Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why even have "evil" path?

Purely by the NPC distribution alone:

as a "good" aligned hero you have Karlach and Wyll who are goodie-two-shoes and will do no wrong, you have Halsin who has a quest in act 2, you have Jaheira and Minsc

as evil, all you get is Minthara who has barely any content that is tied to her, and unlike Halsin, you need to rescue her to even get her, while Halsin is forced upon you right away.

(i don't include npcs you get to keep regardless of alignment, i.e. Lae'zel, Astarion, Shart and Gale)

There's no npc that will leave you because they don't like heroics, there's no npc that is strictly evil-aligned. This whole business with grove is the only major choice you make (unless you're a durge) and it doesn't feel like it is maintained along the plot.

So confusing, how "evil" path feels like an underdeveloped afterthought no one cares about expanding. Don't get me started on evil ending - you get 1:30 minute cutscene, "in my name" and that's it. So bland and dull compared to the good ending.

See, i just think if devs don't care to flesh it out - why even include it? Feels like a tease, tbh.

Because it's meant to make you feel empty and disappointed. It's either the hero path or punishment and neglect for being a bad girl/boy.

I really want a proper epilogue to the evil ending, but I doubt it's ever going to happen. I now see it was never a full fledged RPG where choices matter, but a moralising story for children that's supposed to teach you that you need to behave well, stop being ambitious and settle for an ordinary and modest life.

I played a ton of crpgs with evil paths, and this one is doing it the worst, because it doesn't make me feel disappointed in my choices, it makes me feel disappointed in the game.

I don't feel bad about my evil actions, because game doesn't even try to make me feel bad. It just shrugs and ends. I don't think that's good story-telling, even if it was meant to achieve that goal

When you compare it to the amount of content the good path has, the game clearly wants to tell you "it's not worth it, play differently". All you get are railroaded choices, killing off evil characters, evil characters now being changed in patches.

Instead of proper, satisfying, unique content we got more fights and carnage as a filler to keep you playing longer.

Even the neutral path is not that great. I really wanted to have Minthara in my game but because I knew I'd miss out on content and that she was broken I went for the saving the grove option, which I didn't care for. I wanted to skip that plot all together because my Tav had no interest in that squabble and worried about the worm business instead. If you're neutral you get no party and miss out on romance.

I got Minthara on good\neutral playthrough, and it's staggering how little input she has, how few situations she reacts to. She's the companion with the least content, and to romance her without killing druids, you need to fish for every bit of approval you can get.
And solution for this I expect from Larian is just to make Minthara even more good-aligned, because that seems to be their MO.

"Dark" part of the game isn't only not expanded upon, it feels like it's shrinking. Shame, I love this game, but it really feels like half of the game it was meant to be, and since everyone is cheering for it and praising it blindly, I don't expect the lacking depth to be added.

It's just very sad because a lot of EA content hinted at it, and there was just so much more intrigue and tension...

The complete lack of the alignment system in the game like we had in older games (like BG 1 & 2, ID 1 & 2, NN 1 & 2) is something I will never really understand. It could just be because back in the days, it was easier to add lot of NPCs with different alignments (or less expensive) than today or because it's a system that can be somewhat confusing to new players, but as already has been pointed out, this way the whole evil side of the game feels empty. There are no characters to join you exclusively beside Minthara, there is no big ending and also, there is no real supporting narrative to it compared to the morally good path.

It's a CRPG, not a bedtime story that should have a morale to it.

There were so many options for evil characters like Nere, Kar'niss, Sazza and such who could be used for this, but maybe it wasn't worth investing time or money. On the opposite, maybe they should have saved the money for the "evil" content and put it to good use on the "good" playthrough if they didn't care about how the "evil" path feels, but that's just me.

I played when she was not available in the good run and mourned her unnecessary death throughout my game. I'm currently on my 2nd playthrough but Minthara and her romance are crucial to it, so I have to stop at the end of act 1 and wait for patches. I also want to redo my original playthrough and start a Durge run but all of them involve Minthara in them, so I think just won't play this game anymore until she's fixed.

For now, I'm just testing new patches and getting increasingly disappointed.

I really want an expanded evil epilogue, Gortash alliance ending, Nere as a companion, siding with the cult to be a viable choice, but yeah... I can only imagine what could have been.

The reason to have it is "Illusion of choice"

If 90% of players only go good path and you make a thinly veiled choice of path then these players will think "Wow this game has such good decisions and content behind them" while never knowing about the reality that the other "Path" is basically non-existent.

There's a similar thing for the whole "Eat tadpoles" choice, where there's literally no reason not to just get free powers for free because there's no content behind the choices of eating tadpoles or staying pure besides the albino tadpole stuff.

At least for the "Good vs Evil" thing there's the excuse of "Well alignment wheel doesn't exist in 5e!" as a poor way of justifying lack of Evil actions... But overall it's just insufficient development of choices and content (Which is something that also impacts Act 3 entirely too...)

The ironic thing is the game during Early Access did not have such a clear-cut line between good and evil as it does today. Companions were not goodie two-shoes but actual realistically behaving people given their circumstances, with fascinating backstories, trust issues and own intentions.

Karlach for example was not this lovely innocent carefree walking sunshine meme she is today, but a very vengeance driven bloodthirsty fighter that wanted to make the streets of Baldur's Gate overflow with blood as she was going after Zariel.

Wyll also was not this charming heroic idealistic goodie two-shoes either, but a very hurt and hate-driven man because of what goblins did to him, as he was chasing after Mizora to save her.

So the line was almost centered for the most part and Larian did seem to want to first focus on the good side before doing the evil side, but unfortunately development was rushed and all of their personalities basically became Disney-fied as the whole focus went towards the good side.

Despite countless of feedback being sent by the community about how lackluster the immoral actions are, as of today it is evident that there is no evil side. The game's narrative is clearly intended to perform heroic actions and any deviation from them punishes the player with less and less content as there is no longterm branching content from them.

On top of that Minthara went entirely ignored, as did the evil endings too. The fact that we did not get any epilogue, even a mere artwork showing what happens after is just depressing. I wrote about it myself for a Durge ending, but I agree. A disappointing one liner and fade-to-black is such a disrespect of the player's invested time in an evil playthrough.

This, 100%. That's exactly the reason why so many things are not changed, because we have all those white knights, who defend everything they can (even stuff they sometimes complain about themselves) as soon as someones raises the question if this game deserves all the awards it won.
There are certain characters or story decisions you can't talk about without being flooded by defending answers, so why should they even try to improve said things?

This has become a huge problem, because I'm afraid that these hardcore fans lead to a certain blindness within the people who actually develop this game and this leaves less room for improvement.


