Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Did anyone genuinely enjoy the "Evil" Route?

Dragon age 2 actually did something similar but I think it was actually very good. The only bad way to treat your companions in da2 was to ignore them completely. Unfortunately I can only think of one instance where it had actual consequences. Man this game had many interesting ideas. I wish they had more time to develop it

Good point.

I dont want to kill all npcs i want to enslave, torture, corrupt and be evil in a way that they live and work for me.

Companions should be afraid and grow to hate me, joining forces to try to put me down when they wont endure it any longer. I would then have the option of jailing and torturing them. Or maybe just let them live because let them be miserable in their failures.

Yeah that's pretty bad, that's evil, terrible, but way more interesting than just killing everyone.

Pretty much how i felt playing the same type of character. As an evil I wouldn't kill the devils because I may still have a use for them as they are weak and easily manipulated, just the threat of violence basically bends them to your will. Goblins are beneath trash and deserve to be killed when not actively giving me something I need. They know it as well .. this is why they grovel when they talk to you.

As an evil character the quest for my own power and objectives comes above all else, I be damned if im going to bow down to a made up god. The drow you meet needs to die because she is weak and a traitor to Lolth. After finding out if the druid Halsin can help or not he can die as well heh.. Hell he shouldnt even want to talk to a drow and really shouldnt be an option. As for the other druid heh soon as she barks orders she had to go.. " I don't work for you lady "

I love that I can just murder anyone who I feel wrongs my character and look forward to more writing to reflect choices. I enjoy the evil option as I start that way but it really takes effort to not accidentally turn into the hero. Being good is easy.

See, I do this too and it makes me wonder if the writers are trying to imply something with calling all of my Machiavellian evil deeds "good". They probably did think evil players are all murder hobos though.

You are talking about nuance and all you can see is a dichotomy where Goblins = evil and Tielfings = good which means "goblins dead (kids included)/tieflings alive = good "and "goblins alive/tieflings dead = evil". You're characters don't have to give a rat ass about the Tielfings and their action can still lead at them being alive. Tielfings living are totally unrelated to how you role-play your character, it's a consequences of the decisions you made.

There isn't two paths, these are you options:


Explain to me why you think only the first option fit an evil character?

You're listing permutations to two major outcomes. If the outcome has no "party scene" it does not count. This makes the "Goblins = evil and Tielfings = good which means "goblins dead (kids included)/tieflings alive = good "and "goblins alive/tieflings dead = evil"." dichotomy exactly what the writers intended. There is in fact a hilarious double take going on in the narrative right now where the story bends over backwards to paint the Tieflings as totally innocent bystanders and goblins as downright racially inherent to evil. If you talk to the goblin child at the camp's entrance for instance it tells you that its parents were killed in a raid, only to then follow up that it doesn't care because the weak die and the strong survive. Okay? Cool social values these goblins have. Meanwhile I cannot name a single thing the Tieflings do wrong in the narrative besides endangering what is apparently a group of racist bigoted druids led by a demagogue bent on ethnic cleansing.

My character certainly did not give a rat's ass about the Tieflings, but at least they are presented as civillised beings. You cannot say the same for the goblins and even if you did it would not matter, because they backstab you if you help them. Even Minthara does unless you pass a few dialogue checks. There is a very likely permutation to the evil path that has you end up with significantly less than what you started with. Not just with 0 leads or allies, but also with a traumatised Shadowheart that is now locked out of approval gain for good. Even a murder hobo chaotic evil character must be thinking they fucked up at this point.

When I am talking about nuance I am referring to the storytelling, not the outcome or even really its permutations. All of those are very rigid. Imagine if the druids decided to have a little nature party with you after you force the Tieflings to leave early. Or if the Gith creche / shadow curse alternate paths are added. Those would be actual new options.

It doesn't count? That's not what the game is tell me by supporting it in the EA ending cinematic.

You think it doesn't count. Not the writers, they made it a side quest (actually 3 side quests) which means it is optional.
You think role-playing is following black or white breadcrumbs that reward you with a black and white outcome instead of taking decisions based on your character's personality. Not the writers.
You think certain action leads to certain long term results you can't even prove exist because they aren't in the game. This has nothing to do with the writers.

