|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Jul 2023
|
If a mechanic's purpose is to act as a temptation and resisting that temptation gets you an equal yet opposite mechanic as a reward it kind of undermines the function of the mechanic in the first place.
That isn't to say there can't be a sort of narrative balance between using it and not using it. Not using it just needs to reward the player in less tangible, measurable ways.
The easiest example is that to maximize your tadpole powers you need to need to harvest True Souls. This will lead you to kill your companions and probably bring you at odds with the Absolute anyway, as you'd want to harvest their True Souls too. You'll burn bridges on both sides of the conflict and likely end up alone against the world.
Or maybe you go halfsies and join the Absolute to harvest the tadpoles of the good companions to strengthen yourself and your evil-aligned companions. But now you're surrounded by power-hungry monsters who are proven willing to turn on their allies. You're also in the organization with the most access and knowledge of the tadpoles, but you're also at odds with all of Baldur's Gate with only the might of one insane cult to fight your war.
Or you resist the tadpole and maintain strong connections to your allies. Maybe you get betrayed by a few of the most evil companions, but you have total trust in the ones who've stuck around and have formed a powerful alliance with various NPC factions that are all uniting to protect Baldur's Gate from The Absolute. You might have less personal power by the end of the story than the first two options but narratively you're much stronger, with loyal allies and armies of good at your back. But there could still be content for good characters too. Not rewards per se, but maybe something you can't find on evil paths. Maybe a new quest, some kinds of unique interactions, some another mechanic. Because so far it looks like the only benefit of going good will be the ending while getting to it will be far more barren compared to the evil one. Your journey will be worse and for many this is what matters the most. The journey and it will be barren and boring compared to the other given that Larians barely showed any content for good side and went back on their promise that people would get good Origins later as they first released Neutral and Evil ones to test waters apparently, but now the only good Origin is Karlach and Dark Urge is ultra evil path you can try to be good on. And good companions you get outside of origins don't look much better, 2 of them are cameos from older games and 1 was not even planned to be a companion and is one due to fan demand. There is severe lack of content for good playthroughs from what it looks like from everything we see and it's not like you will completely lose your companions since Larian confirmed you can change them to be more evil so there is pretty much very little to lose on the journey on evil path while good one doesn't get almost anything exclusive to itself. And again, by content I don't mean more powers, rewards, I mean content as a whole that is unique to playing a good character. That's as if in WOTR you could become a Demon, Lich or Swarm, but there was no Angel, Aeon or Azata path. There is literally no proof for that. You're creating worst case scenarios out of thin air. And yet I see people all take this scenario and try to spin it into something good. Not hoping that there will be something for good playthroughs, but just saying that this way of doing it is good when it really isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
You have, once again, no proof. You're positioning a mere guess and opinion of "nothing lost" as fact. You're literally losing every good ending to companion quests, multiple faction quests and even whole companions altogether and trying to tell me that's "nothing lost". Gee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
Please everyone, remember that different tastes and preferences are likely going to lead to different value judgements, and that is fine. If we find that other people are continuing to disagree with us after we’ve explained our position then there’s a decent chance that there’s some subjective element, or at least difference in starting assumptions, that’s leading to that and that we’re going to need to agree and disagree. Insisting on the objectivity of our own opinions isn’t likely to be helpful, though of course we’re all entitled to privately go on believing that we are right and others are wrong 
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
You have, once again, no proof. You're positioning a mere guess and opinion of "nothing lost" as fact. You're literally losing every good ending to companion quests, multiple faction quests and even whole companions altogether and trying to tell me that's "nothing lost". Gee. So with this, I think losing out on companions is a genuine loss. But arguably you're "losing out" one he bad endings of companions and losing the evil fiction quests, so those things are actually roughly equal presumably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
You have, once again, no proof. You're positioning a mere guess and opinion of "nothing lost" as fact. You're literally losing every good ending to companion quests, multiple faction quests and even whole companions altogether and trying to tell me that's "nothing lost". Gee. So with this, I think losing out on companions is a genuine loss. But arguably you're "losing out" one he bad endings of companions and losing the evil fiction quests, so those things are actually roughly equal presumably. Yeah, I'm not saying goodbye to Halsin and Karlach. Being stuck with SH and Astarion (Lae'Zel will leave if you use the tadpole that much), *maybe* Gale for a while and an evil Wyll? I think I will not (though, you do get Minthara to Not Die)
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
|
I did not read everything above, but here are my 2 cents:
If the evil path gives you a new skill tree with godlike powers but a bad ending (for example losing most companions or turning into a mindflayer) while the good path will give you the good ending it may be interesting. It would be bad if you can get all those powers and still get the good ending with some coins or a skill check. (looking at oathbreaker "You did something really bad but if you give me some coins you can be a devotion paladin again").
