Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Bhaal

I've played a lot of past BG games. Neverwinter Nights as well. Many other games. So I know what's good entertainment and the ins and outs of game design and code and such (I don't know code itself but I know triggers and scripts).

I was watching the vid about the Kuo-toa, and honestly they just come across as far too silly. It feels like it's an easter egg that's been shoe horned in at the expense of something that could have been deeper (which is still subject to change being early access). Especially when they look like bad 70s costumes. The close ups in conversations make this very apparent. The arm/hand gestures indicate it as well. I know we're not supposed to take them TOO seriously but they feel like they're a complete joke until they actually fight you. Then they're scary and can really hurt you. But we don't really SEE it until fighting them. And even if we're not supposed to see "intimidating" it's hard to take the game seriously when it's going out of its way to look that silly. That's the Kuo-toa though. What I want to focus on is what they were talking about. And what's been made a joke of. Bhaal himself.

Let's think about this for a moment. Look back at Baldur's Gate 2 (and if you never played it, do yourself a favour and play one of the best RPG games of all time even if it is dated).

That's, what, 3 BG games plus expansions, the previous ones (technically added in 2 but referencing 1) involving bhaal and never getting to him? There's a lot of talk about bhaal but we know so little. Because he's never shown. Only talked about. All we really know is he slept with a lot of people (raping some perhaps, but that could be assumption from the NPCs claiming that) made a lot of children and that he has a thing for murder. Probably because of fighting improving people or something. Or does he just want to wipe the world out? Even if outside game lore exists on this account the games need to add more of it. I want to know more about "Boooooal". Not some pretender. So when it was all an illusion I actually felt a twinge of disappointment. Like the potential for expanding on that was there then was cruelly taken away. Makes me wonder if the scene would have gone better if they actually weren't fooling around and really had more in depth lore/knowledge about bhaal. So did the devs wuss out and take the cheap laugh approach because that's too much of a challenge? That's what I'm wondering here. It's possible they decided not to take it further because they're afraid of messing up past BG lore about bhaal. But if that's the case i say take the risk. Can always go "Fish people got stupid and assumed" later if mistakes are made and then fix things. We now have bhaal dangled on the end of the stick. And if the devs don't deliver more of that, a KEY theme about Baldur's Gate, then where does it leave us? One cheap laugh that is fleeting? When it could be more? I consider it unlikely that it will lead to more about bhaal, due to the mindflayers being the main focus in the game. But it would be nice if I was surprised later on. And perhaps simply mentioning this could be why more of bhaal gets added into the game. Keep in mind we've yet to face him.

We also don't know (and likely may never know) if the main character in this game in is a child of bhaal or not. We know they were in 1 and 2. Due to the main characters brother (Sarevok) stating that in the throne of bhaal expansion. They (and others) are children of bhaal himself. But what's the stance on 3? We seem to be playing as a different person, but are we? Or are we the same person from 2 since we were the same in 1? is BG continuing the bhaal trend or not? Even if we are playing as someone else I don't see why we can't be some other child of bhaal (or great grand child or whatever).

Basically what I'm wondering is if the devs have basically left behind bhaal and moved on and simply snuck in a quick mention. But now that he's been mentioned that's just making me want more of bhaal now. Considering we never got to face bhaal himself before. Granted he's "dead" but that's never stopped D&D characters coming back before. Be it from hell or oblivion. His whole thing is "resurrection" and his very face is on the cover on BG1 and 2. 3 we don't know yet but he HAS been mentioned in game. And maybe there's more to him then "just murder" and he's very misunderstood. At some point we've just got to get to the resurrection part and face him already (maybe with the main character being stronger if rejecting murder and weaker if they murder people). Given the tadpole is different it could even be possible to combine the two together. Lead up to it through that. Though IF this ever happens It'll probably be in an expansion after the main game is out. Since it's very unlikely that this idea has been implemented. But if it starts being added in before the game is out then maybe it can be something added into the game. Once all that bug fixing and the mindflayer story arc is done. Would be nice to have the transform into a monster ability again too (even if only as just an ability).

