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

That was my conclusion and wrote a similar post. Evil does not mean you suffer serious mental retardation. Evil is simply the methodology applied to forward your motivation.

Goal - cure a plague

Evil - Requires slaves, power and material goods as reward, not interested in colateral damage incurred or methods used to obtain cure. Torture, theft, murder....preferable. No reward? Bye bye. Ends justify MY means.

Neutral - Similar rewards unless this demand complicates scenario. Will consider all options and methods if said methods increase chances of success, can be subjectively good or evil. The ends justify the means.

Good - Altruistic nature may refuse reward, may refuse task if plague is "seen" as divine or just. Will apply morality and feelypoos even if it means everyone dies. The ends do NOT justify the means.

Good in this context is a limiting factor. Morality makes easy solutions ridiculously convoluded in most cases. Neutral people understand that sacrifice is sometimes necessary to obtain a desired result. Evil people don't give a shit as long as the rewards outweigh the risks, they may even obtain the cure to blackmail the client...then kill them.

Good, neutral and evil characters with the same goal may come to the exact same conclusion. In this case "the tadpole" is clearly a controlling factor to all allignments and everyone would want it gone for different reasons. By joining forces with a group you know for a fact is controlled by tadpoles you destroy a potential cure for no discernible benefit, it is utterly idiotic.

[spoiler] The vampire wants to control the tadpole because it offers him a solution to a his slavery, understandable motivation. Nobody else does.

I believe the offer of easy outcomes by using the tadpole and thus power is an attempt at motivation, but if I’m evil I’m not stupid.

Until someone confirms I’m not about to turn all mr tentacles and lose my life, I’m not seduced. So until then I need other opportunities to express my less than altruistic self, such as stabbing Nettie with that bloody branch of thorns and torturing an answer out of her with a promise of antidote. The cow...

Or offering the dark Druid to dispose of her Tiefling issue in return for help, luring the Tiefling a out and then letting them get massacred by the goblins, potentially stabbing the goblins in the back afterwards to make sure they don’t present a threat down the line.

None of that helps me with the tadpole? Then I’m gone.

Want players to be seduced by the tadpole? Maybe Raphael should suggest that we are being manipulated and our fate sucks two fold as either the manipulation ends and we go full mindflayer, or we stay controlled for someone’s nefarious purposes... oh controlled you say, not going to instantly die? Ok... maybe I’ll take my chances and let myself be seduced, I’ve got this, the power boost is quite handy whilst I’m figuring it out.

Obviously I know now, but the story should make sense the first time you play it.

Suggestion: We need the ability to create a Mind-Flayer as our 'dream romance'...lol
Then my baby and I can create all the thralls we need to conquer this silly mudball.

Astarion has 9 intelligence, so I guess that's what it takes, lol.

Litteraly everyone in this game is trying to kill you ... some need to check some conditions ...
But Minthara, Ragzlin, Gut, Crusher, Shadowheart, Astarion, Ethel, Kagha, Zevlor, Nettie, Halsin ... they all try to kill you, some sooner, some later ... and i bet this list is not even complete yet.


Not necesarily, usualy yes, but certainly not allways ... and it makes me sad to see how many people here is so black and white ...


What do you mean not even an option ... whole story is just about doing precisely this.
Yes, you didnt yet come to and end ... since when does that mean that there is nothing happening? O_o


And its perfectly possible ... i dont see your point here. O_o


Why is this a choice ... so anyone who DO have reason, could do it ... that should be obvious. O_o
Why would i do this ... if you have to ask, you probably should not ... simple as that.


If you want to play them as such ... you should have that option.

Also the fact that your current character dont see any reason to do *something*, does not mean that no one ever had any reason to do exactly the same thing ... its just about thinking outside your box ... after all is a Role-playing game ...
Sad to read trough this forum and see how many people cant do that.


Oh please, Ether can (and will with some dialogue choices) kill both those peasants with snap of her fingers ... why should she give you anything for that?
Kagha should kill you the second she find out what is in your head.


You cant be serious here.


You allready can use goblins to wipe out the groove ...


I presume it have something to do with the fact that Knockout is still kinda useless ...
Maybe im wrong here, but in your camp there is cage ... and when you choose bounty hunter specialisation for your ranger ... there is specificly told that people restrained by you will have harder escape ... so i dare to presume that there will be some option to take people to custody.


Its just another option ... not the only right way.


I know about single shadow druid only ... and its Kagha ...
She never told me to "do this for us just because" ... more like "do this if you wish to help them(notice them, not us), or get out of my sight, i dont have a time for you, nor i care about what do you want".


Good character can use it, maybe not lawfull good character, bcs they would see it as some kind of stain ...
But for example Wyll is good (kinda selfish, but in general he wants to help others ... therefore he is good) ... yet he made his deal with Fiend ... is that so different from tadpole? After all, ends justify the means.


This is the problem ... you are thinking as player, not as character ...
Or you are simply another black/white judge who see only his way as the righ one, and everyone else are siply wrong ... or stupid ... or both ...

Sadly, world is a little bit more complex. :-/

I wonder what reward you think those goblin kids had to throw rocks at Halsin in his bear form.


