Larian Studios
Posted By: Eddiar Did anyone genuinely enjoy the "Evil" Route? - 24/10/20 05:28 PM
Spoilers obviously but I really wanted to give it a try but it is such a chore to go through.

Literally nothing incentivizes me to do evil things... well besides doing evil just for being evil. If anything I am penalized for going down that path even though I should probably be incentivized more to be evil rather than good.
So if I am good I know that all the tieflings I help will be found in Baldur's Gate so my good actions will have longterm benefit.
Apparently if I help Mol I would also have the new thieves' guild as allies? Just so many characters and potential plotlines for Act 2 and 3 that I anticipate in seeing them resolved in the next acts.

There is also the underdark issue where the refugee fungal king wants me to betray my current employer for "rewards"... buddy I am already getting rewards, why should I clear a WHOLE city of friendlies? There are also many unrelated NPCs that will give me quests and show me interesting interactions that I would probably have to kill too. Why? Why should I do that?

It just seems to me the only people that would go down the Evil path are those that are somewhat masochistic and also psychotic. Only the insane would do bad things because it makes them feel good.
Larian needs to incentivize me to be evil.

Here are some potential ideas.
1) Give me Sazza as a companion... well more like a subservient underling. I am a True Soul afterall.
2) Give me Minthara as a companion, maybe I can bend her to my allegiance rather than the Absolute's down the road.
3) Give me a Goblin Horn to summon a goblin raiding party to aid me in difficult fights.
4) Give me thralls and minions of true soul. Like the two siblings I meet on the road, they could be interesting characters to learn more about. And who knows maybe to torment or reward as I see fit.
5) Give me the option of not killing the refugees and druids in a massive massacre. Weren't there talk of slave traders in Goblin Fortress? Give me choices! Maybe certain characters can be spared and sold, Why should I kill Mol and her buddies when I can just spare them and have them work for me!

There are a lot of options.
Maybe the evil playthrough can impact my camp look as well. It would become more savage looking, maybe I can hire Drow and Ogre merceneries. Have evil pillage and conquest questlines... something!
Honestly burning the orphanage just because it makes me so edgy is not that attractive of a choice.

Anyway that's my 2cents. I did not find the evil play through interesting at all.

Can only agree.
Evil route is terrible. I don't get how could Larian actually recommend players to try it in its current state. Either they are planning on making heavy changes, or they are completely oblivious to how terrible their writing could be sometimes
It reminds me of those memes making fun of evil D&D gameplays.

DM: "You meet the mayor, he has a quest for you"
Edgy Mc Edgidson: "I kill the mayor and make his family tell me where the gold is."
DM: *sigh "There was no gold and you just ruined this campaign"
Edgy Mc Edgidson: "Eviiiiiiiil!!!!"
Originally Posted by Eddiar
It reminds me of those memes making fun of evil D&D gameplays.

DM: "You meet the mayor, he has a quest for you"
Edgy Mc Edgidson: "I kill the mayor and make his family tell me where the gold is."
DM: *sigh "There was no gold and you just ruined this campaign"
Edgy Mc Edgidson: "Eviiiiiiiil!!!!"

In that regard I guess it captures the spirit of the source material lol
Originally Posted by Eddiar

Literally nothing incentivizes me to do evil things... well besides doing evil just for being evil. If anything I am penalized for going down that path even though I should probably be incentivized more to be evil rather than good.


The evil path should not be the "goblin path" and since they all betray you it is hard to say if it is even in its current state. The Absolute needs more missionaries like Eodwin and his novices.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
It reminds me of those memes making fun of evil D&D gameplays.

DM: "You meet the mayor, he has a quest for you"
Edgy Mc Edgidson: "I kill the mayor and make his family tell me where the gold is."
DM: *sigh "There was no gold and you just ruined this campaign"
Edgy Mc Edgidson: "Eviiiiiiiil!!!!"


Physically cringed when I read this. I want to avoid being cynical but I worry Larian has this kind of player in mind when designing the "evil" choices. The kind that keeps asking if they can stab or rob so and such person when the DM clearly has a plan for them.

Originally Posted by Abits

In that regard I guess it captures the spirit of the source material lol


You mean autism?

I played evil (female Drow from the Lolth culture), but not insane. So all-in-all, there is not much I would do differently from my future combative good character.

* Hints about what is the Absolute, or even just the basic obvious Mind Flayer relation in your own brain, means that a sane evil character will certainly never help the Absolute! You would need 7 or lower Intelligence and Wisdom, or be insane, to join the Absolute. Most evil characters do not want to be tools or subservient puppets. Your evil companions (Laezel and Shadowheart) have their good reasons to fight Absolute pawns with all they have got.

As a Drow, whether I serve Lolth sincerely or not, any Drow controlled by the Absolute will die ... If I become an Absolute tool, I would expect others to give me a quick death.

* Halsin is better help than that loony shadow druid (she is a rather petty evil). (And, as a female Drow, I found the Tiefling girl stealing the statue an awesome and cunning kid!)

* I have nothing against the Tieflings and I would rather slaughter the goblins that are pawns of the Absolute. I don't need to help the Tieflings either, but not much point in making random enemies: what is to gain? Everything to gain destroying Absolute nutcases (or victims really, as I believe them to be basically controlled).

So other than a few side quests and extra violence, my sane evil characters will not do much differently than any violent good character. Playing a non-violent good though would be a different playthrough.

EDIT : this may come as a surprise, but I am not criticizing. Just the rationale of my somewhat evil, but not stupid, Drow. I do not mind how it is.
Originally Posted by Baraz
I played evil (female Drow from the Lolth culture), but not insane. So all-in-all, there is not much I would do differently from my future combative good character.

* Hints about what is the Absolute, or even just the basic obvious Mind Flayer relation in your own brain, means that a sane evil character will certainly never help the Absolute! You would need 7 or lower Intelligence and Wisdom, or be insane, to join the Absolute. Most evil characters do not want to be tools or subservient puppets. Your evil companions (Laezel and Shadowheart) have their good reasons to fight Absolute pawns with all they have got.

As a Drow, whether I serve Lolth sincerely or not, any Drow controlled by the Absolute will die ... If I become an Absolute tool, I would expect others to give me a quick death.

* Halsin is better help than that loony shadow druid (she is a rather petty evil).

* I have nothing against the Tieflings and I would rather slaughter the goblins that are pawns of the Absolute. I don't need to help the Tieflings either, but not much point in making random enemies: what is to gain? Everything to gain destroying Absolute nutcases.

So other than a few side quests and extra violence, my sane evil characters will not do much differently than any violent good character. Playing a non-violent good though would be a different playthrough.


THIS. You should add this list to the feedback compendium, it sums up the problems with the evil path nicely.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
So if I am good I know that all the tieflings I help will be found in Baldur's Gate so my good actions will have longterm benefit.
Apparently if I help Mol I would also have the new thieves' guild as allies? Just so many characters and potential plotlines for Act 2 and 3 that I anticipate in seeing them resolved in the next acts.


There are evil characters you can become friend with who will show up in Baldur's Gate in the EA. Now that "clueless" goody-two-shoes also become friend with them is their problems. And how is getting a "thieves guild" as allies something a good aligned character would want? Some good aligned quest resolution will also bite you in the ass later. There is 3 quests in the EA where the apparent good action is actually helping evil already.

As for the rest, I'm sensing a pattern. Why are so many people complaining the only "evil path" in the EA is siding with the goblins in an optional quest and then asking for minions for their evil characters as an improvement?

The only none-optional quest in the EA is "removing the tadpole" and the only thing you need to finish the part available in the EA is Haslin's journal or talking to his corpse. You don't need to resolve the goblins vs Grove for that. There is also at least 4 ways to resolve goblins vs Grove that I found so far (one is a bit buggy and could use more option than it does right). I need to check out a 5th today. Only one is considered good...
Used spoiler tag just encase.
I poked around with a racist Wood Elf Ranger that hated races from other planes. I started working on the first small town/village. Was purging it till I found out the druids that supposedly wanted nothing to do with the Tieflings instantly went hostile when I killed the characters they were pushing away at the gate.


Kind of ruined the whole thing and deleted the character.
So coming from someone, who at one point was a very big fan of the Drizzt Novels, and well diverse into DnD Drow culture (under dark), i did have afew disappointments in the role i was really trying to delve into(evil loath sword Drow). i believe part of that was because they are driving the story into more of the evil route is the route of the Illithid. there is alot of respect shown for the drow from their slave races but it seems like you have to go the mind flayer route to be evil. and not be evil but cure yourself of the brain bug.
Posted By: vel Re: Did anyone genuinely enjoy the "Evil" Route? - 25/10/20 12:49 AM
This thread is spot on. An evil playthrough is not compelling, regardless of siding with the drow/Absolute or betraying them.
Larian are clearly aware, I've gave my feedback several times now. People in this thread have already made clear the issues I have.


https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/jd1qsq/highlights_from_kevin_vanords_stream/

"They want the evil route to be viable and more complicated than just "I'm evil""

It's pretty unsatisfying presently.
I always want to play evil characters, because I really find the '' evil Sorceress '' thing to be really compelling.
And then... I play the game and I can't bring myself to lol.
I always feel terrible about it xD.

I definitely think that an issue in RPG's in general tho is that it's often just '' evil for the sake of evil ''.
I think that there is an inbetween that is more like a scoundrel, the Rogue which I played actually did have a fair bit of those choices but few were story related. Mostly it was just '' what's in it for me? ''.
Originally Posted by Eddiar

Larian needs to incentivize me to be evil.

Here are some potential ideas.
1) Give me Sazza as a companion... well more like a subservient underling. I am a True Soul afterall.
2) Give me Minthara as a companion, maybe I can bend her to my allegiance rather than the Absolute's down the road.
3) Give me a Goblin Horn to summon a goblin raiding party to aid me in difficult fights.
4) Give me thralls and minions of true soul. Like the two siblings I meet on the road, they could be interesting characters to learn more about. And who knows maybe to torment or reward as I see fit.
5) Give me the option of not killing the refugees and druids in a massive massacre. Weren't there talk of slave traders in Goblin Fortress? Give me choices! Maybe certain characters can be spared and sold, Why should I kill Mol and her buddies when I can just spare them and have them work for me!

There are a lot of options.
Maybe the evil playthrough can impact my camp look as well. It would become more savage looking, maybe I can hire Drow and Ogre merceneries. Have evil pillage and conquest questlines... something!
Honestly burning the orphanage just because it makes me so edgy is not that attractive of a choice.

+1, You are totally right; I think this is precisely why they wanted us to play evil. So feedback like this can be given in regards to that content. I feel like you nailed it.
I liked my kingmaker evil sorceress playthrough. It was fun because sometimes you would get profits and sometimes your deeds would come back to bite you in the ass. Also the way your evil advisors dealt with problems was frequently hilarious. Far better than bg2 for evil I think, i tried another playthrough a few months ago there and gave up after lots of false choices and things that should be possible to do but weren't (for all the posts that I read around here about BG3, BG2 is really bad for non hero characters imo). People who are playing the beta are saying that Wrath of the Righteous is even better for evil characters, I hope that is so smile
Doing an "evil" playthrough atm and honestly you really do have to actively seek it out and commit to it with zero incentives. The Absolute cult is for all purposes a group of people that have been enslaved and don't realize it not to mention they'll stab you too. It also doesn't help that none of your companions really fall into the evil path. None of them make taking the evil path fun nor do any of them really rationalize doing bad things. That's the biggest issue honestly, if you're just running around being evil for the sake of evil and doing it by yourself it's a pretty limited path.
For good, you have active allies. Evil is missing that completely. Your one potential alliance is completely cut off right after a victory too which sucked all the air out of it for me. I don't care if it's the Absolute cult or not, but give me minions. If you want to make it really interesting, let me replace the Absolute and take over the cult entirely. Kind of like a not sucky Dark Phoenix angle where you go all in on the tadpole link and powers but that means by all rights you're irrevocably linked to it and have to abandon the removal quest. Instead you have to combat it and outwit it for whatever the force is that's arresting the change process.

Another take on evil is that it's no different from a good person. Evil is good in its own eyes. Even when it's undeniably wicked and cruel it's in the service of some goal. Neutral Evil on the axis is hardest to represent. It's the truly sociopathic predator type in which case you need to create a pretense for it to make it work in a game. The scenario I described in the above paragraph might be enough for it, but it might need something extra.
Originally Posted by Baraz
I played evil (female Drow from the Lolth culture), but not insane. So all-in-all, there is not much I would do differently from my future combative good character.

* Hints about what is the Absolute, or even just the basic obvious Mind Flayer relation in your own brain, means that a sane evil character will certainly never help the Absolute! You would need 7 or lower Intelligence and Wisdom, or be insane, to join the Absolute. Most evil characters do not want to be tools or subservient puppets. Your evil companions (Laezel and Shadowheart) have their good reasons to fight Absolute pawns with all they have got.

As a Drow, whether I serve Lolth sincerely or not, any Drow controlled by the Absolute will die ... If I become an Absolute tool, I would expect others to give me a quick death.

* Halsin is better help than that loony shadow druid (she is a rather petty evil). (And, as a female Drow, I found the Tiefling girl stealing the statue an awesome and cunning kid!)

* I have nothing against the Tieflings and I would rather slaughter the goblins that are pawns of the Absolute. I don't need to help the Tieflings either, but not much point in making random enemies: what is to gain? Everything to gain destroying Absolute nutcases (or victims really, as I believe them to be basically controlled).

So other than a few side quests and extra violence, my sane evil characters will not do much differently than any violent good character. Playing a non-violent good though would be a different playthrough.

EDIT : this may come as a surprise, but I am not criticizing. Just the rationale of my somewhat evil, but not stupid, Drow. I do not mind how it is.

Can agree with a lot of this.


Current evil plays seem rather lacking. I don't play evil as murderhobo and it kind of felt like this is the encouraged path which is sad. It could be that there is better content for it later on that we won't see in Act 1 but this is not guaranteed, hopefully they can get enough feedback and change things somewhat.

How I played two characters:
For my favourite evil character I played so far, I actually saved Halsin because logically he was the best option at that time to deal with the tadpole. He would die later if useless. Kagha and her friends died because they were near enough to Nettie that they would have discovered her body. Didn't care about the tieflings (who lived because I never spoke to Kagha, only killed her), but at least they were respectful enough. Don't trust this Absolute stuff, so the goblins and Minthara died. Don't make bargains with devils so refused Raphael's "help". Killed Ethel for obvious reasons, game wouldn't let me kill Mayrina for some reason (didn't like how she spoke to me). Didn't care about Volo being a prisoner so never spoke to him or saved him. Let Omeluum try his method but he may find a knife at his back when the opportunity presents itself since he made the damn crap stronger. Had no issue with Myconids since they are not in the way and they could be useful later, (also after accidentally stumbling across Baelen who saved himself I found out how awesome Derryth Bonecloak is and really don't want to piss her off. laugh ).

The other evil character I haven't finished the current content with yet sided with Minthara partially due to conditioning and also because of the promise of power with the Absolute. Tieflings and druids had already fought so it didn't matter about giving away the location. Sees Minthara as an ally that can be manipulated whenever necessary after she showed her weakness in the camp scene. This one would want to use the tadpole if possible and not get rid of it unless necessary. Probably will refuse Omeluum's help in case he is trying to manipulate the tadpole into doing what it is supposed to be doing.

I would play with another character and maybe only accept Raphael's help but we don't have any more content with him involved to properly test.

The main issue I have about the evil path is the fact the goblins turn against you once you helped Minthara destroy the grove. You should be viewed as their champion rather. And yes, at least, give us Minthara as companion.

Another issue is with the hag. If you are so evil, there should be a way to conclude a pact with her of some sort so she can provide help later on in the campaign. I would love to get some redcaps reinforcements like the 3 ogres provide.

Of course, there should be some betrayal between evil characters. But it's too much in our face at the moment.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Literally nothing incentivizes me to do evil things... well besides doing evil just for being evil. If anything I am penalized for going down that path even though I should probably be incentivized more to be evil rather than good.

First of all, your character should not know what benefits will something gives him to side with anyone ... you can just presume. :P
I completely understand the urge of going the most profitable route ... on the other hand, those should not allways be the right attitude. wink

Also ... yes, you may end up with empty hands, and head full of regrets ...
The question is: Is that bad thing? laugh
You could choose different path, but you choosed this one, and you choosed poorly.
For myself on the contrary, once you get screewed with evil, once you get screewed with good options (for example ungreatfull victim in Hag's house).

As for goblins ... you sided with selfish and toxic beings ... and then acting selfish and toxic ... what else you expected? laugh That seem acurate and i honestly like it that way. wink

Originally Posted by Eddiar
So if I am good I know that all the tieflings I help will be found in Baldur's Gate so my good actions will have longterm benefit.
Apparently if I help Mol I would also have the new thieves' guild as allies? Just so many characters and potential plotlines for Act 2 and 3 that I anticipate in seeing them resolved in the next acts.

Well ... those are all just presumption ...
There is also that option that those ungreatfull bastards will act like they dont know you. wink
Or maybe they will know you, will thank you ... and that will be all. Simmilar to Astarion, when he try to drink your blood: "I allready apologized, what more do you want?" Only switch the word apology with thanks.

After all, they do have smith/vendor ... but that bastard dont even give you a small discount after you put your life in danger and wipe out whole camp of goblins, so they have "safer road to Baldur's Gate". -_- They didnt even bother to wait for you with celebration. laugh And parrents of that dead girl are still mad at you, bcs you were the one who told them that someone else did kill their child, even if you tell them sensitively and with compassion.
Zevlor dances for you, and that bard wish to create song about you ... and that is it!
I dont feel much rewarded for being a good guy here either. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
There is also the underdark issue where the refugee fungal king wants me to betray my current employer for "rewards"... buddy I am already getting rewards, why should I clear a WHOLE city of friendlies?

Well ... it also depends on how you seen them ...
This myconid colony may seem like city of friendlies ... but are they?
They seem more like "non-hostile, yet" wich certainly dont make them friends. laugh

They are practicly necromancers, that uses bodies of their enemies as thralls ... they dont have any problem with invading your mind and dig there ... the second you arrive to talk with their leader, he just starts force you to do their revenge attack aggainst Duegars on your own, they dont even help you with that! ... and with first encounter their leader threatened you with death ... and possibly enslavement after. laugh
And dont forget the fact that they will imediatly attack you, if you fail to persuade them about that you are looking for healing, or just adventuring around ... a "friendlies" in mine opinion should at last alow you to leave in peace. laugh

That is something that really leaves bitter taste for myself ...
And i must say i cant blame my character to wish settle the score with those bastards who theat him like this. laugh
Especialy when there is reward. :P
Havent you ever seen any old western movie with bounty hunters? Or Riddick from newer example? "I kill that one for free." That is just clasic line, when someone pisses off such character. laugh

Also leader of those Myconids seem to me more like mafia Don, than some friendly leader ... so my moral compas was twitching even when i helped him. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
There are also many unrelated NPCs that will give me quests and show me interesting interactions that I would probably have to kill too. Why? Why should I do that?

There is allways some reason ... i honestly dont recall single NPC that you are suppose to kill in some situation, and dont have any. :-/
They are not allways cristal clear, and not allways seen at first sight ... but they are there. laugh
If you could give me some examples, i could help you see them. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
It just seems to me the only people that would go down the Evil path are those that are somewhat masochistic and also psychotic. Only the insane would do bad things because it makes them feel good.
Larian needs to incentivize me to be evil.