You think NPCs should react certain ways to your character. The writers have the right to write NPC whore are lying to you, manipulating you and using you. Evil doesn't make you immune to those.

When Larian asked for evil feedbacks, that one quest options isn't what they meant. Lawful is actually the most lacking aspect in the game right now. Chaotic (good or evil) is the more prevalent. And evil (well entitled/vengeful/power hungry) isn't far behind Chaotic. Good (nice) is near Lawful in term of prevalence outside the Grove.

There is no reason when I get near the Druid Stone circle for the first time that my dialogue options when told I can't enter are:
- act like I own the place
- act like I own the place
- why can't I enter?
- leave

Oh Gods ... three sites ... this will be long one. :-/

True dat ... on the other hand, Zevlor repeatly warns you that they cant give you much ... and they are refugees, those usualy arent richest people ...
Compared to whole cult of new goddes that is tightly bound to your brain problem, and as i mentioned earlier allready is saving your neck ...
I dunno ... even greedy character should see biger profit here. :-/

After all, even your character have chat option to tell him something like: "Sorry Zevlor, but i need help, and her godess is my best chance."


I allready answered this question ... to be more precise in that post that you were quoting ...

Quote:
"Every decision you made you made for you own reasons, Larian dont need to show your character why you should that, or this ... that is for you to decide ... i dunno, maybe your character is homicidal maniac, maybe its xenophobic Tieflinghater, maybe hes fighter for goblin's rights, maybe hes just loyal to another Drow, or maybe he is really interested in that whole Absolute cult, so he really want them to suceed ... or maybe litteraly anything else.
But its all up to you, and that is exactly why i just love it."

So that is why.
Also you say its less risky ... based on what exactly?
Bcs she is Drow? Bcs she worship Absolute? Bcs she comands goblins the only way they understand ... with ruthless iron fist?

Is that really so diffent when she tells you to help with her assault compared to Zevlor's "go convince druids" and then "go kill goblins"?
At last she is direct, and you cant say she was not honest with anyone, she maybe didnt tell some things at first ... but that is all she did, everything else is just matter of wich side you choose in battle (i dont wanna call this war, yet).


That is certainly one of possible evils ...
And that is exactly and litteraly the reason why i posted that link to Wikipedia.
That as it seems everyone ignored. :-/


Well yes, but actualy no ... meme is in place here.
Being evil certainly CAN BE more than simply killing everyone, and throwing rocks at bears ...

- For one there is litteraly no way you can say that exactly this behaviour is not evil.
- And for two, there is also litteraly no way you can say that any "evil" character cant do this and being right.

Have anyone of you seen those goblin kids?
They were not concerned about any (quote:)"eviiiiiiiil" alignment ... they were just having some fun, with no respect to others.

You all keep thinking about "why should my character do this", or "what will my character get when he do that" ...
Have anyone of you honestly even for a slightest second thinked about the idea, that character can ... i dunno ... just dont care? Just having some fun? Nothing more, nothing less? Just spot the opourtunity and take it without any futher concidering?
I gues not.
Its stupid way to play character in tabletop? Yes, obviously ... pretty anoying. Does it matter in singleplayer game? No.
Does it means that character probably will not be any deep thinker? Yes, sure, probably ... but have you honestly in your whole life did nothing impulsive? Do you really concider all pro and cons, all consequences, profits, and reasons? If so ... i feel kinda pitty for you. :-/


That is all correct.
Its just not the only way ... that is one of reasons why in DnD are for so long 9 different alignments, not just two (good/evil) or three (and neutral).


Well ... even that is possible path. :-/
In mine opinion you should be able to do that if you really wish to represent your game as one of "choices matter".


