Larian Studios
I am not even sure how they would implement it but apart from maybe some story lines, playing a Cleric of say Moradin does not feel any different from a Cleric of Oghma or Lolth or anyone else. Again I am not sure how one could implement it but some gameplay differences would be nice tbh. Any thoughts?

One idea; Clerics of Lolth can shapeshift into spiders.
On max level prehaps ...
Once per long rest ...

But i cant quite feel like Lolth being that type od deity, who "rewards" her believers. laugh
I think Cleric spell selection should be much more focused based on deity. But that's more of a 5e thing than BG3 thing.
Lolth give special boons to matrons mothers. Such as a super sticky spider web to guard their house, an item that allow them to rez dead and track a living being, or simply send them one of their demon to do some dirty jobs. Albeit, all of hers boons usually have a hefty cost... like the life of a son, the murder of a disloyal house, and what not. It would be very interesting to implement ''bad deity interaction'', but you'd need pretty extreme behavior to match either Lolth or Cyric needs.

Also, if you disobey her, or lose her favor you're usually turned into a drider (eeeeks) or murdered by a rival priestess, unless you totally reject her which would result in the loss of cleric powers.

So yeah, very cool RP wise, but tedious to implement in the game. if we can turn to mindflayer at some point, it would already be quite something lol.

In the game, a cool example of the Lolth priestess interraction could be to have friendly spiders (such as the spider queen), or the ability to communicate with spider. And harming one of them would lose you Lolth favor, ultimately resulting in maybe the summoning of a yochlol to smite you . Maybe Lolth would appears and tell you that you disappointed her, killing so many of her spiders. Then you'd have the option to submit to her and become a drider (game over, maybe? ) , or to reject her and lose all of your cleric power. later in the game, some other god could approach you, for instance Cyric or Lathander, to offer you a new faith in exchange for a service to prove yourself worthy.
Animosity between priests of Selune vs. Shar is a pretty common result of interaction between the two, but I wish there was more Lathander vs. Shar material; after all, The Morninglord is all about optimism and hope while the Lady of Loss is all about despair and nihilism.
Originally Posted by Hachina
or to reject her and lose all of your cleric power. later in the game, some other god could approach you, for instance Cyric or Lathander, to offer you a new faith in exchange for a service to prove yourself worthy.
This is something i would love to see
Originally Posted by Hachina
Lolth give special boons to matrons mothers. Such as a super sticky spider web to guard their house, an item that allow them to rez dead and track a living being, or simply send them one of their demon to do some dirty jobs. Albeit, all of hers boons usually have a hefty cost... like the life of a son, the murder of a disloyal house, and what not. It would be very interesting to implement ''bad deity interaction'', but you'd need pretty extreme behavior to match either Lolth or Cyric needs.

Also, if you disobey her, or lose her favor you're usually turned into a drider (eeeeks) or murdered by a rival priestess, unless you totally reject her which would result in the loss of cleric powers.

So yeah, very cool RP wise, but tedious to implement in the game. if we can turn to mindflayer at some point, it would already be quite something lol.

In the game, a cool example of the Lolth priestess interraction could be to have friendly spiders (such as the spider queen), or the ability to communicate with spider. And harming one of them would lose you Lolth favor, ultimately resulting in maybe the summoning of a yochlol to smite you . Maybe Lolth would appears and tell you that you disappointed her, killing so many of her spiders. Then you'd have the option to submit to her and become a drider (game over, maybe? ) , or to reject her and lose all of your cleric power. later in the game, some other god could approach you, for instance Cyric or Lathander, to offer you a new faith in exchange for a service to prove yourself worthy.


I really like that Idea, but it could be hard to implement that for every deity. Still, it would make playing a cleric special.

About the spider: maybe then you could find out, If the matriarch is really the high Elf, whose notes we find
IIRC there was a prompt for my cleric to bless a guy in the burning inn but its been a while since ive played. Dont recall if it was just because I was a cleric or because of our gods matching but I liked the little nod smile

I do think its hard to make exceptions for every single god though. Thats going to be a huge undertaking and not all gods rewards their followers in the same manner...
The D&D rules used to be pretty clear on how clerics gain their powers. The alignment axes of good-evil and law-chaos create a sort of 2D map wherein each deity has a preferred range. If you stray too far from the sweet spot, your ability to cast spells, turn undead, etc. is supposed to diminish. In past BG series, the reputation score was used for some things, but was never really tied to cleric powers.
If I look on D&D5 rules (here in french), they should have at least :
- a different outfit (equivalent to Shadowheart chainmail and/or an armor like the flaming fist with a tabard which takes the symbol and the colors of the god/goddess)
- access to a limited number of spells defined by the deity's domain and level
- access to some special capacities according to the deity's domain and level