I had the same feeling, the whole atmosphere in EA promised a lot of darkness, tension, oppression and such, which got mostly exchanged with way too much sexy stuff.

Every time I'm reminded of this, I'm heart-broken anew.
Why can't we have both? Why can't good aligned players push npcs to be good, while evil aligned - push them towards evil? It's more fun this way, everyone gets what they want, and npcs are deeper for it. As it is, both Wyll and Karlach feel so shallow and boring, and it sucks, because I like them on a concept level, I like their acting, but they are so milquetoast

How I wish now I played EA. I bought the game months before launch, but I didn't play it to avoid spoilers, and when I changed my mind shortly before the release, my PC broke down and I couldn't fix it on time. From what I heard earlier, Wyll was a much more interesting character than what we got. The way you describe Karlach also sounds fascinating, in comparison to what we have now. Sigh...


Agreed!


This! They bore me completely and I don't see any depth in them.

Both the Durge endings after you initially accept Bhaal are bland. Either you just get a boring ending where you take over the netherbrain, or you get an ending where you completely lose yourself and no one seems to miss you. In the end I felt like I was pushed to go back and do the resist route to get a satisfactory ending, which is kind of a bummer. I had planned on it anyway, but I was going to do a new run to get the resist endings. But after those endings, it didn't seem worth it so I just went back in my save files instead of doing another run.

Yes, and even when you resist because you might still want to be an evil shithead, just not controlled by Bhaal, you somehow are forced to feel remorse about your victims. Another example of railroading.

Wyll weirdly got better after I followed Mizora's orders and killed Karlach. He had a short but good interaction with Lae'zel about not whining about done deeds and I much preferred the interaction with him at the tiefling party. When Karlach is around, he is melancholic because of his appearance and how others see him as a devil now - which would make more sense if it wasn't a tiefling party full of refugees who during your time with them (!) experienced the same prejudice Wyll is now scared of being confronted with. When you kill Karlach for Mizora, he retreats from the party because he sees himself becoming more devilish on the inside, which makes a whole lot of more sense and makes freeing him from Mizora's pact seem more urgent. Doesn't give him more agency in his own quest, but it feels like a better starting point for his story. - And I hate that the soul coins are basically just treated as hard candy for Karlach ...

The issue I have with Wyll, is that if you kill Karlach, you can tell him it was the right thing to do, and he accepts it, seemingly. But next night, when Mizora pops up, he acts indignant and not at all happy. It's odd - even if he's not present when you confront with Karlach, and he has no way to see that she's actually nice, he still argues over her like he committed a crime - even though he shouldn't be. We just went "Hail the blade of Frontiers!" over Karlach's death just five minutes ago, and now he's like "We killed an innocent person, you tricked me!".

Besides, how does he know she's innocent. She acts nice, but surely, no one is naive enough to just decide "ah, this DEVIL-ALIGNED person who is nice and friendly is being genuine" right away?

I think most of this is just because the development was rushed and that leads to mistakes and while mistakes and inconsistencies are okay, they are not anymore if we talk about the huge amount we have in this game.

One thing I find very disappointing is that they hint and tease at a whole plotline where you would actually join forces with the Absolutists and approach the story from their perspective, embracing the idea of being a 'True Soul'. They develop this storyline somewhat well in Act 1, and to some extent in Act 2 when you infiltrate Moonrise Towers. However, by that point, the game is already railroading you into the notion that you're merely pretending to be on their side. Eventually, this entire concept is dropped, and you're locked in as an enemy of the Absolute.

It would be amazing if that plotline were fleshed out and further developed until the end of the game. After capturing the Nightsong and decimating the resistance at Last Light Inn alongside Ketheric's forces, you could infiltrate Baldur's Gate as a True Soul to undermine the city's defenses, pursue your own agenda of overthrowing the chosen ones, or even undergo a change of heart, seek redemption, and become the savior of Baldur's Gate.

Yeah, I'm personally pretty disappointed with the "evil" path or even slightly "asshole" path the game offers. We are being punished left and right for playing differenty than suggested by some... "canon" path.

We could've had Mizora instead of Wyll for evil or "asshole" playthrough, but no. All we get constantly is a middle finger and lack of companions. So I'm asking, what is the game offering at this point? Just trying out new classes? Different romances? That's the whole replayability instead letting us play a different path to experience new things? Well, the only thing we can experience in the evil path is the lack of content.

EDIT:

For example in act 1: You can't even help Kagha to take control of the grove. Hell, we can't even stand behind her when Halsin returns and punishes her. Why there are no decisions other than forced "good" in that path?

I completely agree.

I truly miss Early Access Wyll, he was fascinatingly interesting and actually carried a ton of weight along the journey. He was in fact so integrated within ACT I that I always had him with me, unlike full release where he can stay at camp and literally nothing is lost. He was essential in Early Access and was made shallow with full release.

Karlach on the other hand I have to admit, she pleasantly surprised me. I truly love Karlach as a character, but the fundamental mistake Larian did with her was tying her and Wyll together and by doing so both ended without a meaningful personal quest. Her personal quest is just two infernal irons and that's it, job done.

If they combined her Early Access personal quest motives with her full release personality, she'd be perfect and have an actual weight along the journey. As it is right now, unless the player is romancing her she also doesn't carry any essential weight along the journey. Unfortunate.


Oh definitely, Early Access Wyll was a whole other league from the full release Wyll, exceptionally well integrated with ACT I to the point he felt essential to have around.

He was the kid from the burning village and its only survivor, that's when Mizora came to him through the burning pile of ashes and how they got together, as he swore vengeance upon the wicked. That's also how he lost his eye, as Torturer Spike was the one to cut it out and during Early Access Spike even had his eye in inventory.

His personal quest involved tracking down Mizora, who was actually already in an illithid pod on the Nautiloid and abducted by the goblins after the crash to be carried off to Moonrise. The illithid pod underneath the bridge between the Grove and the Blighted Village is actually hers and Wyll even had a unique comment about smelling sulfur and then you could Insight check him to find out he's tracking Mizora.

He was so hateful and merciless towards the goblins, that he'd ruthlessly execute Fezzerk in the Blighted Village and Torturer Spike at the Goblin Camp. And in his off-time he was still trying to do good by everyone naturally, but he knew he was no hero he wanted to be. That's why I always had him with me during Early Access, he was incredibly well integrated and interesting with a lot of nuance.


Also because I read your posts about Astarion (btw I sympathize about those dreadful facial animations during his kiss, they're awful), I think you would've loved Early Access Astarion too. He was incredibly well nuanced, far more than full release, and I will never forget my certain interactions with him which I wish were in full release.

He was a very mistreated and distrustful broken person, always on edge and assuming the worst, but given time his layers would slowly come to reveal his soft genuine side. He was pretty much like an abused dog who was never shown any kindness in his life.