Yeah, that too. laugh
But good and evil are still just matter of perspective. wink

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Here are some potential ideas.
1) Give me Sazza as a companion... well more like a subservient underling. I am a True Soul afterall.
2) Give me Minthara as a companion, maybe I can bend her to my allegiance rather than the Absolute's down the road.
3) Give me a Goblin Horn to summon a goblin raiding party to aid me in difficult fights.
4) Give me thralls and minions of true soul. Like the two siblings I meet on the road, they could be interesting characters to learn more about. And who knows maybe to torment or reward as I see fit.
5) Give me the option of not killing the refugees and druids in a massive massacre. Weren't there talk of slave traders in Goblin Fortress? Give me choices! Maybe certain characters can be spared and sold, Why should I kill Mol and her buddies when I can just spare them and have them work for me!

Ad 1.) I honestly expected that cage that is in your camp (Halsin stand next to it) was prepared for her, or other prisoners. :-(
Ad 2.) That would be really great ... even better if she will be other class, since i dont need two clerics and i have the feeling that Shadowhearth will have no problem with wiping druid groove (didnt try yet, curently i play evil character).
Ad 3.) No problem from me, great idea.
Ad 4.) They could work as that earlyer mentioned mercenaries, that will be for hire as companions ... good idea aggain.
Ad 5.) I like the idea of slave market ... not quite sure about that "working for me" part, not like its bad idea, i just can imagine how they could work for you. Certainly not as companions, that would be odd. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
There are a lot of options.
Maybe the evil playthrough can impact my camp look as well. It would become more savage looking, maybe I can hire Drow and Ogre merceneries. Have evil pillage and conquest questlines... something!

That seems like a bit overkill, certain impact yes, sure, absolutely ... but that ogres? :-/
Its baldurs gate, not Faerun mafia. wink
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Literally nothing incentivizes me to do evil things... well besides doing evil just for being evil. If anything I am penalized for going down that path even though I should probably be incentivized more to be evil rather than good.

First of all, your character should not know what benefits will something gives him to side with anyone ... you can just presume. :P
I completely understand the urge of going the most profitable route ... on the other hand, those should not allways be the right attitude. wink

Also ... yes, you may end up with empty hands, and head full of regrets ...
The question is: Is that bad thing? laugh
You could choose different path, but you choosed this one, and you choosed poorly.
For myself on the contrary, once you get screewed with evil, once you get screewed with good options (for example ungreatfull victim in Hag's house).

As for goblins ... you sided with selfish and toxic beings ... and then acting selfish and toxic ... what else you expected? laugh That seem acurate and i honestly like it that way. wink


I'm sorry, but do you not understand the point of incentives? What you are saying here is "the evil path is fine because you are supposed to get screwed over in it", so why would anyone ever take it then? This is like saying getting your brain eaten by the dying mindflayer in the Nautiloid's wreckage is as valid as the entire good path...
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
What you are saying here is "the evil path is fine because you are supposed to get screwed over in it", so why would anyone ever take it then? This is like saying getting your brain eaten by the dying mindflayer in the Nautiloid's wreckage is as valid as the entire good path...

What im actualy saying is this:

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
First of all, your character should not know what benefits will something gives him to side with anyone ... you can just presume. :P
I completely understand the urge of going the most profitable route ... on the other hand, those should not allways be the right attitude. wink

Also ... yes, you may end up with empty hands, and head full of regrets ...
The question is: Is that bad thing? laugh
You could choose different path, but you choosed this one, and you choosed poorly.
For myself on the contrary, once you get screewed with evil, once you get screewed with good options (for example ungreatfull victim in Hag's house).

As for goblins ... you sided with selfish and toxic beings ... and then acting selfish and toxic ... what else you expected? laugh That seem acurate and i honestly like it that way. wink

You quoted it ... so it would be great if you actualy read it first ...

But lets take it sentence by sentence ok?

First one is that your character DONT KNOW THE OUTCOME of any alliance s/he made.
Wich is something we call cornerstone of this whole predicament. In other words: IMPORTANT, REMEMBER PLEASE. wink
So ... the answer for the question "why would anyone ever do that" in this part is: The vision of power, wealth, influence, etc. (Strike out what does not apply.)
The most important thing you should understand about it, is that your character have no way to know if s/he will or will not be screwed over ... in fact, even you as a player should not know that in your first gameplay. So why did you try it? Was it pure curiosity, or that vision of great reward in the end? And before you will claim that you didnt, or even dont expect reward ... remember what does this whole threat is about. :P wink

Then there is another sencente, where i claim that there is different approach to story, but you choosed this one.
That is actualy not so important right now, just pointing out that your character was not forced to do this ... he probably wants to for some reason ... personaly i presume that The vision of power, wealth, influence, etc. is usualy motivation for usual evil character ... notice the fact that first word in this motivation is vision ... that is very important part! wink

In that same part i point out that there is possibility, that your character will get nothing in the end ...
That is actualy just amplification of allready claimed ... for once: Your character dont know the outcome ... for two: Your character presume big reward ... but as i mentioned, none of it is certain, s/he just expected it.

Next one is description of the race you sided with ... wich should help you understand how slight chances for your expected big rewards you have.
There is not much to add to this ...

And in rest of my post, wich you seem to ignore aswell ... i explained how even "good path" can left you unrewarded. wink

Well ...
When you take it all together you should get this outcome:
Playing evil is (and by mine opinion it should be) something like playing poker, with "all in" ... stakes are high, potential profit is huge, but your chances on it are slight, but potentialy grow in futher perspective ... if you play your cards right. wink
Otherwise you end up empty handed with head full of regrets ... and that is how it should be.


Also for that fabricated example with mind flayer ...
"as valid" is concept i cant work with, since validity is very subjective term, so im affraid i have no idea what do you mean by that. laugh
My point is that this vision of power is not compelling to the player as they are uniquely aware that the Absolute is an Illithid ploy while none of her forces seem to know about this. Of course the player character has no metagaming analysis of outcomes that have canonically not happened yet, but you know in-universe about the tadpole right from the start. The tadpole is not a gift, it was forced into your brain by a big scary squid monster. Minthara and Gut do not acknowledge this and it seems they were the ones who sent Eodwin out to come kill you. If they are unable to put two and two together to conclude that they too are being duped and the player's companions all can (Lae'Zel immediatly points out that the Absolute is a Gaihkh deception) who in their right mind would go "nay, it is a gift!"?
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
My point is that this vision of power is not compelling to the player as they are uniquely aware that the Absolute is an Illithid ploy while none of her forces seem to know about this. Of course the player character has no metagaming analysis of outcomes that have canonically not happened yet, but you know in-universe about the tadpole right from the start. The tadpole is not a gift, it was forced into your brain by a big scary squid monster. Minthara and Gut do not acknowledge this and it seems they were the ones who sent Eodwin out to come kill you. If they are unable to put two and two together to conclude that they too are being duped and the player's companions all can (Lae'Zel immediatly points out that the Absolute is a Gaihkh deception) who in their right mind would go "nay, it is a gift!"?


People makes deals with devils and demons all the time in-setting. How is using the tadpole any different?
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
My point is that this vision of power is not compelling to the player as they are uniquely aware that the Absolute is an Illithid ploy while none of her forces seem to know about this. Of course the player character has no metagaming analysis of outcomes that have canonically not happened yet, but you know in-universe about the tadpole right from the start. The tadpole is not a gift, it was forced into your brain by a big scary squid monster. Minthara and Gut do not acknowledge this and it seems they were the ones who sent Eodwin out to come kill you. If they are unable to put two and two together to conclude that they too are being duped and the player's companions all can (Lae'Zel immediatly points out that the Absolute is a Gaihkh deception) who in their right mind would go "nay, it is a gift!"?

That is actualy good question ...

Let me answer that with another question ...
In this same world, cambions are quite known thing and every single person in camp (except Gale) seems to be quite sure about that dealing with Raphael is bad idea ... VERY(!) bad idea ... yet, your character is allowed to concider it and maybe in some future even accept it, bcs s/he can, same as Gale, think that s/he can outsmart him and came out as winner, instead of whiner. smile

Or other example ...
In this same world Vampires are concidered as monsters, and i bet everyone in Faerun will kill Astarion in the second he reveals what he is ...
Yet, your character is allowed to keep him close, since his power can prove usefull. smile

Or other example ...
Maybe not as much as in other cases, but i still bet that Necromancy is in this world concidered as something ... unpleasand, if not exactly evil ... yet your character can choose to become necromancer. smile

And to finaly answer your question ...
Yes, there is quite common knowledge that tadpoles (and mind flayers) are usualy bad sign ... and yes, everyone in your camp (again except one, Astarion in this case) concider keeping it the worst idea ever ... yet, you are allowed to question that decision ... and decide for yourself.
Are you asking why? That is up for you to decide, but that option is there ... it even will gives you some benefits, but outcome is yet unknown ... it may give player ultimate power, aswell as it may give him ultimate death, or fate ultimately worst than that. laugh
And same as with that mindflayer in nautiloid wreckage, that you can either kill imediatly, or start conversation, and risk death ... its just up to you, there is that option and it dont really matter why you choose it, important thing is that you have that option ... maybe your character is sadistic homicidal maniac, even that can be reason. laugh

I think that right now is quite too soon to presume that Absolute is Illithid ploy ...
Yes, Lae'zel is quite sure about it, yet she seem (at last to me) to be person that see Illithid scheeme even behind the fact that her jogurt went missing in the fridge, and dont even think for a second that some person can just eat it by accident, or on purpose.
Why im not so sure? Since that whole tadpole stasis thing seem to be in direct contradiction with illithid reproduction system. True, on nautiloid we seen that new Mind Flayer has ben created by pushing the button, so it all can be part of some bigger experiment to improve their reproduction ... and im quite ok with the option that Lae'zel was right, and i was wrong ... i just like to remember wider perspective.
I know that we are used from games, books, and series that character that is prowiding us with informations are infallible, but what do we know? smile

About Minthara and Gut ...
That is also good point, but those two can send people to kill survivors of that wreckage just to ensure their power.
Same as Astarion told us, no Vampire need another Vampire to do as he please in his teritorium ... same goes with true souls ... they dont need competition, so they can use their zealots to wipe it out. After all, that brother and sister from Eodwin was quite obedient to your comands, since you were marked as true soul ... until you tell them that you are from wreckage, then they imediatly become hostile. And i think its bcs they must obey true souls ... yet they were send to kill everyone who survived ... therefore they dont know that on this ship was true souls. wink

And finaly a "gift" ...
Yes, you are right that our character should see tadpole as an infection, abomination, and something they wish to get rid of ... but that is just it.
The "tadpole" is what fits this description. To be more precise "usual tadpole".
And as the story continues your character trying to get rid of "usual tadpole" finds out more and more that he have very "unusual tadpole" ... and this can be quite different story. There is magic that can keep it dormant, so there is no risk for you to have it ... at last so far. Who can say if there is or isnt magic that can make it dormant permanently? :P
After all ... when you think about it ...
Lae'zel is concerned about tadpole, bcs she is zealot and she never questions her teaching ...
Shadowheart is concerned bcs she dont want to turn into mind flayer, also she sees a plot behind every corner, so she have thrust issues ...
Gael is concerned just bcs there is a risk of turning into mind flayer, yet it seems like this problem is not on top of his "to be concerned about" list ...
Astarion seems to me much more concerned about the fact that there is potential danger, if this stasis will end prematurely ... but the benefits are too sweet for him to decline it entirely ...
And Wyll? Wyll dont even seem to admit that there is any danger at all ... he feels fine, so he dont see anything to be concerned about, until he stops feeling fine.
So...
Yes, i believe that your character can put thrust into this "Absolute" that is allready saving his/hers life right now, since s/he is not turning ... and that can be quite good argument to not provoke that entity, whatever it is. laugh
I don't understand the point of your post Ragnarok.

In my opinion the evil route is bad because its harder and unrewarding.
It does not create fun dilemmas for me.

Its not like I got a really cool sword or some other loot and it apparently belongs to some kid's dead dad.
And then I am faced with the dilemma of giving up the loot for honor or keeping it like a selfish bastard.

That, in my opinion, is what being evil or good is all about.
As for me not knowing if the reward is actually worth it.

Well maybe the first gameplay sure but the second time? And after Act 1 whether I do good or evil I know that evil has little to no reward... so why keep doing it?
Also being evil gives me a worse story. I am not stupid, when I play as good large towns are open to me, I meet new characters, have interesting conversations, go on quests and etc...
And more often than not they tell me "See you at baldur's gate!"

So either I will encounter them on the road to Baldur's gate or I will see them there.
But if I go evil? I destroy any chance of that. Even in the Underdark I lose several plot threads that lead to act two like helping the deep gnomes if I betray the current mushroom king to the exiled one.

It just doesn't make any sense and it is a chore to do.
Especially when the evil road almost always has those NPCs betray me anyway so I end up killing twice as many.
Yep. Evil actions should be more rewarding most of the time.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
In my opinion the evil route is bad because its harder and unrewarding.
It does not create fun dilemmas for me.

I believe that depends on what do you see as "rewarding" ...
Also it depends on what do you see as "evil gameplay" ...

For myself one of pure evil deeds was throwing a rock to Bear-Halsin ... and yes, you really dont get anything from it, except maybe even toughter fight, and lots of regrets as a player (speaking for myself). laugh
Other evil situations is wiping out the groove ... but that is rewarding, since all loot from whole groove is yours to take and sell (presuming you still have some vendor alive laugh ) ... and if you play your dices right, you even get that Drow to potentialy join you ... well, at last she helped you at the moment.
But if you are talking just about Illithid / True Soul conversation options ... that "final reward" was not yet revealed for us, but for now we get almost everytime sure dice sucess, wich can also be usefull ... kinda.

So in fact there is rewards, if they are sufficient or not, that is for you to decide.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Its not like I got a really cool sword or some other loot and it apparently belongs to some kid's dead dad.
And then I am faced with the dilemma of giving up the loot for honor or keeping it like a selfish bastard.

And that is exactly where our opinions are different ... i dont need cool sword.
Its good example ... but certainly not the only possibility. This what you are desribing is called carrot on a stick ... you stick some reward before players nose and he will follow it no matter the consequences, bcs he just want the reward, nothing else matters.

That is for example nice to see in that quest for Paladins of Tyr ...
That sword is certainly interesting reward (presuming you have someone with 2h weapon in party) ... so some players can just take that road and dont even think about the other way ... i know that it drops from his corpse if you choose to help other site, but for your first gameplay you dont, or at last i didnt.
No moral dilema here, in fact there is so chance so there is even no dilema (read as: thinking, or trying to figure out where is the truth) at all, just quest and reward ... nothing more, nothing less.
At last i know i did it with my mage ... she didnt liked at all how Myconids were treated her as potential threat right from the begining ... yet i just needed that neckage, that hobgoblin is selling.
Same with ogres ... i just wanted that crown! And i was potentialy able to persuade them that i am wearing the mark of Absolute ... but i didnt even try, and honestly i should, after all its three scarry ogres ... it was not right "roleplay" decision ... it was right "videogame" decision. laugh

That is why i like so much how attack on the groove is made ...
Every decision you made you made for you own reasons, Larian dont need to show your character why you should that, or this ... that is for you to decide ... i dunno, maybe your character is homicidal maniac, maybe its xenophobic Tieflinghater, maybe hes fighter for goblin's rights, maybe hes just loyal to another Drow, or maybe he is really interested in that whole Absolute cult, so he really want them to suceed ... or maybe litteraly anything else. laugh
But its all up to you, and that is exactly why i just love it.
That, and the fact that everyone is acting as they should ... goblins ale bloodthirsty, selfish, coward, treacherous bastards, that can be ruled only if they fear their master ... so you can presume that they will be even worse. And they are. :3
So in this particular case ... i think some reward will ruin that whole scene, bcs greedy players will do that just for biger profit, and evil is not "allways" just about profit. :-/
That Drow cant give you anything, bcs by her character, she sees you as usable tool, nothing more. For her you were never alies, since she sees herself on the top of pyramid ... wich kinda makes that situation, when you roll your dices right and she will not attack you, but help you instead ... even sweeter. smile

Originally Posted by Eddiar
That, in my opinion, is what being evil or good is all about.
As for me not knowing if the reward is actually worth it.

Greed is certainly one of sins ...
But there is reason why i used plural. wink
So no ... it is "about" ... but certainly not "all about". laugh wink

Also dont forget that this is only small portion of whole game, and we can presume that both roads will have some consequences ... so there is some chance that your desired "reward" will reveal later.

It seems to me like you are talking just about Lawfull-evil characters ...
Try this: Chaotic Evil

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Well maybe the first gameplay sure but the second time? And after Act 1 whether I do good or evil I know that evil has little to no reward... so why keep doing it?

As i sayd, that is up to your character ...
After all, its not like "good and righterouss" path will give you any reward either.

And for myself (and multiple philosophies across human history) good, and evil is just matter of perspective ...
You either massacre tieflings for the good of goblins ... or massacre goblins, for the good of tieflings ... since there is no way to negotiate peace between them, there is no "pure good" solution.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Also being evil gives me a worse story.

I dont think so ...
But our metters are obviously working with different numbers. smile

Originally Posted by Eddiar
I am not stupid, when I play as good large towns are open to me, I meet new characters, have interesting conversations, go on quests and etc...
And more often than not they tell me "See you at baldur's gate!"

You may not be stupid ... question is: Is your character? wink
I dunno, it seems like either im too distant from this game, or you are too deep. laugh
Anyway ... if you are not evil person (and i presume you are not), and want to play evil character ... logicaly you cant decide as yourself, but as the character. laugh
You can for example try with every diaogue to say something like "what would i NEVER choose" ... and then choose it, sometimes its fun. wink

Since we dont know yet what consequences will be there, its all pure speculations ...
But i think its not so impossible to presume that when you will go good path, there will be new characters, interesting conversations, go on quests and etc. ... but when you will go evil path, where will be another characters, with another conversations, and different quests etc.

I dont quite think it will be like Fallout 3 where you just blow nuke in middle of the town, and created magnificent crater. laugh
More i expect that scenario, where on one side will be army of Baldur's Gate, potentialy with our good character ... and the other side army of Raiders, potentialy with out evil character ... ofc, that side with PC on their side probably wins. laugh

So in conclusion, i dont presume that you will get rid of any experience for playing either side ... except the other ... therefore i will totally play this game at least twice, for both sides ... and then i shall see what will be next. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
So either I will encounter them on the road to Baldur's gate or I will see them there.
But if I go evil? I destroy any chance of that. Even in the Underdark I lose several plot threads that lead to act two like helping the deep gnomes if I betray the current mushroom king to the exiled one.

You almost made it sounds like if you expect that whole maps will be empty for evil characters. laugh
True, you will not met this characters ... you will met others.

The Underdark is tricky, since once aggain we didnt seen whole plot.
But you can make deal with that Duegar (especialy understandable as a Drow) that you will help him get that Deep Gnome runaway, especialy her boots.
So i presume that you will not "loose plot" with deep gnomes ... more likely you will switch Deep Gnomes plot with Duegar plot. wink
That said ... IF you dont choose to betray them both. laugh
(Sometimes i just need to try kill everything in the Act ... betray Druids for Tieflings ... betray Tieflings for Goblins ... being betrayed by Goblins and wipe them out too ... i really wonder how will game will work with that. And yes ... Chaotic Evil character.)