Specific interactions between clerics is cool but difficult to implement.
Limitations of powers due to actions not aligned also but lead to an approval system of the actions of the player. In multiplayer, it can become tricky.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I think Cleric spell selection should be much more focused based on deity. But that's more of a 5e thing than BG3 thing.
Wouldn't it be more domain based than diety and domains being deity based?
Originally Posted by Argyle
The D&D rules used to be pretty clear on how clerics gain their powers. The alignment axes of good-evil and law-chaos create a sort of 2D map wherein each deity has a preferred range. If you stray too far from the sweet spot, your ability to cast spells, turn undead, etc. is supposed to diminish. In past BG series, the reputation score was used for some things, but was never really tied to cleric powers.

The removal of alignment seems to screw up the good/evil law/chaos
I don't have the EA release ... there is no alignment? There are other ways to set up a mechanism that does the same basic thing, but overall, the D&D alignment map is a pretty good balance between simplicity and coverage of most of the cases. That's the thing with clerics, while the game companies are stuffing them with mage spells and fighter abilities to make them more desirable (I guess), little is being done to promote the cleric's relationship with divinity which is the real reason why the class exists in the first place. From a thematic point of view, the cleric should be one of the best characters to write! I thought the Jaheira dialogs in BG II were pretty well thought out, for example, with her internal conflict between druidic balance, the Harpers, and her own personal destiny.

So here is what I suggest: stop adding fighter and mage class abilities to the cleric class profile, and instead give them divine favors. If the cleric is doing a good job, then allow scaled levels of random divine intervention in the form of healing/regeneration boosts, combat bonuses, instant restoration of cast spells, a percentage for the identification of traps or cursed items, increased chance for favorable interactions with merchants, etc. That is all stuff that is in the game already, sort of like wild magic but based on the cleric's standing with their ethos. And of course, divine favor could turn into rebuke if the cleric falls too far from the path. Role play with a tangible effect.

And halos. I like halos, and who better than a cleric to have one once in a while when the divine favor is active?
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I think Cleric spell selection should be much more focused based on deity. But that's more of a 5e thing than BG3 thing.
Wouldn't it be more domain based than diety and domains being deity based?
The general spell selection all Clerics get is too big.

Clerics of Shar get spells like Guiding Bolt (radiance) and Daylight which thematically oppose their faith. Likewise, Clerics of Lathander get Inflict Wounds (necrotic) that directly oppose birth and life. All Clerics get Flame Strike, Hold Person, healing spells and random utility like Find Traps, regardless of faith.

They're not Wizards. All of their spell selection should fit their deity instead of getting a huge repertoire of all kinds of spells. While there could and should be spells that are universal for all faiths (Bless, Shield of Faith sort of thing), they should never be able use powers that are in direct conflict with their deity's portfolio.
This thread and these last few posts resonate with me. I don't think its unique to Clerics though. All spellcasting feels somehow divorced from the sources of the magics.

I don't get the impression that casting a Cleric spell or being a Priest with priestly magic comes from divine favor, or proselytizing or converting followers, demonstrating the power of the pantheon or anything like that.

But neither does it really feel like Arcane magic comes from studying ancient Wizards tomes or Bardic lore or whatever. We don't have Sorcerers yet, but I don't see it feeling like the magic there is coming from an innate resevoir or bloodline. The Warlock doesn't feel like their magic is coming from some pact or witches deal. Even though the game is set initially around a Druid grove, playing as a Druidic Priest also doesn't feel like the source of the magic one uses is in Nature.

The default spell lists might be different, but the vibe just feels the same regardless of which Class of caster we're using.

I know the OP is talking more about differentiation between the various Cleric types from one another (and for that I think every idea suggested so far would help) but on a more fundemental level they need to find ways to make playing one Class of caster look/sound/feel different from playing another Class of caster. I also see this issue in Pathfinder, so I don't think it's a uniquely Larian fail, but they're not exactly elevating the solutions either.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
This thread and these last few posts resonate with me. I don't thinks its unique to Clerics though. All spellcasting feels somehow divorced from the sources of the magics.