Back then when the whole Dreamer thing was completely different and each companion's Dreamer was unique to them, his dreams were shaped to torture him through visions of Cazador. Because of this he would be extremely uneasy each night and he'd often lash out at the player as a defense mechanism if they tried to show him kindness because he's not used to it. I'll always remember how if you tried to hug him after telling you about Cazador, he'd snap back and threaten to kill you. But then the next long rest he'd cool down and slowly start opening up.

It was a very interesting slow relationship build up that really felt like us dealing with an abuse victim and slowly earning their trust to let us in as we peel away the layers. Quite beautiful overall. Naturally most of this is still in full release, but a lot of intricate nuance he originally had was lost in translation.

Just an FYI but modern DnD and WotC are moving away from the strict alignment system.

BG3 very much feels like it was made with more complex morals in mind and the simple evil vs good play-through isn't the most ideal way of playing the game. It has a lot of flexibility to be able come to terms with different play styles and decision making processes.

The interesting thing is that during EA, a lot of people seemed disattisfied with the good path and felt the good side of things was going underserved - I was one of them in fact. Larian also said that they were presenting the evil companions first because they knew people tend to play the good path in games so they wanted players to try out evil content. They said that explicitly. Apparently whatever they learned from that directed them this way. I also don't think this is the result of them being rushed, at least not rushed in the sense that they absolutely needed more time to finish it. They completely changed Wyll's story and character from Early Access, including I believe hiring a new voice actor. And despite having Karlach apparently planned as part of the game for a good while, they didn't apparently have a handle on her character until they cast her actress (I will say that I adore Karlach, she's my favorite character and I would genuienly have enjoyed the game a lot less if she had remained as she'd been in EA, that's a character I'd have found boring and I think her positivity is exactly what makes her interesting and she's the type of character the story very much needed). They released about three months early, at most? And this is after Covid caused them to have to delay by at minimum a year, maybe two. The problems we see aren't because Larian rushed anything, it's because they used their writing time irresponsibly. They made massive structural changes to the game's story pretty last minute. They should have had the story locked down far sooner than they apparently did. It's not just the lack of evil content that's apparent, I stand by my belief that the entire main plot of the story is a complete mess that's entirely non-functional from the opening cutscene right until the end. They constantly wanted to keep tweaking and adding things when really they should have just accepted what they had for good or for ill and focused on polishing that.

I don't think Larian is trying to punish players for playing evil, at least that's not their driving idea behind evil choices. I just think that they wrote themselves into a corner and couldn't actually manage to pull off what they were trying to do. This game has a lot of little stuff that gets reacted to, and they also wanted to stuff it full of things they thought were cool. They had to include the stuff that was the backbone of the story, and then they had to deal with the heroic path because that's still the path most people take, and then they had to address problems, then they changed things, then they had to actually WRITE Karlach and rewrite Wyll (notice how Karlach especially doesn't even really have a quest, just picking up tow peieces of metal, talk to an npc, then do a thing you were probably already going to do with her in your party and then boom, they're out of time. Oh yeah, and they had to actually ADD content for Halsin and Minthara to make them companions when they were never meant to be that.

So no it's nothing to do with moralizing or teaching anyone a lesson. It's just plain incompetence and poor planning. Nothing more complex than that.

Wrong. You can play a "neutral" path and you're still gonna end up on a loosing side when it comes to companions. Wyll and Karlach will leave no matter what if you won't HELP the grove. The game doesn't offer any sort of meaningful content for evil or neutral alignments.

I'm always confused by the people who say "well that's evil for you, no one plays evil characters so there's no point to make content for evil path. also evil shouldn't be rewarded"

Yet if you look around - everyone parades their edgy dark heroes, people love broody and dark themes, people praise grey morality and ambiguous storytelling left and right. It's so strange to me, that I hear this point being made over and over "it makes no sense to develop part of the game people won't see".

Well my counter point to it - if it were well developed, and nuanced and interesting, people would want to see it, and play through it.
As it is, story feels incredibly linear, and certain choices are obviously meant to be made over others, which is like... why even have them then. I don't understand, why offering player options, which developers didn't want players to pick, so they didn't develop them? It's not freedom, at this point, it's just confusing and depressing.

I'm not gonna argue for alignments, which is why i chose to put "evil" in quotation.

But there's no flexibility. You're either a hero who is friend to everyone, or you are a pariah loner who barely gets content. It's not complex morals. It's "be a good boy and get friends, be a bad boy and get nothing".
True evil character should be able to scheme, coerce, to become a cult leader, to side with absolute, to be something other than a murderous pawn.

I saw complex stories, and this one is as simple as it gets.

Personally I wasn't even playing "evil" character, not per se. I played neutral one. Decided to ignore the grove, because hey, that's not my problem. The next thing I knew, Wyll left and Karlach was pissed at me because I was somehow responsible for the slaughter of the grove. That was just... bad. And I decided to recruit her AFTER everything that's happened, but somehow I was still blamed for something I didn't do. And she knew everything even though she was stuck at the river injured. Yikes.

Right, I never understood how people can come up with their 6th, 10th or even 15th playthrough, even with different classes I would be so bored. It's not like you can come up with a plethora of different characters to take with you. Maybe it's just me, but the story is the same and I don't like each companion at the same level, so I don't need to see everything of them.

On a side note: If the game forces us to be morally good, then where is the morality in accepting or even glorifying cheating on your LI?

Oh, don't even get me started on that thing. People are so happy with the romances, but I absolutely hate how some things were made. And how... "some" are totally okay with cheating and even encourage you to do it. If this is a norm for our society now and games, then I guess I'm too old for games and I'm only in my 30s.

Sorry for Off-topic! Even if this is meant to Ametris, I just jump in to say: Thank you Crimsomrider! Finally humanity! That's empathy! I feel with Minthara fans, too.

The characters who accompany you on an evil play-through has their reasons to make bad decisions. Astarion is afraid, Gale feels inadequate, Shadowheart is brainwashed, Lae'zel has been lied to etc. I had good experiences by creating characters who had some flaw (naivety, anxiety, capitalism etc) which fit into the bigger narrative of the game and provided a good reason to make a variety of different decision, so I never ended up being a pariah.

The only decision, which cuts you off from a variety content is the grove decision. And the only thing you can't really do is to side with the absolute, but one of the main themes of the game is power and ambition, so I feel like it's fitting that the "evil" characters would go for the ultimate power.

Gale isn't evil. You have to succeed persuasion check or he leaves if you go with evil route in act 1. He's angry at us. So then you're stuck with Shadowheart, Lae'zel and Astarion, that is... if they are even alive. If not, well then... you have only generic mercenaries from Withers.

