All I can say is that I find this person behaviour incredibly irresposible.
No arguments here ...
But that was not a point, was it?
The question was if it is "possible" ... and that it certainly is!
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.
Dunno ... it seems like an option to me. O_o
You can concider the tadpole as dangerous as it please you ... and rush as much as it please you ...
Larian simply didnt set everything in stone and leave us enough room for interpretation.
As far as im concerned, its a good thing.
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".
Agreed. (and that spoiler part also seemed quite likely ... but i hope it will go different route)
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.
There is old saying: In the land of blind, one eyed is the King.
It's the nature of the world. Good, Neutral, Evil aren't philosophical abstacts in D&D.
Im affraid, they are ... in context of sentient beings with free will ...
But we allready discused this in another topic. O_o
Yes, there are "good" or "evil" beings who have no choice in their behaviour, bcs its part of them ... and yes there are "good" or "evil" supernatural forces that influences mortal behaviour ...
But beyond that?
For people who are physicaly able to do both good and evil deeds, those therms are just as philosophical abstracts as they are for you and me, unless there is some supernatural force included.
It other words: Githyanki are capable of being Good ... it would be rare sight, as rare as meeting friendly mind flayer ... but hey, we met friendly mind flayer.
Goblins, Githyanki they ARE evil, Druids ARE neutral - and that is knowledge a person living in this world will hold.
I would argue that Githyanki are actualy "unknown" to most people, since they are quite rare sight.
Also i would certainly argue that Druids hates aberrations ... and are openly hostile to anything unnatural.
As is that little thing inside our heads.
So if we really wish to play this on safe bet ... are Druids still your first choice? Even after everything you seen in the Grove? O_o
Well i mean, okey why not ... but i wouldnt pretend that i understand that.
"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".
The problem with this questions is that you are looking at Evil path, through Good sights.
Did we indeed "look for help" among Goblins?
I dunno how about your characters, but i can say with absolute certainity, that mine didnt ... i allways come to the Goblin camp seeking for the way they are protecting themselves from the tadpole ... ready and willing to stab them in the back once they get that.
If Larian wants evil path to have some credibility it needs to be very tempting.
Nope ... full disagree here.
I like the evil path as it is, all temptation i need is there for people who notice it, and those who dont ... well, they wouldnt take it anyway.
The problem i have with temption in games is that many people dont really think about their decisions ... just see reward and go there ... dont care about what it means. :-/
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.
I for one think this is perfectly valid approach ...
Just not the only one.
The game is also completely unconcerned about what my character might want to do.
I cant really imagine how would the game even recognize it ...
Doesnt really matter what you want, important is what you do.
