Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
The problem I see she's so transparently evil and transparently not interested in our wellbeing that a good character wouldn't be interested in pursuing her path, because it's always framed as power to use for evil. And if the tempter character isn't there to tempt good characters, what the hell is the point then?

To give meaning to actions of good characters smile

WotR's evil options have become meme but I think even the most absurd of them enhance the experience of a good player. While I have never chosen:

8. ( evil ) I don't like you, DIE!

This cartoonishly evil option makes the experience of my chaotic good azata more meaningful because I feel like I'm resisting temptation. And a few players do go down the full murder hobo route and become a swarm of bugs that eats everyone . . .

I've played WotR more than a dozen times and never followed an evil mythic path. I've lost count of how many times I played BG2 but I never once sided with Bodhi. Yet I enjoyed having that option. I mean is Bodhi's offer really that tempting? 5K less gold in BG2?

Daisy's enticements were even more tempting than Bodhi's. Before mind reading became cost free you really wanted to know what people were thinking. In EA I read Gale's mind to see if he going to betray me to Raphael. And I did give into Daisy's temptations after Omelleum provided me with some of her powers - I had a hard time keeping everyone alive when fighting Nere and ALL the Deugar. My mage got reflecto shield which knocked out the archer with thunder arrows. Lae'zel got to pull Nere closer which eliminated his advantage over her . . .

I adore WotR and I too have never done an evil playthrough, but I think there's a difference between those evil options in that game and Daisy in BG3. Namely, Daisy and the tadpole are central to the game's story, and if you didn't use the powers, you would just never meet Daisy. In EA there were people who would come onto the forum and be surprised to learn about Daisy because they never used the tadpole. So good characters might never encounter her to begin with. Evil characters got to have deeper interactions with the central issue of the game while good characters got nothing. I also don't see those chaotic evil options in WotR as resisting temptation in nearly the same way. Those options aren't tempting your character to take them, they're just there to provide the player with as many options for roleplaying as possible, something I personally feel BG3 fails at, by the way. They might be tempting the player, but it's not some force tempting the characrter. And what you describe is a great scenario but I found that the fact of Daisy and her interactions with us made me as a player not want to take that because I had no way of expressing that "no, I'm not doing this because I'm evil and want to turn into whatever it is this thing wants me to turn into and want to rule the world. The guardian may not give me great options to express my character either, but at least it makes fewer assumptions about my character.

My preference would have been that they kept the behnd the scenes system the same and never introduced the tadpole absorbing mechanics, but replaced Daisy with the Guardian anyway.