I think the problem here is that "the Absolute" as a faction... isn't really anything. The Absolutists are all mind-controlled dupes. The only side you can be on is serving the chosen. The Absolute isn't even meant to be a thing that lasts, they're a tool that if I understand correctlly, will be thrown aside once the plan is done. Being on their side means being a disposable puppet, nothing more. Being a true soul means being a disposable puppet, that's all there is to embrace. You have to be pretending to be on their side because the only real logical options are you want to stop their plan or usurp their plan. Everything the chosen promises their followers is a lie, a fabrication for a plot that has nothing to do with anything presented. And as much as people like to tout "Freedom of Choice" if you want to be a servant of the absolute, then your character would have to abandon the prism and become a mind-controlled follower and end the game.


Developers end up having them because people always say they want them so developers end up feeling obligated to include them. Developers should be free to not include an "evil route" in their rpgs if that's not their vision of the game without fear of being lambasted as "watered down" or "not a real rpg" which is absolutely what would happen. Every game sets limits somewhere, people need to deal with that.

If someone manages to lose all origin characters before the act 1 party, I don't think it's Larian's fault for having no content.

The point is - there's no variety in paths you can take. You either take good path, or no path at all. There's no options. I'm not saying there needs to be equal amount of evil content, but there's only so much saccharine saving of children and kittens you can do before you realize that no, you're not a neutral character, you're good old chaotic good, and there's no inbetweens.

Why even have the thing with the grove then? It doesn't matter, and it's the only choice like that in the game.

But they included the evil route, and they implemented it poorly.

If they said - it's a hero story, you can't be evil in it - I'd respect it more, tbh, it's valid. But as things are... I don't know.

Right. Then why is it okay to have "evil" characters on my good playthrough, but it is not okay to have "good" characters on my evil playthrough? Why the restrictions? This game just doesn't offer you anything if you don't play a morally good character to the letter.

Larian should really take some cues from Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous. The game can change drastically depending how you play - good - neutral - evil. 4 playthroughs behind me and I still haven't seen everything the game has to offer and it's way longer than BG3. Not to mention companions - there are no restrictions with recruitement. Everyone can join, but that doesn't mean they will stay till the end. Too many decisions they don't like and shit will hit the fan. Or... we can even try and change their alignment, it won't work on everyone, but there's a chance. Now, this is what I call branching RPG with choices that matter.

No no, I agree with you. They put it in so they're obligated to try and make it good. And honestly my argument was on a broader, industry-wide level, so to speak. I think Larian really did want to try and make a fleshed out evil path. But like I said before, I believe their failure here is the result of incompetence with regard to their planning and actual process of writing. Not their writing skill itself, because this game obejctively has a lot of good writing in it, it just never actually comes together in my opinion.

It's funny how supposedly morally complex story that has no alignments is much simpler than story that does, but yeah. I feel similarly on the matter. Again, not like, a huge fan of alignments as a system, but I feel like in BG3's case, lack of alignment just masks the fact that every companion you have is different shades of good, with Astarion being the only chaotic neutral one.

Meanwhile, in my experience, "evil" aligned companions in most RPGs are most fun and were always my faves T_T I'm not against good characters, but I just wish I had options - in story, in npcs...

I guess it's just a shame because hints of it that we saw in EA were so intriguing and good...
Oh well. Don't mind me, I love this game a lot regardless, but that's why I can't stop talking about ways I think it could be better <:D

I'm not a fan of set alignments myself and I've been playing DnD for 15 years. It was just never something I liked. But still, Pathfinder did a very nice job to their playerbase. Everyone can play how they want and they won't be punished, because they suddenly made one "evil" decision. And I also agree with you with evil companions. They're usually the most fun.

I still laugh at Camellia. She is helpful, is she not?
Or with Wenduag - loved her romance and how it can evolve in different paths.... Shit. Now I think this is how Shadowheart should've been with her Selunite/DJ path. Oh well, yet another wasted opportunity from Larian ¯\_(?)_/¯

Camellia is one character that gives you an ultimatum, either do what she wants and completely fuck up your morally good character or you kill her on the spot. It's ok, some characters are set on not changing... I could see Karlach like her.

Or they could have gone the Ember route with Karlach, whom doesn't give you any sorts of ultimatums and she stays with you even if you are evil, it's generally a good recipe for good banter and arguments on what's good and what not.


I love you.

One of the major things about this is that people associate "Evil" as specifically "Murderhobo".

When Evil in DnD alignment is more just self-serving as opposed to just "Lets be a dick and murder people because we can"

Sure, you do have Chaotic Evil creatures and characters that ARE murderhobos or want to mass genocide. But it's not the only depiction of "Evil"

Technically, the whole Creche situation is completely Evil. You don't hand over the artifact because YOU WANT it for your own personal gain (That gain being not squidifying). The Emperor is Evil because his entire motivation is self-preservation.

But people gloss over those aspects because the "Good" path railroads you through these things anyway and you literally just game over if you pre-emptively murder the Emperor or if you actually hand over the artifact (One of the many problems caused by the stupid plot device...)

An "Evil" path doesn't even necessarily have to follow the Absolute. In fact, a character that was evil and wasn't a murderhobo would end up going the "Neutral" path in Act 1, as it's not in their best interest to get involved with the quarrels of the Goblins/Tieflings.

It's one of the annoying things about writing in general. There's so many possibilities that can take you down different paths and even possibilities that take you down the same path but for different reasons. An evil character could help the tieflings just because they want to get the information out of Halsin and he won't talk unless you murder the Goblin leaders just as much as an evil character might side with Minthara and go wipe out the tieflings because she's offering the Absolute (Which is suggested to be power and is at the very least, status within the organization) or an evil character might just peace out because none of this concerns them and they just want the tadpole out of their brain.

Yet no writing will ever account for that. It's all "If you help people = Good path" and "Murder everyone = Evil path", no nuance. No involvement of character motivations.

I'm torn on which one to romance on my current playthrough xD I played Azata first, and playing Demon now, I'm shook over how different things feel in certain interactions...

But as far as companions are concerned, I'd be okay with BG3 having companions like Harrim (pf Kingmaker), for example. Not necessarily evil, but just neutral weirdos with their own fun spin on life and fun interactions. I feel like game suffers from every NPC being romance-able, and we're missing out on funner companions as a result - I'd like to have a kobold buddy, or a golem, or something! The world of BG3 is so whacky, but companions are all so grounded

That is all true, though all those revelations regarding the nature of 'the Absolute' and its role in the chosen's plans are not information you have beforehand. I think you can still justify your evil character initially taking that path and eventually coming to the realization that 'serving the Absolute' means partaking in the plot of the chosen, either by helping it succeed or by usurping them. This is enabled by having the prism in your possession, allowing you to freely pursue your own agenda. It could even be used to fuel the Dark Urge quest to reclaim their seat as Bhaal's chosen.