.

Totally agree. I think there are two reasons for this. 1) too much overlap in spells between classes and 2) not enough reaction about your class from your party.

But there is a 3rd reason…one that, if addressed, could really elevate the magic in game to something special. Each of these caster classes should have entirely different movements when they cast. A sorcerer should not need to yell an incantation like a wizard. A cleric should be calling on their deity. A druid should be channeling the forces of nature. Think about how different those could actually look. The concentration and precision of a wizard versus the flamboyant gestures of a sorcerer. The focused power of Selune versus the wild energy of nature. It would be cool if they differentiated these visually and with sound.


I hope this gets some treatment in game. I am looking forward to sorcerer more than any other class…and I want to cast with some pizazz, not like a reskinned Gale.
I mean right?!

I love the idea of different animated spellcasting gestures or somatic flair.

Another cool idea might be to use a different dead language for the verbal incantations.

Right now Latin is used for basically everything, but what if it was like Sanskrit for Wizards and Latin for Priests, Celtic for Druids? Or you know something, like that. Most users probably wouldn't register these subtle vocalization differences, since they're usually short phrases, but that might also have a cumulative differentiating effect.

Just little things like what Starblaireau suggested about using the regalia or sigils to distinguish one Cleric from Another. Or Argyle's idea with the halos.

Another way in would be through the actual story. I still remember on my first playthrough, I selected Warlock for the MC just to check it out, and I thought Raphael was class specific. That was just the coolest shit ever, until I played again as a Fighter and had the exact same Raphael scene play out. I think they could give class flavor if they approached lvl1 more like the old "Complete guide to [insert class X]" where in order to advance out of the prologue the player first has some kind of unique class specific scene-setter play out. I think the time to do that is when the worm is put in our eyes, before the Nautiloid. That'd be a great point to have like a priestly "Vision" occur that sort of sets the stage. Like memory flashbacks or something, that changes depending on ones chosen class.
*Inhales*
CASTER CHANTING!
*exhales*

Sorry.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I think Cleric spell selection should be much more focused based on deity. But that's more of a 5e thing than BG3 thing.
Wouldn't it be more domain based than diety and domains being deity based?
The general spell selection all Clerics get is too big.

Clerics of Shar get spells like Guiding Bolt (radiance) and Daylight which thematically oppose their faith. Likewise, Clerics of Lathander get Inflict Wounds (necrotic) that directly oppose birth and life. All Clerics get Flame Strike, Hold Person, healing spells and random utility like Find Traps, regardless of faith.

They're not Wizards. All of their spell selection should fit their deity instead of getting a huge repertoire of all kinds of spells. While there could and should be spells that are universal for all faiths (Bless, Shield of Faith sort of thing), they should never be able use powers that are in direct conflict with their deity's portfolio.

Deities are domain based, with the removal of the alignment system spells that used to use good/evil alignment get muddied. If this is true then most spells that are associated to good actions or evil actions will mean nothing. So yes, Lathander clerics will inflict wounds onto people. He's not a good cleric, he is just a cleric.

This is what happens when you remove a feature from a game and a class is tied to it, it breaks it in half.

Edit* ug i forgot why they are domain based, deities are tied to specific domains so worshiping said deity will bestow those domains to you. I think it was some wiki where one of the deities was taking over other deity domains lore wise. ya I'd have to look it up again, it was related to the death of the weave god.

Edit 2* reply to the last part of them not being wiz kids, if clerics still follow the same rules they get all the base spells that a cleric would receive and the domain features and spells of said deity they follow. Deities probably have there own restrictions like don't kill X hamsters per day and so on. So no they do get a good amount of spells like a Wiz kid, but the difference is they get them from a higher being instead of being a book worm along with casting from a idol.

Edit 3* replying to changing up features of the game so each casters seems different, I'd vote for idle animations and casting animations, like holding a idol, instrument, book, so on to put emphasis on the focus they are using. I'm presuming something like this will be coming but probably won't be touched till sorcerer or bard goes to EA.
In terms of Alignment: It has not been removed from the system or the world. It is still a very much present and acknowledged feature both in mechanics and in universe.

It has been moved to chapter 4 in the PHB - and is now covered and recorded in the section dealing with role-play aesthetic and character, background and personality, rather than hard statistical features, but it's very much still there.

