Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Can i as a old dnd gamer enjoy bg3?

Well, I accept that there is a certain amount of subjectivity to it. By my standards of what qualifies as a "good" playthrough, BG3 falls way short. But when it comes to the DU, it is as far as I am concerned objectively impossible for such a thing as a "good" DU playthrough. By definition, being the DU equals being evil.

I’m on record as wanting the ending for a good (or at least selfless) character to be just a little less bleak, but that’s a long way from feeling that the game is targeted specifically at evil protagonists. If we look at the game as a whole, there are tons of satisfying and genuinely moving moments for a good character. I’ve just completed Act 2 for the third time and the gratitude of the tieflings for saving them, Shadowheart’s reclamation of her heritage and the healing of the shadow-cursed lands I think are all lovely rewards for virtue. And there are moments small and large throughout the game that budding heroes are more likely to come across, from the dance of the myconids to Astarion coming to terms with his past and rejecting what it could have made him into. That is, while the “good” playthrough may be a story of sacrifice, I think the game also does a decent job of showing how the good protagonist leaves the world a better place.

As to whether a Durge playthrough is by definition evil, I guess that depends on questions both of instinct vs action and personal identity and responsibility for a past one no longer remembers. The Durge story is the BG3 equivalent of the first games’ protagonist who also struggled with a violent nature even when good, though there are perhaps also commonalities with Revan from KotOR. I guess if one wants an uncomplicated, unconflicted good character then none of those stories would be one’s cup of tea.

Imo the dark urge story falls very short whether you play evil or good. Unfortunately the urges are treated the same way as tadpoles. That is, only the binary choice at the end of the questline matters, regardless of whether your character resisted or gave into the urges along the way. The lacking companion reactivity does not help the writing.

I quite agree with RQ. The Astarion story has different outcomes depending on your choices, but the one I ended up with was very satisfying from a "good" point of view. That was great drama, well above what one might expect from a typical D&D adventure. I have not played the Dark Urge and I probably never will ... not my kind of thing.

And by the way, the new mod manager does allow some great options. I am using the Greater Trickster mod for my cleric of Tymora (coin on edge!), and it provides just the right skill set without being overpowered. It's much better than the original Trickery domain.

You don't believe in second chances?

I think I do understand what you mean though in terms of there being no "good" equivalent to the Durge character. Every origin character in the game has some skeletons in the closet.

i can agree the DU defaults to being evil and i like that leaning into the 'kill, rape, burn!' of its nature unlocks a pure evil finish because that encourages a dail it back on the next play

imo the DU romance is easy the best written storyline of the game with all the others being "do this and i'll bed you" the DU is the only one that they [your romance] gets to save you from your shit as much as you help them

Fully agree.

On the other hand, if you don't have a romance going, the writing shows its weakness again. Instead of a romance partner the character with highest approval is cast in a certain scene. And since approval is only a metric of how much the companion likes my character, but does not reflect whether my character likes them... Well, that scene just felt silly.

By comparison, nowhere in my Gale origin run did I feel that I need to romance a companion in order for the story to work.

On a side note, you can lean into evil all you want, and still change your mind last minute in the dark urge quest line, and you will get treated as a hero afterwards. Everyone collectively forgets what happened before. Imo Shadowheart's origin story handles the same concept much better.

Thanks, @The Red Queen! This is definitely something for me to hold on to as a positive.


This is how I tend to see almost every "choice" in BG3, and hence why I tend to reject the claim that the game is strong on choice. As I have described it in the past, I believe BG3 gives players the *illusion* of choice, but where in reality most of your choices and actions don't really matter, and only a single critical decision, usually at the very end, matters.

Again, this^

I see this as exactly Larian rewarding players for playing evil, by saying to them: Don't worry. There won't be any *real* consequences for doing all manner of evil things (including eating the tadpoles). In the end, you just have to do one thing, and all of the past is forgiven and forgotten and you get to be acclaimed as the "hero." That is utter b.s.

I will rephrase my question.

I enjoyed the following RPGs: dragon age origins, dragon age 2, baldurs gate 1, baldurs gate 2, icewind dale 1, pathfinder: kingmaker and wotr, tyranny, fallout 1, fallout 2, arcanum, Colony Ship, Black Geyser, kotor1&2, jade empire.

Rpgs that am neutral about: Neverwinter nights 1, Neverwinter nights 2, Pillars of eternity 1&2, Encased, divinity dragon commander, divinity original sin 1&2, gamedec, greedfall, technomancer.

Game i didn't like ( not for me): planescape: torment, nwn 2: mask of the betrayer, dragon age: inquisition, skyrim ( too much fixing with mods to make it viable).

I have nothing against turn base combat overall since i love civilisation since the first game.
My gripe with turn base combat when it start to drag for too long.
I had this experience within divinity original sin 1 & 2.
I want to get into bg3 but this is my biggest barrier to entry when it comes to it.

No clue, sorry.

BG3 combat doesnt seem slower to me than BG1 or BG2 combat.

I sometimes required half an hour and more for certain BG2 encounters though.

The turn-based combat pace is OK for most of the encounters in BG III, with one notable exception that almost made me lose my mind - the poltergeists in Jannath's house. It is a very unique combat and I can see what Larian was trying to do there, but you'd better have something else to do like maybe folding laundry while those Spirits of Molasses are taking their turns.

I just did that one and I agree that it's annoying.

In general though the advantage of RTwP is that it lets you plow through hordes of mooks. The problem with RTwP is that the devs throw hordes of mooks at you. Turn based does boss fights (and mini-boss fights) better than RTwP.

Honestly, cutting down on the chaf filler fights and leaning into fewer (but more interesting) fights is a good thing IMO.

Could you elaborate on this.
I heard this many times that every encounter has a purpose in bg3.
That this mean that it is hand crafted, scripted or related to task or quest.
I played so many isometric RPGs that have tons of mobs that no purpose of being there; there are just there to prolong the gameplay like in icewind dale, nwn OC or many encounters in wotr.


I kinda have to disagree. I played wasteland 2 and wasteland 3. Combat was fun in the beginning but after time passed combat started to drag on and on. Same goes with the encounter in D:OS 2; it felt like there were enemies around every corner.

When RTwp games does this is acceptable since you can pass easily through it. When turn based games does it, it is horrible aka games like that are not enjoyable.