Agree again. When it comes to romances, I prefer quality over quantity. But like I said in my previous post... I don't like how romances are handled in bg3. I definitely prefer older rpgs and their systems with restrictions even if that means I will end up without a romance. As a lesbian, I'm really used to it in games ¯\_(?)_/¯ I prefer good story over pandering.

And this is why Pathfinder wins once again with companions and story. Not everyone was romancable and that was a good thing.



Fellow Camellia enjoyer <3

Wrath of the Righteous is one of my all time favorite games. Frankly, I think the reason that it works so well is because of its own restrictions it presents. Because you choose which path you want to go down and then you have to stick to that path until a few set places. You get to choose what story you want fairly early on, and you still get choices and flexibility within that story, but the choice of story still applies. I think that if Larian tried making WotR they'd have done something stupid like trying to make it so you can switch paths whenever you like and nonsense like that.

Speaking of Owlcat, I played their Rogue Trader game and it was the first and likely only game where I played an evil run to the end. I don't like playing evil, but playing a Chaos aligned character felt really cool and fun and while the story didn't branch as drastically as it did in WotR, I still felt like they really tailored the chaos run quite well. I also think that characters were a bit more lenient with me than perhaps they should have been, but I don't mind that, something had to be sacrificed and I'm glad that was it.

I think a big part of why Owlcat manages to pull this sort of thing off and Larian didn't is because Owlcat seems to put emphasis on making the story about the player character, whereas Larian, at least with BG3, seems to focus on the player behind the screen. I feel that everything is geared towards letting the player get away with doing dumb stuff, and they don't really consider Tav to be a character who is meant to have agency. The player has agency in that they can go wherever and poke whatever they like, but Tav is a husk through which the player is able to see what happens if they do any given thing. In BG3, the story isn't about Tav, the story is another thing for the player to see and prod at to see what silly reactions pop out. Whereas in all three of owlcat's games, the story felt well and truly ABOUT the main character, about their experiences, struggles and how they change or develop as a result of those experiences.

Fellow heretic <3
Heretic path in RT is one of the most unpolished ones, but even in that state, it was still so fun, that I can't get myself to replay game as a dogmatic xD

Overall, in Owlcat's games, I always enjoyed playing evil characters, and never felt spited or slighted by the game for my choices. There was always unique content for the path, it felt worthwhile and it felt rewarding on a story basis - and story would make me feel bad for being a bad person too, you can't go without it. I think this sort of thing is doable but it's probably easier for Owlcat because their games don't feature a lot of VA or cutscenes.

It's still very doable for bg3 though. Not the scope Owlcat's games have, but... smaller, definitely. But of course, we won't see anything of the sort, because Larian refuses to fix poor Minthara 7 months after the premiere and she's an evil companion. If we can't get some solid fixes on one NPC, then we definitely won't get some unique "evil" fixes for the game.

Totally agree. It's very unfortunate that they chose to make all companions romanceable and by consequence limiting most of them to young, medium size humanoids.

Unpopular opinion here: I miss the old alignment system, and I also miss the Monk and Paladin classes having to choose deities.

Honestly, I think this is due to the changes in the world today. I'm 61 and I feel like I don't belong on this planet anymore, let alone playing RPG games.

I do have hope, though, and it makes me happy to see that Wrath of the Righteous is as developed as it is. I played it a bit when it released, but stopped because I knew they would keep adding to it. Kingmaker is completely finished, so I'll play that first. The only thing I hate is that the companion AI is just... meaningless.

Also, I still have hope for Dragon Age 4. Origins is still one of my favorite games.

And I still haven't played the last Mass Effect DLC and I just purchased the Legendary Edition and ME2. And there's another ME game in the works as well.

As long as we still keep giving feedback, there is a chance that new games will be made with these issues in mind and not just driven by social media (which is the lowest common denominator). My wish for the world is that social media becomes a pariah.

Damn, that Wyll sounds like a character I would actually keep in my party. Such a shame they changed him. I saw a video where they said the change was done because he wasn't popular, but I don't think he's very popular now either. When patch 5 hit, it took days for his epilogue videos to be posted on YT, while other characters had them almost immediately.


Thank you, I really appreciate it. First Astarion getting changed, now Minthara...

I saw videos of some of his scenes and I so wish they were readded to the game, they really showed a lot of nuance, like you said. We even created a thread about it some time ago, but I doubt it's gonna change anything.


The old Bioware is dead, I'm afraid. Now it's just another studio that EA ruined. You could see a drop in the quality of their games as soon as they got purchased. Almost all, if not all the talent that made it what it was, left a long time ago.

It's not even that they're all romanceable that's the problem. It's that they're all sexable.

It is completely possible to have a non-sexual relationship. Since relationships are not defined by sex. So you could have a romance with say a golem, just one where you don't end up banging or having 40234537434 patches to improve kissing scenes.

A secondary limitation to companions are that most of the companions are Origin characters, meaning that someone can play as them which means they have to fit into the narrative of "Gets tadpoled > Finds a party of other tadpoled people > Said people try to get in bed with you > Become squid". So having any more unconventional characters simply doesn't work, like having an Origin character Golem or Skeleton literally cannot function with the base plot point of being tadpoled.

There's of course characters like Halsin, Minthara, Jahera and Minsc which are non-Origin companions where such unconventional characters can work... But these were last minute companions and implemented purely for fanservice anyway...

I think this is a big part of the problem and why I also feel that Owlcat's crpgs (and games like Pillars of Eternity) are superior to BG3 when it comes to roleplaying. The full voice over for BG3 limits the possibility to give us more story and more roleplaying opportunities because every dialogue needs a VA (who are quite expensive) and an animated cutscene (a lot which are done with mocap).

I think I've been so spoiled after playing through all of the WotR paths that I was really confused about the lack of additional content when playing the evil route in BG3.

Meanwhile you have Solasta that fully voices player characters... Even allows you to tune your characters personalities based on select traits... AND has every party member interact with every dialogue...

Something that's also missing in BG3. Companions interactions during dialogues, or interactions between each other in the camp etc... But at this point we're going completely offtopic.

At this point it would be better if they removed the rest of the "evil" content. The illusion of freedom can only lead to disappointment. It's fine if a game does not provide an alternative evil path, but it's not fine to "punish" the players for their choices with a simple lack of content.

Can someone outline what an evil path looks like from a storytelling perspective?

For instance, I know what a good path looks like. You start, get a call to action of some sort, then face challenges along the way to overcoming an evil. There's a dark moment where it looks like you're not going to win, and at the climax you basically succeed or fail. That's kinda the simple version.

