Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Daisy, the Absolute, and the Emperor [SPOILERS]

I recently finished the game and since the Emperor seemed to me to be one of the most interesting characters, I was wondering if I could learn something more here. And here it is! Thanks to the author of this thread for a lot of interesting reading. As someone who didn't play EA I had no idea about Daisy, and I thought that the whole decision between Emperor and Orpheus was weird. Like many things in Act 3, which is sad

I'm quite surprised how many people hate the Emperor ... why? He helps you from the beginning of the game to the end. When you treat him well, he treats you well too. He will never let you down, not even once. Maybe it's because people don't know much about githyanki. This is not about deciding between good and evil! But about deciding what is the lesser evil for you.


To be honest, when I tried to save Orpheus in my game, after his first three arrogant lines I hit esc-load game and bye bye! Githyanki deserve their Vlaakith 9999 as far as I'm concerned.
But it's up to everyone how they feel. I just wanted to point out that githyanki are not "the good ones" !

Have a great day and have fun playing the game
(Sorry for my English, it's not my native language)

Interesting.

Such is the power of voice acting and the like. To be clear I like to hate the villains in game and I like hating the emperor just like I enjoyed hating Raphael and Auntie Ethel: they are smoothing talking manipulators who prey on innocents. *

Indeed I think The Emperor was a better villain than was Orin. Orin is just such a cartoonish edgelord I can't take her seriously . . .

What I don't like that we never get the chance to denounce our manipulator in a way that feels satisfying. "you're definitely sick" just isn't a good line and The Emperor's boss battle is boring. And, as the OP has said the "distrust the emperor path" is poorly supported. For such a high budget production the lack of support for anything other than the main path is pretty disappointing.

If I were to reconstruct the storyboard, I think the authors wanted players to feel trust, then have a crisis of confidence, then feel secure in the alliance and then have that relationship tested and, finally, to end the game wondering if we made the right decision. But that didn't work. I never trusted the guardian, the more I learned the more that my lack of trust seemed to be well founded and yet this isn't reflected in dialogue available to Tav,

Oh sure, the Gith are Lawful Evil. As are mind flayers. It's only a question of the lesser of the two evils . . .


It would also be nice if we didn't have choose between evils but this is Larian and Larian likes evil gameplay.

Tangent on gith vs mind flayer evil




* Well actually I kinda like Ethel because she's so entertaining . .

I'll add to KillerRabbit's sentiments. This was a problem we foresaw in the EA with Daisy, and with the [Illithid] choices. Larian seemed to take for granted that players would be insentivised enough to use the tadpoles based solely on the power it gave you. But most people, like with the 'evil path' in general, really have to go out of their way to rationalize a way for their character to choose them.

If the relationship between the party and the Emperor was more openly hostile, and gave you ways of addressing that; If there was an appreciable hinderance to refusing to work with the Emperor or use the Tadpoles, then the hard turns that the game makes whenever the Emperor comes into it wouldn't make your choices feel as meaningless. As it is, if you question the Emperor at every turn, tell him you don't trust him, never use the tadpoles, very little changes in the narrative.

Thank you for your post, lovely to see fellow Emperor appreciators. I agree that he is one of BG3's most interesting characters (if not the most interesting). I have always enjoyed multi-layered characters and the Emperor is one of the more complex characters I've encountered in games.

I've often wondered if that many actually hate the Emperor; I think as with many online communities, those that are angry tend to be louder about it. Their rage probably stems from a variety of different places, for some it's possibly a feeling of disempowerment due to being deceived at the beginning, which is exacerbated by the narrative that forces players to work with him until the end. Others know little of Orpheus, and only see a prisoner that needs to be freed. I could go on.

I think one of the most rewarding things about appreciating the Emperor is that in exploring the nuances, one is forced to revisit old presumptions, not just about good and evil, but also about prejudices, identity, growth and change... It's been really fascinating for me.

So kudos to Larian for making such a compelling character.

Also, to add to the discussion:

I don't hate the Emperor, sure sometimes I might write "I hate him with a passion!" but what I really mean to say is that I don't like him as a character, sure, he's a good antagonist, way better than both Orin and Gortash combined. His role in the story seems to be an antihero one.

And yes, he helps us in the beginning, mostly cause he knew that he could and had get us to depend on him (otherwise we die). During his big 'reveal' he even says so himself. Orpheus' disposition towards you also changes depending on the things you did in game (eg, stolen the githyanki egg) and yes , he will be somewhat hostile but will come around very quickly. He is a lot more reasonable and agreeable than the Emperor painted him to be. Why did Emperor do that? To manipulate us, of course.

