Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Tadpoles and consequences

I'm a bit miffed, that using tadpoles has no consequences at all, besides an ugly face ( I never use them,so I assume, that face is from using the tadpoles).
I think, there should be more consequences storywise, like locking you out from some endings, companions like Lae'zel, who is clearly against all things ghaik, should just leave or even attack you.
Maybe even making it way harder for you to still get the good ending - or getting it via a companion, that doesn't use tadpoles, and still loose your main character.
There should be something.

Agreed. The game sets up the pretense that using the powers and consuming tadpoles would lead to other problems later on. I never played BG3 during EA, but apparently Nere could dominate your mind if you were careless. It was the original intention but for whatever reason, Larian changed their mind.

Much of my first play through was spent avoiding the worms. My assumption was that delving too deeply would lead to the player turning into a mindflayer as a bad end of sorts. Even kept all the worms I collected in a little bag anticipating an alternative use for them later on.

I like to role-playing as a certain kind of character in my head, and the one I had at the time was a revenge driven durge. He truly hated them. He was going to eviscerate anyone and anything to do with the mindflayers and the tadpole placed in his head. Not being able to kill the Emperor as soon as he revealed his true form was already disappointing. Imagine my surprise when we were forced to turn someone into a mindflayer despite rejecting all things illithid anyway.

I still love this game of course, but that soured me quite a bit.

This is so true. On your first play through you avoid using the Tadpoles powers because of a few the lines suggest it is effecting you in someway but it never goes anywhere. Sure, you can RP it but it just feels dumb having these powers that can very OP for little cost and not using them. I really wish they didn't remove whatever plan they had for making the tadpoles a Big risk for a Big pay out.

This is a tough one. I take your point. At the same time one of the things I love about RPGs is the steady aquisition of new stronger abilities. And I love developers who are in on it.

Not to mention I think a messed up look would be quite a high price. I wouldn't want that.

If it's something like playing as an evil character absolutely. I would expect violence and hate. Consequences. For something that really boils down to a way to get new powers I don't mind if the game winks and tells me I'm on the list. I would be very frustrated about the other things Laurentia mentioned which I'm going to pretend I didn't hear but not this in particular.

I will say I'm suprised if someline like Lae'zel with her feelings about mindflayers stays with you if you keep absorbing tadpoles.

You get the stronger abilities already with level ups, so that base is covered. I just think, using the tadpoles should have some kind of consequences.
In EA, when you used your tadpole powers, that dream visitor became really creepy touchy feely and your companions are pissed at you. And, as mentioned, other True Souls, like Nere, could dominate you.
I don't think, something as powerful as the tadpole powers should come without consequences.

Lae'zel's reasoning is somewhat explained with the Zaithisk. Githyanki adapt ghaik strengths to work against them.

*

I think a messed up face is a pretty big consequence for using the tadpoles. But I still get what people mean when they say they're looking for a consequence.

--the thing is, why should there be a consequence? You already know you're being protected from fully transitioning into a mindflayer. Why should you not utilize power that's being handed to you, especially if you're using the power to literally save yourself?

--so what kind of consequence are you looking for? Do you want the tadpole user to be punished? How so? I mean specifically, what should the punishment be? This is a sincere question.

--or do you just want a reward for not taking advantage of power in the game? If so, I think that's fair. What kind of reward do you want, though? An achievement? A special item?

Why would Nere be able to dominate you when the elder brain can't? The whole point of what's going on is that you're being protected by the artifact.

The narrator tells me the worm is eating parts of me when I use Illithid authority in Act 1. I want to feel the consequences of that. Maybe after a certain point, give me more manipulative dialogue options, try to force me to get in my companion's heads, make it increasingly more difficult to NOT use authority, etc.

Because it was like that in EA. It makes sense: True Souls are connected and that can get used against you and if you weaken your mind by giving the tadpole more room, it would make sense, that you could be easier manipulated.

Fair question,

Personally? Because I feel that using power to dominate the wills of other sapient creatures to make your life easier shouldn't, ultimately, work out well for the person doing it in the long run. Fantasy game or not, I don't think that's a message that needs to be sent. People get off consequence free for horrible violations frequently enough in the real world - I'd rather my fantasy video game not suggest that that's a legitimate and consequence free path to success as well. Yeah, it's taking an element of real life to explain a desire in a video game, but I'm a real person, with real desires and sensations, and a game that says "violate people in this way if you like, it'll make things easier, and in the long run it won't change anything anyway, so it's all fine." just feels icky to me.


Personally, I'd like it if the more you used the tadpole's powers, the more likely it was to compel you to make further tadpole-oriented choices - positive or friendly resolution options disappearing or starting to prompt wisdom saves to succeed on saying, and even sometimes all options but the authority abusing ones disappearing, if you don't start fighting it. DCs would start low, but increase the more you used the power, making it increasingly difficult to choose something else; I'd like it if over-reliance on them led to a "bad end" situation at the climax, after a well telegraphed no-return lock in point (I consider the permanent character loss of becoming a mindflayer to be a "bad end" situation, for the record; it's the outcome where you Failed to find a better way).

I'd like not using them or using them minimally to mean that this doesn't happen, and ultimately, present an option for resolving the game's climax that does manage to find a better way.

Those are good suggestions !

Okay, now this "argument" changed my mind. Turns out, tadpoles need to be without consequences, after all.

I dont want games to preach to me, thank you very much. Its VERY annoying.

P.s.: Seriously, you can play a friggin The Dark Urge, thats a , in this game.

Personally I love how tadpoles are now.

Even during Early Access; the whole tadpole situation was indicating that the more it's used the more it acts as a focusing lens for the Guardian to connect with us, which gradually grew stronger the more we used the tadpole. Allowing the Guardian to protect us while harnessing its power.

• At the start the Guardian could only speak to us while we are unconscious or asleep
• Using the tadpole allows the Guardian to communicate with us more frequently and eventually even while we're fully awake
• If the player did not use it at all however, they'd entirely miss out on that whole aspect of the story (which happened to me).

Larian made the Guardian at the time incredibly vague and mystical, but it was always acting in our best interest. The only difference was they were quite annoyed if you kept implying they're a tadpole illusion or even tried to kill them. The whole Guardian/tadpole aspect was in fact so obvious with its subtlety in many situations that JAndK, me and several others basically unraveled the majority of ACT 1 and ACT 2 story at the time, with some minor ACT 3 elements as well, using nothing but subtle hints given throughout Early Access and connecting the missing pieces. Was a very fun thread to participate in

I'm glad Larian caught onto the problem quickly and decided to make it better it for full release. The player in full release is still somewhat misguided into thinking the tadpoles are bad and evil for them, but that's kinda the point. Seeing how even the Guardian does not know their true potential and gets surprised when they end up empowering us even further when they're tampered... fills me with joy.

Instead of punishing the player with consequences for using it, they instead are cleverly warning and punishing the user for trying to get rid of it. Because naturally that's the obvious thing to do... the human thing to do. We fear that which we do not understand and through that primal instinct we act, always resulting in destruction.

So instead of consequences for using it, there are severe consequences or even beneficial boons for trying to remove it. Naturally there are pretty severe consequences for using the giga-tadpole, but I disagree that the regular tadpoles need any severe consequences. I'm glad Larian left that choice to me for roleplay reasons and that the game reflects on my choice whether I wish to or don't wish to use them.

In the end I see it as a form of symbiosis and I'm all for it. The best of both worlds in a way to become something unique.

The classic "alien = bad" shtick would have been so boring and meh...

