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.
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.
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.
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.
