Larian scrapped large parts of the story very late in development to shove in the Emperor to have consequence free tadpoles and no long term consequence of your actions.
You suspect this is true. That's fine.
But you present your suspicion as fact. Do you have an argument to support your position? A real argument?
I believe "Daisy" was always the Emperor. The only change made was that Daisy became the Guardian, and I believe that happened because some players took issue with the non-consensual sexual aspect of Daisy. Certain players expressed that they felt violated, and I *believe* that Larian ultimately decided they didn't want to open that can of publicity worms at full release.
However, you apparently disagree. Do you believe that Daisy was the tadpole all along? Do you have any reason to believe that other than that's what you would have preferred? Were you so convinced that was the case in early access that you couldn't conceive that you may have misinterpreted what was going on?
I think the emperor was planned to be Balduran, but not the dream person originally. Because if he were, there would not be so many inconsistencies in the main plot. Frankly, the later parts of the story are in need of both playtesting and editing, and point towards a rather hastily done rewrite.
What *specifically* about the later parts of the story point toward a hastily done rewrite? Specifically? Like details. Like, "this event indicates a hastily done rewrite."
I feel like people are making wild statements without any arguments to back any of it up. It would be like if Sherlock Holmes said the bite mark in the apple came from a sailor with a bad limp but failed to explain why.
I happen to agree that Act III needs work. But I don't think that has anything to do with a hastily done rewrite. But you feel like it "points" toward that, meaning you must have some sort of evidence as only evidence can point toward a conclusion. The natural result of that thought process is: share the evidence?