Speaking of Orpheus, I wouldn't say he's lawful evil. He is a son of Gith, yes, born of her (before githyanki started laying eggs) - like KillerRabbit said, in the beginning the gith were just humans. And sure, Gith went to the Hells to secure an alliance with Tiamat, who's evil. Then she went missing (and what happened to her is still a mystery). Gith herself was lawful evil, or maybe she thought that the means justified the cost when battling the illithid empire so she turned to desperate measures? Who can say. Well, Orpheus can say cause he was there, so to speak. Also, next thing, the way Orpheus talks seems to place him waaaaay closer to the githzerai way of thinking than that of the githyanki. Remember again, he, just like his mother, is ooooold, ancient. He witnessed the split of the gith into the 2 races. I would say that at best Orpheus is lawful neutral. At worst very pragmatic lawful evil bordering on neutral.

Another thing to take into account is that Orpheus is not his mother, he seems to understand that githyanki need to move forward which they won't for as long as current Vlaakith holds so much power. Gith of old would've enslaved all other races, it's true, just to prepare for the inevitable return of the Illithid Emptire. Which almost happened in BG3. I am betting that despite his grumbling, Orpheus understands that becoming a tyrannic conqueror will lead githyanki nowhere.

The Emperor is clearly lawful evil through and through and ain't nobody gonna convince me otherwise. Omeluum is lawful neutral, maybe bordering on good but I don't think so. Maybe once he finds a replacement for brains.

Why I dislike the Emperor so much?

1. He is untrustworthy. He lies (sorry, dances around the truth, omits to tell the whole story, heavily colors facts to make him look superior), he tries to emotionally manipulate us and comes across like an AI pretending to be human.
2. Sees no problem with enslaving others - Orpheus, Stelmane (yes puppeteering Stelmane still counts as enslavement).
3. Claims to have eaten brains of criminals only. Sure, in game there is proof for this in his hideout. BUT he also forgets to mention that he commanded an organization that was all into corrupting governments and people. Thus creating more criminals. Thus more people for him to dine on. Even ascended Astarion isn't this twisted.
4. Will assume direct control if you try to approach Upper City gates.

Great comments as usual @sozz and @nicotttia !

RoseL - you are partially right part of the dislike comes from the feeling of disempowerment. For me it's mostly feeling disempowered at the end: my actions didn't matter. Someone has to become illithid.

But I do love to hate this villain. I would like to see the "distrustful relationship with Guardian" path fleshed out, the dialogues for the Tav who resents being lied to and manipulated improved and an option to complete the game without a mind flayer.

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'm adequately obsessed to weigh in on this one.

First, I love this character - and I'd like to see him more fully implemented. In most of my games I'm full of tadpoles, so that's where I stand. But there are important faults in his execution. I agree with everyone who says the tadpoles should matter more. My not-tadpoled game hasn't progressed that far, but I guess there can be a wisdom check if you want to refuse the astral-touched after you've been using the regular tadpoles. That's something, but maybe it should also be easier to get along with the gith if you're not totally tadpoled up. It feels like they would know what you've been up to.

I'd like to see a redemption arc for him, though he probably can't get to 'capital G good' status. He absolutely deceives you in the beginning, but he's also right - the first mindflayer you saw, you crushed its head with your boot. It's fair to think you might not have been open to hearing his case. And all your companions deceive you at first, some more blatantly than others. Astarion seduces you for protection, and has dragged hundreds of people, including actual children, to Cazador. He says he was compelled, but he did resist once - to his enormous detriment, so he did not do it again. But if the 'high road' for the Emperor is to allow his friend to destroy him, surely Astarion could walk into the sun - but none of us want that. People believe Astarion has regrets when he says he does, but not the Emperor. They are both proven liars, as is Gale (a bomb), Shadowheart (cleric of a death cult), and to a lesser degree, Wyll (just has a contract with a devil). And we know that the Emperor and Omeluum are both capable of positive emotions: 'a tickle of mirth' and actual 'joy', respectively.

Finally, there needs to be some consequences for your 'intimate' decisions. There's no way Astarion saw that, even in a dream, and says nothing. Even if you are just friends. Especially if you are just friends. Any commentary he would make toward the Tav he has a close friendship with after he/she/they did what they did would be glorious. And deserved. But don't cheat on him with the squid, is all I'm saying. He deserves better.

TL;DR: I am, in fact, probably a thrall.

Now for someting thats been on my mind. Just my 2 coppers at the moment not an expositional write up.
Omeluum was the Emperor in the first draft.


A rewrite was done while building act 3, and the writers realized that Omeluum, in the society of Brillance, and as the Balduran didn't work, the cloak and Dagger aspects worked, so the stories were cleaved in the second draft, Omeluum was already out in the wilds of the underdark so Omeluum was made more benign and helpful, and Emperor got more secretive and manipulative.

I'd like to see Omeluum and the Society of Brillance take a more proactive role in dealing with the Emperor/Balduran wicked ways, and have more tasks and dialog strings to tie things more securely.

I don't think so. The Emperor is featured (but unnamed) as the evil entity that entralled Selmane in the adventure Murder in Baldur's Gate. Omelleum's story is identical that of Grazilaxx who worked with Drizzt during the Out of the Abyss crisis.

I think Omelleum was always meant to be helpful.