Originally Posted by Eddiar
It just doesn't make any sense and it is a chore to do.
Especially when the evil road almost always has those NPCs betray me anyway so I end up killing twice as many.

As Gale said: There is no thing as absolute certainity. wink
They can betray you ... and you will be foolish to expect otherwise ... yet, and again if you roll your dices right ... there are different outcomes. wink

For example:
If you decide to have sex with that Drow lady wich name i dont recall right now, after the succesfull raid at Druids Groove ... then you dont poke your nose to her personal business, so you dont make her mad, and instead try to focus on the fact that she likes you ... and in the end you manage to persuade her that attacking you is certain suicide, and you should join your forces instead ...
She will not betray you, she will even help you on your "next journey" to completely negate that "dark curse" that Halsin is so affraid of.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

First of all, your character should not know what benefits will something gives him to side with anyone ... you can just presume. :P
I completely understand the urge of going the most profitable route ... on the other hand, those should not allways be the right attitude. wink

Also ... yes, you may end up with empty hands, and head full of regrets ...
The question is: Is that bad thing? laugh
You could choose different path, but you choosed this one, and you choosed poorly.
For myself on the contrary, once you get screewed with evil, once you get screewed with good options (for example ungreatfull victim in Hag's house).

As for goblins ... you sided with selfish and toxic beings ... and then acting selfish and toxic ... what else you expected? laugh That seem acurate and i honestly like it that way. wink

Sure you should. at least in theory. When Zavlor asks you for help, he promises to reward you. Whether he will keep his promise or not is a different matter, of course it's a risk, but less risky than doing what Minthara wants you to do. She just say "go kill everyone in the grove" "why?" "Because eeeeeevil." that's stupid.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
I don't understand the point of your post Ragnarok.

In my opinion the evil route is bad because its harder and unrewarding.
It does not create fun dilemmas for me.


This sums this up. Currently evil answers are more like a teenage douchebag would be answering, can't imagine any adult picking these and enjoying themselves.
I didn't like the fact Minthara doesn't kill you being put behind a dice roll. If it had been mirrored by whether or not tieflings trust you and come to your camp, it would have been fine. But it is obvious the devs want this path to be harder and it's not really fair to the player.

And as well, goblins being hostile to you after the events of the grove, without the possibility to do anything about it, clearly indicates Larian wants you to feel being evil is bad and not rewarding.
Originally Posted by Nyanko
The main issue I have about the evil path is the fact the goblins turn against you once you helped Minthara destroy the grove. You should be viewed as their champion rather. And yes, at least, give us Minthara as companion.

Another issue is with the hag. If you are so evil, there should be a way to conclude a pact with her of some sort so she can provide help later on in the campaign. I would love to get some redcaps reinforcements like the 3 ogres provide.

Of course, there should be some betrayal between evil characters. But it's too much in our face at the moment.



I liked it, sort of.

I didn't like that there's no good "path to evil" path. No one ever tempts you into the evil path.
But I like that the Goblins turn on you. It shows how there's an inner core and "useful idiots", and in order to keep the Goblins in line they claimed to them that you are the "useful idiot"

I agree Minthara should be a possible party character, and I think she might become one. (Reason: Only NPC that becomes naked when you loot her)
I hope she becomes a Paladin though, would suit her more than cleric.

But yeah, I like the dark path. I like leaning into the tadpole, and just doing whatever.

One thing to remember: Evil doesn't mean "side with all the evil people", in fact it's very opposite. Evil is generally defined by how self serving, "easy way out". I don't need to side with the Hag. The hag is evil yes, but I'm the only evil in town! To me the evil part is to take the wand at the end.
The way I see it, the essence of evil is self interest above all. I see an evil character as one driven by greed, who lusts for power, one who'll take what they want even at the expense of others. When faced with a decision or a quest, an evil character doesn't ask "How can I be as big of a dick as possible?", they ask "How will this benefit me?".

So in other words I agree - there should be more incentive to be evil. In fact, I'd go further: there should be more incentive to be evil than good. Playing evil should be easy mode, they should get more loot, better gear, and positions of power. You don't choose to be evil for evil's sake; You are tempted by it, because evil means you get to live deliciously. You can have anything you want... all it costs is your soul.

Being good, on the other hand, is more often than not a thankless job. Good characters are selfless and self-sacrificing. Sometimes this means putting themselves in harm's way to protect the weak. Sometimes this means giving up what they want for the benefit of others. I think this is needed in order for the heroism to feel real. After all, if there is no downside to altruism, then why would I ever act any other way? Certainly not just for evil's sake, I don't like being unlikeable.

Evil or Good shouldn't be a choice you make at the beginning of a playthrough. It should be the angel and devil on your shoulder, always there, nagging you in every moral choice to do what's right, or take what you want.
Being evil is more than simply killing everyone and throwing rocks at bears. That is being an asshole.

You could be evil and still save the tieflings and Halsin, provided they would work for you in return. Remind them in the future who saved them and why they should do such and such.

I once played a warlock that set a whole village against its mayor and put my minion in his place, the only person who died was the mayor and a few orcs I used in the process of agitating the village.

Imo, being evil is taking what you want with no care for others.
That's far from let's kill everyone, which is what seemed line the evil path available. Didn't finish the evil play because it didn't feel like true evil and more like chaotic evil.
Originally Posted by malks

You could be evil and still save the tieflings and Halsin, provided they would work for you in return. Remind them in the future who saved them and why they should do such and such.


You could be evil and help the Tieflings because you are a pragmatist and they are your best chance out of there. A lot of the "evil" choices in this first Act are cartoonish.
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Originally Posted by Nyanko
The main issue I have about the evil path is the fact the goblins turn against you once you helped Minthara destroy the grove. You should be viewed as their champion rather. And yes, at least, give us Minthara as companion.

Another issue is with the hag. If you are so evil, there should be a way to conclude a pact with her of some sort so she can provide help later on in the campaign. I would love to get some redcaps reinforcements like the 3 ogres provide.

Of course, there should be some betrayal between evil characters. But it's too much in our face at the moment.



I liked it, sort of.

I didn't like that there's no good "path to evil" path. No one ever tempts you into the evil path.
But I like that the Goblins turn on you. It shows how there's an inner core and "useful idiots", and in order to keep the Goblins in line they claimed to them that you are the "useful idiot"

I agree Minthara should be a possible party character, and I think she might become one. (Reason: Only NPC that becomes naked when you loot her)
I hope she becomes a Paladin though, would suit her more than cleric.

But yeah, I like the dark path. I like leaning into the tadpole, and just doing whatever.

One thing to remember: Evil doesn't mean "side with all the evil people", in fact it's very opposite. Evil is generally defined by how self serving, "easy way out". I don't need to side with the Hag. The hag is evil yes, but I'm the only evil in town! To me the evil part is to take the wand at the end.


I would agree if it wasn't D&D. In D&D, alignment is so straightforward and limited that only evil characters may associate with each other. One of the reasons is the fact there are some spells like "Detect evil' or "Protection against evil", which means evil is more a faction than a moral compass.
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Originally Posted by Nyanko
The main issue I have about the evil path is the fact the goblins turn against you once you helped Minthara destroy the grove. You should be viewed as their champion rather. And yes, at least, give us Minthara as companion.

Another issue is with the hag. If you are so evil, there should be a way to conclude a pact with her of some sort so she can provide help later on in the campaign. I would love to get some redcaps reinforcements like the 3 ogres provide.

Of course, there should be some betrayal between evil characters. But it's too much in our face at the moment.



I liked it, sort of.

I didn't like that there's no good "path to evil" path. No one ever tempts you into the evil path.
But I like that the Goblins turn on you. It shows how there's an inner core and "useful idiots", and in order to keep the Goblins in line they claimed to them that you are the "useful idiot"

I agree Minthara should be a possible party character, and I think she might become one. (Reason: Only NPC that becomes naked when you loot her)
I hope she becomes a Paladin though, would suit her more than cleric.

But yeah, I like the dark path. I like leaning into the tadpole, and just doing whatever.

One thing to remember: Evil doesn't mean "side with all the evil people", in fact it's very opposite. Evil is generally defined by how self serving, "easy way out". I don't need to side with the Hag. The hag is evil yes, but I'm the only evil in town! To me the evil part is to take the wand at the end.


I would agree if it wasn't D&D. In D&D, alignment is so straightforward and limited that only evil characters may associate with each other. One of the reasons is the fact there are some spells like "Detect evil' or "Protection against evil", which means evil is more a faction than a moral compass.

I'm so glad we lost alignments in this game
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

First of all, your character should not know what benefits will something gives him to side with anyone ... you can just presume. :P
I completely understand the urge of going the most profitable route ... on the other hand, those should not allways be the right attitude. wink

Also ... yes, you may end up with empty hands, and head full of regrets ...
The question is: Is that bad thing? laugh
You could choose different path, but you choosed this one, and you choosed poorly.
For myself on the contrary, once you get screewed with evil, once you get screewed with good options (for example ungreatfull victim in Hag's house).

As for goblins ... you sided with selfish and toxic beings ... and then acting selfish and toxic ... what else you expected? laugh That seem acurate and i honestly like it that way. wink

Sure you should. at least in theory. When Zavlor asks you for help, he promises to reward you. Whether he will keep his promise or not is a different matter, of course it's a risk, but less risky than doing what Minthara wants you to do. She just say "go kill everyone in the grove" "why?" "Because eeeeeevil." that's stupid.


Exactly right.
Its quickly becoming obvious this player is the sort that would burn down the orphanage just because its so garsh darn eviiiiiiiil.

Also I cannot abide with emojis.
That is true evil imo.
Originally Posted by Califax
The way I see it, the essence of evil is self interest above all. I see an evil character as one driven by greed, who lusts for power, one who'll take what they want even at the expense of others. When faced with a decision or a quest, an evil character doesn't ask "How can I be as big of a dick as possible?", they ask "How will this benefit me?".

So in other words I agree - there should be more incentive to be evil. In fact, I'd go further: there should be more incentive to be evil than good. Playing evil should be easy mode, they should get more loot, better gear, and positions of power. You don't choose to be evil for evil's sake; You are tempted by it, because evil means you get to live deliciously. You can have anything you want... all it costs is your soul.

Being good, on the other hand, is more often than not a thankless job. Good characters are selfless and self-sacrificing. Sometimes this means putting themselves in harm's way to protect the weak. Sometimes this means giving up what they want for the benefit of others. I think this is needed in order for the heroism to feel real. After all, if there is no downside to altruism, then why would I ever act any other way? Certainly not just for evil's sake, I don't like being unlikeable.

Evil or Good shouldn't be a choice you make at the beginning of a playthrough. It should be the angel and devil on your shoulder, always there, nagging you in every moral choice to do what's right, or take what you want.



Very well said.
Just to build on this further.

Perhaps at the very end there is an event where all the people you helped can help you.
If you were a selfish evil character who only acted on their own behalf would stand alone. Your evil companions would probably abandon you... why should they risk themselves for your benefit?

But if you were good then you made friends. Friends that will stand by you. And face the final boss united.

I am not saying this should happen but just brainstorming an idea that all the player's decisions culminating in one final event where you know the real consequences of your action.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Originally Posted by Nyanko
The main issue I have about the evil path is the fact the goblins turn against you once you helped Minthara destroy the grove. You should be viewed as their champion rather. And yes, at least, give us Minthara as companion.

Another issue is with the hag. If you are so evil, there should be a way to conclude a pact with her of some sort so she can provide help later on in the campaign. I would love to get some redcaps reinforcements like the 3 ogres provide.

Of course, there should be some betrayal between evil characters. But it's too much in our face at the moment.



I liked it, sort of.

I didn't like that there's no good "path to evil" path. No one ever tempts you into the evil path.
But I like that the Goblins turn on you. It shows how there's an inner core and "useful idiots", and in order to keep the Goblins in line they claimed to them that you are the "useful idiot"

I agree Minthara should be a possible party character, and I think she might become one. (Reason: Only NPC that becomes naked when you loot her)
I hope she becomes a Paladin though, would suit her more than cleric.

But yeah, I like the dark path. I like leaning into the tadpole, and just doing whatever.

One thing to remember: Evil doesn't mean "side with all the evil people", in fact it's very opposite. Evil is generally defined by how self serving, "easy way out". I don't need to side with the Hag. The hag is evil yes, but I'm the only evil in town! To me the evil part is to take the wand at the end.


I would agree if it wasn't D&D. In D&D, alignment is so straightforward and limited that only evil characters may associate with each other. One of the reasons is the fact there are some spells like "Detect evil' or "Protection against evil", which means evil is more a faction than a moral compass.

I'm so glad we lost alignments in this game


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.
You have any official info on WOTC saying no to alignments?

Edit: except the reduction in its importance in 5e
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


If anything the Pathfinder alignment system forces writers to come up with stereotypical things an aligned character must say, PF:K is full of these for instance. Forcing players into predetermined tropes and in PF:K's case even going so far as to change your alignment if you are too good or evil is very restrictive.

That being said, yes; the current evil path is like this because it is so pointless. People do it out of obligation to the goal of this EA or for drow boobies now. An alignment system would not solve that and racial / class / religious dialogue is far preferable to it but some kind of morality compass needs to be there, especially for pragmatists. When the Gith creche is released this could be an interesting "evil" choice, to just forego the central conflict of Act 1 and go your own way. So long as there is no "you left the refugees to their fate and both sides died because of your apathy" ending slide later.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


If anything the Pathfinder alignment system forces writers to come up with stereotypical things an aligned character must say, PF:K is full of these for instance. Forcing players into predetermined tropes and in PF:K's case even going so far as to change your alignment if you are too good or evil is very restrictive.

That being said, yes; the current evil path is like this because it is so pointless. People do it out of obligation to the goal of this EA or for drow boobies now. An alignment system would not solve that and racial / class / religious dialogue is far preferable to it but some kind of morality compass needs to be there, especially for pragmatists. When the Gith creche is released this could be an interesting "evil" choice, to just forego the central conflict of Act 1 and go your own way. So long as there is no "you left the refugees to their fate and both sides died because of your apathy" ending slide later.

I moded it out. Much more fun experience.
+1
In short, evil path needs A LOT of work. I made a very long post about it but nobody reads it because it's a very long post. smile Here's the link if someone else wants to read https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=716608#Post716608
TLDR version is that you can roleplay only a "stupid evil" alignment or a murder hobo at this point of EA.
Originally Posted by Maerd
In short, evil path needs A LOT of work. I made a very long post about it but nobody reads it because it's a very long post. smile Here's the link if someone else wants to read https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=716608#Post716608
TLDR version is that you can roleplay only a "stupid evil" alignment or a murder hobo at this point of EA.


Good thread, you should send your feedback to Larian through the official form so they can process it. One thing I would like to point out is that Tyranny has a fear and loyalty system for companions that works like what you suggest. Instead of approval and disapproval you build up two independent meters that interact with each other. You can even get companions to stay with you out of fear in Tyranny.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


Then Larian are pretty bad writers if this is what they come up with since they are free from the "restrictive" framework. Alignments in my opinion would of made the writers stop and think, "Would a lawful evil or neutral evil character go on a murder spree just because and for the sake of drow boobs?"

Anyway, I can see we would agree to disagree. I don't want to derail the topic.
Originally Posted by Mozhad
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Mozhad


See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.

Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.


Then Larian are pretty bad writers if this is what they come up with since they are free from the "restrictive" framework. Alignments in my opinion would of made the writers stop and think, "Would a lawful evil or neutral evil character go on a murder spree just because and for the sake of drow boobs?"

Anyway, I can see we would agree to disagree. I don't want to derail the topic.


You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.

You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.
Originally Posted by azarhal

You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.

You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.


Doesn't that mean that for non-chaotic evil characters there is no path other than the good path right now? Larian seems to have specified the two paths as "good" and "evil" so surely there should be some room for nuance here.
Yep alignments have absolutely nothing to do with story quality. I don't see how removing the alignment system from BG would change the story (perhaps you would need to find some alternative system for companions but that's it). To think otherwise is not giving the writers enough credit imo
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by azarhal

You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.

You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.


Doesn't that mean that for non-chaotic evil characters there is no path other than the good path right now? Larian seems to have specified the two paths as "good" and "evil" so surely there should be some room for nuance here.

For some reason some people are against naunce. Anyway, the writers are aware that the evil route needs far more development. Kevin outright said it on stream. So Azarhal is clearly the minority in this case considering all the threads across the forum and reddit about how poor the route is.

I stand by my opinion that the evil route only appeals to people who enjoy a basic murder spree and drow sex. I have seen little that would make me change my opinion.
Originally Posted by Mozhad

For some reason some people are against naunce. Anyway, the writers are aware that the evil route needs far more development. Kevin outright said it on stream. So Azarhal is clearly the minority in this case considering all the threads across the forum and reddit about how poor the route is.

I stand by my opinion that the evil route only appeals to people who enjoy basic murder spree and drow sex. I have seen little that would make me change my opinion.


No disagreement from me there, then. My main worry is that there is no bandaid fix for this path and that is reveals a weakness in the overall plot of BG3 Larian cannot fix without letting players experience the whole thing start to finish. DOS2 has this problem too. They could make the same mistake here and we would be left with a highly polished Act 1 that then falls apart when you go to Act 2.
It's practically a fact now. I'm sure there are people who genuinely like this route, but I'd your are a little critical you can sea the cracks everywhere
The current path can be an option, should be.

What bothers people is that there aren't nuances to the evil path. It's simply chaotic evil.

I think Larian should take these suggestions into account, not all evil is a murder hobo evil.
Originally Posted by malks
The current path can be an option, should be.

What bothers people is that there aren't nuances to the evil path. It's simply chaotic evil.

I think Larian should take these suggestions into account, not all evil is a murder hobo evil.

I agree with that. It feels like the very first draft of a script.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Maerd
In short, evil path needs A LOT of work. I made a very long post about it but nobody reads it because it's a very long post. smile Here's the link if someone else wants to read https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=716608#Post716608
TLDR version is that you can roleplay only a "stupid evil" alignment or a murder hobo at this point of EA.


Good thread, you should send your feedback to Larian through the official form so they can process it. One thing I would like to point out is that Tyranny has a fear and loyalty system for companions that works like what you suggest. Instead of approval and disapproval you build up two independent meters that interact with each other. You can even get companions to stay with you out of fear in Tyranny.

I've sent my feedback to Larian directly too, of course. I hope they actually bother to read it.

Regarding Tyranny, I'm not very fond of how it was implemented because you cannot fail in keeping your companions together. If you treat them badly then their "fear" grow, if kindly then their "loyalty" grow. They stay with you in any case. I actually liked PoE 2 dynamics with characters, where besides your own reputation they had reputation towards each other and a whole bunch of different moral values. And no matter of your reputation, certain actions cause your companions to leave or even become hostile.
Originally Posted by Maerd

Regarding Tyranny, I'm not very fond of how it was implemented because you cannot fail in keeping your companions together. If you treat them badly then their "fear" grow, if kindly then their "loyalty" grow. They stay with you in any case. I actually liked PoE 2 dynamics with characters, where besides your own reputation they had reputation towards each other and a whole bunch of different moral values. And no matter of your reputation, certain actions cause your companions leave of even become hostile.


