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.
Having the game react more to a non-tadpole run. I personally mentioned something as simple as having a background counter so that the Emperor is more and more antagonistic throughout the game if you continue to reject his advice as an example of what could be done, instead of the current situation where he just memory holes losing his temper or being accused of being shady from cutscene to cutscene.
Is that specific enough?
Because that's the actual topic of the thread. Having options recognized by
the game. It's the equivalent of 'BG3 has a difficulty for advanced players, just don't use X, Y Z and run solo.' No. That's not a difficulty provided by the game. The OP not wanting to use tadpoles because their concept of their character wouldn't
and not being able to roleplay that choice is not a 'built in consequence' the game supports. That is a deficiency. Because the actual consequence posited by the game is very unhealthy for the brain with a side of possible soul destruction. D&D 5e lore is not flattering to the consequence of ceremorphosis either.
The game doesn't follow through.
Again, I say; I don't think there are consequences to using tadpoles. I don't want to use them because logically there
should be consequences to using tadpoles. I'm told this by both the lore of the setting and the game itself. Nothing to do with sacrificing any identity of anything. If the game says 'you feel yourself losing something you will never get back' and literally nothing happens? That has nothing to do with liking the plot or not.
Are you one of BG3's main narrative writers? If not, perhaps insisting on a certain interpretation of what the 'vision' of the story is comes across as problematic. Because as it is, you do not need to use the tadpole for anything for any of the endings. At all. You do not need to consume a single tadpoles in order to be offered the Astral-Touched one. Not a single tadpole power usage is required to defeat the Netherbrain. Karlach can be your mindflayer. Orpheus can magically become a mindflayer too. You can backstab your chosen Mindflayer in the back and magically dominate the Brain for Bhaal/yourself
SOMEHOW as well.
So your certainty that the logical ending for not using tadpoles at all is failure seems as equally strange to getting resistance powers.