Nice idea ... i like this! :3


This would be a bit problematic ... i need to try sometimes to kill Halsin and then kill goblin leaders so i see what will happen ... but so far it seems like groove concidering goblins to "no longer present a threat" only when he returns ...
Otherwise, its interesting idea ... yet, im not sure if Minthara would agree with killing only bunch of tieflings, and letting druids to live happily ever after. :-/


And it does not? O_o

By make sense, I meant more along the lines of the path open to you to be evil needs to be more transparent. Like I said, I’m not daring the tadpole until I know I’m not going all mr tentacles. ;-)

Can you please give me some example of good written, but transparent evil story? O_o
There is reason why plots, are usualy make behind closed doors.

Some dare, some not ... its up to you.

I see it same as with Gale and Raphael ... there is no such thing as absolute certainity ... you either dare, or not ... and if you dare, you either sucess, or not ... that is one of magic of DnD ... nothing is set in stone.

And for my evil character anyone who tries to kill her is her enemy. To consider an alliance, they'd have to provide both a compelling reason and some common grounds between them, otherwise it simply looks like a setup.

Astarion for example: he too is tadpoled and you have a common enemy (whoever tadpoled both of you), and as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy..." At this point my PC agreed to travel together, since a) he posed little threat to her and b) his rogue skills were of use. But if I were playing an evil rogue, my PC would have likely killed him there and then.

And therein lies the problem. From the list you've provided my PC killed most of them in retaliation, because they had nothing to offer. Take priestess Gut for example, she doesn't even give you a reason to let her live, nevermind an alliance with her boss.

As it is, the absolute manages to be less convincing then an elf with intelligence as his dump stat.

Anyone who tries to kill you is your enemy ...
Yet you agreed to travel with Astarion, even if your first encounter with him started with knife on your throat?
Odd ...

That is the thing with Gut ...
She played her cards, and lost ... she didnt want to aly with you, she wanted to exploit you ... she failed.
That is what evil characters usualy do.

As for other goblin leaders ... they both see themselves on top of foodchain ... you either proove them right, or wrong ... depend of your own character motivations ...
Anyway they have no reason to bargain with you ... you either obey, or kill them ... anything else would be out of role.

As for intelligence ... feel free to think im wrong, but taken what things is tied to intelligence rolls, that stat should be more like named knowlege.

I know I should know better than to reply to this, but you realise Astarion is one of the main characters right? I would kill him every single time if it didn't mean I would miss out on 1/8th of all story content...

Ofc. i do.
Thats is why we have replayability ...

For myself is much more interesting to keep my character's profile, than see everything in single gameplay (also that goal is litteraly impossible) ... its called role-playing.

First time i play someone who kill anyone who tryes to kill me ... Astarion didnt survive.
Second time i played someone with a little loosened rules about self preservation ... like, yes i do fight if i have to, yet i glagly avoid it, if that option is there ... and he survived just fine.
I would like to try some pacifist, who believes that everyone can be redepted ... but that is curently impossible, since knockout does litteraly nothing. :-/

Also ...

You are really this game's ideal audience.

Thank you.

Prince of Thorns
Hannibal
American Psycho
American History X
The Talented Mr Ripley
Richard III
Dexter
Strangers on a Train
Lolita
The Lies of Locke Lamora

.... just off the top of my head.

In pure fantasy settings, Raistlin from Dragonlance is a superbly written evil player character, as are the cosmic representations of good and evil in the entire Dragonlance universe.

What makes characters compelling, good or evil, is the conflict they encounter AS A CHARACTER that allows for dynamic growth. For evil characters, that means grappling with the consequences of their actions in whatever way allows them to continue pursuing their goals. Evil protagonists are often their own antagonists.

So what if they consider themselves superior, if this is not backed by any serious firepower? They are still just a bunch of goblins with overreaching ambitions. I was playing a githyanki, they also consider themselves superior. (They even get a line bragging about how they build their cities on corpses of gods.) The goblins have no reason to bargain with my character? Well, neither has my character any reason to bargain with them, because they have nothing to offer. And yet Minthara & co act as if they do; I guess they rolled a one on that intelligence roll.

It looks like a new patch is about to hit, they are working on localisation. Lets hope Larian will take in our feedback and overhaul the evil storyline soon.

DING! Just been in a debate on a youtube vid about this. Someone called what Shadowheart did as evil when she comes to the camp then tries to kill you after a failed roll. But really, when you're protecting your own SANITY that is SELF PRESERVATION! Honestly. Some people need to stop avoiding giving a straight answer and just tell me their opinion on that matter already. Yeez.

I roleplay as a hellhound online. It's quite fun. IMO what makes you evil is that you're "just there". Hell, you might not even be a target. I just want fun. It will be at your expense. Amuse me or die. And even then you still might die.

But an evil red dragon (or an ice one) might still spare you if you AMUSE them. And show you have a brain. Suddenly you might end up as their personal lover or pet (or whatever else). The harm still being present yet with affection and affirmation. In life and in games we don't always choose that. But how do you RESPOND to the situation? You're no use if you're not useful. And "good" will easily turn their backs on you. Perhaps MORE so then evil. At least evil will toy with you. Which can turn into something more.

I'm more definitely an evil character. But which one? I know direction even if I thrive in chaos. I follow but I also lead when I must. Prefer following. That evil stuff I do? Do it to me too.

I'm nothing if not fair. Does this mean I just made evil fair? Huh.

The writer who should write Evil root (Larian's opinion):


The writer who should write Evil root (players opinion):

This sums up the evil path nicely in my opinion.

Yup.


Yup.


Exactly.


Ofc she do ... read what you writed abowe, and it should make sence.