Now say you're evil. I guess you still get a call to action of some sort. You still have to face challenges along the way. But the challenges presented in the story are evil, by nature. So this becomes a story of evil overcoming evil? Or is your challenge to join the evil?

I mean, what exactly are people wanting to happen? What is it that you picture your character doing that your character can't do?

1. Joining Gortash? What does that look like? You just want two thrones at the end? One for you and one for Gortash?
2. Something else? What?

Maybe you could join Ketheric and lead the army to attack Baldur's Gate?

--I guess what I'm saying is that it feels like a completely new game would have to be written within the confines of what's happening. For example, if you join Gortash, what changes? Are you and Gortash suddenly hashing out plans, doing quests and overcoming some obstacle together?

I have been wondering about this too. I picked up BG3 because I was thirsty for a good immersive sim. I am totally ok with a linear story as long as I have variety in how I deal with the problems presented to me and especially act 1 is doing a really good job in this regard.

Making the tangent a bit longer and coming from immersive sims, I really liked how the first two Dishonored games treated the "good" and "evil", low and high chaos paths, because it was treated as cause and effect. If you were careful, showed restrained and went for none violent options, you inspired the city as a whole and the NPC in particular to be less cruel as well. If you went murderhobo, otoh, the whole city would be in uproar and - with a dog-eats-dog mentality confirmed - you created a much crueler world through your actions.

I would have liked a similar approach in BG3, especially in regards to the other tapolees. You learn relatively early that all of the cultists are influenced or tadpole controlled. You can make use of the tadpole powers yourself or reject them for your own benefit, but you can't really do anything for the poor dupes under the Absolute's control. I am very glad we get to save Minthara now because no matter what you think about Drow, she didn't deserve that.

So from my point of view, making the "good" and "evil" routes more about variations within a linear storyline would be my preferred approach - characters might be on different sides depending on choice, more or less cultists (does raiding that shipment stash in Moonrise even change anything?) depending on if you tried to destroy tadpoles or not, &c. I also like it if the "good" choice isn't the fun and easy choice but maybe the mechanically harder one - which they do on several occasions. It would have been fun if the tadpoles actually corrupted you and allowed the emperor to take away some of your agency.

That is actually a really good question. I'm interested in hearing peoples' answers to this.



I think that would be an interesting approach that I'd have enjoyed. Dynamic but less likely to result in unsustainable content bloat.

For me, it would mostly just be changing the ending to something more satisfying. Like instead of Gortash dying to the netherbrain you could actually rule with him or choose to betray him in the end. Then it could show the effect you've had on Baldur's Gate, what became of your old companions, have some parting words with them etc. Or maybe you could have an epilogue party with your companions who are down with evil lol. Other than that I'm personally pretty satisfied with the rest of the game. It would be nice to have more of a reaction to your evil choices from various people throughout the game, but I wouldn't mind if just the endings changed to something more substantial and with some closure other than just sitting on top of the netherbrain looking evil.

I took the "evil" path in my Durge run. But in the end I took the "good durge" path. But anyway, I joined the goblins and exterminated the tieflings and druids in the grove. in Act 1
And then I thought "hmmmmm......"

On the "good" path, Halsin urges you to avoid the shadow cursed lands at all costs and risk the perilous underdark to find a shorter route to Moonrise. However he lets the Tieflings travel on through these lands to Baldur's gate. Isn't that evil ? So many are effectively killed (and turned into shadows ?), or taken prisoner for torture and turning to illithid. Isn't this more evil than giving them a swift death by the blade at the camp ?

How does the "evil" of exterminating the druids compare to letting Kharga do her thing and complete the rite of thorns ?

I think the game did a fairly good job, raising some dilemma's of war.

See, I don't think that the writers actually thought of that. This is a case where it's not really a moral dilema, it's just sloppy writing. The tieflings were never trying to go to Moonrise. They were waylaid by the cult and they skirted the shadowcursed lands to keep away. But because of the cult's presence they had to go through it, which clearly wasn't their plan otherwise someone would at some point have mentioned "hey, we're going to be travelling through this deadly curse area. If the situation had been a little more in their favor they'd have just avoided the shadowcursed lands all together. Meanwhile the underdark in that case would have been a non-option for a large group of non-combatants that includes children.

It's a matter of motivations and end goals.

"Good" path is one of altruism. You're doing it to help others, the end goal is to make the world a better place for citizens.

"Neutral" path is one of pragmatism. It would generally be a good idea to stop tyrants, psychopaths and world ending disasters.

"Evil" path is one of egotism. You want to make things better for yourself. More power, more wealth, more influence.


It's not necessarily that the challenges are evil, but how you choose to approach them are evil. More "Kill now, ask questions later" or deceiving/coercing people to further your agenda.

As far as overcoming evil/joining the evil... That depends on the specific story. The general idea is there's something you wish to gain and Evil McEvilface is likely doing something that will result in their power being increased and you want to take it.

A good example of this in BG3 is Astarion's story. Cazador is Mr Evil McEvilface and he is on a plan to Ascend to gain power. Astarion can thwart him and gain that power himself. The end result is still that the big Evil is gone, just as in a "Good" path, but the difference of gaining the power in an evil path vs the power being removed completely in a good path.


It would be things like, working together with the Absolute more. With more content where you get to flex being a True Soul.

Perhaps you can convince Balthazaar to help you overthrow Ketheric.

Given that the game sets up animosity between Ketheric, Gortash and Orin there could be content where you ally with one of them to dispose of the other 2, or have a situation where you simply dispose of 1 and then jointly control the Netherbrain, or have situation where you systematically betray all 3 of them.

For me the game currently does offer suitable opportunity to role play an evil aligned (for lack of a better word) character I developed during EA.
,
She's an evil Warlock whose patron is a servant of Glasya. A corrupt minor official in BG she's a charlatan ultimately working towards gaining enough favour with her patron to avoid ending up as a lemure when her time comes. Hey maybe she'll even get noticed by Glasya herself and really make it big in hell someday. She came into the pact because of getting caught in an embezzlement caper..she really didn't want to end up in prison and then poverty.

So how does she respond to the story? I haven't worked it all out yet as I haven't played this character yet since full release however...

In terms of the Absolute she isn't going to join because she owes her soul to Glasya, as well her patron, Goddess, and obviously the big man himself Asmodeus doesn't want to see the Elder Brain triumph as that would mean no more souls. Likewise she ain't going to agree to turn into a MF because she's not ready to face hell yet and in her view transforming is the end of life. The girl's got plans. When it comes to Raphael well that's interesting. She could easily play him either way but his ambitions seem to suggest Glasya and her dad would like to see him denied ultimately (after being indulged so as to reveal his full plans first of course, devils do love their schemes).