That is understandable, while I would argue that losing companions is not fun and that Tyranny did tie consequences to you tying people to you through fear (often leading to a bad ending for the companion) it had the setting tailored around it to make it work. BGIII does not have this luxury at the moment, especially if Larian goes through with party commitment after Act 1. As a matter of fact, I think you will no longer be able to lose companions after Act 1 in BGIII also, considering you lose a bunch of them no matter what.
Originally Posted by Maerd
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Maerd
In short, evil path needs A LOT of work. I made a very long post about it but nobody reads it because it's a very long post. smile Here's the link if someone else wants to read https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=716608#Post716608
TLDR version is that you can roleplay only a "stupid evil" alignment or a murder hobo at this point of EA.


Good thread, you should send your feedback to Larian through the official form so they can process it. One thing I would like to point out is that Tyranny has a fear and loyalty system for companions that works like what you suggest. Instead of approval and disapproval you build up two independent meters that interact with each other. You can even get companions to stay with you out of fear in Tyranny.

I've sent my feedback to Larian directly too, of course. I hope they actually bother to read it.

Regarding Tyranny, I'm not very fond of how it was implemented because you cannot fail in keeping your companions together. If you treat them badly then their "fear" grow, if kindly then their "loyalty" grow. They stay with you in any case. I actually liked PoE 2 dynamics with characters, where besides your own reputation they had reputation towards each other and a whole bunch of different moral values. And no matter of your reputation, certain actions cause your companions leave of even become hostile.

Dragon age 2 actually did something similar but I think it was actually very good. The only bad way to treat your companions in da2 was to ignore them completely. Unfortunately I can only think of one instance where it had actual consequences. Man this game had many interesting ideas. I wish they had more time to develop it
Originally Posted by Maerd
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Maerd
In short, evil path needs A LOT of work. I made a very long post about it but nobody reads it because it's a very long post. smile Here's the link if someone else wants to read https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=716608#Post716608
TLDR version is that you can roleplay only a "stupid evil" alignment or a murder hobo at this point of EA.


Good thread, you should send your feedback to Larian through the official form so they can process it. One thing I would like to point out is that Tyranny has a fear and loyalty system for companions that works like what you suggest. Instead of approval and disapproval you build up two independent meters that interact with each other. You can even get companions to stay with you out of fear in Tyranny.

I've sent my feedback to Larian directly too, of course. I hope they actually bother to read it.

Regarding Tyranny, I'm not very fond of how it was implemented because you cannot fail in keeping your companions together. If you treat them badly then their "fear" grow, if kindly then their "loyalty" grow. They stay with you in any case. I actually liked PoE 2 dynamics with characters, where besides your own reputation they had reputation towards each other and a whole bunch of different moral values. And no matter of your reputation, certain actions cause your companions leave of even become hostile.


Good point.

I dont want to kill all npcs i want to enslave, torture, corrupt and be evil in a way that they live and work for me.

Companions should be afraid and grow to hate me, joining forces to try to put me down when they wont endure it any longer. I would then have the option of jailing and torturing them. Or maybe just let them live because let them be miserable in their failures.

Yeah that's pretty bad, that's evil, terrible, but way more interesting than just killing everyone.
Originally Posted by Baraz
I played evil (female Drow from the Lolth culture), but not insane. So all-in-all, there is not much I would do differently from my future combative good character.
...

EDIT : this may come as a surprise, but I am not criticizing. Just the rationale of my somewhat evil, but not stupid, Drow. I do not mind how it is.


Pretty much how i felt playing the same type of character. As an evil I wouldn't kill the devils because I may still have a use for them as they are weak and easily manipulated, just the threat of violence basically bends them to your will. Goblins are beneath trash and deserve to be killed when not actively giving me something I need. They know it as well .. this is why they grovel when they talk to you.

As an evil character the quest for my own power and objectives comes above all else, I be damned if im going to bow down to a made up god. The drow you meet needs to die because she is weak and a traitor to Lolth. After finding out if the druid Halsin can help or not he can die as well heh.. Hell he shouldnt even want to talk to a drow and really shouldnt be an option. As for the other druid heh soon as she barks orders she had to go.. " I don't work for you lady "

I love that I can just murder anyone who I feel wrongs my character and look forward to more writing to reflect choices. I enjoy the evil option as I start that way but it really takes effort to not accidentally turn into the hero. Being good is easy.
Originally Posted by Nabbs

Pretty much how i felt playing the same type of character. As an evil I wouldn't kill the devils because I may still have a use for them as they are weak and easily manipulated, just the threat of violence basically bends them to your will. Goblins are beneath trash and deserve to be killed when not actively giving me something I need. They know it as well .. this is why they grovel when they talk to you.

As an evil character the quest for my own power and objectives comes above all else, I be damned if im going to bow down to a made up god. The drow you meet needs to die because she is weak and a traitor to Lolth. After finding out if the druid Halsin can help or not he can die as well heh.. Hell he shouldnt even want to talk to a drow and really shouldnt be an option. As for the other druid heh soon as she barks orders she had to go.. " I don't work for you lady "

I love that I can just murder anyone who I feel wrongs my character and look forward to more writing to reflect choices. I enjoy the evil option as I start that way but it really takes effort to not accidentally turn into the hero. Being good is easy.


See, I do this too and it makes me wonder if the writers are trying to imply something with calling all of my Machiavellian evil deeds "good". They probably did think evil players are all murder hobos though.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by azarhal

You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.

You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.


Doesn't that mean that for non-chaotic evil characters there is no path other than the good path right now? Larian seems to have specified the two paths as "good" and "evil" so surely there should be some room for nuance here.


You are talking about nuance and all you can see is a dichotomy where Goblins = evil and Tielfings = good which means "goblins dead (kids included)/tieflings alive = good "and "goblins alive/tieflings dead = evil". You're characters don't have to give a rat ass about the Tielfings and their action can still lead at them being alive. Tielfings living are totally unrelated to how you role-play your character, it's a consequences of the decisions you made.

There isn't two paths, these are you options:

- side with the goblins + Haslin alive -> destroy grove + win DC with Minthara to have her you join you or fight her if you fail
- side with the goblins + Haslin alive -> backstab them and side with Tieflings at gate (The path with the less deaths despite you betraying both groups once)
- side with the goblins + Haslin dead -> backstab them and side with Tieflings at gate (next thing I'm trying, I'm hoping I can corrupt the Grove to the Shadow Druid still after it is done, but like all Shadow Druid stuff probably bugged)
- side with Zevlor -> kill Khaga -> (no idea as I haven't done it)
- side with Zevlor -> Expose Khaga -> (no idea as I haven't done it and it's partially bugged)
- side with Khaga -> kill Tiefling (?currently bugged, you can't talk to Zevlor after Khaga asked you to deal with him) -> Ritual happen which piss off Minthara (if Haslin is alive he's sad he can't return to the grove when he shows up in your camp)
- kill all 3 leaders because Haslin won't help you otherwise -> Tielfings live by association but you don't have to care
- kill all 3 leaders because Wyll asked -> Tielfings live by association and you probably care (the path call the goody-two-shoes one despite it having you kill more than if you raided the Grove)
- Haslin dead (regardless of how, he can die as a temporary companion while clearly the temple) -> once you read his journal you can just ignore the side quest of dealing with the refugees and continue on with the main quest



Explain to me why you think only the first option fit an evil character?
Originally Posted by azarhal


- side with the goblins + Haslin alive -> destroy grove + win DC with Minthara to have her you join you or fight her if you fail
- side with the goblins + Haslin alive -> backstab them and side with Tieflings at gate (The path with the less deaths despite you betraying both groups once)
- side with the goblins + Haslin dead -> backstab them and side with Tieflings at gate (next thing I'm trying, I'm hoping I can corrupt the Grove to the Shadow Druid still after it is done, but like all Shadow Druid stuff probably bugged)
- side with Zevlor -> kill Khaga -> (no idea as I haven't done it)
- side with Zevlor -> Expose Khaga -> (no idea as I haven't done it and it's partially bugged)
- side with Khaga -> kill Tiefling (?currently bugged, you can't talk to Zevlor after Khaga asked you to deal with him) -> Ritual happen which piss off Minthara (if Haslin is alive he's sad he can't return to the grove when he shows up in your camp)
- kill all 3 leaders because Haslin won't help you otherwise -> Tielfings live by association but you don't have to care
- kill all 3 leaders because Wyll asked -> Tielfings live by association and you probably care (the path call the goody-two-shoes one despite it having you kill more than if you raided the Grove)
- Haslin dead (regardless of how, he can die as a temporary companion while clearly the temple) -> once you read his journal you can just ignore the side quest of dealing with the refugees and continue on with the main quest



Explain to me why you think only the first option fit an evil character?


You're listing permutations to two major outcomes. If the outcome has no "party scene" it does not count. This makes the "Goblins = evil and Tielfings = good which means "goblins dead (kids included)/tieflings alive = good "and "goblins alive/tieflings dead = evil"." dichotomy exactly what the writers intended. There is in fact a hilarious double take going on in the narrative right now where the story bends over backwards to paint the Tieflings as totally innocent bystanders and goblins as downright racially inherent to evil. If you talk to the goblin child at the camp's entrance for instance it tells you that its parents were killed in a raid, only to then follow up that it doesn't care because the weak die and the strong survive. Okay? Cool social values these goblins have. Meanwhile I cannot name a single thing the Tieflings do wrong in the narrative besides endangering what is apparently a group of racist bigoted druids led by a demagogue bent on ethnic cleansing.

My character certainly did not give a rat's ass about the Tieflings, but at least they are presented as civillised beings. You cannot say the same for the goblins and even if you did it would not matter, because they backstab you if you help them. Even Minthara does unless you pass a few dialogue checks. There is a very likely permutation to the evil path that has you end up with significantly less than what you started with. Not just with 0 leads or allies, but also with a traumatised Shadowheart that is now locked out of approval gain for good. Even a murder hobo chaotic evil character must be thinking they fucked up at this point.

When I am talking about nuance I am referring to the storytelling, not the outcome or even really its permutations. All of those are very rigid. Imagine if the druids decided to have a little nature party with you after you force the Tieflings to leave early. Or if the Gith creche / shadow curse alternate paths are added. Those would be actual new options.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by azarhal


- side with the goblins + Haslin alive -> destroy grove + win DC with Minthara to have her you join you or fight her if you fail
- side with the goblins + Haslin alive -> backstab them and side with Tieflings at gate (The path with the less deaths despite you betraying both groups once)
- side with the goblins + Haslin dead -> backstab them and side with Tieflings at gate (next thing I'm trying, I'm hoping I can corrupt the Grove to the Shadow Druid still after it is done, but like all Shadow Druid stuff probably bugged)
- side with Zevlor -> kill Khaga -> (no idea as I haven't done it)
- side with Zevlor -> Expose Khaga -> (no idea as I haven't done it and it's partially bugged)
- side with Khaga -> kill Tiefling (?currently bugged, you can't talk to Zevlor after Khaga asked you to deal with him) -> Ritual happen which piss off Minthara (if Haslin is alive he's sad he can't return to the grove when he shows up in your camp)
- kill all 3 leaders because Haslin won't help you otherwise -> Tielfings live by association but you don't have to care
- kill all 3 leaders because Wyll asked -> Tielfings live by association and you probably care (the path call the goody-two-shoes one despite it having you kill more than if you raided the Grove)
- Haslin dead (regardless of how, he can die as a temporary companion while clearly the temple) -> once you read his journal you can just ignore the side quest of dealing with the refugees and continue on with the main quest



Explain to me why you think only the first option fit an evil character?


You're listing permutations to two major outcomes. If the outcome has no "party scene" it does not count. This makes the "Goblins = evil and Tielfings = good which means "goblins dead (kids included)/tieflings alive = good "and "goblins alive/tieflings dead = evil"." dichotomy exactly what the writers intended. There is in fact a hilarious double take going on in the narrative right now where the story bends over backwards to paint the Tieflings as totally innocent bystanders and goblins as downright racially inherent to evil. If you talk to the goblin child at the camp's entrance for instance it tells you that its parents were killed in a raid, only to then follow up that it doesn't care because the weak die and the strong survive. Okay? Cool social values these goblins have. Meanwhile I cannot name a single thing the Tieflings do wrong in the narrative besides endangering what is apparently a group of racist bigoted druids led by a demagogue bent on ethnic cleansing.

My character certainly did not give a rat's ass about the Tieflings, but at least they are presented as civillised beings. You cannot say the same for the goblins and even if you did it would not matter, because they backstab you if you help them. Even Minthara does unless you pass a few dialogue checks. There is a very likely permutation to the evil path that has you end up with significantly less than what you started with. Not just with 0 leads or allies, but also with a traumatised Shadowheart that is now locked out of approval gain for good. Even a murder hobo chaotic evil character must be thinking they fucked up at this point.

When I am talking about nuance I am referring to the storytelling, not the outcome or even really its permutations. All of those are very rigid. Imagine if the druids decided to have a little nature party with you after you force the Tieflings to leave early. Or if the Gith creche / shadow curse alternate paths are added. Those would be actual new options.


It doesn't count? That's not what the game is tell me by supporting it in the EA ending cinematic.

You think it doesn't count. Not the writers, they made it a side quest (actually 3 side quests) which means it is optional.
You think role-playing is following black or white breadcrumbs that reward you with a black and white outcome instead of taking decisions based on your character's personality. Not the writers.
You think certain action leads to certain long term results you can't even prove exist because they aren't in the game. This has nothing to do with the writers.

You think NPCs should react certain ways to your character. The writers have the right to write NPC whore are lying to you, manipulating you and using you. Evil doesn't make you immune to those.

When Larian asked for evil feedbacks, that one quest options isn't what they meant. Lawful is actually the most lacking aspect in the game right now. Chaotic (good or evil) is the more prevalent. And evil (well entitled/vengeful/power hungry) isn't far behind Chaotic. Good (nice) is near Lawful in term of prevalence outside the Grove.

There is no reason when I get near the Druid Stone circle for the first time that my dialogue options when told I can't enter are:
- act like I own the place
- act like I own the place
- why can't I enter?
- leave

Oh Gods ... three sites ... this will be long one. :-/
Originally Posted by Abits
Sure you should. at least in theory. When Zavlor asks you for help, he promises to reward you.

True dat ... on the other hand, Zevlor repeatly warns you that they cant give you much ... and they are refugees, those usualy arent richest people ...
Compared to whole cult of new goddes that is tightly bound to your brain problem, and as i mentioned earlier allready is saving your neck ...
I dunno ... even greedy character should see biger profit here. :-/

After all, even your character have chat option to tell him something like: "Sorry Zevlor, but i need help, and her godess is my best chance."

Originally Posted by Abits
Whether he will keep his promise or not is a different matter, of course it's a risk, but less risky than doing what Minthara wants you to do. She just say "go kill everyone in the grove" "why?" "Because eeeeeevil." that's stupid.

I allready answered this question ... to be more precise in that post that you were quoting ...

Quote:
"Every decision you made you made for you own reasons, Larian dont need to show your character why you should that, or this ... that is for you to decide ... i dunno, maybe your character is homicidal maniac, maybe its xenophobic Tieflinghater, maybe hes fighter for goblin's rights, maybe hes just loyal to another Drow, or maybe he is really interested in that whole Absolute cult, so he really want them to suceed ... or maybe litteraly anything else. laugh
But its all up to you, and that is exactly why i just love it."

So that is why. wink
Also you say its less risky ... based on what exactly?
Bcs she is Drow? Bcs she worship Absolute? Bcs she comands goblins the only way they understand ... with ruthless iron fist?

Is that really so diffent when she tells you to help with her assault compared to Zevlor's "go convince druids" and then "go kill goblins"?
At last she is direct, and you cant say she was not honest with anyone, she maybe didnt tell some things at first ... but that is all she did, everything else is just matter of wich side you choose in battle (i dont wanna call this war, yet).

Originally Posted by Califax
The way I see it, the essence of evil is self interest above all. I see an evil character as one driven by greed, who lusts for power, one who'll take what they want even at the expense of others. When faced with a decision or a quest, an evil character doesn't ask "How can I be as big of a dick as possible?", they ask "How will this benefit me?".

So in other words I agree - there should be more incentive to be evil. In fact, I'd go further: there should be more incentive to be evil than good. Playing evil should be easy mode, they should get more loot, better gear, and positions of power. You don't choose to be evil for evil's sake; You are tempted by it, because evil means you get to live deliciously. You can have anything you want... all it costs is your soul.

That is certainly one of possible evils ...
And that is exactly and litteraly the reason why i posted that link to Wikipedia.
That as it seems everyone ignored. laugh :-/

Originally Posted by malks
Being evil is more than simply killing everyone and throwing rocks at bears. That is being an asshole.

Well yes, but actualy no ... meme is in place here.
Being evil certainly CAN BE more than simply killing everyone, and throwing rocks at bears ...

- For one there is litteraly no way you can say that exactly this behaviour is not evil. wink
- And for two, there is also litteraly no way you can say that any "evil" character cant do this and being right.

Have anyone of you seen those goblin kids?
They were not concerned about any (quote:)"eviiiiiiiil" alignment ... they were just having some fun, with no respect to others.

You all keep thinking about "why should my character do this", or "what will my character get when he do that" ...
Have anyone of you honestly even for a slightest second thinked about the idea, that character can ... i dunno ... just dont care? Just having some fun? Nothing more, nothing less? Just spot the opourtunity and take it without any futher concidering?
I gues not.
Its stupid way to play character in tabletop? Yes, obviously ... pretty anoying. Does it matter in singleplayer game? No.
Does it means that character probably will not be any deep thinker? Yes, sure, probably ... but have you honestly in your whole life did nothing impulsive? Do you really concider all pro and cons, all consequences, profits, and reasons? If so ... i feel kinda pitty for you. :-/

Originally Posted by malks
You could be evil and still save the tieflings and Halsin, provided they would work for you in return. Remind them in the future who saved them and why they should do such and such.

I once played a warlock that set a whole village against its mayor and put my minion in his place, the only person who died was the mayor and a few orcs I used in the process of agitating the village.

Imo, being evil is taking what you want with no care for others.
That's far from let's kill everyone, which is what seemed line the evil path available. Didn't finish the evil play because it didn't feel like true evil and more like chaotic evil.

That is all correct.
Its just not the only way ... that is one of reasons why in DnD are for so long 9 different alignments, not just two (good/evil) or three (and neutral). wink

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Its quickly becoming obvious this player is the sort that would burn down the orphanage just because its so garsh darn eviiiiiiiil.

Well ... even that is possible path. :-/
In mine opinion you should be able to do that if you really wish to represent your game as one of "choices matter".

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Perhaps at the very end there is an event where all the people you helped can help you.
If you were a selfish evil character who only acted on their own behalf would stand alone. Your evil companions would probably abandon you... why should they risk themselves for your benefit?

Yeah sure ... good must allways win, and evil must be allways punished ...
A bit too fairytale to me. :-/

They should bcs they have no choice.
They should bcs they are affraid of you.
They should bcs their godess orders them to, trhough you ofc.
They should bcs you are for them the only way to get rid of those pitiful lives in caves and burrows. (Have you even pay atention to those goblins, when they talk?)
And finaly ... they should, bcs many of them simply enjoy good carnage. :P

Originally Posted by Eddiar
But if you were good then you made friends. Friends that will stand by you. And face the final boss united.

