Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Finally able to articulate one of the biggest flaws with the main story/writing

Orpheus used a todpole. In D&D soul/mind can be separate from body. So it is possible to have body go through physical change but keeping the soul/mind intact. It is a magical world But nonetheless, that physical change does affect his mental status. That's why he sought death after the final battle.

Funny thing, Orpheus sometimes uses a tadpole, and sometimes doesn't. If you accept the final tadpole from the emperor, but then instead of transforming, you force him to leave, Orpheus is going to use that tadpole. But if you never accept the tadpole from the emperor, Orpheus is going to turn into a mind flayer without the tadpole (since you don't have any). And there is no explanation provided.

Let's not forget System Shock Remake which every big outlet seems to have forgotten about the existence of...


It's not that, it's specifically that the game seems (seemed) to have an idea behind the plot but it's not even subverted but outright flushed down the toilet because they couldn't bother with how they've handled the Emperor and the tadpole powers. A really sloppy mechanical implementation has managed to heavily cripple the plot, or vice versa. It's like if the whole spirit hunger mechanic from NWN2: MotB was just a source of flashy abilities and not a terrible curse that would irreversibly corrupt the PC if they gave in to it.

To add: there is a fundamental problem regardless of the sauce it's under, and it's that the tadpoles as an issue are completely divorced from the companions' storylines and really the entire plot outside of moments it remembers that they exist. We have plots like, again, NWN2: MotB where every character embodied some aspect of what it was about (dreams, mechanics of souls, spirits and their way of existence, faith or lack thereof...), and Torment, and, hell, even Larian's own previous game to some extent.

In EA every companion's dream person was allegedly deeply tied to them and their insecurities, weaknesses, and hidden desires (for a custom PC those amounted to power and hanky-panky, with any hopes that it gets in any way developed dying together with Daisy). Lae'zel's was Vlaakith, Shadowheart's was her old (boy)friend (who in the main game seems to have been turned into Nocturne...?), Gale's was Mystra and so on. Given the premise of the "loss of self" and everyone having a moment where they are inches away from their worldview or their grasp on themselves falling apart, wouldn't it have made perfect sense for said desires and weaknesses to be used as a way for the tadpole/Absolute to try to sway them over? Lae'zel could become the ultimate warrior of her people, Shadowheart could get revenge on Shar's cult and Shar herself... Cue having to convince them otherwise or watch them succumb, and it resulting in a split of loyalties down the line when the time comes to pick the side.

As for the lack of planning, it's hardly the first time in the past 10 or so years that Larian seem to rewrite their games almost from the ground up rather late into development. Dragon Commander was supposed to be a sequel to Flames of Vengeance originally, and its final form suffered from a lot of cuts and awkwardly stitching together what was there (the final act and the endings were VERY underwhelming and underdeveloped). D:OS1 was meant to be about the origins of the Black Ring and Zandalor (and, I assume, delving into the mage wars described in the older games' lore) before effectively becoming the reboot for the setting and turning into Source this, Void that. The second game's Eternals were orignally the Raanaar from Beyond Divinity according to some concept art, and Damian was likely intended to be the disguised antagonist, actually making it a direct tie-in between BD and Divinity 2 instead of being half that and half a direct sequel to D:OS1. Despite all that, I loved all three of those (Dragon Commander too, despite its shortcomings), but BG3 teeters on the edge of being the equivalent of DA: Inquisition for me as far as the studio's one overhyped but ultimately underdelivering outing goes.

BG3's just the latest in the line, and I imagine decentralized writing didn't help matters much. Before Larian's writing could be hammy and awkward, but at least it was genuine and didn't take itself too seriously. It had a Pratchett-esque quality to it with an overall humorous setting with an occassional heavy theme (albeit handled with a lot less finesse and depth than Pratchett). BG3 is a mess that is now being retroactively explained as allegorical / "always intended as such", with headscratchers like Halsin making it all seem like a melting pot which nobody really cared to bring up to a standard of some kind.