Basically, more "BOOOOOAL". The real kind.

A spoiler on the fate of Bhaal (Not related to BG3)


Potential spoiler from BG 3.

It's an optional encounter. The Koa Toa have always been silly. People sitting around a table saying "how would fish people pronounce ____"

Their god is named Blibdoolpoolp.

Castle Greyhawk was protected by Colonel Sanders.

So far I think Larian has got the tone right -- some silliness without going over the top like the did with DOS. (no bushes and barrels during sneaking or the like)

Kuo-Toa being silly seems to be consistent with 5th edition's presentation of them so far.

Bhaal will have a big part to play in BG3.

Funny to discover someone took BG2 story this way. Personally, Bhaal was a meme to me through the whole game. Like , if you're a god bla bla bla then I guess you can figure out like a less complicated process to revive yourself, can't you? Do you really need the whole continent to try to prevent your rebirth? Included the guys who are supposed to cause it?

The whole thing is soooo " I'm the reason for this video game to exist".

But yeah.

Awesome. Will be interesting to see where that goes then.


It's mainly because we never get to FACE him head on. Even though we encountered countless other gods and demons already. But the threat the children themselves posses was hardly a meme. The expansion throne of Bhaal made that very clear with the monks (and the dream. And Icarus himself). Bhaal himself is very much feared. And given he is a god then yes, he needs a LOT of power to resurrect. He's not a "small generator" (like a mortal), he needs immense power and fuel. Which is why a demon practically wipes out souls in the plains of hell to take over or make a new hell. Evidence in Neverwinter Nights 1. Except that's a demon/devil, but basically the "other side of the coin". Still needs immense power. Gods (and demons/devils that are equivalents of gods) need IMMENSE power and what better way to get that then from what is potentially an endless supply? Children of Bhaal killing around, more souls, more power. Then consume THEIR power. That's what his children are for. It's specifically stated that Bhaal's goal is to consume his own children to resurrect. We COULD have had that at the end of throne of Bhaal itself, but instead we got memed with Icarus. Good villain but no Bhaal himself. After so much talking about him.

Once facing Bhaal finally does happen I'm hoping for multiple outcomes. I got a few ideas in mind.

1: Fight him. To survive. Probably have to do that anyway but with buffs/debuffs depending on other interactions.
2: Murdered people? Killed key characters? Failed to restrain yourself after being tempted into it at the end before the showdown? Bhaal gets stronger. Resist, don't kill, maybe at the cost of some debuffs, and Bhaal gets weaker.
3: Once the fight is "won" multiple conversation options. Keep fighting and finish off (possibly continuing the cycle). Talk him into dying. Consume him and become the next god of murder.

This is all IF Bhaal is indeed some monster with a thing for murder. But what if he's not? What if he's HAD to kill many people for complicated reasons and instead of a violent god of murder and mayhem we come across someone... like Lyon from Fire Emblem Sacred Stones? Someone that causes all the pain suffering and grief but through good intentions and has a soft heart? Then killing him would be somewhat more tragic and sorrowful (but still enter entertaining). Who knows, it's possible Bhaal is a pawn being used by the people using his power. Some of them. Like the gods in throne of Bhaal sitting around a table with his face on it. Imagine it. Finding out Bhaal is someone to save at the end and having to fight MULTIPLE GODS that used him and abused his power, which forced him to take drastic measures to survive.

Suddenly brainstorming. Wasn't there some implication of the gods themselves being involved with Bhaal due to meeting around a table with his face on it in a cutscene? That's leaving some implications. Either "being under him", "using him" or "A reminder of what has to be stopped". Those are the only reasons I can think of having his face n the table.

I sure hope we wont play a fucking Bhallspawn yet again. Or have the fing Bhaaal be the main villain again. That story is fing over.
As was declared several times by Larian and WotC and by the events in the originals and other official content.