It's not preaching. It's in just about every game. You choose a bad path you get an bad ending. You choose a good path you get a good ending. That rarely happens in life. In this game it lets you take any path you like without thought, so you can kill everyone and still look like the hero at the end. Which is great but in the first Act you are told one thing about the tadpoles but then it just suddenly becomes a non issue. It's a loose end more then Right or Wrong problem.

Does it do this to some extent already? I’ve not played around a lot with options as I’m only on my second playthrough and still avoiding unnecessary spoilers so haven’t watched vids of other players. In my first playthrough, I just absorbed one extra tadpole, and then no more. In this one, my character used three, and then when offered the astral tadpole tried to resist but failed a saving throw and the narrator said something about her mind no longer being fully her own. It’s cast a bit of a pall over her act 3 (as well as messed up her looks) but definitely felt like a consequence to me. Though being able to fly is pretty cool

I do agree with the general point though, that tadpole use should at some point become irreversible such that even if you win you’ll never be fully human/elf/whatever again, and could find yourself increasingly struggling to take actions of your own free will rather than doing what the Emperor wants. Though to really feel truly consequential, there’d need to be a good alternative to turning mindflayer for someone who doesn’t chomp tadpoles and, has been commented elsewhere, that feels somewhat lacking at the moment.

(More fundamentally, I’m not a fan of the tadpole mechanic in it’s current form at all, and probably would have preferred it if it hadn’t been introduced. But given we’re stuck with it, I’d be all for some changes to make both using and not using tadpoles more of an interesting choice.)

Tbh Guardian/Daisy in EA was extremely rapey - that was the main reason, I didn't use my tadpole during EA, I don't want to get groped against my will..
I still do think, using the tadpoles should do something. You just put more worms into your brain and if you go into the tadpole menu ( your brain), the parts, that are activated with more tadpoles, look unhealthy, even dead. That should be shown with more than an ugly face imo .
I'm not dying on that hill, I still think, there should be some difference. I like Niaras suggestions, that it will become harder, to not use tadpole infused powers in dialogue and maybe come across as more alien and even unfriendly at times
But yes, it was good, that they changed Daisy to Guardian.

As someone who plays Dark Urge, I see injecting tadpoles into my character's brain as a way to fill the damaged parts of it to become whole again and activate its neurons. After all the tadpole is beneficial to our character in more ways that one, even giving us a look into other people's memories and expanding our horizons.

That's why I mentioned that I'm glad Larian did not go the "alien = bad" cliche and punish us, but instead left it to us as a personal roleplay choice whether to use it or not. As to me it's a form of symbiosis, a way to become the best of both worlds.

• The issue simply is that even when Larian tried misguiding the player into thinking about "punishment" and "alien = evil" thing in Early Access, it backfired badly because people were entirely avoiding that part of the story. Despite the clues clearly telling it's not negative at all, 99% of people were convinced that "Daisy" was just an evil tadpole trick or the Absolute herself.
• Even now it's having a similar effect when the failed attempts to extract it are punished, so you occasionally get a dude on Steam forums screaming his lungs out at Larian for not slapping them with a massive warning about consequences during procedures

It's just never going to work and I do not think there need to be any meaningful consequences for regular tadpoles, otherwise it's just going to be a repeat of history. Not to mention it would not at all align with the Guardian's lore & power because they are the reason why we get to use the tadpoles in the first place. They're here to enhance us and having any consequences to using it would undermine the Guardian as a character, along with the Prism.

The true consequence is the giga-tadpole.

I actually do quite like the idea of there being serious consequences to using the tadpoles, and I agree that having it interact with the 'become a mindflayer' aspect of the ending would be cool.
The thing is, if that's going to happen, I would say there needs to be another change made to the tadpole powers, which is to make most of them actually good.
I went through my whole first playthrough without deliberately using the tadpoles to unlock more than 2 or so powers all game, not because I was determined to resist the influence of the mindflayers, but because most of the powers simply don't seem worth using. The ones that require an action are almost always worse than just attacking or casting a spell, in my experience, so the only ones I really used were the bonus on first attack or check one and the one free crit per long rest one.
If there's going to be serious negative consequences for using tadpole powers, I'd say they need to be much more effective than they currently are.

But where is this "choice" you speak of? There is no choice. No *real* choice. The choice to not use the tadpoles is *not* a real choice. It is a stupid choice, a meaningless, empty choice, because you gain NOTHING from it and only shoot yourself in the foot from a gameplay standpoint. The only valid option for any player is to use the tadpoles. The option of not using it is completely superficial option that results in nothing. To say it is about roleplaying is ridiculous. That's like saying I won't use weapons or armor or potions or scrolls because roleplaying. Yes you can do that of course, but it has no meaning or value whatsoever. It's not roleplaying but rather stupidity on the part of the player. So feel free to love it all you want, but don't claim it's a "choice," roleplaying or otherwise, because it most certainly is NOT a choice. It's not anymore a choice than using the 'save game' option is a "choice."

I have played through to the end game I think on four different tavs now. Other than the illithid wisdom checks, I only used the tadpoles on my first playthrough and have avoided them since. It hasn't seemed to slow me down in any noticeable way. I just store them in my camp's traveler's chest and politely ignore them for the rest of the game.

Having played through both ways, it didn't really seem any more difficult or troublesome to make it through to the end. Others might disagree, of course. But I'm here to tell you I've foregone the diet of worms and had a splendid time doing so.

Whether the player uses or doesn't use the tadpole is a choice which the game reflects on in the very 2nd conversation with the Guardian during ACT 1. I played my first playthrough without using them because I wanted to keep my character a pure Drow and enjoyed it thoroughly, so there's that roleplay choice I spoke of.

So what you consider a "real" or "meaningful" choice is irrelevant. It's a choice which the story reflects on and it's very much real. Is it meaningful? To each their own, it is to me. I enjoy when a story takes actions & choices into account and reacts to them.

Same. I'm currently doing a playthrough without the tadpoles, and I've had zero issues.


1. It is clearly a choice, as my current game is ongoing, and as the poster above me indicated.

2. Have you actually played the game yet? --note: this is not a sarcastic question. kanisatha has been upfront about having not played the game at all.

Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer -- the spirit eater curse. The best execution of a harmful curse giving you powers, while also becoming increasingly problematic the more you used those powers. It even solved many balancing issues from the main game by severely limiting resting, something that could definitiely benefit BG3.

I loved it, and I really wish Larian had taken some inspiration from that mechanic.

My only issue with the "ugly face" consequence is how absurdly "relative" it is. On drows and half-orcs the change is barely visible, but if you want to have a pretty human or elf, going to half-illithid route is a no-go. You either get an obvious power buff, or a situational RP nerf. It is a weird design choice for sure. Turning ugly should at least interfere with romances. Or come up in any other way.

I agree with most of what has been said and I'm glad @fylimar raised the topic.

Yes, there needs to be consequences for tadpoles. I've not used tadpole powers except for the railroaded "you need to have or be a mind flayer" at the end but I cannot agree that the powers are insignificant. Black hole gives you insta kill with a great many enemies, a free counterspell that automatically levels is incredibly powerful and fly is nothing to sneeze at.

I like @Niara's suggestions! I would add having reduced wisdom saves to The Guardian at moments that you defy it. At present it only expresses annoyance or contempt when you have the Orphic hammer. While it claims it will never let you into the Astral Plane it decides to anyway and lets you get right next to Orpheus hold the hammer before it says anything. Which is pretty dumb even by end boss standards.

(I also think the fight with The Guardian should start right away but that's a different discussion)

Other places will checks would be appropriate:

* When recruiting Minsc. Of course let Jaheria save us at the last moment but I think the story would improved if you saw how the tadpoles were sapping your will

* When speaking to Voss in the sewers

* When walking into Ansur' lair

It would give the "you are my puppet" moment more gravity and make the moment when you free yourself from the leash of the gaslighting ghaikboss feel like a victory.