Yeah sure ... good must allways win, and evil must be allways punished ...
A bit too fairytale to me. :-/

They should bcs they have no choice.
They should bcs they are affraid of you.
They should bcs their godess orders them to, trhough you ofc.
They should bcs you are for them the only way to get rid of those pitiful lives in caves and burrows. (Have you even pay atention to those goblins, when they talk?)
And finaly ... they should, bcs many of them simply enjoy good carnage. :P


And if you make zealots, cultists, slaves, and subjects ... they will fight that boss instead of you for some scraps you left for them to take. :P
That is ultimately that "greedy" and "selfish" evil you still talking about.


It seem nuanced enough to me. O_o

You dont need to follow whole path, there is several points where you can reconcider ...
Wich kinda change situation.

For example on that gate ... you can betray the Drow, and help Tieflings ... situacion changed, they have now better defences, they have battleplan, advantage of terain ... it dont seem like so much suicide to join them against the Goblins now. Therefore more beneficial way for "non-Chaotic-Evil" characters.


I dont know if words can even express how happy i am to see at last one person here who gets it. :3 <3


Not at all ...
There are at last 3 factions ... Tieflings, Goblins, and Druids ... and you can help, ignore, or betray litteraly any of them (teoreticly even all of them) ... there even seem to be a way to just let them to fight each other, dont care and go with your own way: (didnt try yet tho)

Or! There is Githyanki creche, wich dont interact with neither of those groups in any way ... another quite neutral path.

You just need to see biger picture here.


Well ... you included yourself to war ...
When you dod that, you sooner or later need to kill someone ...

Its funny how many people care about bunch of hellspawn being killed and calling here for "better nuanced evil path" when they didnt even try to find it ...
And on the other hand nobody seem to care about those dozens of dead goblins with the "only one righterous path" ... where is those nuances in good playtrough? :P


Actualy good idea!
I love it whole. :3


Maybe i allready said it but: <3
This is pure gold people. :3

This is exactly how it should be, seeing biger picture ...


Oh dear, how many lessons of history this reminds me ...

Some natives just take in some refugees that was not threated well in their homeland, probably bcs someone feel it as right thing to do, or maybe s/he pitty them.
Who knows, does not matter. Natives shared their land, their food, their homes ...
Sooner or later those refugees start to make their own comunity, distant from natives. Having their our leaders, working on own things.
And natives didnt even notice that much, since they have own things to care, and seen no problem in that this refugees started to care about own things too.
With some time, there was incidents ... there some kid broke something, there some other kid steal something, there some people have argue, there may even be risk of some fights.
And one day, natives just had enough ... coincidentally it was the day when one of kids stole their most sacred relic ... they stopped to feel pitty about poor refugees, they started to see them as leeches that uses their ground, eats their food, sleeps under their roofs, and dont even have enough decency to be at least so greatfull to try make no throubles.
So natives asked refugees to leave imediatly. And what happened? Refugees ... refused.

Still they seem so innocent to you? :-/


That is actualy funny to mention ...

Minthara try to kill you when you fail two if i recall correctly (second one i had dif. 1 so ... not sure how big drama are we even talking about :D).
Kagha try to kill you when you fail one if i recall correcly (when Zevlor sends you to persuade her to stop the ritual)
Zevlor try to kill you without any dicerolls, in the second you tell him that Kagha told you that they need to leave now.

So ... yeah, sure ... Tieflings are totally good guys, civilized.


Well ... first of all, character you are describing will probably dont care about Shadowheart either. Just as about everyone else.
So no ... i dont think they need to think that they screewed up ... i dont even think they need to think about outcome at all.

And yes, you certainly can end up litteraly empty handed.
As one old proverb says: "You played, and you lost."
I for one am really happy about this option in game ... finaly our characters are not allmighty gods that will do everything right, everything good, and everything for the first time ... finaly we can generaly fucked everything.


Well ... druid party seem like nonsence, since they want to seal the groove for good. :-/


BUT!
When you join your forces with goblins, you certainly get very alternative paths to chadow curse, if you roll your dices right.
And Githyanki creche seem to be added later, so i bet there will be even possibility to just leave them as they are and dont care about them at all.
(Then i presume that duids will complete the ritual, and massacre tieflings themseves. And goblins will just have whole area except the groove.)


I generaly hope for more lying and manipulative characters in game ... it makes things interesting.