There is a whole setting to explore here and many gods and far more interesting stories then fucking Bhaal and his plot we played through already.
The Dead three will have some part in this but that should be all. A part.

It's boooal

It doesn't work that way. You can't just go "This is lore outside of the game and it's being forced into the game". The DEVS that made THIS game decide that. No one else. Bhaal is not done. Not even close. Not in Baldur's Gate games themselves. In what way is he "done"? There's been zero indication of this in the games and that is the lore that stick in the games that can not be questioned or faulted unless the devs otherwise state "Outside game lore is why". But they have to specifically state that instead of letting people misinterpret/assume one way or the other. You're just saying it's done because you WANT it to be. But that's what you want. Not logic or facts.

We never got to face him. The whole series revolves around him. Or at least the effects the causes. You may as well remove Darth Vader from Star Wars. Technically Bhaal is more like Palpatine. It's obviously going in the direction of "There but not really there until the FINAL showdown." THEN Bhaal will be done. That said it is about time we're done already. But it's not about the destination. It's about the journey. And hopefully the final showdown will be good as well. It's better to have DEFINITE closure with a final confrontation then imply "He may still be around" once 3 is done. Imagine if a BG4 comes out and you still have this fear. That's how many people wanting to finally face Bhaal feel. It does need to be done and get done, but it has to be here to BE done. In some shape or form. It makes zero sense to have a god or murder and RESURRECTION and not get to the part where we face him once resurrected. This leaves us with one conclusion. That he will finally be resurrected and that we have to confront him. Most likely at the very end of BG3 (or whatever expansion comes out after it). Maybe it will be a blast, maybe it won't be. But once that happens we'll both be able to go "FInally. Bhaal is done for good." Which would be the last BG game to be made I suppose. And if the devs DON'T do that it risks drawing out an already badly beaten horse with a stick and "milking the franchise" just for the sake of it with Bhaal as an excuse. They'll have to make Baldur's Gate about just Baldur's Gate after that. It kind of puts them in a tight spot. Do you FINALLY get down with Bhaal once and for all, or do you leave the implication it's not done and feed off peoples hope to find out in the next game? Considering BG2 has done that already I don't think that's going to work too well with BG3. So BG3 has surely got to bring things to a close at last.

I really disagree with you.
In short, any game with a grown up man who talks with his hamster can't teach any other game about not being silly

I doubt we'll be fighting any actual gods. I don't think WotC would go for that.

Thats completely idiotic.

Bhaal is just one of many deities in the setting and many are evil and equally or more powerful then Bhaal, especially now.
The story of bhaalspawn is OVER.

We do not need a fight with a deity to close his whole story. There is no "final showdown" and you cant really kill a god by any conventional means. Gods are not meant to be enemies with + whatever.
You are only talking about some inane imagined expansion for the first two games. Which isnt connected to this story at all - because we are not playing bhaalspawn - again. So there is nothing our characters experience that would make them want to have any kind of fing "final showdown" with Bhaal.

There is no reason to think the Bhaalspawn plot is quintessential and mandatory for all BG games. It was the plot hook for the first two games - thats it.
The real defining element is "a plot by an evil god or gods giving the player some special powers but at a terrific cost". Any God can serve in theory.
It seems all of the dead three are involved in this plot in some way - and thats a link to the previous games. But it doesnt need to be a defining one. Just like the city of Baldurs Gate is not definitive in any way in originals or now.




Not really surprising this incoherent mutually exclusive nonsense comes from somebody still stuck on the fing bhaalspawn plot.
Which one is it? How the f can you make these two sentences and not notice one cannot follow the other?

Its not "technically" more like Palpatine - it is like Palpatine, a figure influencing events from the background, with a huge difference this is a God.
Sarevok was actually like Darth Vader, if we really have to reduce everything into dumb SW characters - a dark knight going around wrecking stuff you can actually fight.