Other ideas:

* Require clerics to atone. (ceremony spell with some sort of sacrifice - magic item or gold) In Larian's interpretation of mind flayers, illithids are soulless. Clerics are in the business of getting souls to their god's afterlife choosing to inch closer to becoming a soulless being "devoid of hope and conscience" has got to irritate your god - especially after you discover that tadpoles are integral to another god's evil plot.

* Have Withers remind you of answer to his question - if you thought souls were priceless why are you chewing away at it in hope of gaining more power?

* Reduce persuasion checks and heighten intimidation checks. Because eldritch horror eyes tend to put people on edge.

Those are really great ideas. I really hope, there will be some mechanics and consequences surrounding the tadpoles.

Roleplay choices are certainly personal choices you can make, but for a choice to be something that the game is credited for providing, I feel it really needs to be a choice that the game can acknowledge, and ideally give a variant outcome or some other in-game effect for taking. Many games give tangible choices for the player to make, which impact things, and this is substantively different from elements in a game that are 'things you can decide to do on your own with no acknowledgement'

For example... in BG3 you can make the roleplay choice to never steal from anyone. It's not a 'choice' that the game provides for the player, however, because it's not something the game is capable of acknowledging you doing, and it doesn't cause any tangible effect or impact.

Similarly you can make the roleplay 'choice' not to use the tadpoles... but unless the game can acknowledge that you have chosen not to, and provides some tangible in-game result of you making that choice, it's not a 'choice' that the game provides. It should.

Omg, I didn't even think about Mask of the Betrayer. Yes. That system was very good. It was always a hard choice, do I want this powerful ability and risk possibly dying from not being able to consume enough spirits?

The more you used the Curse the more powerful you became but this also made you need to consume more spirits. Also using the abilities also made your hunger go down faster but the abilities were scaled so well that using them made the game easier but the game also became harder because of the hunger level.

Edit: Also the more you used the Curse the less control over it you had.

MotB is in many ways superior to BG3, including choices and overall story and how it ties to mechanics

There were a lot of us who were expecting something reminiscent of MotB when the tadpole/power thing was first introduced and were... well... sorely disappoint at how flat and meaningless what we actually got has turned out to be by comparrison.

There will probably be none added, lest the target playerbase gets scared of having to actually suffer some kind of consequences for their choices and runs away.

As for Daisy being rapey - the whole point was to make the player uncomfortable, no? You penertrate the brains of others, only fair to have your own be subjected to the same fate, albeit more (or actually less?) metaphorically to showcase exactly how everyone else you do that to is also an unwilling puppet, only that you are capable of resisting the influence.

I feel like we've had this conversation before... it's less about the rapey behaviour, and more about the way the game, at a meta-game level, dictated for you how your character felt about the things that happened, after the fact.
It's one thing to inflict something like that on a character, in story, but following it up with a meta-game statement of "And it was hot, and you think it was hot, and it was so tempting, and you think it was alluring and tempting!" - No, I didn't, and that's my right to decide, not the game's. To use the parallel example, yes, you might have (as one possibility) brain-controlled a goblin into letting you pass (but not to touch or lay hands on them, it might be added), but what you didn't do, and couldn't do, was turn around after the goblin recovered and insist, to the Game, not to the goblin, that the goblin liked that, that it found it a pretty nice experience, and insist to the game that that was the truth of it, in a way the game was forced to accept.

The game can absolutely give our characters consequences for their actions, and they can be dark and dire, but outside of moments of direct influence, it must not impose upon our character at a meta-level to tell us how we feel about what happened; that is being disrespectful to the player, which is inexcusable. Even if the intent is that our characters are left with a lingering influence still trying to affect us, the game must make it clear that such a sensation is unnatural or alien - that it comes from something other than our character's own natural emotions and inclinations on the matter, which must, Always be ours to decide in a game of this nature.

Roleplaying choices are fundamentally different from gameplay choices. Using or not using the tadpole powers is a gameplay "choice." But it is a "choice" where the options are either (a) all reward no cost or (b) all cost no reward. As such, it is patently illogical for any reasonable person to "choose" b over a. "Choosing" b over a is a "choice," sure, but it is choosing to deliberately screw yourself over within the game. Therefore, it is no choice at all.

And no, there are no meaningful story consequences to using v. not using the tadpole powers. All consequences are mechanical, and you either get those mechanical benefits or you don't. That's it, and nothing more.

Using or not using the tadpole is also a story choice which the story reacts to, as has been pointed out already.

Proof;

There are numerous other situations where the story keeps reacting to tadpole usage as well, such as companions and their reactions. The consequences regarding the tadpole is mostly tied to the giga-tadpole as soon as the player gets into ACT 3, at which point there is no more playing around the bush if the player chooses to consume it, which comes with immediate consequences and opportunities.

Whether they're meaningful or not, subjective opinion that is entirely irrelevant. It's a choice which the story reacts to, therefore not an exclusively gameplay only choice.

For all the narrative import put on the choice to use/not use the tadpoles, the threat of turning into a mindflayer, *and* the threat of seeing what has happened to other true souls being brainwashed....I expected more than just personal headcanon as acknowledgement to the central thread of player character investment in the main plot of the game. The fact that Larian promoted these expectations throughout EA right to the end is a big point against the game IMHO. Hell, earlier in EA we were told about having multiple ways to remove the tadpoles, and the theme of increasing desperation seemed to be a big part of the plot, Raphael obviously being a part of that, with the theme of 'embracing' the power and seeing if you could harness/control it on the other hand, with Asterion specifically being called out as a character who would try to use the tadpoles power even against the group's best interest.

We lost a *ton* of what should have been the meat and potatoes of the game's plot when Larian ditched all that and it turned into a generic powerup system. They still failed at that IMHO, because they made it revolve around 'consuming' tadpoles which runs int on he same problems with using the powers did in EA, in that you can't tell people that something is going to have horrific consequences and expect them to engage with it unless you provide a good in-universe incentive to.

Mask of the Betrayer and the Geneforge games are two instances where the whole 'indulging in corrupting/dangerous power' theme was done much better.

As I stated previously, I've played through the game four times, completely un-screwed. If it screws with *your* game to not use the tadpoles, then use them. I'm sure an improvement in the balance between using and not using them would be welcome by most, but I fail to see myself as screwed for not sharing that opinion.

Also,

As far as mechanics go, I'm willing to stipulate other games have done it better, and perhaps Larian will improve BG3 in that respect. But it is nonetheless a choice one can make in BG3 to not use tadpoles and still make it through to the end. If that makes me stupid, well, just think how much more impressive magic is to me than to anyone else!

Same, from someone who plays exclusively on Tactician and will be playing Honour Mode.

As a Ranger Hunter who just auto-attacks enemies, I pretty much do not benefit from Illithid passives/abilities at all because of how much damage I dish out each turn, so I don't even get to use them. In fact, funnily enough I actually would be gimping myself IF I was using them because my *Bonus Action* is a difference between doing just 30 damage or 45+ damage

That isn't to say that Illithid passives are entirely useless, they have their tiny little fun utility niche as toys to have fun with. But what they provide in actual gameplay is so inconsequentially minor that there is zero difference between my Illithid/non-Illithid playthrough. Both are breezed through without any challenge.

Which is why my choice is entirely based around the story itself when it comes to using tadpoles.

I do think it's a problem that non illithid parties get no mechanical benefit at all.
I'm glad that those of you who enjoyed playing no mechanical benefit at all did so but I think it's problematic that is

I never played MotB but I played the BG series and in it resisting the pull of evil came with mechanical benefits - lesser benefits to be sure but benefits nonetheless. It does sound like the MotB system is superior to the one we have now.

