If you step on a landmine and it doesn't go off, it doesn't mean it is safe to carry around with you. Therefore:
because no actual person in real life...
Funny you mentioned this example ... let me tell you a short story:
All I can say is that I find this person behaviour incredibly irresposible. That said, if a game expected me to mimic such behaviour in a roleplaying game I would still find it jarring. It's fine as an option, but for a main narrative driving force of the adventure I still see it as a poor choice.
I think so. He is a powerul druid, a leader of the local circle, and studied/studies tadpoled individuals before vanishing. Sounds like a good lead?
You mean his followers claims that he is a powefull druid ... right?
> So powerfull so he was captured by bunch of goblins. O_o
I must say, it is difficult for me to distinguish what is an intentional story telling and what are just inconsistencies. Personally I have been treating the representation of high power characters and low level weaklings as just poor intertwining of narrative and gameplay then anything intentional, same as I don't think there is necessarily a difference between our tadpole and True souls tadpole, simply because ours doesn't leave the body when we die - I think it is just "plot armor".
For the record, I think we should be under control of the Absolute, but the weapon prevents it from happening. It almost happens in game, if not for the weapon. I also think that that's how our spare party members will be taken away from us - during finalle of act1 the weapon will prevent our current party to come under influence of absolute agian, but every spare companion won't be as lucky
Still he seems to command respect and power over the grove, which either speaks to his competence of family connection (if such thing exists in whimsical world of D&D). Either way it is still as good as it gets in the current area.
No, im sorry i just cant understand how is it possble that everyone are so much willing to ignore all red flags in Druid Grove. O_o
Well actualy i do ... its metaknowledge ... we know that Githyanki are Evil, so we aproach them as Evil ... we know Druids are Neutral, so we are fine around them ...
Here is the rub - it's not metaknowledge. It's the nature of the world. Good, Neutral, Evil aren't philosophical abstacts in D&D. Goblins, Githyanki they ARE evil, Druids ARE neutral - and that is knowledge a person living in this world will hold. It's not even a question "do you think Gobbos can be trusted", it is "is it smart to look for help among creatures who are EVIL, controled by a misterious being who instructed it's underlings to find and kill you". If Larian wants evil path to have some credibility it needs to be very tempting. That's also a reason why Astarion dies in most of my playthroughs - he is an evil monster, and I don't have a good reason not to kill him. Keeping him around is nothing more then a liability.
Though I am a hypocryte right now. I always struggled to play straight evil characters in BG1&2 and early Bioware RPGs, and BG3 is no different. The issue is, I think, that unlike many other RPGs I can't really come up with my own motivation. Tadpole is too overwhelming of a driving force - nothing else matters unless you get rid of it. The game is also completely unconcerned about what my character might want to do. And as Niara pointed out in the world with afterlife, and resurection tapole is one of the most horrific threats that you could carry. That's honestly not something I even considered before. Getting killed by Helsin's apprentice it is really not a biggie - expensive setback (not in BG3 but in 5e ruleset, and especially not a biggie if we take BG3 cost of resurection literally), but it is just a setback.
