Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback BG3 Could Be a Platform if it Were Closer to D&D RAW

Rules are limits by definition. As I said before, that is typically a good thing. Without limits on how far a pawn can move and in which direction, there wouldn't be any game.

My point is that for someone like Dez who likes to assign characters an alignment as a guide to their behavior, you don't need a ruleset for that. You can have the concepts of good and evil in a game without any universal rules on how they operate. The purpose of rules is to impose limits, and the question at hand is whether the specific limits of alignment mechanics enrich the game or not, rather than whether the concepts of good and evil should be included in the game or not.

For example, you could have a humor mechanic in the game that defines whether something funny or not. Since it is a universal attribute, everyone would be required by the rules to find something with the funny attribute amusing.

Personally, I would find such a humor mechanic stifling. I would prefer for it to be possible for one person to find a joke hilarious, while another doesn't find it funny at all. I would also prefer that it be left up to the player to decide whether their character finds a joke funny or not, rather than having to roll a d20 and add their sense-of-humour modifier.

This isn't to say that I don't think humour has a place in the game. It absolutely does. But rules on humour would be stifling rather than enriching.

It's a fantasy roleplaying game named "Dungeons and Dragons." It is absolutely necessary to codify morality and law into that system. It's there for a reason, and it has been a great part of the game from the beginning. As I have explained before, understanding that system and using it properly requires the players to contribute more to the game than just followig instructions.

By contrast, there is no value in or need for having a "humor" system in a medieval magic fantasy quest game. Any elements that are relevant or desired are already used in other abilities or skills. So that is a nonsensical suggestion and again indicates ignorance of what D&D is written to do.

D&D is merely a ruleset, a framework for a DM and their players to utilize in order to (hopefully) have a good time together. Usually the DM interprets that based on their current players and the campaign is rarely ever fully RAW in my experience. Nowhere in it does it say humor isn't welcome in its campaign nor systems, if the DM deems it so. Besides, humor is about as subjective as it gets. For example if you were to ask me, by that logic Bard shouldn't exist, as it's too humorous for D&D.

Can we stop mixing up subjectivity and objectivity, please?

+infinite upwotes. :P

Serious question ... i really dont know:
Wasnt aligment system scratched out in last edition?

Yes, 5E is a major change in that respect. This is somewhat controversial. In any case, i judge the game as a whole, not just on the most recent edition. I am hopeful that a reformed system will be returned in the future.

In a game with a pantheon, morality should be codified differently according to each God and Goddess. A single unified system of law/order/good/evil requires a single Absolute Judge.


And yet you insist that giving the players instructions to follow in regard to morality/lawfulness/chaos is absolutely essential. Presumably, because you don't see how such concepts could be addressed in the game without such instructions.


Nor is there a need for an absolute objective system of morality to put everyone on the same page regarding good and evil. In fact, it's more interesting if not everyone is on the same page about morality.

I don't think we can. The imposition of an objective alignment system on subjective concepts is pretty much the whole topic.

Regardless of whether there is some objective standard by which Anubis will ultimately judge Thomas Jefferson to be a Chaotic Evil slaveowner, morality is subjectively interpreted by mortals, and that subjectivity of morality was subverted by the original D&D alignment system.

Maybe there is some objective standard by which the God of Humour judges things to be objectively funny or unfunny, but humour is subjectively interpreted by mortals. A system to impose humour as an objective truth would not make the game more fun in the same way and for the same reasons that the alignment system did not make the game more fun.

No, it doesn't. I notice a lot of strict and unfounded assumptions in your posts. These signs of arrogance and a very self-centered personality are much more suited for being a NPC villain in this game than a questing party member. This attitude is a big red flag for being part of a cooperative game. And your suggestions here are extremely narrow-minded, which is confirming my earlier speculation that you're not bringing sufficient creativity to the game system. There are a lot of self-indulgent proclamations, but nothing intelligent.


Lack of understanding of game design, and another irrational assumption. I've already corrected these errors in previous posts. I recommend going back and reading them.


This is nonsense. It seems like you are being willfully ignorant, now. The system is there to provide players with a way to add consistency and depth to what would otherwise be just this kind of tedious blathering. No one wants to listen to a blowhard drone on about personal opinions; they want to PLAY. Good and evil are intrinsic parts of the theme of the game, and have mechanical significance. Codifying them and giving them a connection to the game is welcomed and enriching. It's up to the player to get over themselves and use the tools provided to play the game with other people, who are also following the same rules. You can save the college freshman philosophy talk for after D&D is over.