Now it is true that non tadpole parties get some minor alterations in the dialogue but those a simply a mild flavoring of the text. You can either get something like "you haven't been using the powers from the tadpole" or "you've been using powers of the tadpole, good"

Nothing about your relationship changes the game acts as if you trust The Guardian and will be working with them. You don't even get an opportunity to state the obvious: you are asking me to empower the tadpole while I am seeking to have it removed, that puts us at odds.

This becomes more problematic later in the story when it's crystal clear that your guardian is an evil figure who is manipulating you using morally objectionable means but the game assumes that they only reason Tav's objects is that Tav fears the other. Tav is disgusted by the alien physiognomy and not the morals of a brain eating, enslaving, gaslighting, manipulating crime boss. When we do express our upset The Guardian always has the final word - even on no tadpole runs.

Tav: "I'm nothing like you"
Guardian: "You are more like me than you wish to admit and you would do well"

Oh. Guess that statement stands then. I guess I my options are to be annoyed that the NPC gets better lines than my character or not . . .

I'm all for a predicament system that provides more of a plus and minus thing to either decision. But I never found the illithid powers all that empowering, so leaving them behind didn't feel like much of a sacrifice (or one at all, honestly.) They mostly seemed like slightly repackaged versions of abilities other party members already possessed. I'm not suggesting you or anyone should feel the same way, and I hope neither is anyone else. I confess, after CP2077, re-playing all the Mass Effect games... the idea of something taking over one's mind from within now seems altogether trope-y, just from a coincidence of recent gaming experiences, I'm sure. So perhaps that's clouding my perceptions of the issue.

This game did seem to be filled with stories that seemed important but turned out... not so much. . So if the argument is that the entire tadpole system kind of made a molehill out of a mountain, then I entirely agree.

But of course, that doesn't really affect the central story of BG3 like the tadpoles do.

I wish there'd be a way to get rid of the Emperor earlier, release Orpheus, side with him and get some mechanical bonus from him in return.

That said, for me the mechanics wasn't the motivation to use the tadpoles. But when Lae'zel , I couldn't keep her from following his lead and devouring the whole pile of tadpoles within a second.

It also made the "evil" playthrough much more relatable. Doing everything you can to sustain yourself makes sense. In fact, I think the best playthrough of MotB is as a good character who slowly gets eroded by the curse and is forced to make some of the pragmatic evil choices. In later playthroughs, it's easy to metagame the curse, so you still have to kind of force yourself into that playthrough, but the mechanics make it much more satisfying.

The dynamic with the tadpole is very different. It just feels neutered. Like, there's the one scene where Omeluum tries to help, and the narrator describes in vivid detail how the tadpole grows a bit and presumably displaces part of our brain, and I guess this is ... fine? Yeah, let's keep doing that.

Part of the problem is that the Emperor is both a manipulative bastard but also completely honest when it comes to the tadpole. That brain worm? Yeah, let it grow more powerful, it's all good. And it is all good, when it really didn't need to be.

Agreed completely. And if you just save the tadpoles for one time there is a cosmetic downside you can gobble them like gummie worms with no consequences.

@Dangerferret happy to spoiler my response but I wonder if @flyimar would be willing to alter the title to allow spoilers? I took the title to be inherently spoilerly.

I was very disappointed by this. I played without using tadpole powers or consuming tadpoles. I also kept Illithid wisdom checks to a minimum precisely because I didn't want consequences and was very surprised to find out at the end that it was all for nothing.

To my understanding:

When it comes to the big astral tadpole that unlocks the extra illithid powers...

1. If you haven't used any tadpoles thus far, you can just say no.
2. If you have used the other regular tadpoles, you have to make a high DC check to say no and avoid using it.

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it works.)

*

Say what you will, but I consider the black veins all over my face and body to be a pretty big downside.

Same. I care tremendously about how my character looks, so having black squid juice all over my face is a major no-no.

Even taking the wrong color intensity in character creation was enough to delete my entire playthrough before the Mirror was added

Except it isn't as no one else in the game seem to notice and absolutely nothing of the plot changes.

I notice.

Your argument seems to be coming from a strange place, at least to my reckoning. Do you not care what your character looks like? Do you think other players don't care what their character looks like, in general? Would it suddenly be a bigger drawback to you if NPCs said something like, "Egads, that face!" when you walked by them?

*

I'm legitimately trying to understand.

I get the feeling that people want, either:

1. Something good to happen to those who don't use parasites... but they have no idea what good thing should happen or how to explain it in game, or
2. Something bad to happen to characters who do use the parasites... but it should be worse than destroying the look of their character. In which case it should be... thus far, I've only heard a suggestion that it should become increasingly hard not to use the tadpole power in dialogue. Which I guess means a loss of control over personality?

*

Don't get me wrong. I certainly think there's room for improvement on the system. I'm just not hearing anything that feels better yet.

No, I don't. At least not insofar as counting it as consequences.

Ideally what should happen is that quests, including the main ones have different ways of solving them and using/not using tadpoles closes of some ways. Like not being able to infiltrate moonrise without some tadpoles but also when never using them never being forced to do something or being able to gain the trust of certain NPCs.
And there should be different endings exclusively reachable for heavy tadpole users and people who don't use or remove them.
But nothing of that happens. The game is the same weather you use the tadpoles or not, despite Larian saying differently a few days before release. Hence, no consequences.

There are a number of ideas. I liked the BG1 model - you get something by trying to avoid becoming an evil monster. What that might be?

1. You are resisting power so: Resistance against psychic attacks? Increased wisdom saves?

2. Or, since these are tainted by the Netherese magic: any number of magic abilities. Something that duplicates spells in the game or some new ones.

3. Or, since the protection comes from Orpheus and he's a monk - so abilities that duplicate or enhance monk skills?

Explaining in the game? We have something with the Jaheria tadpole - they vibrate near each other.

Explaining it? How about the powers develop when we crush the tadpoles we find?

". . . your tadpole sends out waves of psychic vibrations. Its vibrations come to match those of the tadpole in your hand. It feels . . . sympathy? empathy? Both tadpoles vibrate at the same frequency and yours wants commune, to join, to become one with the other tadpole. It wants to share and absorb this tadpole memories and to help you evolve. **crush tadpole** Your tadpole spasms, it feels so much pain - it's been injured and its presence somehow feels smaller in your mind. And you feel . . . stronger, better, freer"

With respect, a few people have given some quite clear ideas of what they'd like. I know I indicated, when you first asked, that what I wanted for not using them or using them minimally, was a path to an ending that does succeed in finding a better solution and doesn't involve sacrificing someone body and soul to becoming a mindflayer (or sacrificing them in other explosive ways); a possibility that, if we have been using the tadpoles, is perceptually filtered from even occurring to us at a psychic level that we are unable to recognise or be aware of if we've gone too far.

And I would say that changing the end game would be highest priority even if I would like some mechanical benefits for no tadpole parties as well.

As it is the end game feels like a defeat - as Niara says you need to sacrifice someone body and soul to complete the game. Unless you ally with an evil mastermind who has lied to you and manipulated your from the start and I can't imagine playing a Tav that would make that decision.

I think the way they could have nicely balanced out using tadpoles vs not using tadpoles is by actually making them an interesting Purity Vs Corruption seesaw mechanic by taking the current brain system and have it act as a choice between the two.

For example here's a concept;

• Choosing to remain pure or consume tadpoles would benefit the player based on this choice by providing miniscule passives or alternative Illithid abilities.
• Where there is an actual passive offered however such as the Favorable Beginnings; the benefit would either defensively affect the player or offensively affect the enemy.