And if you make zealots, cultists, slaves, and subjects ... they will fight that boss instead of you for some scraps you left for them to take. :P
That is ultimately that "greedy" and "selfish" evil you still talking about. smile

Originally Posted by Mozhad
in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.

It seem nuanced enough to me. O_o

You dont need to follow whole path, there is several points where you can reconcider ...
Wich kinda change situation.

For example on that gate ... you can betray the Drow, and help Tieflings ... situacion changed, they have now better defences, they have battleplan, advantage of terain ... it dont seem like so much suicide to join them against the Goblins now. Therefore more beneficial way for "non-Chaotic-Evil" characters.

Originally Posted by azarhal
You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.

You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.

I dont know if words can even express how happy i am to see at last one person here who gets it. :3 <3

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Doesn't that mean that for non-chaotic evil characters there is no path other than the good path right now? Larian seems to have specified the two paths as "good" and "evil" so surely there should be some room for nuance here.

Not at all ...
There are at last 3 factions ... Tieflings, Goblins, and Druids ... and you can help, ignore, or betray litteraly any of them (teoreticly even all of them) ... there even seem to be a way to just let them to fight each other, dont care and go with your own way: (didnt try yet tho)
If you kill Halsin, and probably even Drow will do ... and then use talk with dead to them ... you will learn about those Moonsomething towers (i still dont have the names memorized laugh ...)

Or! There is Githyanki creche, wich dont interact with neither of those groups in any way ... another quite neutral path.

You just need to see biger picture here. wink

Originally Posted by malks
The current path can be an option, should be.

What bothers people is that there aren't nuances to the evil path. It's simply chaotic evil.

I think Larian should take these suggestions into account, not all evil is a murder hobo evil.

Well ... you included yourself to war ...
When you dod that, you sooner or later need to kill someone ...

Its funny how many people care about bunch of hellspawn being killed and calling here for "better nuanced evil path" when they didnt even try to find it ...
And on the other hand nobody seem to care about those dozens of dead goblins with the "only one righterous path" ... where is those nuances in good playtrough? :P

Originally Posted by malks
Good point.

I dont want to kill all npcs i want to enslave, torture, corrupt and be evil in a way that they live and work for me.

Companions should be afraid and grow to hate me, joining forces to try to put me down when they wont endure it any longer. I would then have the option of jailing and torturing them. Or maybe just let them live because let them be miserable in their failures.

Yeah that's pretty bad, that's evil, terrible, but way more interesting than just killing everyone.

Actualy good idea!
I love it whole. :3

Originally Posted by azarhal
There isn't two paths, these are you options:

- side with the goblins + Haslin alive -> destroy grove + win DC with Minthara to have her you join you or fight her if you fail
- side with the goblins + Haslin alive -> backstab them and side with Tieflings at gate (The path with the less deaths despite you betraying both groups once)
- side with the goblins + Haslin dead -> backstab them and side with Tieflings at gate (next thing I'm trying, I'm hoping I can corrupt the Grove to the Shadow Druid still after it is done, but like all Shadow Druid stuff probably bugged)
- side with Zevlor -> kill Khaga -> (no idea as I haven't done it)
- side with Zevlor -> Expose Khaga -> (no idea as I haven't done it and it's partially bugged)
- side with Khaga -> kill Tiefling (?currently bugged, you can't talk to Zevlor after Khaga asked you to deal with him) -> Ritual happen which piss off Minthara (if Haslin is alive he's sad he can't return to the grove when he shows up in your camp)
- kill all 3 leaders because Haslin won't help you otherwise -> Tielfings live by association but you don't have to care
- kill all 3 leaders because Wyll asked -> Tielfings live by association and you probably care (the path call the goody-two-shoes one despite it having you kill more than if you raided the Grove)
- Haslin dead (regardless of how, he can die as a temporary companion while clearly the temple) -> once you read his journal you can just ignore the side quest of dealing with the refugees and continue on with the main quest



Explain to me why you think only the first option fit an evil character?

Maybe i allready said it but: <3
This is pure gold people. :3

This is exactly how it should be, seeing biger picture ...

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Meanwhile I cannot name a single thing the Tieflings do wrong in the narrative besides endangering what is apparently a group of racist bigoted druids led by a demagogue bent on ethnic cleansing.

Oh dear, how many lessons of history this reminds me ...

Some natives just take in some refugees that was not threated well in their homeland, probably bcs someone feel it as right thing to do, or maybe s/he pitty them.
Who knows, does not matter. Natives shared their land, their food, their homes ...
Sooner or later those refugees start to make their own comunity, distant from natives. Having their our leaders, working on own things.
And natives didnt even notice that much, since they have own things to care, and seen no problem in that this refugees started to care about own things too.
With some time, there was incidents ... there some kid broke something, there some other kid steal something, there some people have argue, there may even be risk of some fights.
And one day, natives just had enough ... coincidentally it was the day when one of kids stole their most sacred relic ... they stopped to feel pitty about poor refugees, they started to see them as leeches that uses their ground, eats their food, sleeps under their roofs, and dont even have enough decency to be at least so greatfull to try make no throubles.
So natives asked refugees to leave imediatly. And what happened? Refugees ... refused.

Still they seem so innocent to you? :-/

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Even Minthara does unless you pass a few dialogue checks.

That is actualy funny to mention ...

Minthara try to kill you when you fail two if i recall correctly (second one i had dif. 1 so ... not sure how big drama are we even talking about :D).
Kagha try to kill you when you fail one if i recall correcly (when Zevlor sends you to persuade her to stop the ritual)
Zevlor try to kill you without any dicerolls, in the second you tell him that Kagha told you that they need to leave now.

So ... yeah, sure ... Tieflings are totally good guys, civilized. laugh

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
There is a very likely permutation to the evil path that has you end up with significantly less than what you started with. Not just with 0 leads or allies, but also with a traumatised Shadowheart that is now locked out of approval gain for good. Even a murder hobo chaotic evil character must be thinking they fucked up at this point.

Well ... first of all, character you are describing will probably dont care about Shadowheart either. Just as about everyone else. laugh
So no ... i dont think they need to think that they screewed up ... i dont even think they need to think about outcome at all.

And yes, you certainly can end up litteraly empty handed.
As one old proverb says: "You played, and you lost."
I for one am really happy about this option in game ... finaly our characters are not allmighty gods that will do everything right, everything good, and everything for the first time ... finaly we can generaly fucked everything. laugh

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
When I am talking about nuance I am referring to the storytelling, not the outcome or even really its permutations. All of those are very rigid. Imagine if the druids decided to have a little nature party with you after you force the Tieflings to leave early. Or if the Gith creche / shadow curse alternate paths are added. Those would be actual new options.

Well ... druid party seem like nonsence, since they want to seal the groove for good. :-/
And if you try to force Tieflings out before you deal with goblins, Zevlor will just attack you.


BUT!
When you join your forces with goblins, you certainly get very alternative paths to chadow curse, if you roll your dices right.
And Githyanki creche seem to be added later, so i bet there will be even possibility to just leave them as they are and dont care about them at all.
(Then i presume that duids will complete the ritual, and massacre tieflings themseves. And goblins will just have whole area except the groove.)

Originally Posted by azarhal
You think NPCs should react certain ways to your character. The writers have the right to write NPC whore are lying to you, manipulating you and using you. Evil doesn't make you immune to those.

I generaly hope for more lying and manipulative characters in game ... it makes things interesting.

*Done for now. :P
I wonder if there even will be someone who read it. laugh
I set out to do an evil run for my first game. I made a lawful evil Githyanki slaver who was driven entirely by self interest and saw the races of the Prime Materium as tools to be used and discarded as needed.

I ended up doing what is pretty much a pure good playthrough because the evil route doesn't seem to offer you any reason to do it. This is entirely without meta knowledge, mind you. I played without knowing what any choice would lead to.

So let's go down my reasons for each decision I made.

1. I am a Githyanki with a tadpole in his brain. A cure is the priority. Nothing else matters.
2. I don't get involved in the druid politics. I learn Halsin might be able to help me.
3. I save the goblin so she can lead me to the goblin camp in search of Halsin.
4. I learn early on that this Absolute is tied to the tadpoles. Therefore it cannot be trusted.
5. I meet with Gut. I immediately do not trust her and do not ask her for help. She has a tadpole in her brain. She cannot be trusted.
6. Minthara orders me to destroy the grove. I kill her for having the gall to order me around and for having a tadpole in her head.
7. I find Halsin. He asks me to kill the goblin leaders and he'll help me with the tadpole.
8. I kill the goblin leaders and sneak out of the camp. End up getting the celebration with the tieflings.
9. Enter the Underdark. Side with Myconids because they offered to pay me.


So. Yah. There was not a single point where I felt even tempted to do anything especially evil. I got probably the most good guy ending you could get with my Githyanki slaver.

And this is because all the choices that seemed like they'd get me an immediate solution to my problem happened to also be the morally good choices to make.

Minthara needs to offer the player something for choosing her side. Right now she literally just orders you to do it as if you were an underling already sworn to her and the Absolute.

My suggestion? Have her hint at there being the possibility of learning to control the tadpole in your mind and harness its power for your own ends. That'd at least be something to tempt you to help her aside from boobies.
The point of having evil choices in RPGs is so players can feel virtuous about making good choices. If evil choices did not exist it would not be possible to choose good.
Originally Posted by azarhal

It doesn't count? That's not what the game is tell me by supporting it in the EA ending cinematic.

You think it doesn't count. Not the writers, they made it a side quest (actually 3 side quests) which means it is optional.
You think role-playing is following black or white breadcrumbs that reward you with a black and white outcome instead of taking decisions based on your character's personality. Not the writers.
You think certain action leads to certain long term results you can't even prove exist because they aren't in the game. This has nothing to do with the writers.

You think NPCs should react certain ways to your character. The writers have the right to write NPC whore are lying to you, manipulating you and using you. Evil doesn't make you immune to those.

When Larian asked for evil feedbacks, that one quest options isn't what they meant. Lawful is actually the most lacking aspect in the game right now. Chaotic (good or evil) is the more prevalent. And evil (well entitled/vengeful/power hungry) isn't far behind Chaotic. Good (nice) is near Lawful in term of prevalence outside the Grove.

There is no reason when I get near the Druid Stone circle for the first time that my dialogue options when told I can't enter are:
- act like I own the place
- act like I own the place
- why can't I enter?
- leave



I say it doesn't count because these are permutations that change one line in the ending cinematic. Of course, the Tiefling / Goblin ending does the same thing; "You think back on the refugees and remember (their calls of celebration / THEIR SCREAMS OF DEATH). But those two outcomes lead to two distinct camp events which none of the others do. Camp events seem to be the milestones on which BGIII measures your progress so the Tiefling / goblin content is "main quest" material while everything else is not. I think we can agree on that much, right? Even despite the fact there is little to no "main quest" content in Act 1 to begin with knowing the tadpole is a red herring.


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Oh dear, how many lessons of history this reminds me ...

Some natives just take in some refugees that was not threated well in their homeland, probably bcs someone feel it as right thing to do, or maybe s/he pitty them.
Who knows, does not matter. Natives shared their land, their food, their homes ...
Sooner or later those refugees start to make their own comunity, distant from natives. Having their our leaders, working on own things.
And natives didnt even notice that much, since they have own things to care, and seen no problem in that this refugees started to care about own things too.
With some time, there was incidents ... there some kid broke something, there some other kid steal something, there some people have argue, there may even be risk of some fights.
And one day, natives just had enough ... coincidentally it was the day when one of kids stole their most sacred relic ... they stopped to feel pitty about poor refugees, they started to see them as leeches that uses their ground, eats their food, sleeps under their roofs, and dont even have enough decency to be at least so greatfull to try make no throubles.
So natives asked refugees to leave imediatly. And what happened? Refugees ... refused.

Still they seem so innocent to you? :-/


To me? Not at all. I can't just ignore all the subtext the writers put in though. I expect the story of the Tiefling refugees to carry on through the entire game, which is why I dislike how black and white it is.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Well ... first of all, character you are describing will probably dont care about Shadowheart either. Just as about everyone else. laugh
So no ... i dont think they need to think that they screewed up ... i dont even think they need to think about outcome at all.

And yes, you certainly can end up litteraly empty handed.
As one old proverb says: "You played, and you lost."
I for one am really happy about this option in game ... finaly our characters are not allmighty gods that will do everything right, everything good, and everything for the first time ... finaly we can generaly fucked everything. laugh

Can't you see how this is bad game design? Why would anyone pick this ending ever again knowing that it screws them over completely. The evil path should lead to equal, if not greater rewards compared to the good path...
I wasn't enjoying the evil playthrough then I discovered something in the under dark which made things a lot more interesting...


I just finished a playthrough where I was pro absolute and to my surprise the story continues in the under dark despite Minthara telling me to go through the mountain pass! Luckily I wanted to continue playing so I went to the under dark anyway and I learned that you can actually talk to the Duergar and learn they are followers of the absolute and you can side with them?! This makes the evil playthrough much more interesting to me, shame the fort is not in early access yet.

In my Good playthrough I helped the Myconids so Duergar attacked me on sight before I could learn anything about them so I thought they were just generic enemies. I had no idea why they had a boat or why the boat took me to a fort but that was all explained to me in this playthrough.

It feels like a waste to have all this really interesting future content when Minthara is going to send you through the mountain pass instead? Why would we go to the under dark instead of following Minthara's orders? I guess the mountain pass route could be interesting too but I think the Duergar fort (if we can help them) is the type content that we are missing in Act 1 currently for evil playthroughs.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Can't you see how this is bad game design? Why would anyone pick this ending ever again knowing that it screws them over completely. The evil path should lead to equal, if not greater rewards compared to the good path...

Clearly i cant ... at last as much as you cant see it isnt. smile
We can allways just agree to disagree tho. laugh

You seem to take that screwed outcome as certainity, but! And this is important butt (:D)
1) You dont know reward, since we are not yet in the end of that path ... not for evil, nor good characters. So as i still keep repeating, there may be big reward in the end ... we just dont see it yet. wink
2) There is lot of possible permutations, lot of dicerolls that can change your course ... and yes, one of possible outcomes is you get screwed, but remember its only one of multiple results, it cant be taken as cetain. wink

Originally Posted by Saberem
I wasn't enjoying the evil playthrough then I discovered something in the under dark which made things a lot more interesting...

I just finished a playthrough where I was pro absolute and to my surprise the story continues in the under dark despite Minthara telling me to go through the mountain pass! Luckily I wanted to continue playing so I went to the under dark anyway and I learned that you can actually talk to the Duergar and learn they are followers of the absolute and you can side with them?! This makes the evil playthrough much more interesting to me, shame the fort is not in early access yet.

In my Good playthrough I helped the Myconids so Duergar attacked me on sight before I could learn anything about them so I thought they were just generic enemies. I had no idea why they had a boat or why the boat took me to a fort but that was all explained to me in this playthrough.

It feels like a waste to have all this really interesting future content when Minthara is going to send you through the mountain pass instead? Why would we go to the under dark instead of following Minthara's orders? I guess the mountain pass route could be interesting too but I think the Duergar fort (if we can help them) is the type content that we are missing in Act 1 currently for evil playthroughs.


I feel kinda bad about ruining your excitement but:
I dont think they are related to Minthara at all ... if you watch this situation carefully, you shall see that there is many similarities as "on the ground" as "under it" ...
For example: Up there is three factions in dispute goblins, druids and tieflings ... down here its gnomes, duegars, and myconids ...

And i bet you know where im aiming with that ...
I presume that simmilar as up there you will have option to choose wich of those factions you will help, wich one you will wipe out, and wich (if any) you will betray.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Can't you see how this is bad game design? Why would anyone pick this ending ever again knowing that it screws them over completely. The evil path should lead to equal, if not greater rewards compared to the good path...

Clearly i cant ... at last as much as you cant see it isnt. smile
We can allways just agree to disagree tho. laugh

You seem to take that screwed outcome as certainity, but! And this is important butt (:D)
1) You dont know reward, since we are not yet in the end of that path ... not for evil, nor good characters. So as i still keep repeating, there may be big reward in the end ... we just dont see it yet. wink
2) There is lot of possible permutations, lot of dicerolls that can change your course ... and yes, one of possible outcomes is you get screwed, but remember its only one of multiple results, it cant be taken as cetain. wink


So as i still keep repeating, there may be big reward in the end ... we just dont see it yet. wink

Unless this is communicated to the player through gameplay I see no point in pretending there is a bigger picture we are just not seeing. The player knows ingame that the Absolute is a sham and its forces are presented as weak and newly emerging, no sudden massive increase in power on the Absolute's part is going to convince me otherwise. It's like the Absolute is the new cool villain on the block that is going to overtake all the gods (the goblins disavowed Maglubiyet, Minthara possibly disoved Lolth) but none of the NPC's who are not already aligned with the Absolute take it seriously. The NPC's that are already with the Absolute are over the top zealots who hate you for telling them their True Souls are tadpoled.

Not to mention that even if what you say is true, I don't see why siding with Minthara is the same as siding with the Absolute as a whole. If that were the case, surely the goblins would not betray you. Helping the Absolute feels like being its thankless errand boy right now, everyone else already on board with it is in an established position in the Absolute's forces and would kill a newcomer like you on a dime. Nobody tries to sell you the side of the Absolute other than the being itself through those dreams, and it is unclear right now how much agency the Illithid tadpole has in this. What we do know however is that we are infected, for some reason nobody else on the Absolute's side knows this. What if you go through with the evil path and the Absolute just extracts your now incredibly powerful tadpole, then kills you?
Just want to add how for me the fact that the world is set in a permanent sunny summer day makes it almost impossible to follow an 'evil' path.
Mainly for RP reasons: evil and non law abiding characters don't go stealing/fencing in the day, they do so at night avoiding guards. Also as an evil (or chaotic opportunist) PC , I def. want to rob houses, sneak around sleeping NPC's etc. The permanent daytime makes it that I have to quite literally remind myself that I am supposed to be evil and that making evil decisions in full sight during the day is apparently no issue.

To conclude, to have an immersive 'evil' or not lawfull good roleplaying experience I would need to be able to roam the maps at night/evening, I want to discover a different world after sun set. I want to meet thieves, fences, and other NPC's of questionable reputation when the sun doesn't shine. That was the kind of experience I was hoping for and I simply don't see how they can turn a blind eye on such a world defining feature. It really makes me sad that we won't be able to experience the city of Baldurs Gate both as the busy capital of trade it is in the day and the cozy but sketchy slum infested criminal capital it is at night/dusk.
ATM the only hope I have is that now that they made so much money on EA sales, that - given their stretch goals for DO - they will prioritize and try to implement some form of day/night (doesn't need to be fully dynamic).
Originally Posted by Vhaldez


Unless this is communicated to the player through gameplay I see no point in pretending there is a bigger picture we are just not seeing. The player knows ingame that the Absolute is a sham and its forces are presented as weak and newly emerging, no sudden massive increase in power on the Absolute's part is going to convince me otherwise. It's like the Absolute is the new cool villain on the block that is going to overtake all the gods (the goblins disavowed Maglubiyet, Minthara possibly disoved Lolth) but none of the NPC's who are not already aligned with the Absolute take it seriously. The NPC's that are already with the Absolute are over the top zealots who hate you for telling them their True Souls are tadpoled.