In the beginning all mayor quests are about getting rid of the tadpole. I see absolutely no reason to put aditional ones in my brain. In my first EA playthrough I avoided using the tadpole at all and I was asking myself "What is the dream person everyone is talking about?"
My best idea is this: When the full game comes out I will never use the tadpole or use another evil source of power. I see tons of new stuff all the time because I play the full game the first time. If I miss something this way I do not know what I have not experianced so I do not miss the stuff I have missed. (language can be confusing ;-)
If I play the game again I can use this power whenever I want and so I see much new stuff I have not seen before.
One good thing in EA (and hopefully the full game too) was that there was no point in the game where you were required to use the tadpole if you want to progress at all.
 Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist World leading expert of artificial stupidity. Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already 
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
I have a question. The story goes your tadpole is altered somehow and this is why you retain control of yourself. The true souls' tadpoles are not altered and are used to control them. If you take their tadpoles and shove them in your brain, how are you still not mind controlled?
There's been zero talk about how you actually get rid of the tadpole if you are playing a sane PC. But there are now skill trees for putting even more tadpoles in your brain to get a "more fun late game". (I really don't want any more fun by Larian in my D&D game.)
Is this gameplay ignoring and undermining narrative again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
Actually something is occurring to me. The demo sort of thing we got kind of implied that we'd be able to do this starting from act 1. But strictly speaking it only (I believe, I could be wrong) showed us collecting a tadpole from the dwarf guy, then cutting to the brain screen. So what I'm hoping is that the screen is actually something we only deal with late game, and we can just collect tadpoles throughout the prior acts. It would make sense since this is supposed to specifically address late game slow levelling. So maybe by the time we're able to do this we'd be at a stage where are character could reasonably not be prioritising getting the tadpole out. Which would male a lot more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
|
Actually something is occurring to me. The demo sort of thing we got kind of implied that we'd be able to do this starting from act 1. But strictly speaking it only (I believe, I could be wrong) showed us collecting a tadpole from the dwarf guy, then cutting to the brain screen. So what I'm hoping is that the screen is actually something we only deal with late game, and we can just collect tadpoles throughout the prior acts. It would make sense since this is supposed to specifically address late game slow levelling. So maybe by the time we're able to do this we'd be at a stage where are character could reasonably not be prioritising getting the tadpole out. Which would male a lot more sense. Why would we go around collecting tadpoles without a reason instead of ignoring them/killing them? My guess is the first time we encounter another tadpole we'll get some sort of cutscene where our own tadpole urge us to consume the other tadpole to increase our power or something like that. I have a question. The story goes your tadpole is altered somehow and this is why you retain control of yourself. The true souls' tadpoles are not altered and are used to control them. If you take their tadpoles and shove them in your brain, how are you still not mind controlled?
There's been zero talk about how you actually get rid of the tadpole if you are playing a sane PC. But there are now skill trees for putting even more tadpoles in your brain to get a "more fun late game". (I really don't want any more fun by Larian in my D&D game.)
Is this gameplay ignoring and undermining narrative again? Since the very beginning of early access 3 years ago the whole early plot of the game is literally ''We should get rid of these parasites but what if we can control their power?'' About the control thing, we don't know what's happening to the new tadpoles, we don't know if we're consuming their power, or our tadpole is literally eating the new tadpoles we acquire or whats going on but I don't see how is this changing the narrative.
