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

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.

This statement of yours reeks of sarcasm. Nice way to dismiss someone's arguments, without saying anything constructive.



And again, I get the impression you assume everyone wants to 'have their cake and eat it too'. From narrative point, with how things are presented in the game the ending is full of plot holes and inconsistencies. But just like you, I am tired of repeating myself and going in circles. We just have to agree to disagree.



Have we played the same game? That entire cutscene that plays upon Edowin's death with a tadpole flying out of his eye into our hand... and at least early in release there were rolls for dropping it on the ground.... or how you can BE compelled into consuming the Astral Tadpole if you fail checks. Also, nice way to dismiss someone's argument with that cookie there. Yes, I'd like a cookie right about now cause my blood sugar lvls are dropping reading this.



And I answered for RP reasons.


So it's alright when you use extreme sarcasm to dismiss someone's arguments and yet you take offense when it's done to you?

Also, where are the insults, my friend? It's not like Rahaya name called you and compared you to Minsc or something.

Nothing I said was sarcastic. You mentioned that you had followed BG3 and read all about it, to which I replied, so have I.

As for the psychic compulsion, no rolls force you to use the tadpoles. You can collect them all and send them to your camp without ever opening your mind to them.

There is nothing dismissive about a cookie. It's an idiomatic expression, implying that a reward is expected when I don't believe it's warranted.

So you admit that there are consequences to using the tadpoles? They are RP reasons, and they are enough to keep you from using them?

I am disagreeing with your premise and explaining why I think you are wrong. That is not insulting. Calling me a "class act" and saying I'm ignoring this and dismissing that and arguing unfairly is, in fact, insulting. And unnecessarily so. It's a way of trying to bully someone else in a conversation. I just happen to find it tiresome and ineffective, as I've already mentioned.

I'm happy to discuss the issue, but so far, I haven't heard anything that seems like a reasonable argument against my position.

*

That said, I can understand what fylimar is saying above, which is that the search for power often *feels* like the evil choice, and we're all conditioned in some way to expect a punishment for going that route. But that's a built in morality thing we've all gotten used to. It begins to fall apart when examined closely.

In this game, the approach is not typical. To win, you have to sacrifice a portion of yourself. You have to be reborn, forfeiting your soul and appearance. Doing so happens over a long and slippery slope as you are eventually forced to come to terms with the reality of what it will take to win.

"But I want to win without that sacrifice!" --sure, of course you do. But that's not the way it is. It's not your fault that the world is wicked.

In this case, I was also speaking as someone, who is familiar with the DnD canon and lore - and that says tadpoles are bad.

But that is my personal interpretation as someone, who plays DnD for many years now, other people have different opinions and that is, what this thread is for. I want to see, how other people see it.

The problem is that I "want" to roleplay this particular angle, but the game doesn't really provide the right context, at least for a very large portion of the game. I can pretend that I'm sacrificing something, but I can also pretend that certain parts of the game are better written than they actually are, and that gets us nowhere.