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.
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.
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.