*Done for now. :P
I wonder if there even will be someone who read it.

I set out to do an evil run for my first game. I made a lawful evil Githyanki slaver who was driven entirely by self interest and saw the races of the Prime Materium as tools to be used and discarded as needed.

I ended up doing what is pretty much a pure good playthrough because the evil route doesn't seem to offer you any reason to do it. This is entirely without meta knowledge, mind you. I played without knowing what any choice would lead to.

So let's go down my reasons for each decision I made.

1. I am a Githyanki with a tadpole in his brain. A cure is the priority. Nothing else matters.
2. I don't get involved in the druid politics. I learn Halsin might be able to help me.
3. I save the goblin so she can lead me to the goblin camp in search of Halsin.
4. I learn early on that this Absolute is tied to the tadpoles. Therefore it cannot be trusted.
5. I meet with Gut. I immediately do not trust her and do not ask her for help. She has a tadpole in her brain. She cannot be trusted.
6. Minthara orders me to destroy the grove. I kill her for having the gall to order me around and for having a tadpole in her head.
7. I find Halsin. He asks me to kill the goblin leaders and he'll help me with the tadpole.
8. I kill the goblin leaders and sneak out of the camp. End up getting the celebration with the tieflings.
9. Enter the Underdark. Side with Myconids because they offered to pay me.


So. Yah. There was not a single point where I felt even tempted to do anything especially evil. I got probably the most good guy ending you could get with my Githyanki slaver.

And this is because all the choices that seemed like they'd get me an immediate solution to my problem happened to also be the morally good choices to make.

Minthara needs to offer the player something for choosing her side. Right now she literally just orders you to do it as if you were an underling already sworn to her and the Absolute.

My suggestion? Have her hint at there being the possibility of learning to control the tadpole in your mind and harness its power for your own ends. That'd at least be something to tempt you to help her aside from boobies.

The point of having evil choices in RPGs is so players can feel virtuous about making good choices. If evil choices did not exist it would not be possible to choose good.

I say it doesn't count because these are permutations that change one line in the ending cinematic. Of course, the Tiefling / Goblin ending does the same thing; "You think back on the refugees and remember (their calls of celebration / THEIR SCREAMS OF DEATH). But those two outcomes lead to two distinct camp events which none of the others do. Camp events seem to be the milestones on which BGIII measures your progress so the Tiefling / goblin content is "main quest" material while everything else is not. I think we can agree on that much, right? Even despite the fact there is little to no "main quest" content in Act 1 to begin with knowing the tadpole is a red herring.




To me? Not at all. I can't just ignore all the subtext the writers put in though. I expect the story of the Tiefling refugees to carry on through the entire game, which is why I dislike how black and white it is.


Can't you see how this is bad game design? Why would anyone pick this ending ever again knowing that it screws them over completely. The evil path should lead to equal, if not greater rewards compared to the good path...

I wasn't enjoying the evil playthrough then I discovered something in the under dark which made things a lot more interesting...

Clearly i cant ... at last as much as you cant see it isnt.
We can allways just agree to disagree tho.

You seem to take that screwed outcome as certainity, but! And this is important butt (:D)
1) You dont know reward, since we are not yet in the end of that path ... not for evil, nor good characters. So as i still keep repeating, there may be big reward in the end ... we just dont see it yet.
2) There is lot of possible permutations, lot of dicerolls that can change your course ... and yes, one of possible outcomes is you get screwed, but remember its only one of multiple results, it cant be taken as cetain.


I feel kinda bad about ruining your excitement but:

So as i still keep repeating, there may be big reward in the end ... we just dont see it yet.

Unless this is communicated to the player through gameplay I see no point in pretending there is a bigger picture we are just not seeing. The player knows ingame that the Absolute is a sham and its forces are presented as weak and newly emerging, no sudden massive increase in power on the Absolute's part is going to convince me otherwise. It's like the Absolute is the new cool villain on the block that is going to overtake all the gods (the goblins disavowed Maglubiyet, Minthara possibly disoved Lolth) but none of the NPC's who are not already aligned with the Absolute take it seriously. The NPC's that are already with the Absolute are over the top zealots who hate you for telling them their True Souls are tadpoled.