Last edited by Adgaroth; 18/07/23 03:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Actually something is occurring to me. The demo sort of thing we got kind of implied that we'd be able to do this starting from act 1. But strictly speaking it only (I believe, I could be wrong) showed us collecting a tadpole from the dwarf guy, then cutting to the brain screen. So what I'm hoping is that the screen is actually something we only deal with late game, and we can just collect tadpoles throughout the prior acts. It would make sense since this is supposed to specifically address late game slow levelling. So maybe by the time we're able to do this we'd be at a stage where are character could reasonably not be prioritising getting the tadpole out. Which would male a lot more sense. Why would we go around collecting tadpoles without a reason instead of ignoring them/killing them? My guess is the first time we encounter another tadpole we'll get some sort of cutscene where our own tadpole urge us to consume the other tadpole to increase our power or something like that. Yea, there absolutely must be a 'good' reason why we're encouraging the tadpole. I'm just not convinced that the reason will feel logical in any sense. I'm dreading that it will be another Withers moment, where everyone just sort of accepts them for reasons, but gameplay wise it's useful. I have my doubts with Larian's writing, but they will acknowledge it somehow.
Last edited by Boblawblah; 18/07/23 03:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
If Larian have any backbone, turning yourself into a gross Illithid-powered killing machine will end up with the stasis magic removed when that entity no longer needs you, and your PC horribly transformed into a Mind Flayer. Then there will be a small expansion you can't continue playing with the same character because they're dead.  (maybe let you create a new level 10 PC though)
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Yea, there absolutely must be a 'good' reason why were encouraging the tadpole. I'm just not convinced that the reason will feel logical in any sense. I'm dreading that it will be another Withers moment, where everyone just sort of accepts them for reasons, but gameplay wise it's useful.
I have my doubts with Larian's writing, but they will acknowledge it somehow. The reasons really are self explanatory: 1) we have this guardian figure telling us to draw more and more on the tadpole while promising to protect us from it and 2) there is a lot of power to be gained from it. The reasons aren't difficult to see. Another reason that the game never explicitly states could simply be that ceremorphosis would be extremely unlikely to complete with multiple tadpoles in your brain...you'd definitely still die if the stasis holding them back was removed but you probably wouldn't turn into a mind flayer. So that adds a bit more sense there...you gain more powers and if you don't find a cure at least you probably wouldn't turn into a mind flayer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Yea, there absolutely must be a 'good' reason why were encouraging the tadpole. I'm just not convinced that the reason will feel logical in any sense. I'm dreading that it will be another Withers moment, where everyone just sort of accepts them for reasons, but gameplay wise it's useful.
I have my doubts with Larian's writing, but they will acknowledge it somehow. The reasons really are self explanatory: 1) we have this guardian figure telling us to draw more and more on the tadpole while promising to protect us from it and 2) there is a lot of power to be gained from it. The reasons aren't difficult to see. Another reason that the game never explicitly states could simply be that ceremorphosis would be extremely unlikely to complete with multiple tadpoles in your brain...you'd definitely still die if the stasis holding them back was removed but you probably wouldn't turn into a mind flayer. So that adds a bit more sense there...you gain more powers and if you don't find a cure at least you probably wouldn't turn into a mind flayer. Yea no. A random mysterious figure in your head just saying "hey, it's cool bro, use the powers, I'm totally not representing the tadpole btw" isn't remotely a good reason. If that's all they have, then it's as weak as I'm dreading.