Ad hominins are the refuge those without a reasoned argument. A universal system absolutely needs to be determined by a single arbiter. If an NPC is lawful good from one perspective, but neutral evil from another perspective, but chaotic neutral from another perspective, what result do you get from a successful Detect Alignment spell? The DM has to decide on universal alignment attribute in order for alignment mechanics to function according to RAW.


Are instructions for the player to follow regarding alignment essential or aren't they?


Ad hominins are the refuge those without a reasoned argument. Why don't you give us an example of how alignment mechanics "add consistency and depth"? Explain why it is necessary for Bards to be "non-lawful." Is it because music and storytelling are crimes throughout Toril? Is it because writing a 25 piece symphony or compiling the histories of civilization requires an undisciplined mind? What does the alignment restriction on Bards add to the game? How does that make the game deeper and more consistent?

You know, there is a really simple reason that WOTC decided to diminish the importance of Alignment in D&D 4/5E compared to previous editions: Money

At the end of the day they are a business and businesses rely on growth in order to stay profitable. Wizards realized they needed a game that had broader appeal and that the do that required flexibility and streamlining. It needed a simpler set of rules that allowed for Homebrewing but also was much easier for new players to pick up and jump into.

Wizards also had an eye for wanting to license this game into the CRPG market. So part of the changes had to do with making it easier to build a CRPG around the rules, which is one of the core reasons alignment was minimized. It was a huge gamble but it paid off. D&D has seen a huge resurgence as new players have flooded in. It has made inroads into pop culture (Community, Stranger Things) and found new, more diverse, audience. Wizards are the ones NOT insisting on companies they provide licenses to follow strict sets of rules.

From what I have observed Alignment works great at in person D&D sessions. It adds some flavor and interesting philosophical discussions. Alignment is a nightmare in computer games, or at least when it is applied to the players actions. Unless we invent an 'Alignment AI' you will end up with systems that are really quite arbitrary and dull. Droata and I have provided examples of this. I am not saying its impossible to have Alignment work in a CRPG (It was fine in Plancescape: Torment - although in the end it didn't make a difference in regards to your ultimate fate, it only allowed you to minimize or maximize the collateral damage potentially). However in those cases it worked because it was not heavy handed.

But we digress from the point here- which was BG3 could be a platform IF...

BG3 WILL be a - and already is a platform. There are many of us that are super excited about playing this amazing game for years to come. There are many of us who have 800+ hours in already. How close we end up to D&D Raw is NOT just up to Larian. We have MOD tools, and an active community. There will also be difficulty settings, and "Core Rules" has always been an option. Who here honestly thinks they won't get a D&D Raw option one way or another? Why do you think that?

There are reasons that Larian has gone with EASY mode for the EA. Its because BG3 is about 10 times more complicated than the previous two games (and I am NOT knocking those games - they were great for the time and limits of technology). I have watched enough new players playthroughs to realize how easy it is to make mistakes with this game and have them compound into real failure and TPKs.

Asmongold and Felicia Day got their butts handed to them. They both ended up removing the BG3 streams from their Twitch sites because it showcased how bad they are at complex games. Or maybe BG3 is hostile to the streaming meta - streaming relies more on games being consumed as 'interactive content' that doesn't challenge the player at all so that audiences can experience an easy win. And that is MOST players right there. Most games out there are pure garbage that is designed to be consumed instead of providing the player with a real challenge that forces them to improve to move forward.

The last non-larian game I played that forced me to improve as a player and a person was Vanilla WoW in 2004. That's how bad things are right now. So for me Larian is the only game in town.

My apologies for the dissertation, but it showcases why I am so defensive of Larian. In my eyes they are getting the important stuff right. This game will straight murder you if you walk into it with a light heart and take stuff for granted, and that is fantastic. That it doesn't follow exact D&D Raw is largely irrelevant - at this point.

Not sure what a hominim is. But I did notice your enormous ego spilling out of the personal attacks in many of your posts. Maybe it would be easier for you to stick to English words, such as "hypocrite."

Your conception of morality is limited by your severe lack of imagination. I can see why you would struggle to understand the Alignment system.