Not to mention that even if what you say is true, I don't see why siding with Minthara is the same as siding with the Absolute as a whole. If that were the case, surely the goblins would not betray you. Helping the Absolute feels like being its thankless errand boy right now, everyone else already on board with it is in an established position in the Absolute's forces and would kill a newcomer like you on a dime. Nobody tries to sell you the side of the Absolute other than the being itself through those dreams, and it is unclear right now how much agency the Illithid tadpole has in this. What we do know however is that we are infected, for some reason nobody else on the Absolute's side knows this. What if you go through with the evil path and the Absolute just extracts your now incredibly powerful tadpole, then kills you?




You might want to take into account the absolute zealots have been 'infected' by the parasite through a ritual apparently.

So it could also mean the absolute is just a puppet of the illithids and they are the ones providing her with the tadpoles. And so, she's just a pawn in their scheme and the player has got the baby first hand from them instead, which created a sort of schism between two factions which in fact are one and only.
I've actually put up a thread on how the first impressions for an Evil playthrough is important and would love to hear everyone's thoughts on that. For my part having done 6 characters evil, I would agree with most of what is being discussed here.

My most memorable moment at the moment in an Evil playthrough is actually my Halfling Hunter. I placed her where the elevator was in overlooking the Ritual after murdering the 2 tieflings around (left the squirrel but he didn't seem bothered that I offed 2 Tieflings in front of it). From my vantage point, I went into stealth and took a shot at the druids doing the ritual. I killed 2 before they went apeshit and started rushing down the Tieflings and killing them. I sat back and enjoyed the carnage. This was what I did immediately after coming in and did not agree to anything with Zevlor. In my "theatre of mind" the Halfling was just Chaotic Evil and wanted to push the druids to take action. Interestingly the Tieflings won, (somehow the druids Entangled their own team in a choke point and got picked off one by one) and they then decided to stay to defend themselves from the Goblins.

It did make this particular run enjoyable. This was only possible with the knowledge of the prior playthroughs though. My first evil playthrough bugged out at the Grove, Minthara just wouldn't talk to me even though the Grove was cleared.
Originally Posted by Tzariax
I've actually put up a thread on how the first impressions for an Evil playthrough is important and would love to hear everyone's thoughts on that. For my part having done 6 characters evil, I would agree with most of what is being discussed here.

My most memorable moment at the moment in an Evil playthrough is actually my Halfling Hunter. I placed her where the elevator was in overlooking the Ritual after murdering the 2 tieflings around (left the squirrel but he didn't seem bothered that I offed 2 Tieflings in front of it). From my vantage point, I went into stealth and took a shot at the druids doing the ritual. I killed 2 before they went apeshit and started rushing down the Tieflings and killing them. I sat back and enjoyed the carnage. This was what I did immediately after coming in and did not agree to anything with Zevlor. In my "theatre of mind" the Halfling was just Chaotic Evil and wanted to push the druids to take action. Interestingly the Tieflings won, (somehow the druids Entangled their own team in a choke point and got picked off one by one) and they then decided to stay to defend themselves from the Goblins.

It did make this particular run enjoyable. This was only possible with the knowledge of the prior playthroughs though. My first evil playthrough bugged out at the Grove, Minthara just wouldn't talk to me even though the Grove was cleared.


I knew there was a missing item in this game: a halfling pipe, to smoke your favorite weed while enjoying some pleasant slaughter afternoon laugh
Well the new community update is up and they talk about how many people decided to side with the Tieflings over Minthara.

Good does out weight the Bad but not entirely because of our Morals Larian.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Well the new community update is up and they talk about how many people decided to side with the Tieflings over Minthara.

Good does out weight the Bad but not entirely because of our Morals Larian.


Yes I agree. On one of my playthroughs, I made a save at the gate and decided to side with Minthara in one instance and side with the Tieflings in the other.

It's much more rewarding to side with tieflings at the moment, for example related to your relationship with Shadowheart with whom you get a romance option only on the good path. And as well, it didn't help, but Minthara was bugged. I couldn't interact with her inside the grove.
Originally Posted by Nyanko

You might want to take into account the absolute zealots have been 'infected' by the parasite through a ritual apparently.

So it could also mean the absolute is just a puppet of the illithids and they are the ones providing her with the tadpoles. And so, she's just a pawn in their scheme and the player has got the baby first hand from them instead, which created a sort of schism between two factions which in fact are one and only.


I think the Absolute is meant to be more powerful than several gods combined, considering there are hints towards it wanting to overthrow the Dead Three. This is not conveyed to the player well at all though, it seems as though the Absolute is a small upstart cult in the area you are in and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Well the new community update is up and they talk about how many people decided to side with the Tieflings over Minthara.

Good does out weight the Bad but not entirely because of our Morals Larian.


We’re saving perhaps the most interesting until last. Slight spoiler, so if you don’t want spoilers, don’t read this. You may know that at a point in the game, you may side with one of two factions: the Tieflings against the goblins, or with Minthara who demands the gates are opened for the goblins to attack the Druids Grove.

74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems.

An optimistic note to end on.


75% to 25%... This confirms that this binary choice is the only one that matters and how poorly implemented it is.

The binary choice of siding with the refugees or the goblins is fine by me.
The problem in my opinion is the choices you get before getting to that point. And the choices after it.

IE sparing the tieflings, but sparing them after robbing them blind.
You could say they become my servants, I spare their lives if they spread the word of the Absolute in Baldur's Gate.

Or some other contrived way of just not being a dumb murder hobo.
I highlighted in my thread that the reason why people are inclined to side with the Tieflings is because of how the start always paints the Goblins as "bad" seeing you don't have a choice to fight with them at the Druid's Grove. If people are given a choice to fight with the Goblins and experience the other side of the story, they may then be more inclined to take out the Druids. Remember that there are various ways the Grove can be ambushed and currently it seems the story is forced to go via the main gate interaction.

In my Halfling playthrough after the Tieflings took out the Druids, I systematically murdered each of the remaining Tieflings. I then decided to head towards the Goblin camp to inform Minthara of my actions and was hoping for a different reaction or reward of sorts. The same cutscene then proceed to happen where she gets annoyed at the Goblin with the poor scouting and asking me about the torture or if I know what happened. Was REALLY hoping for a "I took them all out myself for the Absolute" option which would be super awesome. Of course it was not meant to be and she then proceeded to do the whole, Lets go we found the place. Only way to proceed from then on is to take a Long Rest which then gives an update on the Quest that the "Goblins got to the Grove before you can do anything". Bummed out cause, you know, I was the one that did all the killing lol.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
The binary choice of siding with the refugees or the goblins is fine by me.
The problem in my opinion is the choices you get before getting to that point. And the choices after it.

IE sparing the tieflings, but sparing them after robbing them blind.
You could say they become my servants, I spare their lives if they spread the word of the Absolute in Baldur's Gate.

Or some other contrived way of just not being a dumb murder hobo.


The current system of setpiece choices with permatutions along the way does not seem to allow for that, which is a shame. Maybe further down the line when the "evil" path is reworked there will be room for nuance like this, but Larian going 75% GOOD WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE in the latest announcement worries me a little.
Originally Posted by Tzariax
I highlighted in my thread that the reason why people are inclined to side with the Tieflings is because of how the start always paints the Goblins as "bad" seeing you don't have a choice to fight with them at the Druid's Grove. If people are given a choice to fight with the Goblins and experience the other side of the story, they may then be more inclined to take out the Druids. Remember that there are various ways the Grove can be ambushed and currently it seems the story is forced to go via the main gate interaction.

In my Halfling playthrough after the Tieflings took out the Druids, I systematically murdered each of the remaining Tieflings. I then decided to head towards the Goblin camp to inform Minthara of my actions and was hoping for a different reaction or reward of sorts. The same cutscene then proceed to happen where she gets annoyed at the Goblin with the poor scouting and asking me about the torture or if I know what happened. Was REALLY hoping for a "I took them all out myself for the Absolute" option which would be super awesome. Of course it was not meant to be and she then proceeded to do the whole, Lets go we found the place. Only way to proceed from then on is to take a Long Rest which then gives an update on the Quest that the "Goblins got to the Grove before you can do anything". Bummed out cause, you know, I was the one that did all the killing lol.



It's linked as well on how the map is made. And it's a narrative flaw I think. Because your character has to see the gate scene, where goblins attack the grove, before meeting goblins in the blighted village. You can't even escape it in stealth. It's just thrown at your face because there is no other way to get higher in the map than by this route.

There should be a way to avoid the gate fight altogether and meet the goblins first.
i still think its just odd game design that despite wotc directing larian to move away from an alignment system, larian/wotc still clearly distinguishes between good v evil story paths while not allowing the pc to select an alignment for roleplaying purposes - even if alignment was something as arbitrary as hair color in terms of game mechanics.

i wonder how/if larian incorporates any feedback to modify an 'evil' playthrough to make it more worthwhile to pursue for the player to even out that 75v25 dynamic, ie quest rewards, companion priorities, ease of completing either story path, etc. i do think that for a dnd game that there should be more than just the 'good v evil' binary choices for this particular scenario, which there are already elements of (ignore questline or murderhobo everyone, etc) but i also think there should be a possibility for creating a truce or temporary ceasefire between the two sides (tho granted a truce isnt really evil) or if you were able to roll (intimidate, persuade, deceive, etc) to cause one of the two leaders of either side stand down in such a way that didnt result in bloodshed but still gave this story line a 'victory' to either the goblins or tieflings (or druids)
Originally Posted by nation

i wonder how/if larian incorporates any feedback to modify an 'evil' playthrough to make it more worthwhile to pursue for the player to even out that 75v25 dynamic, ie quest rewards, companion priorities, ease of completing either story path, etc. i do think that for a dnd game that there should be more than just the 'good v evil' binary choices for this particular scenario, which there are already elements of (ignore questline or murderhobo everyone, etc) but i also think there should be a possibility for creating a truce or temporary ceasefire between the two sides (tho granted a truce isnt really evil) or if you were able to roll (intimidate, persuade, deceive, etc) to cause one of the two leaders of either side stand down in such a way that didnt result in bloodshed but still gave this story line a 'victory' to either the goblins or tieflings (or druids)


Move away from setpiece decisions and make larger permutations possible for both paths. Of course, that is not possible if the Tieflings have an entire arc planned in Act 2 which requires them to be central to the narrative. It seems to me that the goblins and Minthara betray you now so they are out of the picture in Act 1B and beyond, making the choice Tieflings or nothing at the moment.
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by Tzariax
I highlighted in my thread that the reason why people are inclined to side with the Tieflings is because of how the start always paints the Goblins as "bad" seeing you don't have a choice to fight with them at the Druid's Grove. If people are given a choice to fight with the Goblins and experience the other side of the story, they may then be more inclined to take out the Druids. Remember that there are various ways the Grove can be ambushed and currently it seems the story is forced to go via the main gate interaction.

In my Halfling playthrough after the Tieflings took out the Druids, I systematically murdered each of the remaining Tieflings. I then decided to head towards the Goblin camp to inform Minthara of my actions and was hoping for a different reaction or reward of sorts. The same cutscene then proceed to happen where she gets annoyed at the Goblin with the poor scouting and asking me about the torture or if I know what happened. Was REALLY hoping for a "I took them all out myself for the Absolute" option which would be super awesome. Of course it was not meant to be and she then proceeded to do the whole, Lets go we found the place. Only way to proceed from then on is to take a Long Rest which then gives an update on the Quest that the "Goblins got to the Grove before you can do anything". Bummed out cause, you know, I was the one that did all the killing lol.



It's linked as well on how the map is made. And it's a narrative flaw I think. Because your character has to see the gate scene, where goblins attack the grove, before meeting goblins in the blighted village. You can't even escape it in stealth. It's just thrown at your face because there is no other way to get higher in the map than by this route.

There should be a way to avoid the gate fight altogether and meet the goblins first.



Totally agree with you hence why I recommended the alternate choices to resolve this problem. That encounter can still happen but you are given a choice to either side with either party or watch. Assuming watch we can assume the Goblins lose (realistically you're a scouting party that chanced on a Druid Grove) and then a simple check to convince them to let you in or not.
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems.

An optimistic note to end on. "

I'll just put it here and see what happens
Originally Posted by Abits
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems.

An optimistic note to end on. "

I'll just put it here and see what happens


[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by Abits
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems.

An optimistic note to end on. "

I'll just put it here and see what happens

[Linked Image]
I just finished my evil run and pretty much had the same problems. There's no incentive for being evil. The gith route isn't in EA yet and that might work for a more sane selfish character that doesn't care about the Tieiflings. Wish the absolute people actually tried to recruit you though. Isn't that the whole point of putting the tadpole in us? They could offer us a way to control it, tempt us with power. Astarion might even be into that. Instead, they're all wanting to kill us, making it hard to even get on the evil route. I save scummed to do it both ways. Sided with goblins for the hell of it, only reason there is. Then I saved the tieflings since Halsin would be best bet for removing my tabpole in that instance. It's kinda funny that they throw a party for me when I'm the reason the goblins knew about their location. Felt like Shrek walking into my camp, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY SWAMP!?"

On a side note, my evil run was also my solo challenge run. I didn't recruit any of the companions. I could solo the temple bandits and gnolls. Even managed some goblin encounters. I used environmental traps and would take ranged pop shots, hide, repeat. Didn't bring any barrels with me for those kind of tricks. I was a rogue too, so even in a fixed action economy my sneak attack cheese would still work. Enemies should come looking at the last place they saw you rather than just standing still and *growling.* Most goblins I could skip past, being an evil drow. Sneaked past the minotaurs too. I did use Glut for the dark dwarves though. For the big battle at the grove I used the ogre bonehorn. I was actually surprised how little I died and that I could actually make it to the skiff and end the game. A fun challenge!
Originally Posted by Sigi98
Can only agree.


+1. Can only agree here. Let's hope elements of this open up later in EA.
Originally Posted by HustleCat
I just finished my evil run and pretty much had the same problems. There's no incentive for being evil. The gith route isn't in EA yet and that might work for a more sane selfish character that doesn't care about the Tieiflings. Wish the absolute people actually tried to recruit you though. Isn't that the whole point of putting the tadpole in us? They could offer us a way to control it, tempt us with power. Astarion might even be into that. Instead, they're all wanting to kill us, making it hard to even get on the evil route. I save scummed to do it both ways. Sided with goblins for the hell of it, only reason there is. Then I saved the tieflings since Halsin would be best bet for removing my tabpole in that instance. It's kinda funny that they throw a party for me when I'm the reason the goblins knew about their location. Felt like Shrek walking into my camp, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY SWAMP!?"


Recent discoveries in the files have made "evil" even worse.

Apparently Zevlor is an Absolute spy. He has a few lines referring to this that were found in the datamine. It might be cut content, but this means even the good path is an evil path now.
That is the most retarded thing i have heard today.
No.

No. Just no
Another issue with the current evil path is that to get on it you actually need to perform an act of altruism first.

Stepping in front of the crossbow to save a mere goblin is not something most evil characters would do. Gale even treats this moment as the very height of heroism when you do it and when he talks to you later about why he trusts you so much. I did it in my game because my Gith reasoned that getting the goblin to lead him back to camp would be the quickest way to Halsin and a cure, but I could see another evil character not consider the option at all.

Is there any way to meet Minthara and join the Absolute without rescuing Sazza first?
Originally Posted by SaurianDruid
Another issue with the current evil path is that to get on it you actually need to perform an act of altruism first.

Stepping in front of the crossbow to save a mere goblin is not something most evil characters would do. Gale even treats this moment as the very height of heroism when you do it and when he talks to you later about why he trusts you so much. I did it in my game because my Gith reasoned that getting the goblin to lead him back to camp would be the quickest way to Halsin and a cure, but I could see another evil character not consider the option at all.

Is there any way to meet Minthara and join the Absolute without rescuing Sazza first?


Of course. You can either play as a drow (the easiest option) or use the tadpole when you meet the goblins at the camp and they will let you pass, thus won't be hostile. I've never needed Sazza to join Minthara personally.
Originally Posted by SaurianDruid
Another issue with the current evil path is that to get on it you actually need to perform an act of altruism first.

Stepping in front of the crossbow to save a mere goblin is not something most evil characters would do. Gale even treats this moment as the very height of heroism when you do it and when he talks to you later about why he trusts you so much. I did it in my game because my Gith reasoned that getting the goblin to lead him back to camp would be the quickest way to Halsin and a cure, but I could see another evil character not consider the option at all.

Is there any way to meet Minthara and join the Absolute without rescuing Sazza first?

There are actually many ways. which is great from a gameplay point and terrible from a story point.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Unless this is communicated to the player through gameplay I see no point in pretending there is a bigger picture we are just not seeing.

Well ... i havent seen any "big final reward" for being good either. :-/
So it seem only fair to presume the same for both paths.

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
The player knows ingame that the Absolute is a sham and its forces are presented as weak and newly emerging, no sudden massive increase in power on the Absolute's part is going to convince me otherwise.

A sham? Not at all ...
For one, Absolute is that magic entity that stoped your transformation ... even that aloe is proof enough of her being real. laugh
For two, players dont know ... other characters presume, or are quite sure about, but they dont "know" since they have no source. wink

Forces presented as weak?
Where? laugh There is goblin army that whole druid groove, and tiefling refugees are affraid off ...
Duegars seem to have own fortress in Underdark, and they were strong enough to wipe out Myconid village ...
And Absolute have demonstrably Drows on her side ...
That is what you call weak? laugh

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
It's like the Absolute is the new cool villain on the block that is going to overtake all the gods (the goblins disavowed Maglubiyet, Minthara possibly disoved Lolth) but none of the NPC's who are not already aligned with the Absolute take it seriously. The NPC's that are already with the Absolute are over the top zealots who hate you for telling them their True Souls are tadpoled.

Well you cant reveal main antagonist if first ten minutes of game ...
And it seem to me understandable that they hate you for telling them, they see themselves as Clerics that have this unnatural power given from their gods ... not some braineating parasite. laugh That kinda diminshes their social status.

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Not to mention that even if what you say is true, I don't see why siding with Minthara is the same as siding with the Absolute as a whole.

Me neither ...
Im not sure if i ever even sugested such thing.

Presuming that Larian will be loyal to their permutation standards ...
We may be possibly do many things ... ally her, betray her and take her place, boss her, etc.

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
If that were the case, surely the goblins would not betray you.

Goblins obey their misstress ... she comand, they follow ... they dont even think for themselves.
Therefore Goblins "technicaly" never betrayed you ... Minthara did(read as could), and they just followed orders.

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Helping the Absolute feels like being its thankless errand boy right now

A bit, yes ...
In my country we say: "Who come late, harms himself."

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
everyone else already on board with it is in an established position in the Absolute's forces and would kill a newcomer like you on a dime. Nobody tries to sell you the side of the Absolute other than the being itself through those dreams

Yup, totally ... so far we met 2 Absolute priests ... and conveniently she was both selfish beneficial b**ch, that was just planning to use us and betray us for her own benefit.

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
and it is unclear right now how much agency the Illithid tadpole has in this.

