Originally Posted by ahania
Originally Posted by mayxd
Originally Posted by ahania
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.

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.

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.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]