As for the Chosen they might make good temporary allies ultimately they need to fall so as to defeat the absolute (again its about the supply of souls). Chosen of the Dead Three?...pffft meet the new Chosen of Glasya...ya she likes the sound of that.


So in the larger story, it more or less makes sense for her to follow a "heroic" path but its the reasons, motivations, and methods that distinguish it from the "good". She is free to steal, backstab and betray anyone she likes so long as it still furthers the goal of her patron and goddess. One thing she did without fail in EA was to convince Brynna and Andrick to go attack the Owlbear, (why not play god with these idiots to see what it is like to have that power over someone only to send them to their doom and send their souls to her Goddess?) Like wise decisions like the grove depend on what she feels will get her the most credit from her patron. Lot's of dogooders and of course recent escapees of Avernus. Druids as well have a disturbing attitude towards chaos and we know how devils feel about chaos. On the other hand the Goblins are the epitome of chaos and are definitely working for the enemy. Perhaps saving the Grove will provide opportunities to corrupt it later...it's leader certainly seems a bit distracted and would owe us a favour hehe.

Take a situation like Karlach,,,maybe she kills her because she feels that will please Glasya since Karlach is a traitor to hell...on the other hand maybe Glasya would like to embarrass Zariel and Karlach may prove useful in the short term before ultimately betraying her...there are always heirlings after all.

As for the Emperor well he's nothing but a souless squid and don't get her started on that sanctimonious Astral hatchling ....screw 'em both! Meanwhile this moaning self absorbed Wizard might just prove useful at a particular point in time...

You get the point.

So while this character might be MacroHeroic they will certainly have no end of opportunities to be MicroEvil. Both can be true at the same time and both are consistent with her story and "alignment"

To me, "evil" character isn't character who murders everything cute and nice, and definitely not a murder-hobo, but as was said above, an egotist. Egotist who is cynical, and hopefully intelligent, someone who manipulates, twists and corrupts.

In my eyes, "evil" character would find the way to actually return back to the ranks of the Chosen, and use their plan, take Oryn's place, perhaps, because she seems to be the most aimless and useless member of the group that doesn't DO anything of worth aside of running around and killing people. Objectively, Oryn is a bad villain and a terrible rep for Bhaal cult, because if you look at Amelyssan from TOB, real priestess of Bhaal could be a manipulative, scheming, clever character who would gaslight you into thinking you are with an ally. With Oryn we have a slasher-movie tier antagonist, who uses her limitless power of transformation to get the cheap scare out of you, and nothing more.

Where's my "Oryn turned into Tav, committed crimes, and now good guys think you're a murderer and you need to escape prison and hide and try to prove your innocence" plotline....

Anyway, beside the point, to me evil character would find the way to work with the most immoral elements and benefit from them. If Gortash is as genuine as game tells you he is - why not side with him? Why not let him rule, while I do my cult stuff? If KT wants his babygirl back - let him have her, why railroad me into killing her, it's so pointless when there's so many other innocents to kill (Bhaal is very unreasonable and silly as a deity, as well as Shar).

But most importantly, it's about flavor. It's about you feeling like a bad guy, like a villain, colors tinting. Maybe I don't stay at the cozy inn, and I stay in the sewers or in a crypt or I take over some other bad guy's mansion and squat there. Maybe my companions are not indifferent husks, but actually get corrupted along and we're like this motley crew of villains at this point? I think that's what people want from evil path.


The problem of "logically i'm not 100% good and my actions are selfish (in my head)" is that within the game you are still framed as a hero up until the end. There's no cool presentation to go along with it.
Heck, in Rogue Trader, when you turn heretic, your ship is full of chains, cages and burning flames. I'd want THAT for my Bhaal cultist, not a neat little inn.

100 % agree. For me an "evil" character also in an RPG has Dark Triad Personality Traits, which doesn't mean that person have to be a slaughterer, but e.g. shows a strategic focus on self-interest, lack of empathy for others, indifference to morality, tendencies to manipulate, et cetera pp

And not necessarily all of these character traits together, one more, one less. It depends, on "how" evil a character should be.

I am not going to play an evil run, but I fully support people, who wish to, to get more content for the evil path.

Astarion the Magistrate and his quest for poetic punishment, evil and vice would be perfect for this discussion thread.
What attracted me was I thought "wow someone in this world is going to have a serious discussion about power and vice in medieval times from maybe different angles since Astarion has romance and hugs"
Here about this
The story of the Magistrate is slaughtered. Sort of ghosting and hints. Perfect to show evil and selfishness...

Well thought, I have a romance with an evil character where evil tried and took triumph.
Slaughtered in patch 6, where my character is a frightened victim during a kiss.

I mean there's Wyll, I don't think you can sleep with him, you can romance him sure.


Actually Jahera, Minsc and Minthara weren't last minute companions, they were literally Datamined during the EA days, Halsin however was the only one that wasn't Datamined as a companion, instead of Halsin we would've gotten Helia the Halfling Bard was who was planned and then cut for some reason, Helia was also planned to be an Origin character.

Because there are a finite number of good writers in the world?


“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill

This is the correct quote because the popular one is misattributed to Edmund Burke. Anyway, I do agree that an evil Machiavellian character should be possible to play in this game and come out on top. It's a pity that what is there is unsatisfying.

From a story perspective a possible evil path would be for you to realize the huge power potential behind the Cult of the Absolute, and join it if only to take control of the whole organization. It's quite simple, but it also requires some gameplay advantages to make this path more convincing. For example the tadpole powers could only be unlocked by joining them. That could make up for losing out on companions. In fact, they could make a proper evil path with minimal story changes, just by shifting some of the rewards and powers you get on the normal playthrough. Almost everything is already there. The problem is that they don't dare to keep anything of great value (like the tadpole powers) outside the "default" path.

They could have the best writers in the world, but with EA's mismanagement they won't have great results. I suggest you familiarise yourself with EA's history of ruining studios they acquired. A lot of Bioware employees left because they were sick of unrealistic deadlines and other forms of pressure. They also fired the writers that created some of the best received characters and stories some time ago.


I believe that are several types of evil characters:

1. Selfish, pragmatic, cunning and charismatic evil - often a leader type of character who manages to gather a following of like-minded individuals who bought into their vision of the world and want to support them. They can also be acting completely independently or as a duet with their romantic partner. They mostly care about their own needs and ambitions, they use underhanded methods to achieve their goals, form tactical alliances, don't care much for morality, and want to make their life/lives as best as possible.

2. Chaotic, unpredictable, murderous evil - someone who indulges in carnage, discord and disorder, they might not even have a specific goal in mind or change their goals frequently on a whim. They are impulsive, revel in madness, the more fireworks, blood and death the more enjoyable it is for them. They might consider killing as their artwork and will only briefly ally themselves with someone else if it's needed for their survival or they intend to backstab the other party.