5e is more about permissiveness and consequences, than it is about restrictions. Your clerical domains give you bonuses, rather than unlocking things that you'd otherwise be barred from. Light domain, for example, the purview of many of our fire and sun deities, gets access to *Extra* spells that suite that theme, which other clerics of different domains don't get.

A cleric of a good god that follows their healing and life folio, CAN ask their deity for Inflict Wounds, certainly, and if they are in good grace with their Deity, the god may well grant it to them under the assumption that it is with good cause. If they then go on to abuse that trust, or use the spell in nefarious or unjustified ways, then there may well be consequences for that between them and their god... because Alignment is NOT gone. It's not mechanically mandated with a hard rule structure, but is instead placed into the flexible space that exists between players, their DM and the role-play space of the world... but it's absolutely a part of the world and the system.
hello Niara

This is talking about BG3 and removing the alignment system, it is gone Niara or it never existed. Pretty sure it was in a interview they talked about it, along with it mentioned some where else that they were moving away from the alignment system.

Originally Posted by Niara
5e is more about permissiveness and consequences, than it is about restrictions. Your clerical domains give you bonuses, rather than unlocking things that you'd otherwise be barred from. Light domain, for example, the purview of many of our fire and sun deities, gets access to *Extra* spells that suite that theme, which other clerics of different domains don't get.

A cleric of a good god that follows their healing and life folio, CAN ask their deity for Inflict Wounds, certainly, and if they are in good grace with their Deity, the god may well grant it to them under the assumption that it is with good cause. If they then go on to abuse that trust, or use the spell in nefarious or unjustified ways, then there may well be consequences for that between them and their god... because Alignment is NOT gone. It's not mechanically mandated with a hard rule structure, but is instead placed into the flexible space that exists between players, their DM and the role-play space of the world... but it's absolutely a part of the world and the system.

It was never restrictions, it was choice and what you describe is pretty much what I was saying.

Talking about removal of alignment actually reminds me of 3.5 books, Book of Exalted Deeds and vile of darkness. If I remember correctly there was a pacifist feature where you had restrictions to harming others but gained benefits from it. There was also scenario where you run into two succubus lovers, do you kill them because they are evil creatures or leave them be because they are a couple in love? The pacifist vs a normal cleric or the succ scenario always seemed interesting.

By this article https://www.dicebreaker.com/games/d...mprovements-racial-depictions-take-years

D&D is moving away from alignment based creatures, wonder what 6th edition will look like.
I dunno, older editions were big on restrictions. There were restrictions for just about everything.

Anyhow, I may have missed a thread of the conversation - when folks were talking about alignment, I read it as talking about it being removed from 5e, not about it being removed from the game, since, as you say, it was never in the game (at least not visibly) at all... so it wouldn't make much sense for anyone to be talking about removing it from BG3 specifically... so I felt the need to pop in and note that the common refrain about alignment being 'gone' from 5e, which I see from various sources more frequently than I care for, is quite markedly untrue ^.^ If I'm off-topic further than I realise, just ignore me!

Though I will add that any future edition that comes out where entities such as celestials are not inherently and innately good, capital 'g', and entities such as devils and demons are not inherently and innately evil, capital 'e', and these are no longer such potent absolute truths of their respective beings that they don't physically and tangibly cease to be celestials/devils/demons if they change enough to no longer be considered 'Good' or 'Evil' respectively.... it will not be a step forward or an improvement, it will just be a much blander, less interesting multiverse.
I do wonder if Baldur's Gate 3 is setting up this movement away from species and alignments. We already see drow and goblins shifting away from their main gods in Lloth and Maglubiyet (? idk how to spell that lmao) and the end of the game could involve divorcing the pantheon entirely from specific races. Meaning gods and their worshippers would be bound only by ideology instead.

Personally, anything that shifts us further away from fantasy eugenics is a win in my book. But I do hope they keep the core concept of alignments, even if the form changes. It's rather grown on me.

Edit: That said, if they make these changes and continue to make creatures like goblins the main antagonist forces that we merk in droves, well... I'm with Niara, then. That's just taking away a defining concept of the cosmology for a cosmetic change.
Originally Posted by Niara
I dunno, older editions were big on restrictions. There were restrictions for just about everything.

Anyhow, I may have missed a thread of the conversation - when folks were talking about alignment, I read it as talking about it being removed from 5e, not about it being removed from the game, since, as you say, it was never in the game (at least not visibly) at all... so it wouldn't make much sense for anyone to be talking about removing it from BG3 specifically... so I felt the need to pop in and note that the common refrain about alignment being 'gone' from 5e, which I see from various sources more frequently than I care for, is quite markedly untrue ^.^ If I'm off-topic further than I realise, just ignore me!

