc is in the files. My point was that is the impression of the game not being BG3 is not incorrect, and quite a valid position. I also want to make it clear that the devs and the game right now seems quite capable of being a very good RPG.
I have only played the first DA, I skipped the second after 2 minutes of gameplay and I have also skipped Andromeda in the ME series. So, I can not comment on the continuity of the series. Although I daresay that, Andromeda would have likely fared better, if it made, apart from being less buggy, more nods to the original trilogy apart from just the races.
You could make the argument that the Fallout Series tells a different story everytime and so does TES, which I would agree with. However there at least Fallout 2 was a direct continuation of 1 and in TES each has a distinct name after the title (like Fallout NV), which hints at a different setting, yet the same world. The other two Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games also had a different premise in the same setting, in that case Baldur's Gate is the core location.
I also do not want to belittle people who not only played the games, but read the extended universe, I just wanted to point out that likely most have just played both or only one of the predecessors without extensive additional knowledge. I bought it in the hope of the same feeling in-game as BG2. So far then I am currently not impressed. For me the game, right now, was "falsely advertised". I did not really look a lot up beforehand though, I mostly judged from the title.

It is implied in the dialogue with her that she did indeed kill them. Somehow. As a drow you can even compliment her on the carnage at her feet. And she thanks you even. So, I dunno, maybe aside from the wonder Gale we have another god's chosen at our disposal? At this point nothing will surprise me.

And yes, thank you for that edit. It's the point I've been trying to make.

Ahh I see. I haven't yet played a Drow, only Tieflings, so their dialogue is more generic at this point. Shadowheart points to the bodies but that's about it.
Larian does like their chosen don't they.

It's not like the lady is into sarcastic hyperboles and a bit self-centered. Not at all. We are talking about someone who's answer to "you're beautiful" is "I know".

Saying that, she followed the paths used by other survivors (use "speak with dead" on the subtle green glow fisher(wo)man in the area for more information about that).

Now I'm going to have to try that, to see what they have to say.

BG1 follows the story of the young and reckless Bhaalspawn. It ends with the death of your “brother” Sarevok. The whole time you are trying to just figure this out and understand why he wants you dead.

BG2 you have been robbed of your possessions and experimented on. You know what you are but not why you are. While avoiding Irenicus and building back your character you discover the Slayer and more about the God that made you.

BG3 you are the helpless victim of mind flayers. You have formed a weak and compromised party that shares your fate and end goal. You know that Baldurs Gate is near but still out of your way and you know that at any moment you die and a monster will take your place.


The first two do share a central theme, Bhaal. However the game is not flushed out and you do not know what forces and characters are behind your fate and what your character is in the grand scheme of things...