Not to mention that even if what you say is true, I don't see why siding with Minthara is the same as siding with the Absolute as a whole. If that were the case, surely the goblins would not betray you. Helping the Absolute feels like being its thankless errand boy right now, everyone else already on board with it is in an established position in the Absolute's forces and would kill a newcomer like you on a dime. Nobody tries to sell you the side of the Absolute other than the being itself through those dreams, and it is unclear right now how much agency the Illithid tadpole has in this. What we do know however is that we are infected, for some reason nobody else on the Absolute's side knows this. What if you go through with the evil path and the Absolute just extracts your now incredibly powerful tadpole, then kills you?

Just want to add how for me the fact that the world is set in a permanent sunny summer day makes it almost impossible to follow an 'evil' path.
Mainly for RP reasons: evil and non law abiding characters don't go stealing/fencing in the day, they do so at night avoiding guards. Also as an evil (or chaotic opportunist) PC , I def. want to rob houses, sneak around sleeping NPC's etc. The permanent daytime makes it that I have to quite literally remind myself that I am supposed to be evil and that making evil decisions in full sight during the day is apparently no issue.

To conclude, to have an immersive 'evil' or not lawfull good roleplaying experience I would need to be able to roam the maps at night/evening, I want to discover a different world after sun set. I want to meet thieves, fences, and other NPC's of questionable reputation when the sun doesn't shine. That was the kind of experience I was hoping for and I simply don't see how they can turn a blind eye on such a world defining feature. It really makes me sad that we won't be able to experience the city of Baldurs Gate both as the busy capital of trade it is in the day and the cozy but sketchy slum infested criminal capital it is at night/dusk.
ATM the only hope I have is that now that they made so much money on EA sales, that - given their stretch goals for DO - they will prioritize and try to implement some form of day/night (doesn't need to be fully dynamic).

You might want to take into account the absolute zealots have been 'infected' by the parasite through a ritual apparently.

So it could also mean the absolute is just a puppet of the illithids and they are the ones providing her with the tadpoles. And so, she's just a pawn in their scheme and the player has got the baby first hand from them instead, which created a sort of schism between two factions which in fact are one and only.

I've actually put up a thread on how the first impressions for an Evil playthrough is important and would love to hear everyone's thoughts on that. For my part having done 6 characters evil, I would agree with most of what is being discussed here.

My most memorable moment at the moment in an Evil playthrough is actually my Halfling Hunter. I placed her where the elevator was in overlooking the Ritual after murdering the 2 tieflings around (left the squirrel but he didn't seem bothered that I offed 2 Tieflings in front of it). From my vantage point, I went into stealth and took a shot at the druids doing the ritual. I killed 2 before they went apeshit and started rushing down the Tieflings and killing them. I sat back and enjoyed the carnage. This was what I did immediately after coming in and did not agree to anything with Zevlor. In my "theatre of mind" the Halfling was just Chaotic Evil and wanted to push the druids to take action. Interestingly the Tieflings won, (somehow the druids Entangled their own team in a choke point and got picked off one by one) and they then decided to stay to defend themselves from the Goblins.

It did make this particular run enjoyable. This was only possible with the knowledge of the prior playthroughs though. My first evil playthrough bugged out at the Grove, Minthara just wouldn't talk to me even though the Grove was cleared.

I knew there was a missing item in this game: a halfling pipe, to smoke your favorite weed while enjoying some pleasant slaughter afternoon

Well the new community update is up and they talk about how many people decided to side with the Tieflings over Minthara.

Good does out weight the Bad but not entirely because of our Morals Larian.

Yes I agree. On one of my playthroughs, I made a save at the gate and decided to side with Minthara in one instance and side with the Tieflings in the other.

It's much more rewarding to side with tieflings at the moment, for example related to your relationship with Shadowheart with whom you get a romance option only on the good path. And as well, it didn't help, but Minthara was bugged. I couldn't interact with her inside the grove.