I don't think this is correct. I agree with your point about CRPGs having different development strengths, but I think this is just a coincidence, and was not planned. There is a lot of evidence, going back years before 5E, that WotC has experienced an ideological purge that has led to high-level thematic decisions being made about several of their products. This is clearly the case with D&D, which has been "revised" thematically to appease certain cultural trends in areas besides Alignment. I don't believe that there was an intentional effort to appeal to computer programmers. I wish that computer licenses demanded that much attention, but I don't think they do, and even less so while 5E was being written.


An integral and classic part of the game. It also is very important for some mechanics and balance, which were not accounted for when it was "hidden."


I am one of them. I don't need it to be RAW to enjoy it for what it is. I have followed Sven's quest for the license, and I'm very excited.

With that being said, though, there are fine mechanical, thematic, and balance lessons that really should be taken from RAW since the work has already been done of innovating and iterating those parts of the game until they work really well. It's free game design. It is too early to judge the game, since it's in EA, but having followed DOS1 and DOS2 through their "beta" and eventual "finished" versions, it is fair to worry about Larian fixing some of these class and mechanical balancing issues. Are we going to end up with BG3: Conclusive Edition three years from now?

It would be super cool to see references or homages to things from BG1 and BG2, also, like an Alignment-type mechanic or other previous CRPG adaptations of D&D, but I am not expecting that to happen. This is the feedback and suggestion forum, after all!

Please quote a couple of examples of personal attacks I made so that I can see what you are talking about.

I just want to focus on this one point because I hear this a lot and I want to make sure you are just quoting the two extreme choices and not ignoring all the "in-between" choices in play.

Other Options:
Joining the Goblins is an extreme bookend of "evil" that has major negative repercussions. The only thing more crazy is to systemically kill every single person you meet - ie. pure serial killer (I have totally done this, its great!)

As Machinus won't be replying, may I ask that everybody else returns to the topic, please? Thanks, all.

I'll concede that option #1 is an alternate option. But that's effectively "ignore the problem", which is more of a lack of a decision than a decision. NE maybe? So better than CE murder-happy.
Options #2 and 3 aren't relevant in this example, because you'd still have to either protect the grove or side with the goblins (or ignore). And there is still little reason to side with the goblins other than CE liking murder.

Options #2 and 3 are ways of resolving a separate quest line, which is done much better than the Raid the Grove quest. Unless doing #2 or #3 prevents the raid..?

You can also steal the Idol of Silvanus for the Tieflings kids.

You could murder Kharga .

No, you are right. I am glad that the option exists to side with the Goblins, but honestly there is VERY little reason to go that direction. Its a huge risk. Its bloody and not particularly heroic. Even playing an Evil character there is not much to recommend that option because now your allies are goblins. ew.

I think the issue there is there seems to be very little to actually incentivize the Gobbo path so only someone Chaotic Evil would normally pick the option of the goblins, so if we got more promised rewards it'd be better and it'd fit at least a player's own thoughts on their character's alignment for if Alignment is added like it was in BG1+2 as something that is just a tag or something dynamic like a karma system.

While Bethesda Fallout is absolutely not the best at morality, one thing does come to mind. Blowing up Megaton. For those who haven't played the game, you get a quest where after some talking and/or haggling you as a player have two options. Disarm a giant nuke that acts as the town landmark, or set it off for a giant explosion. Now on the surface it is similar to BG3's good vs evil dilemma where the evil option is to murder the good aligned town and end any quests and merchants there (except for one.) However, it differs by actually incentivizing you to do it. You are promised a large amount of caps, and you get to move into the fancier home instead of the normal home, and thus live in the fancier location. While not the best moral dilemma, cause it is blatantly good vs evil, you can at least reason it out cause an evil person may totally value money a lot more than the lives of strangers and there are obvious rewards for taking the evil path.

BG3 there isn't really an obvious motive or even incentive, so other than being obviously and overwhelmingly evil, the option kinda would be a problem to fit in the DnD alignment system cause all you have is Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil with that specific choice, whereas if we had things like an incentive that we would get our tadpole's removed for certain or that this would grant us some kind of reward or power, then it'd make more "sense" and you could reason it out with more than a murderhobo character.

Well, I'd just like to say thanks very much to Larian. It seems like they're really listening to the community and while I am certain these suggestions were made multiple times, I do feel like I was listened to and that's really nice. Thanks to the mods for moving suggestions along, as well.

yes please.


Optional Alignment system would be welcome along with additional backgrounds / city tags, everyone right now is from Baldur's gate for the most part (not going to go into detail about who isn't).