Last edited by Boblawblah; 18/07/23 03:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Yea no. A random mysterious figure in your head just saying "hey, it's cool bro, use the powers, I'm totally not representing the tadpole btw" isn't remotely a good reason. If that's all they have, then it's as weak as I'm dreading. I definitely think it's probably not a great idea to listen to the guardian but there is another interesting mechanic at work...the narrator. When you use the tadpole for a wisdom check the narrator mentions how the tadpole took something you will never get back. Now I don't think this is particularly likely, but how hilarious would be if the narrator was unreliable? Your character does have a lot of different voices in his head...what if the narrator is compromised in some capacity too? Probably not but a good thought experiment. I also think it would be quite the major plot twist if the guardian turned out to not be evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
I have a question. The story goes your tadpole is altered somehow and this is why you retain control of yourself. The true souls' tadpoles are not altered and are used to control them. If you take their tadpoles and shove them in your brain, how are you still not mind controlled?
There's been zero talk about how you actually get rid of the tadpole if you are playing a sane PC. But there are now skill trees for putting even more tadpoles in your brain to get a "more fun late game". (I really don't want any more fun by Larian in my D&D game.)
Is this gameplay ignoring and undermining narrative again? 🧐. I think we learned that it's impossible to safely remove them from sources with enough expertise. A certain independent mind flayer was able to help us, though. As does the artefact which is warding off the absolute. Unless any of that information was false, it seems a cure is impossible, but symptoms can be surpressed. As for the other tadpoles, ours might have some virus like effect? There's magic in it, and although counterintuitive, it might either spread itself thin... or find additional hosts and replicate there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
|
I think it's a bit much saying ''It seems a cure is impossible'' after just trying to get rid of it with the help of a few characters under lvl 5 and a rogue mind flayer xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
I think it's a bit much saying ''It seems a cure is impossible'' after just trying to get rid of it with the help of a few characters under lvl 5 and a rogue mind flayer xD A cure through removing it is impossible, because: A) the brain damage B) the damage exceeding what can be healed. This is why I said "unless any of the information is false". It shrivelling and dying in your brain is -- by real world logic -- not safe, either, which is another problem. Perhaps the "real" problem, if you will. You'd need some divine intervention to "medical achievement never mastered before" scale of macguffin to remove it outright. Larian has made that point very clear in early access. This is the full state of the information we have. I don't doubt there'll be shenanigans in this game. It's just the path we're on right now. It's what we're meant to think as of early act 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
I think it's a bit much saying ''It seems a cure is impossible'' after just trying to get rid of it with the help of a few characters under lvl 5 and a rogue mind flayer xD Correct. Normally removing tadpoles in D&D isn't an issue if you get to them on time...even greater restoration(a relatively common spell among healers) can do the trick. Not in BG3 it's a bit trickier because there is the stasis holding them back and that also interferes with normal removal methods but it's still a huge leap to say it's impossible. Literally nothing is impossible in D&D. There are always some gods you can bargain with for some miracles should you need them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
I think it's a bit much saying ''It seems a cure is impossible'' after just trying to get rid of it with the help of a few characters under lvl 5 and a rogue mind flayer xD Correct. Normally removing tadpoles in D&D isn't an issue if you get to them on time...even greater restoration(a relatively common spell among healers) can do the trick. Not in BG3 it's a bit trickier because there is the stasis holding them back and that also interferes with normal removal methods but it's still a huge leap to say it's impossible. Literally nothing is impossible in D&D. There are always some gods you can bargain with for some miracles should you need them. Ethel couldn't do it. Omeluum found the magic too powerful. So yes, divine intervention levels of help or medical wonder required here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
I think it's a bit much saying ''It seems a cure is impossible'' after just trying to get rid of it with the help of a few characters under lvl 5 and a rogue mind flayer xD A cure through removing it is impossible, because: A) the brain damage B) the damage exceeding what can be healed. This is why I said "unless any of the information is false". It shrivelling and dying in your brain is -- by real world logic -- not safe, either, which is another problem. Perhaps the "real" problem, if you will. You'd need some divine intervention to "medical achievement never mastered before" scale of macguffin to remove it outright. You do realize that spells to resurrect people are fairly common in D&D, right? Some of them work within a minute of death, some within hours, and one or two can resurrect a person who has been disintegrated or even centuries after death without even needing the body.
|
|
|
|
|