Funnily enough, or disgustingly enough, reintroducing Bhaal yet again as the main villain-force would work as well as reintroducing Palpatine in the last SW movie worked.

Bhaal is old news, The Absolute (which totally isn't a bunch of Mind Flayers) is the new hotness.

Where in the hell is this content? How the devil did I miss these fucking things?

And NONE of their faces are on the cover of BG games. BHAAL'S is. No NPC in BG has ever gone "He can't come back" or "He can't be resurrected". Nor has any NPC gone "All Bhaalspawn are dead" (who's fate can be left ambiguous in BG itself). If I have overlooked that in the BG games themselves then point it out. What proof do you have that Bhaal is done beyond saying so? Have the devs stated that? No. They haven't. Just because you want him to be done and say he is done does NOT mean he is done. You are also going out of your way to be insulting. I will not stoop to your level. But I will report you for toxic behaviour if you don't control your temper. I will not stand for verbal abuse. If you have PROOF then provide it. If other games and media have brought back "Long dead gods yet to be faced throughout a series" then I don't see why Balder's Gate is any exception. The very fact it's already been done in other places is proof enough that it can happen here.



I mean we've already gone through the underdark. Neverwinter Nights 1 sent us to hell (and other places. And the underdark). BG3 could do that too. Maybe other plains.In D&D you can die and go to hell and meet demons devils and gods of immense power. Keep in mind BG2 had the gods themselves basically talking to you (through a diva messenger admittedly) and one of the endings is even making you a god yourself. Unless you refuse that. I suppose that also confirms we're not the same person in BG3. Unless we happen to be a god with animisa that lost godly powers. Doubt that will happen though. Also, didn't we face a god in throne of Bhaal in the form of some giant skull? That might have been Neverwinter Night's 1 though.

I'm not too sure exactly where we ended up in Throne of Bhall in the end mission. We went into a giant tree city (elves) then we face Icarus. Who we defeat and gets tossed in lava in hell? (pretty clear ON SCREEN closure) And we seem to fight in what is basically "In your heads". And then we get to be a god? (for reasons I can't recall). Hell, if the player can become a god then what can't happen in this game? And even Sarevok was supposed to be dead. Remember. But they found a way to bring him back. To be fair it was because he was in hell. But there's countless ways to ressurrect long dead gods and demons. As evidenced in countless games and media.

I hope they aren't just Mind Flayers, that would be a bit disappointing

I can see that you really want to believe in this. So I'll say sure, anything could happen!

Eh. It's not that I "want" to believe it. It's that I know that no matter how seemingly impossible things may be there's always a way to change a situation.

It's not about what I want. It's that I know too many people go "That'll never happen" and then things happen anyway. It could also not happen. But it can and does happen.

When an event DOES happen after someone said it will never happen, they feel like hypocrites. And this makes people feel like idiots for being closed minded. I'm simply covering possibilities. And I put the "Make the impossible happen" in my life as well. It gets good results. Basically, think of me like Batman. Give me option A and B and I'm making option C. It only LOOKED like there's only two options beforehand,

Open mind, you know. Not too much to ask for is it?

The dead three are involved? I know about Bhaal, but how did Myrkul cheat the grave? I thought he was killed off in the nwn2 expansion.

That’s the current train of thought, yes.

As for this fishy encounter, it’s not an Easter egg nod towards Bhaal, so no worries there. It’s interesting that you can sacrifice a companion! Needs more party interaction and emotion though. Everyone’s just like “don’t pick me”, as if picking anyone is acceptable as long it’s not themselves?! Heck it becomes a fight where you can get the two others to attack the chosen sacrifice and then we get on with our day.

Come on Larian, this is actually a big thing. If I’m stupid enough to go through with it that’s one thing, but I would expect more resistance within the party to this bizarre choice, more bargaining, and if it has to be combat vs cut scene, then have any who disapproved be unusable in said combat.