3. Primal, destructive evil - the type of evil that does everything with one goal in mind - total annihilation and desolation. They might use the tactics of the other evil archetypes to further their ultimate goal but they won't cling to anything. They don't do it for their own enjoyment, they don't care about their own future, they only want the void to envelop everything and for life to cease to exist.

Halsin doesn't do that - he sends them on the main road to Baldur's Gate. The Absolute leads the tieflings into the shadowlands. The absolute mind controls Zevlor, promising to restore his status as a Paladin and, enthralled by Daisy The Absolute he decides to take a shortcut. Then to surrender because all of his people would be saved.

You get a bit of this when you save him from the pod and bit more if you talk to his corpse after Orin kills him.

(off topic but it's more proof that Daisy was the absolute - his corpse is still in Daisy mode enjoying life down, down, down by the river)

Interesting. Thanks for the info/ I didn't get these revelations from Zevlor in my 2 PT's (but I also didn't talk to a dead Zevlor) But the normal road to Baldur's Gate, the risen road, was blocked beyond the tollhouse. We knew that, so Halsin would also know that. When we get to the Githyanki patrol, we meet Ellyka. She wants to go to BG also, apparently by that way, but the bridge is destroyed by the dragon. Ellyka ends up dead in the creche Ylek, so she's also on the way to BG through a path that leads into the shadow cursed lands. It looks like this is the only way left to get from the grove to Baldur's gate.

At any rate, Halsin presses us to avoid the SCL at all cost. So he should have done the same with Zevlor and the tioeflings. Oh this story is flawed from so many sides. It seems hopeless to try to puzzle a consistent scenario together.

Nevertheless, in the end, for the victims who fell in the shadows . Was this not a more evil fate than being cut down by a goblin scimitar ? (Remember the Harper getting dragged in the shadows when we meet the patrol that shows the way to the inn ?) Evil/good are not black/white in the game. As it should be. Anyway, I think the "evil path" does have meaning in the game.

OT : I've played one "evil" (well, semi-evil path) as Durge. Destroyting the grove with Minthara and Last light inn after killing Isobel. But I refused Bhaal and saved the world, so all was good in the end. But anyway, this evil path turned out to be the only way for me to save Jaheira. After destroing Last Light Inn, I persuaded her I had nothing to do with it, and she went to my camp. In all the other runs, she gets herself killed attacking Moonrise towers.
So even for Jaheira (and consequently Minsk) the evil path turned out to be the good path.

@Ido58 About Jaheira, after meeting her in front of Moonrise you can ask her to accompany you instead of her harpers, that will add her to your control until you have dealt with Ketheric on the roof and helps a great deal in keeping her alive. I just mention it because I recently saw another post by someone who had the same problem.

Yes it was an more evil fate in the grand scheme Did you play BG2? Ever notice that the evil path has the better result for the citizens of Amn? Go the good path and the shadow thieves rule the city. Go the evil path and both guilds are destroyed and the Shadow Thieves are no longer on the council.

Not good for your soul of course . . .

Yes it was an more evil fate in the grand scheme Did you play BG2? Ever notice that the evil path has the better result for the citizens of Amn? Go the good path and the shadow thieves rule the city. Go the evil path and both guilds are destroyed and the Shadow Thieves are no longer on the council.

Not good for your soul of course . . .

You can do this. (well in a limited way.)

I didn't play BG2. I started BG1, but never got far into it. Somehow I couldn't "immerse".

I also forgot to mention Arabella's parents' fate in this evil/good grove discussion. Suppose you were given the choice between a goblin arrow or "the house of healing". What would you choose ?

Depends on how much you know. If you know that Arabella will be okay you might just choose house of healing despite the extra pain . . .

But, yes, despite the inevitable complaints from fans of evil playthroughs good players are punished in this story. Much more than any other BG game or spiritual successor

I have been a fan of BioWare since before the first Baldur's Gate game even released, and have had several discussions with Mr. Gaider in the past. And I am well aware that EA as a company is and has been very troubled. I despaired when the doctors sold their company to EA.

Still, Dragon Age Inquisition was a pretty good game, and, unlike you, I still have hope that the ship will be turned around by the talented and dedicated staff that they do still have.

I also have hope that Larian will continue to improve and repair some of their glaring mistakes with this game.

I think it is lame that the devs have gone out of their way to make Minthara recruitable as a good player. It would be better if she were only available when you make the decision to raid the Grove (losing Will and Karlach in the process). This would be a choice which has consequences.

It would also be cool if there were 1 or 2 other evil NPCs which could be recruited along the way. Perhaps in the Underdark or in the Shadow Lands.

It's also interesting how unattractive "good" is in some aspects in BG3, even though there's more content and it's better developed, but the "good" characters cause specific disgust and rejection in some places. The most obvious example is Minthara vs Halsin. You can get a smart and interesting drow companion or a dumb perverted druid, so after one playthrough I'm willing to raid the Grove, lose Will and Karlach just to be rewarded by not having Halsin in my camp. If I take Minthara "kindly", Halsin will not go anywhere anyway, I'll have to wait for Orin's mercy until the third act, and Minthara as a companion will reveal less, as we will not have a party of goblins.


Yes, it would be great, especially if these NPS were an alternative to Jaheira and Minsc (also for one pass bored worse than nowhere, while all the time, except for the fulfillment of their quests, hanging out in the camp). But it won't happen anymore - no new content is planned for BG3.

Evil in BG3 looked very attractive, especially against the background of local "good", but, in many ways, it remained unfinished and unrealized. They promise some "evil endings" and that's it.

I agree with this. Larian seems to have an issue with writing compelling "good characters". They avoid a lot of nuance and make it hard to empathize or relate to them. It's hard to explain, but it's strange.

Or ...
Halsin can tragically die in battle with Goblins, when few dozens of missaimed arrows hit him instead of enemies ... Astarion is sometimes soooooooo clumsy. >:]

They're kind of nasty... It's really hard to explain. Maybe their indifference and sneering remarks towards other companions when they are in trouble are just so contrasting to the classic understanding of a "good" character. Well, everything is clear with Halsin... I liked Jaheira and Minsc in BG2, but not now... And Astarion's "good" ending, of course. I really want to take the "evil" characters, first of all Astarion, and Mintara too, and just stand as a shield between them and the "good". And then, of course, not to solidarize with those "goodies" in any way. I've never wanted to roleplay an "evil" person as much as I did in BG3, it's a whole new experience for me. I feel like an idiot for choosing some of the "good" lines on the first playthrough, it's funny.


Ha, that's a great idea!