Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Gale's New Bio - Heavy spoilers even for EA Players

So Gale has an updated bio on the BG3 website and it is... juicy.


That description is very different from what he tells us in EA and I wanna know what people think of that. I think it changes a lot about how he comes off and about potential dynamics. But also the part about learning lessons is interesting and makes me actually feel a bit better disposed to him than I was before, and I liked him fine enough. But if his overall story in act one remains the same as in EA, well... that's gonna rub a lot of people wrong I'm sure.

Gale just got 2 shades darker. O_o
Cant say i dont like it tho ...

And the best part, nothing needs to change in his dialogues!

Can't say I ever paid any attention to the website.
What was the old description?

There is a chance that it's always been his true story. He could've lied to our MC in his revelation, because the details of obtaining "the netherese book" are vague. There is even a question I think, something a long the lines of "And the wizard happened to have this book on hand?" - to which Gale replies by brushing it off with some general comment like "Hoho haha, thats Waterdeep for you mate, the city if magic". Doesn't feel very believable, does it? Thus, I don't expect this story to change much. I think man is a liar and a sucker for secrets

What's the difference? That he tried to ursurp Mystra? I don't know, but nothing here surprises me from what I've seen in the game, though most likely I forgot the obivious half-truths he was telling as I never trusted him (or the others) to be honest about details.

I don't recall what the old description was, but it certainly didn't spell out that he had tried to usurp Mystra's godhood. It did talk about the Netherese orb but not that it was a punishment from mystra either. I do like the idea of him having been massively hubristic in the past and now trying to be better about it. It's in line with a lot of his EA interactions and I think is actually a bit stronger than him trying to win Mystr's favour back after she jilted him. It's a way bigger screw-up that I feel like he can learn from a lot better.

I'm asking what was the old version because there's also the chance that this may be an (intentionally?) inaccurate/unreliable summary, rather than a change.

This may be far fetched ...
But what are odds that Gale's name is actually Karsus?

Slim to none.

Unless we get two companions who got recently un-petrified.

I feel like that might be too on the nose honestly. Firstly, why would he be still around now all these years after Karsus' folly? He's currently a level one wizard. If he's been that way since being depowered then he wouldn't have the means to extend his life enough. And even if he did, surely these centuries would have been long enough to figure out how to get rid of the orb already. He was made weaker, but probably not fundamentally dumber. Secondly, I think it would be more interesting to have him just thematically echo Karsus and have learned the wrong lessons from him initially. Thirdly the bio does say he's from Waterdeep but we know how unreliable those are, apparently.

Also I fully believe that this was always his story, but still, having it laid out for certain feels pretty major.

If i had a Dollar every time someone get un-petrified after a long time ... i would have 3 Dollars (not counting guards of that Drow in underdark) ...
Wich may not seem like a lot, buts its kina weird it allready happened three times in Early Acess.

I always felt that Gale was weaving a tale of his own in EA (a bit like EA!Wyll was, only slightly more sophisticated). Never fully trusted his words.

There is a chance that
That doesn't make him a bad person, just the Faerun equivalent of Michael Scott.

Feels kinda harsh from a Lawful neutral deity to not only punish Gale, but also whatever city he happens to be in.

The bio implies that it's only a serious danger because of the tadpole, which Mystra couldn't have known about since FR deities are not omniscient.

But, like the original bio, this is clearly not the whole story.

Sorry, @Gray Ghost, but this change openly makes Gale more towards the evil side for me. He tried to usurp Mystra?!! That alone makes him the kind of megalomaniac I'd want to neutralize before it was too late (strike 1).

Furthermore, this also serves to reinforce the point that all these companions are ridiculously uber-powerful individuals who are now magically transformed into level 1 characters (strike 2), except of course our own custom PC (strike 3).

Huh. Very interesting. I like this version better, Gale is less of a guy who can't get over his ex and more of a fallen man seeking redemption.

You do realise that makes you a bad guy?

Basically Judge Dredd. You would seem to be in appropriate company amongst the origin characters.

What sounds to me like the biggest change is learning from it. In EA I don't hear any remorse, just regret at what the result was

So we should just let people commit horrific crimes against humainty, because stopping them would make us bad guys? So Ukraine are the bad guys for killing russians while trying to protect themselves? The Allies were the bad guys in WW2 for trying to stop the Germs? The Avengers were the Bad guys for killing Thanos?
If that is the case, what should they have done differently?

Yeah that whole worrying about innocents bit really screams evil to me, total monster