Indeed ...
It would be fun, if illithids will be used just as we were in this scenario. :3
But i believe they know about it ... since that dead Illithid in Goblin camp known quite good answer for: "What is absolute?"
Maybe its some new kind of elder brain? :-/
That could explain why everyone sees it as beautifull being. :P

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
What we do know however is that we are infected, for some reason nobody else on the Absolute's side knows this. What if you go through with the evil path and the Absolute just extracts your now incredibly powerful tadpole, then kills you?

I gues we will die in that case? laugh
Dunno, but its possible ... i would not take it as certainity, there will for sure be some dicerolls to save your ass ... or brain ... or both, separately. laugh

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
I think the Absolute is meant to be more powerful than several gods combined, considering there are hints towards it wanting to overthrow the Dead Three. This is not conveyed to the player well at all though, it seems as though the Absolute is a small upstart cult in the area you are in and nothing more.

Nothin more yet ...
Minthara specificly say to you (when you win your dicerolls) that she will go prepare the army, while you shall go meet the Absolute, and you will come back as "something magnificent" (or something like that).

Originally Posted by Eddiar
75% to 25%... This confirms that this binary choice is the only one that matters and how poorly implemented it is.

I think not ...
It certainly confrims that through multiple permutation, wich can suit multiple different character you can get two outcomes by the end.
After all, even if you were able to take half Tieflings to prison, and then sell them as slaves ... wich was one of suggestions here, you will be still concidered as "helped goblins" in this statistics.

Originally Posted by HustleCat
Wish the absolute people actually tried to recruit you though. Isn't that the whole point of putting the tadpole in us? They could offer us a way to control it, tempt us with power.

Wait here ...
Absolute (as potential godess) do all that. When speak to you through your dreams.

Originally Posted by HustleCat
Instead, they're all wanting to kill us

True, but that is not Absolute, that is her Cultists ...
While Absolute may be godes, or some entity that will try to become godess, and may want another followers, worshippers, etc.
Cultist are merely mortals, who want their power in this new system ... so they, on the contrary are affraid of competition, and therefore erase it as soon as possible.

At least that is how i understand it.

Originally Posted by HustleCat
Then I saved the tieflings since Halsin would be best bet for removing my tabpole in that instance.

Well ... so far all we know is that Halsin can point you the direction where from is that "strange dark magic" that alternet tadpole ...
Meaning he will just show you the way to the Absolute, simmilar (if not just the same) as Minthara.

Originally Posted by SaurianDruid
Another issue with the current evil path is that to get on it you actually need to perform an act of altruism first.

Stepping in front of the crossbow to save a mere goblin is not something most evil characters would do. Gale even treats this moment as the very height of heroism when you do it and when he talks to you later about why he trusts you so much. I did it in my game because my Gith reasoned that getting the goblin to lead him back to camp would be the quickest way to Halsin and a cure, but I could see another evil character not consider the option at all.

Is there any way to meet Minthara and join the Absolute without rescuing Sazza first?

Well ... not sure if that isnt bug (and i presume it is) ...
Every time you walk into that camp you are able to simply walk and talk to Minthara, not sure if you can allways walk through front doors ... but there is few other ways.
For som strainge reason, all goblins are neutral to you when you get there, even if you kill guards behind the bridge and even if they sound the allarm with that cute buggy drum. :-/
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
emojis

Can you give me a more general argument about why you think the evil route is anything more than a mmorpg quest with sex prize?
Larian: we will motivate the player to try the evil walkthrough

Also Larian: they gave a good passage a lot more content and quests (evil players are not even shown a video from the developers), they gave more reasons to help tieflings, they did not even give the player a choice in favor of goblins (he could have been on the first visit to the grove of druids). We did everything so that helping Mintara was rather an Easter egg or an option for those who really liked this drow and they are specifically looking for an opportunity to make friends with her, despite the absurdity of this decision. Because the game doesn’t give any clues at all what it might be interesting for us, what is our benefit and what prospects. Larian didn't even let her join the party, and this is the only reason why anyone in general may be interested in the root of evil at the moment.

Also Larian: "74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems"

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Butthurt, I cannot understand their joy and enthusiasm about this.
This statistic is simply that there is a problem with the evil passage, and not because everyone decided to play as a paladin.
Even the choice between the Karlach and the "paladins of Tyr" made me help Karlach, because I cannot enter the service of the demons.

Who else, if not we, should loudly say that we don't like it? Otherwise, they can start doing more content further just for good, because "people choose this way and this deserves more attention". This would be a fatal mistake that could ruin the development of the game.
If the players do not choose the evil path, then work and make more content are needed EXACTLY FOR HIM. Larian's goal should be 50-50.

I hope that they will draw the right conclusions, because I really want to play on the path of evil, and so that it is deeper and more thoughtful. And I want other players to try it too.
I guess half the issue is the evil route isn’t obvious.

The game starts making a big deal out of getting rid of the tadpole and the druids seem to offer up the clearest path towards doing this, so why shouldn’t I just murder the goblins and free Halsin? The fact that this idea of a cure is to say “hey no rush buddy, go to place x and get some answers there”, feels a bit cheap.

If the Absolute do have plans for you, or if the game wants to at least grant this as an option maybe they should try and get the message out to you sooner. I mean yeah the Druid leadership sucked and I would have happily slaughtered them, but you’re informed Halsin is not such an arse and can likely cure you. Should have know better after the Nettie incident.

Also if there are NPC’s, whether Goblins, Drow or Aunties out there to provide alternative options, maybe the party members, especially the murkier ones could suggest we hear these alternative arguments out?!

So anyway, I didn’t set out to be good per say, it’s just following the concept of tadpole = bad means that one focuses on one’s self and the so called good side just seems the logical choice.

In other words, the “evil” play through could do with some additional marketing!
Originally Posted by Nyanko

Of course. You can either play as a drow (the easiest option) or use the tadpole when you meet the goblins at the camp and they will let you pass, thus won't be hostile. I've never needed Sazza to join Minthara personally.


That is good to know. Though if you're not a drow and are trying to not use the tadpole's powers it seems a bit limiting.

It'd be great if we learned more about the Absolute sooner. Or at least learned that our tadpoles weren't a death sentence so we might be more encouraged to explore wielding the tadpole's power more.
Originally Posted by Riandor
I guess half the issue is the evil route isn’t obvious.

The game starts making a big deal out of getting rid of the tadpole and the druids seem to offer up the clearest path towards doing this, so why shouldn’t I just murder the goblins and free Halsin? The fact that this idea of a cure is to say “hey no rush buddy, go to place x and get some answers there”, feels a bit cheap.

If the Absolute do have plans for you, or if the game wants to at least grant this as an option maybe they should try and get the message out to you sooner. I mean yeah the Druid leadership sucked and I would have happily slaughtered them, but you’re informed Halsin is not such an arse and can likely cure you. Should have know better after the Nettie incident.

Also if there are NPC’s, whether Goblins, Drow or Aunties out there to provide alternative options, maybe the party members, especially the murkier ones could suggest we hear these alternative arguments out?!

So anyway, I didn’t set out to be good per say, it’s just following the concept of tadpole = bad means that one focuses on one’s self and the so called good side just seems the logical choice.

In other words, the “evil” play through could do with some additional marketing!

Yeah, that's exactly what we've been talking about here. we need incentives to go evil. I mean sex with a drow is an OP incentive, but it's more of a side effect than an actual reward.
Yeah I mean, after getting to the Drow she doesn’t exactly try to charm you with some big, oh it’s you... she just commands me around, so with a sigh I butcher her and the goblin leadership.

I mean call me shallow, but if she hinted out the blocks (or via narration that you sense an attraction) that sex was on the cards (even if it was to betray me later), then you know, I’m listening...

Come on dark side!! Where’s the cookies?!
I enjoyed the evil path in a twisted way, the very last things involved with it got quite a strong emotional reaction out of me, I felt like an absolute monster.

But yeah, we need an incentive to actually choose the path of evil and villainy, much more incentive than there is right now
It’s about information.

Those who think out of the blocks, hey let’s deliberately try and choose the most bastard route possible through every conversation will likely get somewhere. It’s the neutrals I think you miss out on and hence the stats we are seeing.

Like I said, I usually play the hero type, but I’m certainly not adverse to a chaotic good approach with occasional murky flare ups and I think it’s those on the knife’s edge that need a nudge.

Why don’t the Absolute entice me to kill the selfish druids and recruit the tieflings? Naked Drow is icing on top! I mean the Druid leader allowed a Tiefling kid to die for petty theft, come on Absolute, push those buttons, make me doubt my idea of “good”! grin
Originally Posted by Riandor
I guess half the issue is the evil route isn’t obvious.

The game starts making a big deal out of getting rid of the tadpole and the druids seem to offer up the clearest path towards doing this, so why shouldn’t I just murder the goblins and free Halsin? The fact that this idea of a cure is to say “hey no rush buddy, go to place x and get some answers there”, feels a bit cheap.

If the Absolute do have plans for you, or if the game wants to at least grant this as an option maybe they should try and get the message out to you sooner. I mean yeah the Druid leadership sucked and I would have happily slaughtered them, but you’re informed Halsin is not such an arse and can likely cure you. Should have know better after the Nettie incident.

Also if there are NPC’s, whether Goblins, Drow or Aunties out there to provide alternative options, maybe the party members, especially the murkier ones could suggest we hear these alternative arguments out?!

So anyway, I didn’t set out to be good per say, it’s just following the concept of tadpole = bad means that one focuses on one’s self and the so called good side just seems the logical choice.

In other words, the “evil” play through could do with some additional marketing!

This.

Only character I had that sided with Minthara was due to conditioning and that he finds the tadpole powers useful. There was no compelling reason for my other evil character to do this, he saved Halsin because he wants this thing out of his head now and he was the most logical choice. Didn't care about the Tieflings at all and killed Kagha and her friends right after killing Nettie (Tieflings lived). Not going to listen to some female Drow who has been corrupted, as far as he knows this Absolute is going to try and control him. Even someone playing a proper Lolth Sworn would possibly kill her for betrayal. There needs to be better dialogue or anything really that makes it more compelling to take the evil path.

I would be amused however if all paths are murky. I like hard decisions in my games no matter what "alignment" my character is.


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Wish the absolute people actually tried to recruit you though. Isn't that the whole point of putting the tadpole in us? They could offer us a way to control it, tempt us with power.

Wait here ...
Absolute (as potential godess) do all that. When speak to you through your dreams.


Oh? I never got those dreams in any of my playthroughs. Maybe I didn't use the tadpole enough. My evil rogue that did use it never needed to long rest either lol

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Instead, they're all wanting to kill us

True, but that is not Absolute, that is her Cultists ...
While Absolute may be godes, or some entity that will try to become godess, and may want another followers, worshippers, etc.
Cultist are merely mortals, who want their power in this new system ... so they, on the contrary are affraid of competition, and therefore erase it as soon as possible.

At least that is how i understand it.


I suppose. At first, it seemed liked the Absolute was commanding them to kill us. There not too competitive in their cult, getting gnolls, goblins, and drow to work together, but not the players? I could see both ways, but in the current state it's still a difficult path to end up on.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Then I saved the tieflings since Halsin would be best bet for removing my tabpole in that instance.

Well ... so far all we know is that Halsin can point you the direction where from is that "strange dark magic" that alternet tadpole ...
Meaning he will just show you the way to the Absolute, simmilar (if not just the same) as Minthara.


In a meta sense yes, but I meant for that in-character experience, Halsin was best bet. Being unfriendly, my character didn't meet the hag or have La'zael around. Goblin priestess was a bust, so Halsin was the only option at the time for that character
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Unless this is communicated to the player through gameplay I see no point in pretending there is a bigger picture we are just not seeing.

Well ... i havent seen any "big final reward" for being good either. :-/
So it seem only fair to presume the same for both paths.


Yes. Yes you have.
When I play the goodside I am pushed towards Halsin the druid who can help me remove this eye.

My other options are a Hag I could never trust.
And Gut who seemed to want poison me, I succeeded in my roll and she decided I should die. Evil Path FAIL!
Throughout the goblin plot I was viewed as an imposter. If my identity was discovered I would be dead... why should I risk it?
Sazza wanted to torture me after rescuing her and Minthara wanted me found and killed until I tricked myself in.

I see no longterm benefits in allying with the bad guys.
I would be killing the only healer willing to help me freely and putting myself in danger. I would be joining the enemy's ranks as an imposter that could be discovered and killed at any moment.


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
The player knows ingame that the Absolute is a sham and its forces are presented as weak and newly emerging, no sudden massive increase in power on the Absolute's part is going to convince me otherwise.

A sham? Not at all ...
For one, Absolute is that magic entity that stoped your transformation ... even that aloe is proof enough of her being real. laugh
For two, players dont know ... other characters presume, or are quite sure about, but they dont "know" since they have no source. wink


For one we don't know the source of this power, it seems completely illithid in nature and its pretty much a ticking time bomb in our heads.
For two. I don't need to have a meta knowledge to make decisions in the game. I take what seems most adventagous based on my personality or the personality of my character.

And unless either I or my character are a suicidal psychotic masochist I doubt I would ever join with the bad guys.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Not to mention that even if what you say is true, I don't see why siding with Minthara is the same as siding with the Absolute as a whole.

Me neither ...
Im not sure if i ever even sugested such thing.

Presuming that Larian will be loyal to their permutation standards ...
We may be possibly do many things ... ally her, betray her and take her place, boss her, etc.


Hopefully. That and among other things are the only way I would join up with this... Absolute cult.


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
If that were the case, surely the goblins would not betray you.

Goblins obey their misstress ... she comand, they follow ... they dont even think for themselves.
Therefore Goblins "technicaly" never betrayed you ... Minthara did(read as could), and they just followed orders.


Oh cares? Betray is betray. Why are you wasting our time making long posts and just fill them with redundant and unimportant information?


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Helping the Absolute feels like being its thankless errand boy right now

A bit, yes ...
In my country we say: "Who come late, harms himself."


Again. Please actually make an argument or say something constructive. Like what am I supposed to do with this? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
everyone else already on board with it is in an established position in the Absolute's forces and would kill a newcomer like you on a dime. Nobody tries to sell you the side of the Absolute other than the being itself through those dreams

Yup, totally ... so far we met 2 Absolute priests ... and conveniently she was both selfish beneficial b**ch, that was just planning to use us and betray us for her own benefit.


So you are agreeing that there Larian is not giving the players any reasonable argument to join the Absolute?


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Eddiar
75% to 25%... This confirms that this binary choice is the only one that matters and how poorly implemented it is.

I think not ...
It certainly confrims that through multiple permutation, wich can suit multiple different character you can get two outcomes by the end.
After all, even if you were able to take half Tieflings to prison, and then sell them as slaves ... wich was one of suggestions here, you will be still concidered as "helped goblins" in this statistics.


What is your native language? Because I think you are completely missing certain nuances that are being commented here that you are completely missing.
My point was the 75% to 25% are a symptom of a problem that the community update gave a bad interpretation of the data.

"75% picked the good path! You guys are so nice!" vs "75% picked the good path... why? Oh because Evil path sucks! Dont worry we will fix it."


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Wish the absolute people actually tried to recruit you though. Isn't that the whole point of putting the tadpole in us? They could offer us a way to control it, tempt us with power.

Wait here ...
Absolute (as potential godess) do all that. When speak to you through your dreams.


Lol. Oh christ its frustrating to talk with you.
You are interpreting things so wrongly, making false equivalencies and assumptions that sometimes I wonder if we saw the same thing.

Ok. Fine. We are getting recruited through a sexy dream?
Well lets forget every single minion she could muster has a "KILL ON SIGHT" order on my butt. But yeah... those sexy dreams!

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Instead, they're all wanting to kill us

True, but that is not Absolute, that is her Cultists ...
While Absolute may be godes, or some entity that will try to become godess, and may want another followers, worshippers, etc.
Cultist are merely mortals, who want their power in this new system ... so they, on the contrary are affraid of competition, and therefore erase it as soon as possibl.


At least that is how i understand it.


What you are doing here is called a headcanon. You have crafted an entire new story in your head and you think that is what's going on. Truth is we don't know.
The only thing we do know is that anyone working for the absolute is searching for us. And want to kill us.
This is not a coincidence.

Now whether this is true or not. It does not matter. I don't care for some last minute reveal to subvert my expectations.
I see what I see and I have NO incentive to join the bad guys in Act One.
And if I don't do it in Act One I doubt I can full explore Evil side in Act Two if it gets better because of all the future potential evil friends I could have brought along in Act 1.

And before you suggest I use this new information and replay the campaign as evil... I say NO.
The game should already give me the proper presentation so that I could make an INFORMED decision.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Then I saved the tieflings since Halsin would be best bet for removing my tabpole in that instance.

Well ... so far all we know is that Halsin can point you the direction where from is that "strange dark magic" that alternet tadpole ...
Meaning he will just show you the way to the Absolute, simmilar (if not just the same) as Minthara.


Again with the meta knowledge speculation.
My friend. We are only discussing what can actually see and experience. You need to stop it with the headcanons and speculations.
It is incredibly frustrating reading such incredibly long posts when half of it is your own imagination and it never occurred in the game that we are providing feedback on.

I hope I wasn't too tough on you but its late and I am tired after reading through this mess.
RagnarokCzD moment.
We are getting to some serious posts here ... i doubt anyone will read it. laugh
Originally Posted by Abits
Can you give me a more general argument about why you think the evil route is anything more than a mmorpg quest with sex prize?

I think i give you more than one ... and i would repeat myself.
So ... try search my previous posts and read them ... im honestly too lazy to do that for you. laugh

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Also Larian: they gave a good passage a lot more content and quests

Can you be specific please?
Wich quests you block out with siding with goblins? Yes, killing the goblin leaders, ofcourse ... that is 1:1 ...

But if you screw any else its not about taking evil route, its just about being rush and consequences ...
I also didnt plunder Dror Ragzlin treasure room when i sided with them, and now i cant go there, unless i kill them all. laugh
That is nothing else than consequences of my own stupid decision to make main quest before side quests, for people that are included in main quest.

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
they gave more reasons to help tieflings

1) It may seem like good thing to do ...
2) ... ?

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
We did everything so that helping Mintara was rather an Easter egg or an option for those who really liked this drow and they are specifically looking for an opportunity to make friends with her, despite the absurdity of this decision.

What is so absurd about this ...
Yes, she may seem cruel since she will throw the goblin to her spiders ... yet, you massacred whole pack of them attacking the town, so i dont see why pitty them now. O_o
Yes, she is kinda bossy around ... but leaders usualy are. laugh

Minthara have army ... Tieflings have ... i dunno, what does tiefling have, have promissed you some small reward, since they specificly tells you that they dont have much, but they will try to get something for your trouble?
Damn ... infiltrating enemy camp, killing it leaders and potentialy fight whole goblin army on the one site of scales ... and "little something for your trouble" on the other hand ... that seem quite absurd to me. laugh

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Because the game doesn’t give any clues at all what it might be interesting for us, what is our benefit and what prospects.

I start to feel like stuck gramophone record ...
Army ... cult ... godess that is allready saving our life, and probably have some plan for us, that curious traveler wants to reveal?

Damn, in the scene when Zevlor realized that you are siding with goblins, you can tell him this: "Its not personal, i need help and her godess its my best chance."
What more benefit you need?
Some druid dude, that was told you to "may be able to help" by dwarf who just few seconds ago was trying to kill you? I dont feel convinced here. :-/

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Larian didn't even let her join the party, and this is the only reason why anyone in general may be interested in the root of evil at the moment.