And the way the player would get to unlock them;

• Illithid abilities could be unlocked at any point by consuming tadpoles, since they act as a powerful temptation in the story
• In order to unlock Purity passives however; the player would have to progress the story up to a certain point without consuming any tadpoles. If they resist the temptation, then for example at the end of ACT 1 when speaking to the Guardian they'd be able to fortify parts of their brain against the tadpole's influence and become able to unlock the purity passives as a reward.
• By using the Illithid Wisdom dialogue choices without consuming any tadpoles; the Purity bonuses would decrease by 10% for each use up to a maximum of a 50% if the player gains the True Soul tag, since this actually slightly reduces willpower which is reflected by the story in ACT 3 through Wisdom checks.

This way this whole system would not just be a "consume & forget munching simulator", but act as an emphasis of Corruption vs Willpower. And more importantly would not clash against the lore of the tadpoles enhancing us.

@crimsonrider I like that. Send it to Larian!

Here is a more beautified version of it that is easier on the eyes. Representing the stage at which the player remained pure long enough that their Willpower can fortify parts of the brain against the tadpole's influence and thus unlock Purity bonuses as a reward;

• Remaining pure throughout ACT 1 fortifies the first tier of the brain
• Remaining pure throughout ACT 2 fortifies the second tier of the brain
• And denying the Astral tadpole in ACT 3 fortifies the third tier of the brain

And the way we actually get to spend points on these is by crushing the tadpoles, thus giving some depth to that part of the story as well.

That does look pretty neat.

Crimsonrider:

That looks really good. I agree,send it as a suggestion to Larian.

JandK:

Not everyone cares about their character looks or maybe even like it , because it looks edgy and evil and some people dig it.
I do care for my characters look, but I still think this is a low price to pay. You consume all this tadpoles and the only consequences are some black veins and a check, if you consume a more powerful tadpole?
You put stuff in your body, you are not supposed to be putting there, there should be more.
Plus, there is no reaction from companions or other NPCs.

I don't necessarily need a reward for not consuming the tadpoles, other than be able to get better endings.

Personally I find it refreshing since ingame there is just no way of knowing whether or not there will be consequences same as in real life - it's a gamble.

Also I would argue that using tadpole powers while somewhat repulsive is not evil per se but pragmatic decision to use every power available against a formidable army of enemies - it also stands to argue that not using them could be counted as somewhat irresponsible or ignorant at least later in the game when there is tangible evidence you'd have been a mindflayer a long time ago without the prism/Emperor/Orpheus so like it or not - you do owe him.

And there is a matter of Astral tadpole that a PC who has never dabbed into tadpole powers can simply refuse while the others need to pass some pretty steep dicerolls and possibly turn into something against their wish - I'm pretty sure that's something one would percieve as pretty big punishment RP wise.

Better endings? Why? It's highly debatable and even less provabale you get a better ending by being a good person IRL - so why should THIS game be any different, it's a moral and philosophical decision which I find highly refreshing, just because we're used to cliches in games/movies/books certainly doesn't mean they should be followed or that a game would be better for it.

TLDR: a hard NO

With all due respect, none of this is true at all. Not even in the slightest. The game tells you outright that there are consequences. The first time you use a tadpole, the narrator says you feel yourself lose something you will never get back. There are multiple instances of this. The tadpole menu itself shows the advancing destruction of your brain. Saying it's pragmatic also makes no sense given that menus. It's not about it being evil, it's about it literally destroying your brain. Not transforming != getting your brain back. It's like having a real time simulation of your lungs and saying smoking is the 'pragmatic' choice when you can get by just fine without it. The problem is that what the game says will happen and what actually happens are at odds.

As far as better endings go, you might have a point in any game but this one. You know, the game that already decided that evil playthroughs get punished IRL with less content and already makes good playthroughs superior objectively and has very few nuanced choices in its writing is the last place I would look for any kind of moral subversions.

There are more ways to do 'good' endings than just rewarding players who refuse to give into the temptation. Yout had to *work* for your 'good' endings in Mask of the Betrayer IIRC. The 'pure' ending and 'god eater' ending both required you jump through some hoops to reach. Becoming a mindflayer with its consciousness intact like the prophecy foretold that people were speculating was going to be a part of the plot? could have been a special ending with certain requirements like using the tadpoles a lot, something you earned/worked towards instead of just a choice everyone got. Getting the tadpoles removed should have been one too, since that was something they said was going to be an option earlier in EA. Things in-between too.

You shouldn't make a game where the main driving motivation presented to the player is removing/using brain parasites and the consequences thereof and then just not engage with that plot hook except in the most cursory manner.

This is what is a "consequence" for you? This is nothing. It is less than nothing. It is entirely, 100% cosmetic.

As I've already, this is an all benefits no costs choice, and as such is no real choice at all. It is the equivalent of someone saying they played the whole game without ever using any potions or scrolls. One could play the game this way of course, which would make it a "choice," but it would be a meaningless and, frankly, silly choice that isn't worth talking about.

I didn't say it's a consequence, I said it's a choice which the story reacts to because for whatever reason you keep pushing onto me that any player who decides not to use the tadpoles is stupidly doing so to intentionally gimp themselves, based on your own subjective overestimated value of tadpoles as a gameplay mechanic.

Which has been debunked by several people here because tadpoles in actuality do not provide any impactful advantage in actual gameplay, therefore gameplay itself does not carry any weight whatsoever in some people's decisions to not use them. Which is why my choice is based around the story itself and why your subjective opinion on what is "meaningful or not" or as you put it "is stupid" is entirely irrelevant, because tadpoles provide nothing for me as a gameplay mechanic, but as a story and roleplay element they absolutely do.

And btw the story does not react to the player never using any consumables, so that comparison is very flawed. As are the other ones previously made.

In any case and no offence intended; it's clear you're not here to provide any constructive feedback to the actual topic itself (as usual), but to pointlessly argue for the sake of arguing over nothing instead of simply offering your own formulated thoughts and alternatives to Fylimar's topic at hand.

I enjoy discussing ideas, but these pointless back and forths are of no interest to me.

Despite my thoughts on the actual topic, I still tried to address the concerns here by coming up with an interesting conceptual solution that would bring depth to both story and gameplay aspects of tadpoles and interconnect the two in a way that fits the present lore. So if you have anything constructive to offer to Fylimar's topic then by all means feel free to speak up and offer solutions.

I agree with Rahaya here: the game tells you, using tadpoles and tadpole powers is bad. The tadpole menu is your brain getting more necrotic with every tadpole, you insert, so yeah, there should be more consequences.

Killer rabbit: I just saw, that you asked for a title change: what would you like to change it to,? I was pretty happy with the title, but if it stays similar, I change it.

Ehhh, it's one line. Other characters like Raph or Volo, etc don't react. Every other time the Emp acts like you munched every tadpole you came across, including saying you were the 'same' as him for some reason, it doesn't open up any other dialog options, gives you more or different options later or anything at all. It is the definition of 'flavor dialog' and I don't know of anyone that considers flavor responses to be story choices.

And as far as the tadpole powers go, um, Fly? You also have videos like and as showcases. The game is easy enough to get by without the tadpole powers, but saying they don't provide an impactful benefit or it was 'debunked' is way too strong a word. It's a game balance issue. Not a tadpole power issue. They are clearly intended to provide meaningful benefits. If the game was harder, then it would make more of a difference. I can very easily see someone who struggles on Balanced to have a meaningful difference in play using tadpole powers now.

