Hi, sorry if this is a bit jumbled/long I've been meaning to jump in but haven't had time and now there's a few different people I've wanted to address.

Originally Posted by Ixal
I am quite baffled at how one can find the emperor interesting considering how he has no personality at all and only reinforces the players attitude towards him based on the last dialogue choice. Is the player nice to him then he is good, if the player rejects him he is evil.

This is especially seen at the end when he joins the brain in the case of you rejecting him which makes 0 sense and is only done to let you fight him.

And while this is likely what will happen, if anything will happen at all, I do not want the emperor improved, but removed. This is simply such a bad, bland and forced character, including this nonsensical Balduran connection, that he is one large part of the reason why act 3 is such a letdown.
Not to mention that as long as the emperor exists the tadpoles will never be any threat like they should be as you only have one person "in your head" which you have to follow to make the story work (so no chance if rejecting him early) which thus also has to be so ambigious and bland that hes agreeable to everyone.

Adding the emperor is the 2nd worst change Larian did at the end of EA right after consequence free tadpoles, and those things are in the end connected.

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle - I really want to find the Emperor interesting, but as it currently exists, it is very lacking. Maybe I'm just feeling in the "acceptance" phase of things where I would be absolutely shocked if they got rid of the Emperor despite the numerous issues that currently exist surrounding the character, so trying to make do with what I feel we're "stuck" with is making the best of the situation. I do think that a return to Daisy would make for a more interesting experience. Namely, it appeared that originally Orpheus was set to be the one directly protecting us, so having some sort of dynamic between the two seems as though it would play out better rather than what we're left with.

Originally Posted by RoseL
I've seen this complaint a few times, and I fully believe it's (as I mentioned above) due to his relative lack of dialogue lines - possibly due to them running out of time to write fuller dialogue scenarios for him. I think both Emperor fans and detractors would appreciate getting more scenes that reflect our attitudes towards him. Just as an example, it makes very little sense for him to initiate a romance scene with someone who's been antagonistic to him. They would not have done it with a companion, and they should not do it here.

While increased dialogue would go a ways to improving player reception of the character for reasons you've stated, unless they come with some sort of meaningful reactivity I doubt those complaints will subside. For a game like BG3 that lauds player choice, the Emperor is undoubtedly a sore point - being one of three characters we meet in Act I that we are absolutely stuck with until virtually the end of the game, assuming you want to reach the end of Act 3 and not hit the sole Ending in Act 2 or a "Game Over" screen as part of your roleplay. The other two characters I am including here are the player's avatar and Withers. In that regard, there is little reactivity beyond the specific dialogue you're in with the Emperor - I have heard (but not taken the time to confirm as it takes a decent chunk of time to do) that there is a choice you can make if you visit the crčche that will later have an impact on your relationship with the Emperor, but I believe that is the sole exception of any actions affecting your relationship outside of the end choice that is roughly an hour from the end of the game.

I don't necessarily think that the Emperor needing to ultimately side with us is totally out of line for the position it is in - as in, it really depends on us as much as we do it, but I also think such an interpretation somewhat makes some of the reactions the Emperor has to us paint it to be an idiot. If there is one thing that I personally detest, it's when characters that should otherwise be intelligent, logical and calculating are made to act in a manner betraying those traits for the purpose of the plot. To this, people would argue that the Emperor being unable to restrain itself and lash out at us would be a personality flaw - which could be believable. Except, the Emperor is an illithid, the Emperor makes it clear that it likes being illithid. It's never really made clear how much of the host's memories and personality were left in the Emperor. So for me, this would be an area that I think the game would need to expand upon to allow for the Emperor to be more reactive and also not come across simply as the game giving the players predisposed to disliking the Emperor reasons to dislike the Emperor for that final choice. It's also just one area of many in which I think the writing of the Emperor needs more work than additional dialogue.

Originally Posted by Brainer
What's really disappointing (or maybe shows how little the Emperor actually can do, and we have been protected by Orpheus specifically all along - except why does the choice to "betray" him between Act 2 and 3 result in an immediate game over?) is that...

The only way to fully betray the Emperor at that point is to kill it or let it be killed by the honor guard, unless I've missed something? In which case, I think a very generous, to the devs, interpretation is that it's the game saving you some time. Without the Emperor, we become thralls to the Absolute the moment we leave the astral prism so rather than letting the player wander around it just boots us out to our eventual fate. Obviously, this doesn't do anything to explain why trying to work with Orpheus at this point simply isn't an option.

You can also encounter the same game over at the end of Act 3 if one of two sets of conditions is met:
1. Raphael needs to be dead so that he cannot appear and offer the player a final deal in obtaining the hammer.
2. The player must not be in possession of the Orphic Hammer.
3. The player can attack the Emperor rather than initiate any dialogues or tell it that you'll never trust it.

OR

1. Raphael is alive.
2. The player can attack the Emperor rather than initiate any dialogues or tell it that you'll never trust it.
3. The player turns down Raphael's deal.

At which point, the Emperor declares your betrayal and leaves to join the Absolute. The reasoning for the immediate game over is likely a little different, but I think that very generous interpration applies - at this point, it appears that in order to get close enough to the Absolute we need the source of our protection to be physically present (for whatever reason), so if that isn't possible - in this case, Orpheus cannot be freed, the Emperor is gone, and our party has no means to become a mindflayer and obtain Orpheus's power ourselves and then head to the Absolute. So, the game "saves us some time" and just gives us the game over rather than waiting for you to actually leave.

If you don't want to go the route of "the game saves you time" then there's some notion that the Emperor "allows" us to be in the astral prism, though how or why this works isn't really clear. Apparently, Raphael would be capable of this as well, for some reason. Additionally, if you have the means to free Orpheus, he will also allow us to remain it seems. Ultimately, it just seems to be another case of the behavior surrounding the astral prism being poorly defined beyond "whatever the devs needed for the plot at the current time".

Originally Posted by Brainer
...if you get the scene where he reveals he was mind-controlling Selmane and the Knights of the Shield, he explicitly says he will do the same to the PC if they keep going against his intentions. He never follows up on said threats unless you count him flipping allegiances to the Netherbrain on a whim.

This is one such situation that I was alluding to with my earlier comment that as it is set up, a lot of the negative reactions the Emperor will make toward the player ultimately paint it to be an idiot. Viewing this from the Emperor's perspective, why ever show the player this if it is never even going to attempt to follow through? "Oh, you don't like me? I'll show you why you're right." And what good does that do for the Emperor in achieving its goal of working with (or manipulating us) to assure its survival and freedom?

Originally Posted by Brainer
The whole...

...Balduran tie-in...

...was most unnecessary and I would prefer to ignore it as non-canon, honestly, alongside some of Beamdog's story beats from their games.

I know it's a little silly because it's not like Balduran was ever an important character - as in, the number of things he's appeared in is extremely low, but I think this is currently my biggest gripe with the Emperor, despite the other more plot relevant ones. If I could only change a single thing about the Emperor, this would be it. It feels like a very clunky attempt at giving the Emperor some depth via backstory and motivation that the devs maybe didn't have time to do with a fresh character due to the late addition of the Emperor, so we get those things via the Emperor's host having been Balduran.