Though I will add that any future edition that comes out where entities such as celestials are not inherently and innately good, capital 'g', and entities such as devils and demons are not inherently and innately evil, capital 'e', and these are no longer such potent absolute truths of their respective beings that they don't physically and tangibly cease to be celestials/devils/demons if they change enough to no longer be considered 'Good' or 'Evil' respectively.... it will not be a step forward or an improvement, it will just be a much blander, less interesting multiverse.

You got a example? If not I'm just going to guess its to each there own.

Gotcha, the thread started off as clerics in the game feeling the same, 1varangian started talking about spells being related to deities and having to much spells period. I mentioned they were actually related to domains associated with deities. So ya we started branching towards 5e. I could see where the confusion is coming from and it could of been just my typing also, no big Niara.


Ya I agree, curious to see if they go full stupid though.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Gotcha, the thread started off as clerics in the game feeling the same, 1varangian started talking about spells being related to deities and having to much spells period. I mentioned they were actually related to domains associated with deities.

Gods still have portfolios, though, don't they? You could categorize these portfolios under alignment but they're simply never talked about as such.
Originally Posted by fallenj
You got a example? If not I'm just going to guess its to each there own.

I'll spoiler this, because it's a little bit tangential but, off the top of my head, restrictions that I'm glade are gone or eased up (this will be using my 3.5 knowledge only, and it may be spotty in places):


Barbs are Required to be illiterate, unless they waste extra skill points (which they have precious few of compare dot other classes) on it.

Barb and Bard both are restricted from any lawful alignment, and are restricted from levelling up if they drift into a lawful alignment (this is true of any other alignment restriction mentioned).

Clerics are alignment restricted based on their deity, and domain restricted based on their alignment... although in this particular case I will make note that, contrary to what many seem to say, clerics in 3.5 were not actually required to worship a specific deity at all, and if they did not could pick their alignment freely... and amusingly, if you didn't worship a particular god, there was no lock-out for drifting, so a non-deity cleric would never go ex-cleric.

Druids were locked to at least one Neutral axis point - could be either, but they had to maintain at least one.

Monks had to be lawful, Paladins had to be Lawful Good

Wizards could only choose to specialise in particular school if they accepted being hard locked out of two other schools of magic (My brain is saying there's something kooky with divination though... like it got preferential treatment for some arbitrary and unjustified reason... like, only locked out one school, and could not, itself, be locked out...)

You were soft-restricted in multiclassing by favoured classes based on race – if you were, say, a level 15 halfling fighter, you couldn't multiclass into ranger without having to take a heavy XP penalty... because halflings favoured rogue. Everyone but Human, I think, had a favoured class, which meant that everyone but human would take an xp penalty for multiclassing if they didn't pick their racial favourite class, or start with it (there's more to the rule than that, but I'm being brief).

You were restricted on what languages you could learn or know, based on your race; You're a halfling, so it doesn't matter that you grew up in the stacks of Candlekeep, have an 18 Int at level 1 and are setting out to see the world as a Bard, knower of stories in dozens of dialects... you CANNOT know Draconic, Sylvan, Giant and Infernal as your bonus languages... you just can't, full stop... nope, you're a halfling so your bonus languages are: Dwarven, Elven, Gnomish, Goblin, and Orc. Fun.

A whole bunch of skill were only allowed to be attempted at all if you had put ranks in them... and there were skills in place the required checking for many minute and discrete things to the extent that you couldn't possibly afford to spend points in all of them... So good luck to your 9 strength elven dex fighter, who, because they didn't want to waste skill ranks specifically on the 'swim' skill, because they only had so many points to spend, and needed to put them into actually combat-relative ones like tumble... now has to accept the fact that they will drown if they are dropped in the middle of a calm, placid lake on a sunny, still day, because they still have to check to swim out, and their take-10 is a failure.


Those are what come to mind immediately...
jeez ya those are restrictions, you got me on that, forgot about all of those.
I really hope we get some domains from XGtE. If I could play a forge cleric of Moradin, I'd be a happy man. Life domain is great as well, but it doesn't have the same thematic dwarven punch.
Just the ability to make the armors look a little different in character creation would be great.
Originally Posted by fallenj
jeez ya those are restrictions, you got me on that, forgot about all of those.