My guess is that TE was always intended to be a third factor for evil parties - the chosen, Daisy, The Emperor - but became more benevolent seeming over time when the Daisy and Emperor stories merged. This is why the emperor is in the intro cinematic.

Just a guess but I think The Emperor 1.0 was intended for parties who wanted to control the worm, not kill it.

I don't think the Emperor existed at all and was only hastily added very late in development. Otherwise he would appear in the artbook which still contains Daisy instead of the Guardian.

Kind of a small thing I know, but I am a bit sad they replaced the Daisy dress/ robes with uh.
Grandma pyjamas lmao.

It's like a weird shorts bodysuit it's very bizarre and unappealing imo.
I dunno why they did that did people complain it was '' too feminine '' or something ( people realize men wore robes like that in history before? )?
Again small thing but I remember thinking Daisy looked kinda dumb and frumpy in the new thing lol.

Regarding the Emperor's personality:

In a game where players have the ability to influence the plot and companion stories, I think it's normal to expect the Emperor's actions to change according to the player. This is somewhat similar to Shadowheart's or Astarion's character arc.

Personality is much more than just good vs evil actions, though. The Emperor is interesting because he has so many layers to his character, he feels like a real person.

Superficially, he is someone intelligent, cunning, forceful. Were one to delve into his motivations - like a real person - one finds someone who values freedom, survival, influence. But additionally, there is also the twist where he's not just any person but an amalgam of a mindflayer and Balduran. And there one finds traces of Balduran's personality as well, which loops back to the Emperor's personality - intelligence, cunning, a love for freedom and exploration, but also anchored to the city he founded.

I haven't been this enthralled (yes I said it) by a character since Dragon Age.

Can his character be elaborated on? Yes. The Emperor only has about 1000 voiced lines, compared to around 9000 of Astarion's. If there is any reason at all why his character might not feel fully fleshed out, I'd say it's this.

Please don't try to misrepresent what the emperor does.
He does not change based on your actions, he literally always mirrors your last voiceline. When you switch each response back and forth between supportive and atagonistic, so does the emperors personality.
And in the next dialogue everything is forgotten.

The emperor literally has no personality hes a plot device which has to exist to make the plot work which is why Larian made him an empty shell that just parrots you.

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.


I'm sorry, but that's just your opinion. I can and do disagree.

The emperor puts everything he likes or wants aside to focus on an ultimate goal, yes he always supports us whatever we do (unless it compromises his ultimate plan)… but never offers to help our companions by at least giving names of influential people who might be relevant to solving their personal problems after the mission.
He doesn't respond when we manipulate the prism, even in Act 3 when things are calm, he is the one who comes to us every time and under the conditions he sets. We have no control over anything even if we are called "allies".

I believe that the little he says or chooses not to say and the way he acts (taking into account his powers), is at least as relevant as some clear dialogue lines could provide.

His romance sounds weird to me too but because he wants to spend time with us right after realizing that his only thrall is dead, very suspicious. Especially since he has no genitals and never shows any attraction for humanoids(?)
Was this scene a real intention of the writers or just called by devs?

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...


Overall, though, I consider him to be one of the weakest parts of the plot and the obnoxiousness with which he attempts to "guide" borders on patronizing (especially early on as he comments your misses and combat choices). Not to mention that the guardian's introduction switched from a dream of temptation to a pretty much 1-to-1 retread of the D:OS 2 plot which made me worried Larian were just re-using that whole narrative. His attempts at flirting and the overall tone his interactions take in Act 3 all feel extremely forced and artificial (which could be intentional, given he's an illithid? But the fact that he does it without prompting and regardless of your romance status is ever-so-slightly uncomfortable. His writer must just have a thing for shirtless squid-men...)

The whole...


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

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.


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.


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 crèche 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.


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:


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?

I liked the emperor, it was an obvious pretend-do-gooder manipulator from start to finish, what I don't agree on his writing it's the end where he switches teams.

Would've been better if he just teleported away from the city, and in the epilogue , a scene of 2-3 seconds of him on a building watching over us at the docks. Which would've let room for interpretation and possible future DLC to expand more on this fantastic character since I feel we didn't get enough of him and his ending didn't make sense at all.

I don't disagree with your point about the need for increased reactivity, though I think his role as a plot device (I don't deny he functions as a plot device, I just think his character is much more interesting than any of our companions) restricts just how much he can have.

Letting players interact more with him would go down well with both fans and detractors, as I said. Distrustful players can be more confrontational and maybe even ask him to stay out of their heads if he bothers them that much. Perhaps interactions could take the form of players approaching him in the Prism instead, giving them a feeling of greater agency.


I thought the story made it very clear he retained most of his memories and personality. Are you talking about the final battle Because I think that could definitely be better explained. Better yet, we should have to choice to persuade them both to work together. Forcing us to make a choice was unnecessary here, I believe, as their immediate goals aligned.


Btw, I was not part of EA, but I deeply disliked what I saw of Daisy on Youtube. And I find the idea of our dreams being just the tadpole rather uninspired. I'm very glad we got Emperor instead.