Ideally, Larian would have known what the intentions for tadpole powers were and integrated it more evenly in the game. If they weren't supposed to be that big of a deal, maybe don't have all the in game hints (or advertise shortly before release) that it's a big deal. This seems more of a 'managing expectations' problem more than anything else. However, as I doubt rewriting how much emphasis Act 1 puts on the danger is an option, the other method is to actually cash the check they wrote. IMO, being able to savescum all the main endings in the last hour or so of gameplay is a substantial flaw in the game. Having different ending choices for 'pure' vs 'corrupt' runs is the least that should happen.

Some kind of background approval counter for the Emp so that you can't just flip flop between Trust and Suspicion in order to make him flip flop between Ally and Sus would also help. Rejecting tadpoles despite his advice means he gets increasingly antagonistic throughout the game, instead of just forgetting you pissed him off last cutscene would be an actual story choice. TBH, each tier of tadpole power making you get increasingly uglier a la Dark Side in the KOTOR games is also an option instead of it just happening all at once at the very end.

And make people react to it!

It doesn't have to be super harsh, but there definitely needs to be something that isn't just shrugged off by everyone ever.

They left the EA lines from the companions about how the dream visitor gives them powers after both dreams. I want to believe that means they're at least planning to cash that check.

You'd hope so!

But they also left in companion lines about the exhaustion mechanic that was removed, so I'm not so optimistic

I see it's one of those threads where your're only allowed a single viewpoint so I'll see myself out.

For those worried about necrotic brain - we'll you're not forced to consume the tadpoles so you don't. I fail to see the issue here, but who or what is supposed to reward you for that (that's covered with tadpoles)?

No seriously where should the "pure" mechanic (btw LOL) stem from? There should be ingame explanation for the "powers of purity" or whatever you want to call them...

It's like arguing you should look younger than people using botox IRL - basically it comes down to autonomy to do what you want with your body...

And yes it's a fair point tadpoled brain is probably unhealthy for an individual and yet if the whole world and everyone alive in it depends on the powers of said individual, I'd argue it's only responsible to use every possible aid including the tadpoles for greater good.

If we return to the very first opportunity to use the tadpole powers - it might be the only option available to you to rescue Shadowheart and for all you know you're leaving her to die otherwise, so what's the "good aligned" option here?

I made this thread and I have no problem with all kinds of different opinions. If you don't want consequences, that is ok with me.
All i ask is that we keep it civil, while discussing.
Rescuing Shadowheart is one of the only options, where I use the power - of the tadpole, I already have. I don't want to insert more - for roleplaying reasons.

Rescuing Shadowheart also doesn't result in the narrator telling you you lost something, right? That only happens when you use the tadpole power on a person.

Yes, at least it was like that for me

You claimed there was no way to know if there might be consequences in the game so it was a pragmatic gamble. The same game that did everything I mentioned + direct mentions of possible soul destroying by Withers to boot. That's not a 'only one viewpoint allowed' situation. You were just wrong. Objectively.

It is my opinion that the game as is does not really support moral subversion as a theme very well. Not that your idea of it was inherently bad or not allowed, but that it's more than a little bit of a tonal whiplash for the same reason why 'you can get happy enough endings for everyone except Karlach's are all terrible' feels really weird. If you wanted the game to support moral subversions with more nuance, then have at it, no problems here at all!

The "You lost something" is based on using the tadpole for a 2nd time. So using the Illithid Wisdom on the Nautiloid still counts as an actual first use and thus awakening the tadpole as the Narrator comments.

• Which is why in Early Access a player was able to summon the Dreamer so fast before even stepping 5m from the Grove. Shadowheart > Wyll > Ed (cultist outside the Grove) = Spawn Dreamer and get Illithid class power.
• In full release using it on the Nautiloid now also requires a full long rest to be able to use it again and naturally triggers the very first step on getting the True Soul tag.

An actual pure run would entail leaving Shadowheart imprisoned, unless one plays a Barbarian or Sorcerer as they can both free her without it.

So using tadpole powers becomes a problem only once narrator says so?

And if she never did? Besides who is the narrator anyway?

I'd say it's the inner voice (conscience) of the otherwise mute protagonist and therefore highly subjective.

Anyways I've said my part and just in case reiterate: please Larian no purity system for me (still waiting on explanation for the source od "Powers of purity" - I'm actually curious here)

If she never did, you would still have the brain destroying menu, commentary by characters like Withers and Elminster on the terrible side effects, you would probably have to do something about the 'kill yourself' Illithid ending because that is an option since you feel yourself slipping away and the fact that it's in D&D 5e lore that ceremorphosis is really bad juju that needs a REALLY high level spell like Miracle to reverse or literal divine intervention past a certain point.

So.

*shrug*

And you would still get all of the above mentioned comments (and the picture with a tadpole lodged in your brain which is not something the protagonist would ever see od be acutely aware of if we talk brain looks) whether or not you use the tadpole powers because the whole premise of protagonists story is the tadpole in PCs brain in the first place (used or unused).

Also the danger of ceremorphosis persists with one or more tadpoles used or not (I would however make an exception for the Astral tadpole here which - it is actually made quite clear brings you a few steps closer to becoming a mind flayer)

So...

*shrug*

Yes?

Are you saying that if people are telling you that one tadpole in your brain is bad, that the reasonable conclusion is that introducing more tadpoles that have to eat your brain to make space for them in the first place (we have handy cinematics, that looks healthy!) is a net neutral?

Also, not sure what you mean by the picture of the tadpole not being something the protagonist would see. This is still a video game? The game is still telling you, the player, that tadpoles are bad for your brain regardless of the narrator saying the same thing or not. I don't understand what you are arguing here. And as a game, player, D&D lore nerd AND protagonist, there is 0 indication of the "Astral Tadpole" being the only one that actually matters (for turning ugly) being a thing until it is sprung on you at the very end of the game.

Decisions are made with the information you have, not with the information you don't.

I guess, if your brain goes necrotic, you should have some problems, even in a world with magical healing.
I'm not saying, the consequences should be really dire, but people reacting, maybe some changes in the endgame.

Thanks for this. This is very well put.

Sorry for the late response. The forum was acting up so I waited until it seemed stable again.

As I understand the post from Salo, in this sub forum you don't have to use spoiler tags if the OP includes (spoilers) in the titles.

I think we've got some good suggestions in this thread! I hope Larian takes notice.

I don't find any way to change the title, but I guess, it is ok woithout the spoiler tag

I think that using more tadpoles and the powers should have more consequences/impact storywise. I mean, the emperor wants you to become like him, an Illithid that retains independence/personality. I think that from his perspective, that is something good. And the more powers you use, the more Illithid you should be. And that should mean different reactions/dialogs. I understand that having this would mean a lot more work. But the easier way to implement it is that by the time you have to choose to become fully Illithid or not, well, if you choose to use the astral Illithid, you kind of made that choice already. And choosing not to become Illithid should require some difficult will saves. And the more powers you have, the more difficult the saves. After all, part of you is already changed/illithid. In fact, at the end, even if the tadpoled die, the parts of your brain already changed, might remain changed. What is done is done.

But I don't think that would be implemented even if I would like it. It is probably too much work. XD

My first two playthroughs I did not use the tadpoles. I didn't want the physical change and I wanted to make sure I could beat the game without becoming illithid.

In my current playthrough, I used the Astral Tadpole. The difference is night and day. The skills are actually EXTREMELY FUN to use. It feels like you shifted from playing a mortal character, to God-Mode. It's very satisfying continuously flying from rooftop to rooftop.
There are two Illithid skills in particular, that are absolutely OP

I expected there to be some sort of consequence to using the tadpoles, but aside from the cosmetic changes, there really weren't any. Feels like they're rewarding you for taking advantage of the extra skills rather than punishing you for it.

You are completely right about this. And for those who don't care and just want more and more cool rewards given out to them at no cost, that's great. But for some of us, people like me, this is the very epitomy of crappy game design.