Yeah... Previous editions where big on restrictions. No such thing as a neutral or evil paladin. Lawful good is the only way to go. The choices you get as a paladin in kingmaker screwed you if you didn't use the crappy lawful good choice and made you lose your powers. They had to slap a bandaid to soft fix it by adding in scrolls of atonement. I think back on 1e & 2e you could only be good aligned if you wanted to be a ranger.

5e fix that by leaving that up to your subclass. As for cleric you get abilities based on your domain that you picked along with bonus spells. Like the Arcana Domain gives you access to some of the Wizard spells with use of your wisdom modifier.
ARRRGH I hope they will include Death Domain!!!!!
Originally Posted by Alealexi
Originally Posted by fallenj
jeez ya those are restrictions, you got me on that, forgot about all of those.

Yeah... Previous editions where big on restrictions. No such thing as a neutral or evil paladin. Lawful good is the only way to go. The choices you get as a paladin in kingmaker screwed you if you didn't use the crappy lawful good choice and made you lose your powers. They had to slap a bandaid to soft fix it by adding in scrolls of atonement. I think back on 1e & 2e you could only be good aligned if you wanted to be a ranger.

5e fix that by leaving that up to your subclass. As for cleric you get abilities based on your domain that you picked along with bonus spells. Like the Arcana Domain gives you access to some of the Wizard spells with use of your wisdom modifier.
5th ed doesent have much restrictions at all honestly. Paladins can still lose their powers but how is kind of left up to the DM. That said the class itself does say that at page 86 that a Paladin who breaks his bow willingly and does not seak repentance could lose his class benefits or have to serve pentance somehow. Its left up to the DM though like alot of things are in DND.

Clerics domain spells are nice in that they are often spells that clerics normally dont have acces to. A light cleric can cast fireball for example and a tempest domain can cast lighnting bolt. Not huge things in itself but just small things that just denote themselves to be slightly different from clerics devoted to another domain.

Imho the channel divinity features are a bigger difference between clerics but that alone is also a small thing to differentiate clerics from eachother.

Aside from maybe a visual change by giving you stylized armor or something im not sure what they could alter. I dont think WOTC will want them to change class features smirk
You could probably make a full game devoted entirely to clerical schisms and still not do FR religions justice, there is so much nuance and depth to dig into. It would be very hard to tailor the dialogue to account for the verisimilitude of religious ideas. Maybe it’s better to let the player head canon the religious ideas that gives rise to a specific response.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Does anyone else feel Clerics should be more differentiated? - 16/10/21 12:17 AM
I’ve played clerics exclusively for some reason in this game of different faiths and I can’t say there is much difference between them. I get the option to say a prayer now and then, but I agree there could be more faith-based actions. I also wish for a few more gods, or that there should be comments based on the core values of the religion.

Such as a cleric Elistraee having something to sat about slaves and helping drow etc.

I’m not overly fond of the Forgotten Realms deity choices overall though
I do hope that the deity choice has much more roleplaying focus down the line. Clerics (and Paladins) are some of the most roleplay-heavy classes on Tabletop, IMO because their lives revolve around service to a god(dess). So more unique dialogue options for them would be great for them. A lot of the god-specific dialogue options right now are generic ones that are somewhat disguised unfortunately-what used to have the 'evil cleric' tags now might have [SHAR] or [LOLTH] for example, without actually having any unique dialogue or response involved. I really enjoy it when I see that the game remembers that I'm a cleric of X or Y deity but there aren't a whole lot of places in the game where I noticed it's impact. You'll see more reactivity playing a Cleric of Shar or Selune as far as I have seen, at least. The best experience so far I have had is to do a Lolth-worshiping drow cleric, but even then almost all of the Lolth-related dialogue options came from the Lolthsworn tag, not from being a cleric,-one place I noticed a difference was with the Eilistraeen sword you can acquire in the underdark. You could identify it as being part of a ritual of a heretical faith and draw Lolth's wrath by choosing to go through with it anyway. Although I'm not sure if the second part was due to my status as a cleric or a lolthsworn drow, it did feel like my background as a cleric of a specific deity was recognized and relevant.
I'd like to see more like that in the future. For example, Helm was a pretty big deity in Elturel IIRC, but there's basically no real helm-specific content in the grove or relating to the Tieflings atm, which is a shame.
© Larian Studios forums