Ooof. I had no idea about half of this stuff. I've always wanted to play Divinity II but my first Divinity game was Dragon Commander which I assumed was just a side story. From what I've read, the pre-Dragon Commander games all revolve around demons and Damian and are somewhat connected. Then DOS1 comes out and the story revolves around Astarte and void stuff. Now, what do Astarte and the Dragon have to do with the Godking and the Seven of DOS2 I have no idea.

Coming into this game I knew there was going to be canon and continuity issues simply because it's a DnD game. In general, WotC doesn't respect the story of the video games even if Torment, HotU, and MotB are way better better than anything they ever came up with. I mean having Myrkul return after what happened in MotB is just lame. Though when it comes to this game everything seems disconnected from one act to the other, plot holes and inconsistencies in the main story and characters suddenly acting differently at certain points in the game.

I wasn't on the doomer side when it came to this game since Larian has listened to feedback when it came to gameplay (reaction system, push..etc) but this disjointed writing is pretty much a staple of Larian and should always be expected?

Funny thing, Orpheus sometimes uses a tadpole, and sometimes doesn't. If you accept the final tadpole from the emperor, but then instead of transforming, you force him to leave, Orpheus is going to use that tadpole. But if you never accept the tadpole from the emperor, Orpheus is going to turn into a mind flayer without the tadpole (since you don't have any). And there is no explanation provided.

At the beginning of act 3, after the party helped Emperor fight off the Githyanki royal guards, he will to convince you to change. And even you refuse, he still hands you a tadpole. So you always have a tadpole in hand. Not sure what happen if you throw it away or destroy it (possible??). I kept it in camp stash. And if I let Orpheus change, the animation always show Tav handed something to Orpheus. Assuming it is the tadpole, as the animation only show hand/arm movment.

You can destroy the tadpole if you want to, though it doesn't really affect anything as far as I am aware.

Who's to say the Emperor only had one astral tadpole? It's not unreasonable that he may have been secreting a spare or two.

Often it seems like some people would prefer to find flaws. Absence of knowledge presents as certainty.

At the beginning of act 3, after the party helped Emperor fight off the Githyanki royal guards, he will to convince you to change. And even you refuse, he still hands you a tadpole. So you always have a tadpole in hand. Not sure what happen if you throw it away or destroy it (possible??). I kept it in camp stash. And if I let Orpheus change, the animation always show Tav handed something to Orpheus. Assuming it is the tadpole, as the animation only show hand/arm movment.

Who's to say the Emperor only had one astral tadpole? It's not unreasonable that he may have been secreting a spare or two.

Often it seems like some people would prefer to find flaws. Absence of knowledge presents as certainty.

So therefore the combination illithid power + orpheus power combined in one, is a prime requisite to move against the brain.

A mortal brain cannot defeat the elder brain as ithat entity can process all possible moves at once. It is always ahead of you. As the emperor explains, only an illithid brain has a chance to match the speed of thinking to make a move before the brain has a countermove ready.
Furthermore the one who combats the brain also needs to control the protection of Orpheus. So therefore the combination illithid power + orpheus power combined in one, is a prime requisite to move against the brain. So we canhave either Orpheus becoming illithid or an illithid acquiring Orpheus protection power.

I don't know how this works with Tav taking the illithid role though as I never tried that (and don't want to) and a less likable NPC, like Gale for instance, is not allowed to change. So if Tav can turn without eating Orpheus' brain then the story breaks down.

That doesn't make sense, Elder Brains are killed all the time by mortals, without the need of an ilithid traitor.
Neither do have elder brains some special hyperintelligence. They are very intelligent, but so are dragons or even some mortals and no one would buy "to defeat a dragon you need a dragon".

Also "you can't outsmart a bullet", or in the case of D&D a sword. When you are hacked apart with magic weapons as you are big and immobile it doesn't matter if you can think a bit faster than your attacker. You are not playing high stakes chess.

This is not a "Tolkin told you so" situation.
D&D is a brand an in this brand it has been established that elder brains while strong are still mortals and can be killed by other mortals without needing an Illithid.
Especially the Gith are very good at that and are one reason why most brains are in hiding.