I don't use the tadpoles. Even knowing there are no consequences apart from being ugly. It just doesn't make sense imo. You try to get rid of the tadpole, not pushing more into your brain.

Nah. My Paladin found it didn't Oath break to use tadpoles, so...I hogged them all. Didn't give my companions any till I was maxed out. Cull the weak is nice ya know

Since the Last Update they Made Harder for Yu to Avoid the Emperor Astrall Tadpole if yu Went Too Deep in the Tadpole Powers..
Now the Astral Tadpole will Kinda Force yu to Evolve if yu Went too Deep in the Powers in the Early Game, especially if yu Get the Upgrade From Cresch and Olmellun Power Too..
(They Made the Check for Refuse Harder..)
Did not test the Ring to see if will Solve this..
But Now has a Consequence at Least.. Not Drastic as people was Hopping but at least has One now..haha
(avoid if yu dont want the Ugly Face..)

Some Work Around for the Ugly Face

Again, this is not a consequence. It changes nothing in the game.

Using tadpoles should be an oath violation at least for Devotion and Ancients, given their tenets. I'd also imagine most gods would disown a cleric indulging in something connected to beings which are practically universally hated.

The main problem with the powers is that they aren't needed, plain and simple. No fight in the game, Tactician or not, is difficult enough to warrant relying on them as a tool. Having a mandatory illithid with you for the final stretch showcases how stupidly busted they are by turning the final battle into an utter cakewalk in a game that already stopped being challenging for the past 20 hours or so, resulting in a very anti-climactic resolution - and the game's plot's rotting away at the seams as of Act 3 as-is.

Oh I liked the idea of that purity system Crimsomrider came up with. Ofc, I wouldn't call that purity, more like 'willpower' or something. 'Psionic shielding' or 'Psionic barrier' akin to the 'Githzerai Mind Barrier' that can be received in the mind flayer colony.

I have been pretty vocal about some types of consequences to using tadpoles and illithid dialogue options since EA really... I would love different ending options, but like with ME3 I don't think Larian will buckle much from their original vision. I hope they will prove me wrong, but I have said it and it's been stated many many times that
I also love how people have already mentioned one of my favortie D&D stories ever told (next to BG2) - NWN2:MotB. I genuinelly thought that Larian would go more that route with BG3. In both games you have something monstrous within you that threatens to consume you from the inside if left unchecked. In both games you wanna get rid of it... except you can't and you can gain different perks by either trying to remove it or satiating it. And this is where similarities end: in MotB you DIE if spirit meter reaches 0. In MotB you sure gain power ups, but they are differently flavored. MotB actually tracks your morality, more or less, and what you've done so far: you can become the walking, ever consuming black hole for souls, or you can partially disentangle the spirit eater from yourself, or fully do it. There are so many different endings. Heck, you can kill Okku, devour him and recruit One-Of=Many in his stead. The game very smartly tracks all your decisions and opens or locks some options as consequences of said decisions. And this is something BG3 sorely lacks in act 3. Act 1 tracks everything nicely, many different ways to finish quests, act 2 still tracks SOME decisions, but not to the same extent as act 1, and act 3 becomes a mess... Whatever you've done in act 1/2 is barely ever mentioned again. And then come the dreaded tadpoles.

If I was Larian, I wouldn't try to reinvent the wheel and stick to their original idea from the EA. Make Daisy less gropey, and make it so you get dreams regardless of tadpole use (like you do now), and make it so if the player is not using these powers, Daisy tries different tactics to entice us. Bring the consequences back like we had them (or they were implied) in EA. Like Nere mind dominating us when we've gotten the true soul tag by constantly relying on tadpoles. Like some people suggested, make it so you can only get so far into Moonrise if you aren't illithid enough (make Ketheric instantly notice us, other than being a Durge, make it so Z'rell will very likely attack us in that scenario) and make it nearly impossible to move around in Last Light if you suffer a full brain necrosis.

There are so many different cool things Larian could do. Sure, in patch 4 they made it so you can't stomp the Astral Tadpole anymore and you have to succeed a check to not evolve, but imho there should be more. Imho, the more taddies you dump in your brain prior to the Astral one, your looks should change regardless. It should be gradual, black veins here and there. not the: here, you got black eyes, veins and your teeth rot and fall out all at once... Imho, it should be gradual and NPCs should notice, aside from our romantic interests and the party. Just like in MotB you didn't suddenly develop black swirls around your character and the ability to continuously feed from nearby spirits. It's not about the destination, but the journey, no?

Anyway, I will rest my case for now... until I can think of something else.

I don't like the idea of getting power for not doing something. It makes no story sense to me. Just an awkward attempt at balancing things so players are happy no matter what they do in the game.

Regarding having a different ending for not using the tadpoles, I guess. If the ending makes sense, that is. Unfortunately, it leaves me with the constant impression that folks want their cake after having eaten their cake.

"I don't wanna consume tadpoles because they make me soulless and ugly, and I want to stay pure! That means I should get a good ending for staying pure."

*

Also, if there's no consequence for consuming tadpoles, why do so many of you not want to consume tadpoles? Because there *is* a consequence for doing it. Consuming the tadpole is a form of sacrifice. You are sacrificing the very identity of your character for something greater.

--why do you deserve a good ending for not taking the sacrifice? If anything, I think a *special* ending for not consuming tadpoles should be defeat. You didn't do what was necessary.

*

Everyone achieving victory regardless of the path chosen is a modern weakness. It's the idea that an evil entity comes to you and offers you two choices:

1. Give the entity your soul and get ultimate power!

-or-

2. Don't give the entity your soul and get ultimate power!

Gosh, I know which one I'm choosing.

A serious question, my friend: have you ever played BG1/2?

Legit question, cause the way you're talking, it sounds like you think we sucked the idea of getting perks for resisting tadpoles out of nowhere, while it's been present since the first game(in a different form, resisting illithid influence vs Bhaalspawn). Don't believe me? Here you go:

Baldur's Gate 1/2 power ups and there were real downsides each time you used the Slayer form, you got real powerful but at what cost? Cost being that you were brought closer and closer to the evil alignment (kind of like what Daisy used to do in EA... hmmm).

Not to mention in BG2's finale, before you finally faced Irenicus you had to go through a bunch of trials, each had good and evil choices, evil ones being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more powerful than the good ones. Skip to the Abyss section and have a read.

Those were the real choices and consequences, not whatever illusion of choices and consequences plague BG3 currently.

Also, don't go saying: 'pfft, BG1/2 are ancient, storytelling techniques have moved on past that' that's people's usual retort to these arguments. This game is CALLED Baldur's Gate 3.

And look, I am not asking for illithid flying abilities on no tadpole runs. Just keep it in BG1/2's style and make the resist abilities shit in comparison to chad tadpole users. I am sure Larian is creative enough to figure it out.

Yes, I have. Many times.

And no, that's not what Daisy was like in EA. There's an entire theory thread that occurred during EA that predicted Daisy was basically what the Guardian turned out being: a being trapped within the artifact helping the characters with the same power that allowed Gith to revolt against the mind flayers. The clues were all there, even in EA.

I stand by my post. I'm all for things that have story reasons attached to them, but all I hear is: "this is what I want." Ending with an assertion that Larian is creative enough to figure it out. I would argue in turn that Larian was creative enough to figure it out, which is why you currently don't have what you want.

Question: why do you get "resisting powers" for not using the tadpole? Why would that give you increased saving throws, bonuses to concentration, increased movement speed? None of that makes any sense to me. It's like, I'm not gonna use these tadpoles that change me... so I don't change. Period, right? That's the result of not changing yourself... that you don't change.

And to repeat the question I had in my previous post: if there are no consequences to not using the tadpoles, why do people not want to use the tadpoles? Because there are obviously consequences to using them.

Alrighty, I stand corrected.


Well, I have read a lot on the matter over the years, kept up to date with datamines even and watched some vids and my original theory was that Daisy was a mental projection of the tadpole, or the Elder Brain trying to assert dominance, not... the Emperor. And I hear there were supposed to be cutscenes where the 'artefacts dweller' infiltrated some of those dreams and interacted with the PC using the same form as Daisy and it was supposed to be as if Daisy had a split personality (which in fact she kind of did... unless you weren't using illithid powers then you never got any dreams which was frankly a ridiculous oversight on Larian's part).

Also, that is why Orpheus out of nowhere mentions in the very ending 'stealing a githyanki egg' as one of our transgressions. Which is very likely a left over from some event from EA and a reason to dislike him on the spot, making us regret our decision of freeing him, making him look unreasonable to the player (and kind of proving Emperor's point).



Look, it's not about having what I want. Larian decided in the very last damn minute to drop their original ideas, erase Daisy and poorly insert the Emperor in with an extra 'power up consequence free tree' (this is what illithid powers are currently) only because their stats showed that people weren't using the powers cause Daisy was overtly, obviously evil (you can't tell me that the dream of burning BG is NOT evil). So they came up with a solution, make it all consequence-free (so people wouldn't complain on the forums I bet, 'oh no, why my friend has entirely different sets of choices compared to me?', 'oh no, my companions hate me cause I used these powers too much' I can already imagine all the threads).

You can't tell me that Larian couldn't have thought of better options to end the game, ask Omeluum for example? If we really need a MF, I'd rather have one that would sacrifice it's own life for someone they never met (Ravengard). But why do we need a MF to begin with? It's a problem Larian has presented themselves (ooh, a mere mortal cannot outthink a Karsus Crown imbued Elder Brain) meanwhile we've got a very ancient, rumored to be one of the most powerful psionics in the realms, powerful enough to disrupt illithd control - son of Gith, Orpheus. And yet, he also cannot overpower a Netherbrain, why not? The entire game you fight to not become a MF and yet in the very ending, no matter what you did, someone has to. And there should be a way, like people proposed where you don't succumb to the allure of illithidness, you don't need a MF.



Look, you can throw those passives into the trash bin for all I care, what I liked is the concept of getting something defensive for resisting. I agree, those might not have been the best ideas in the world (cause like you said, it makes no sense to get that for resisting)

Heck you can make it a passive (or active, 1 per long rest, scaling, and the final version being one that buffs the entire group) resistance to psychic damage. That would make sense, right? Getting resistant to MF's most common damage type (kind of how githyanki/zerai evolved). The more you resist, the higher the resistance.



Cause currently it's all mental gymnastics. Or RP choices. Mostly RP.

Sure, you get some little dialogue changes here and there, the only notable being the ability to say straight up no to the Emperor with no further checks when he offers us the Astral one. Wow, you have to pass a pretty difficult check to not get evolved? WOW, in a game where you can scumsave in the middle of a cutscene, come completely prepared for a difficult dialogue check (also, your tadpole powers can help pass it - hail favorable beginnings) and have 4 inspiration points for rerolls!

The consequence being that you have to spend some inspiration points? These aren't consequences. Not when it's so damn easy to get out of.

Not to mention you can just use every single illithid dialogue option in the game willy nilly (and it's pretty much impossible to fail them), tadpoles make the game a lot easier too. Sure, a lot of them are pure garbage, but there are some nice ones. By not using the tadpoles you make your game intentionally harder, And that is NOT a consequence.

You know what I call consequences? Permanent changes to your endings depending on your choices. BG2 did it perfectly. Use the evil route even once? Permanent change of your alignment to evil. That. Can. Never. Be. Repaired. Game endings stating that you fell to the allure of evil.

Having the evil ending slide played out.

1. It sounds like you're very tied to your theory of what Daisy was "supposed" to have been. I've been following BG3 since before EA, and I've been playing and reading about it since the earliest days of early access. I have well over 3,000 hours in the game. I assure you, I'm extremely familiar with rampant speculations about what "should" have been or was "supposed" to have been, if only for those meddling developers.

2. I get the impression that you don't like the end of the game. This goes back to my earlier comment about having your cake and eating it too. I feel like I've already addressed this point, and I'm reluctant to go in circles.

3. Getting psychic resistance does not make sense. It's not like you're being psychically compelled to consume tadpoles. If you were, there'd be rolls to avoid using the tadpoles. There aren't. You just decide to use them or you don't. Why would you get a cookie for that?

4. I asked a question about why folks don't want to use the tadpoles if there aren't any consequences, to which you responded that there aren't any consequences. That isn't answering the question. It's just restating the premise that I'm actively questioning.

Or you can completely ignore everyone in this thread that gave options for having the story react to no tadpole runs beyond 1 check in order to pretend otherwise.

That's a thing.And for some reason, 'I want to consume tadpoles because I want the extra powers, but don't want there to be any consequences even though the game (and Larian) said there would be' does not give you the same impression of folks wanting to have their cake after eating the tadpole.

How so very curious.

Your second question is a tale as old as politics: Misrepresenting the argument.

It is a fact that both Larian and the game presented consequences for tadpole usage. The problem is that there is no follow through. The game also does not represent tadpole usage as any kind of necessary sacrifice until the very end of the game upon which it rugpulls the player into a railroaded decision on the merits of mindflayers. A decision that on the face of it, still has a tone of questionable narrative elements and plot holes. As long as both of those facts remain true, the narrative that consuming tadpoles was in any way 'necessary' remains false.

And then we cap it off with the added bonus of ignoring everyone in the thread that posited story only changes in order to pretend otherwise.

A truly class act.

In simple language, what have I ignored?

You said, "...options for having the story react to no tadpole runs beyond..."

I've addressed the desire for different endings. I've addressed the desire for additional powers from not using tadpoles. What exactly have I ignored? Specifically.

*

You mention how some folks might want to consume the tadpoles for additional powers and rejoice in there being no consequences for doing so. My position has been crystal clear. I have insisted that there are, in fact, consequences to using the tadpoles, and I have made a point of asking why so many people *don't* want to use the tadpoles if they believe there are no consequences? The answer is obvious: they're not using the tadpoles because there's a built in consequence that is understood. It is clearly a sacrifice, and the "purists" don't want to make that sacrifice. That's why they're not using the tadpoles.

As for whether or not you like the plot, that's a different discussion, imo.

*

Regardless, at no point have I misrepresented or ignored anything. You are being unnecessarily insulting. I have laid out my position in simple, easy to understand terms. This is not a difficult conversation.

Again I ask, if you don't think there are consequences to using tadpoles, why do you not want to use the tadpoles?

Again I say, if there's a special ending, it should make sense within the vision of the story, which imo, would include failure for not using the tadpoles.

Again I repeat, it doesn't make any story sense to get special powers or resistances for not using the tadpoles.

*

If you want to engage in a conversation, please try to do so without the insults. They are tiresome and ineffective. Thank you.

As the tread opener, who wants the thread to stay open: please keep the forum rules in mind.

JandK:


I mean, you can play it that way of course, everything is viable. I like roleplaying my characters and motivations and I'm used from our DnD rounds, that actions like that have consequences.

I see it from lore perspective: we play either someone living in Faerun or a Githyanki and it is likely (for sure in the case of the gith) that you know about the dangers of mindflayers. You just don't put more tadpoles into your brain willynilly - that just doesn't make sense. So not using them should at least make you keep your health - and as a consequence for using them, you could have those awesome powers, but it would make sense, that some stats are reduced - those tadpoles are tunneling through your brain after all.