Yet. wink
But there are hints that is possible in future content.

Originally Posted by OneManArmy
This statistic is simply that there is a problem with the evil passage

And this topic (funny enough) show us why ...
Bcs for most players the only motivation is greed ... if anyone reveals that there is some OP artefact in the end of evil path, those numbers will be otherwise with a snap of fingers. :P

Originally Posted by Riandor
The game starts making a big deal out of getting rid of the tadpole and the druids seem to offer up the clearest path towards doing this, so why shouldn’t I just murder the goblins and free Halsin? The fact that this idea of a cure is to say “hey no rush buddy, go to place x and get some answers there”, feels a bit cheap.

Do they tho? (funny sentence laugh )
You obviously can try your luck with Halsin ... but I just can't figure out what you think he's going to have a better chance of helping you than anyone else.

I mean except Volo, and maybe Gut ofcourse ... those are just for fun i presume.
Hag and Raphael i would presume will have simmilar chances, compared to Halsin, but with cost so great, so you will regret it anyway.
But Minthara ... she worship the godess that allready messing with your tadpole, making it dormant ... so logicaly, she can control it.

Call me sceptic, but i would say that "clearest path towards geting rid of tadpole" offers Githyanki ...
For one, they are experienced with this problem, unlike druids ... for two, you do have one of them in your group who can negotiate that procedure for you ... and for three, its their holy mission to exterminate Mind Flayers, so there is pretty low chance they will deny you this help.
(Ofc. i expect them to just find out that their procedure dont work on you, since your tadpole was alterned with that dark magic, and you will still need to go to moonrise towers and confront the Absolute ... but that is another story.)

So ... in what universe some dude from group that allready tryed (or wanted to try, depends on your dicerolls) to kill you since you are infected and therefore dangerous ... is your better chance then experts with decades of experience in this particular field ... or godess, that is allready working with it at the moment? laugh

Originally Posted by Riandor
If the Absolute do have plans for you, or if the game wants to at least grant this as an option maybe they should try and get the message out to you sooner.

But they do ...
You have those dreams talking with the Absolute ... and if you dont, it means only one thing, you rushed your main quest and didnt use tadpole enough.

Ofc. some can say that is proof of poor design, since you can side with goblins and praise the Absolute before you even know about the Absolute anything closer ...
Or it simply shows that this character (aka player w/e) do some really weird decisions. laugh

There certainly are some situations that developers obviously expected different attitude.
Good example is Gale, wich if you play your cards bad enough, can thank you for helping him with his condition, and provide him magical artefact to consume ... and just few conversations after he is willing to tell you about his condition and asking about that artefact. laugh

But this one i think is on you. :-/
You just rushed to main plot, and then complained that there is not enough clues ... wich are everywhere around. :-/

Originally Posted by Riandor
Also if there are NPC’s, whether Goblins, Drow or Aunties out there to provide alternative options, maybe the party members, especially the murkier ones could suggest we hear these alternative arguments out?!

They do ... you just need to talk to them.
Especialy Shadowheart was reminding me some options with every conversation, even those that allready passed. laugh
(She warned me to be carefull when making deal with that hag, even when that hag was allready dead.)

Originally Posted by Riandor
So anyway, I didn’t set out to be good per say, it’s just following the concept of tadpole = bad means that one focuses on one’s self and the so called good side just seems the logical choice.

In other words, the “evil” play through could do with some additional marketing!

There is certainly space for improvements ... no argues from me ...
But where isnt? :P

Originally Posted by Zarna
Only character I had that sided with Minthara was due to conditioning and that he finds the tadpole powers useful. There was no compelling reason for my other evil character to do this, he saved Halsin because he wants this thing out of his head now and he was the most logical choice.

Precisely ... isnt it great how many outcomes we can get with differently motivated characters? ^_^
I just want to point out that Halsin can seem like "so far released" most logical choice. laugh

Originally Posted by HustleCat
Oh? I never got those dreams in any of my playthroughs. Maybe I didn't use the tadpole enough. My evil rogue that did use it never needed to long rest either lol

That would be it. smile

Originally Posted by HustleCat
I suppose. At first, it seemed liked the Absolute was commanding them to kill us. There not too competitive in their cult, getting gnolls, goblins, and drow to work together, but not the players? I could see both ways, but in the current state it's still a difficult path to end up on.

Exactly ... its weird that absolute wants to connect everyone but player ... and that is the logical reason why i think its not her agenda, but priests that are hungry for power and just getting rid of potential competition.

Originally Posted by HustleCat
In a meta sense yes, but I meant for that in-character experience, Halsin was best bet. Being unfriendly, my character didn't meet the hag or have La'zael around. Goblin priestess was a bust, so Halsin was the only option at the time for that character

Well ... ofc. if you exclude all other options, Halsin may seem like your best one, since you allready declined alternatives. laugh
Right now we allready know that all paths leads to Moonrise Towers ... all that matters now is who will help you get there, or if anyone. laugh

My "evil character" on the other hand considered Minthara her best option, since druids allready tried to kill her, hag and cambion were not thrustworthy, same as the goblin isnt ... and only idiot will search help in hands of Volo. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Yes. Yes you have.
When I play the goodside I am pushed towards Halsin the druid who can help me remove this eye.

No i havent. O_o
Halsin is just one of like seven options (some of them most stupid i admit that) ... the best one not yet included ingame ...

You are pushed to Halsin by druids ...
Bcs then you will save their leader ... it might aswell be just manipulate. laugh
And even if they were honest (and we know now that they kinda arent manipulate you) they may still see their way as the best one, just bcs its their way.
Vollo wil also ensure you that he totally know what he is doing ... same as Hag, she litteraly multiple times repeats that she did this countless times ... Lae'zel will with every conversation reminds you that her people knows the only way and noone else have slightest idea ... etc.

See? I dont think Halsin is your "best" option in general ... he is just option, nothing more ... and he may seem to be best, since you are mostly talking with his people. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
And Gut who seemed to want poison me, I succeeded in my roll and she decided I should die. Evil Path FAIL!

I would not call this fail ... more like evil path alterned. smile
Even the most evil character can kill the goblins, and therefore help Tieflings simply by accident, wich is precisely what happened here. smile

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Throughout the goblin plot I was viewed as an imposter. If my identity was discovered I would be dead... why should I risk it?

That is funny question ...
And why should you risk go kill all Goblin leaders? laugh Isnt that like hundert times more risky?

If you try to infiltrate goblins ... there is some potential risk being exposed, and then you will need to fight for you life ... that is certainly true.
But if you decide to play good guy, you are attacking goblins, so this exact potential risk become certainity. laugh

So even for carefull characters, its safer route. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Sazza wanted to torture me after rescuing her and Minthara wanted me found and killed until I tricked myself in.

That she did ... obviously she is Chaotic evil character ... Minthara saved you from her, and you did get the opourtunity to revenge.

I know i know, she saved you only to use you, and wanted kill you later aggain.
(And honestly even if you diceroll from all this to being friendly with her, there is litteraly no way to tell if she dont try it aggain. laugh )

But is that so big deal?
Astarion tryed to kill you just the same the second you met him.
Shadowheart threated you aswell, especialy if you are Githyanki.
Lae'zel comanded you and uses you to her own goals, just like Minthara.
Halsin is willing to help you, only after you do some killing for him ... no matter you just helped save his life. laugh
And Zevlor is still demanding another help, and another help, and another help. laugh

In conlusion, everyone just want something from you ... everyone is using you to their own goals, and everyone else is going through it. :P
I cant help the feeling that you guys are a little Drowophobic. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
I see no longterm benefits in allying with the bad guys.
I would be killing the only healer willing to help me freely and putting myself in danger. I would be joining the enemy's ranks as an imposter that could be discovered and killed at any moment.

That is the thing ... he is not willing to help you freely, nor you are getting in any bigger danger than you will in any other path. laugh
Its a war ... there is no black and white ... just two sides fighting each other, and you simly needs to pick one. wink

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Betray is betray. Why are you wasting our time making long posts and just fill them with redundant and unimportant information?

Only Sith sees in absolute ...
Why ... to make my point obviously, why everyone else ever did? laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
So you are agreeing that there Larian is not giving the players any reasonable argument to join the Absolute?

Not exactly ...

I say that Larian's work is give players opourtunity to make any decision they want ...
And its players work to find motivation for his character to choose it.

Its litteraly like playing tabletop DnD ... you can spend hours preparing major plot that will blow everyones mind ... then your players will stuck for ten sessions in a row in town talking to some irelevant minor character and helping him.
Its not DM's work to force players to do what he want them to do ... that leads to scripted world and predefined story, and often is clasified as boring ... its his job to be prepared for it, when players decided to follow the right route, and provide enough fun while they dont.
And its up to them to try find that right route ... that is what is fun in theese things. smile

So i gues no ... if i have to choose only one option, im not agreeing.
At least not at 100%.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
What is your native language? Because I think you are completely missing certain nuances that are being commented here that you are completely missing.
My point was the 75% to 25% are a symptom of a problem that the community update gave a bad interpretation of the data.

"75% picked the good path! You guys are so nice!" vs "75% picked the good path... why? Oh because Evil path sucks! Dont worry we will fix it."

Czech ... its even written in my nick. laugh
But no worries, i dint expect you to notice. smile Most people in the world outisde the Europe dont even know we exists ... i mean they did in the past, around 2000 we had quite good results in sport, there was some gold medals by that time and i gues we were known mainly trough hockey ... but since then its not that bright. laugh

Maybe i am ... aswell as i may not be to deliver all nuances i wanted to to you, since my english is all autodidacted. laugh

This certainly is one of ways to see it ...
But if you will give it the work, and search some statistics you will find you that most people in Videogames are following the good path.
Its never 50:50 ... usualy it moves between 60-70% for good choices. wink Some examples: here, here, here, here, and here. smile
So on the contrary, this statistic dont show us that evil path is anyhow bad ... it shows us that players are acting exactly as they usualy do, wich kidna prooves that its witen accurately. laugh

That is the problem with statistic i have my whole life (I was educated in this field) ...
People can interpet numbers differently without required context. wink

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Lol. Oh christ its frustrating to talk with you.
You are interpreting things so wrongly, making false equivalencies and assumptions that sometimes I wonder if we saw the same thing.

Did you ever heared adage "100 people, 100 tastes" ?
I just see things differently ... its not right or wrong, i never try to teach you how you are suppose to see anything, just making clear how i see them. wink

Interesting that i dont find the exatly same conversation frustrating at all ...
May it have something to do with the fact i dont try to convince you to anything? smile Think about it.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Ok. Fine. We are getting recruited through a sexy dream?
Well lets forget every single minion she could muster has a "KILL ON SIGHT" order on my butt. But yeah... those sexy dreams!

You need to read, or listen what she is telling you, not just stare at her boobs. laugh

Also you seem to forgeting that all those minions are independent characters, that was so far their whole life killing everythin "on sight" ... its not like in WoW where you help poor begger giving him a coin, and some NPC in other side of word stop being hostile towards you bcs it have the same faction and you just get that one point in reputation that makes them friendly. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Instead, they're all wanting to kill us

True, but that is not Absolute, that is her Cultists ...
While Absolute may be godes, or some entity that will try to become godess, and may want another followers, worshippers, etc.
Cultist are merely mortals, who want their power in this new system ... so they, on the contrary are affraid of competition, and therefore erase it as soon as possibl.

At least that is how i understand it.

What you are doing here is called a headcanon. You have crafted an entire new story in your head and you think that is what's going on. Truth is we don't know.

Well i would call it more like assumption, or speculation ... the effect is still the same, it just dont sounds so agressive.
True, we dont know, that is why we speculate ...

Originally Posted by Eddiar
The only thing we do know is that anyone working for the absolute is searching for us. And want to kill us.
This is not a coincidence.

And that is your specualtion ...
Not so different from mine, in matter of validity, since you also "dont know" ... you just presume different connections than me. smile

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Now whether this is true or not. It does not matter. I don't care for some last minute reveal to subvert my expectations.
I see what I see and I have NO incentive to join the bad guys in Act One.

Then just dont ... no harm made, everyone happy ...
I dont see any problem here. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
And if I don't do it in Act One I doubt I can full explore Evil side in Act Two if it gets better because of all the future potential evil friends I could have brought along in Act 1.

Another speculation ...
For someone who criticize others for make them, you are making quite a lot. O_o

I for one speculate that if you dont join "Act 1 Evil side" whatever that is, you will certainly have different experience in Act 2 ... that much i believe we can agree on.
But i dont think that we can even talk about some "full explore" or "partial explore" ... world is changing based on your actions, so whatewer you do, you have potential to explore whole world, that was changed by your own decisions.
Nor we can talk here about some restrictions you created with choosing that or this ... that is just consequences.

So ... conclusion? You allways get "full explore" ... it just change every time you made different decision anywhere on your journey ...
Sure you will not get the same outcome if you (or your dicerolls will) choose different path, but that much i would asume.
That is mark of quality, not and error.

The same as if you take "good path" ... what is "good path" anyway ...
Its sidint with Druids, and drive Tieflings out?
Or is it siding with Tieflings and exterminate Druids when you fail your persuation diceroll?
Or is it dont care about their dispute, and just go save Halsin and kill goblins?

Every permutation brings different outcome for Act 2 ...
I just cant see how this can be seen as bad thing.
If you just choose not to explore one permutation, you will not see it ... that much is certainly true, but that is just matter of causality.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
And before you suggest I use this new information and replay the campaign as evil... I say NO.

I would never suggest that ... it's in direct conflict with everything I've been defending so far. :-/
And the fact that you asume that i would ... makes me quite certain that you didnt understand single word i have told you so far. frown
My english must be even worse then i think. laugh

Originally Posted by Eddiar
The game should already give me the proper presentation so that I could make an INFORMED decision.

Partialy disagree ...
This is entirely and certainly true in some cases ... as are spells, talents, skill points, proficiencies, etc. ...
But never story!

In story your character have some information that was provided to him ... and based on that he either choose, or have to find out other (perception checks, reaing the red maked journals, or scrolls on table, etc. etc.) ofc. asuming he didnt allready, then he have everything that was provided to him, and he need to choose ...
No character ever in any good written story will give you "proper presentation to make informed decision" ... ever!
On the contrary, in best stories your decision are made at halftruths, and unspoken details that you either find out (aka. speculate ... rightly ofc.) in time, or just will show themselves later ... usualy to screw you up.
And that is the fun in it ...

I cant imagine how do you want to create "proper presentation to make informed decision" in Minthara case, please create me and example from this case so i understand you better ... bcs "Hey you, join me in raid for Druid groove ... i will not help you in any way, nor give you anything as reward except my body, nor will even thank you for your work ... oh and next morning i will cut your head off ... so what do you say, do we have deal?" seem just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Then I saved the tieflings since Halsin would be best bet for removing my tabpole in that instance.

Well ... so far all we know is that Halsin can point you the direction where from is that "strange dark magic" that alternet tadpole ...
Meaning he will just show you the way to the Absolute, simmilar (if not just the same) as Minthara.


Again with the meta knowledge speculation.

That post was not speculation based on meta knowledge ... it was comparison of results on the end of two stories ...
Meaning in the time where both your good, and bad characters allready known the outcome since they did it. smile

Maybe it was not clear enough, that much i admit.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
It is incredibly frustrating reading such incredibly long posts when half of it is your own imagination and it never occurred in the game that we are providing feedback on.

I hope I wasn't too tough on you but its late and I am tired after reading through this mess.

You tell me ... you react only to my posts, and possibly in your language ... i react to 3-5 another people ... it is certainly exhausting. laugh laugh laugh
And yes, you are ... a bit ... sometimes ... but no hard feelings from me. smile
Its just a debate, if i dont want to be included in it, i would not. laugh
Ok that all got a little long, but on one of my points the whole Absolute tell you in your dreams... Not using the Tadpole enough.
Again, the game screams at you from moment one Tadpole bad, Ceramorphosis bad, don't use it.

It's only after Halsin reveals that there is a power supressing the effects that I realised maybe I needn't worry quite so much. So yes, I likely rushed the main quest, and yes I blocked out the dreams as much as I could, because when Devils and and Gods offer up murky promises, I trust none of them. So I disagree with you that it's all obvious. Maybe I don't chat to my companions enough on the subject or or or, but frankly if I am in camp, they should talk to me, or it should be discussed a s a grou woth conflicting ideas bouncing back and forth. IT's too clunky and whilst the druid option isn't ideal, especially after Nettie, it still ususally ends up being the more obvious choice. I waltzed into the Goblin camp and even if you persuade your way in, I didn't want to be branded by the Goblin wench so bang, fight 1. If Minthara is looking for us, I would expect the Goblin leadership to be more forward about making sure we see her, hear her side and then yeah, sex vs murderhobo is up to me. Decisions!

Maybe my mind was already too made up, I dunno, playing "evil" doesn't come naturally to me anyway, but like I said, if I edge towards neutral there should be more murky decisions to be made that blur the lines. I'll have another playthrough soon, but I do maintain that if you want more people to be enticed about the so called "evil" route, you need to get the message over to the players more readily to embrace the modified tadpole or get them in front of the Absolute sooner. If it's via the dream then that dream needs to sell me that it isn't the Tadpole speaking a lot better than it currently does, whether via the person in the dream, or my companions doubting.
Originally Posted by Riandor
Yeah I mean, after getting to the Drow she doesn’t exactly try to charm you with some big, oh it’s you... she just commands me around, so with a sigh I butcher her and the goblin leadership.

I mean call me shallow, but if she hinted out the blocks (or via narration that you sense an attraction) that sex was on the cards (even if it was to betray me later), then you know, I’m listening...

Come on dark side!! Where’s the cookies?!


This is very much pin-pointing it for me too. Seeing how I played a drow female I started off by attacking her for her insolence, and then attacked her twice more because of abandoning Lolth. After reloading for a third time I forced myself to play the submissive part in order to progress the "evil" storyline. Same process all over again during the party (at least 2-3 reloads).

I have the same general issue with Lae'zel. She has plenty of demands that I can't accomodate while also making decisions for the party. Thus she end up hating me on every playthrough for not showing weakness and acting all submissive around her. I would have to force myself out of character to make a romance/friendship work with her, form what I've seen so far.

On a side-note: I launched PoE2 for the first time yesterday and played through the short prologue.
I refused to do Berath's bidding, and confirmed my decision. I got a few lines of text and game over, credits rolling.
It had me laughing AND it was alright, because apparently I didn't have a choice in the matter. The case of BG3's evil route is most definitely a choice, so unless I'm forced to take that route I need some incentive to do so.
RagnarokCzD

Although I'm genuinely interested in your point of view the way you answer is really confusing for me. Hence I'll write ING general what I think the problem with the evil path and hope you'll indulge me and provide comment.
The evil path is nothing. You go to the goblin camp (and with the way the game works usually you already have the quest to kill the goblins by that point after establishing them as threat and providing you with possible rewards), and it's actually a cool place with a lot of nice side activities and very short, unrelated and nice short stories (the goblin kids, the chicken chasing, Volo, the dick goblin who asks you to lick his boots). But there is nothing else. Each goblin "leader" has a totally different side quest for you, each of them feels as though it exists in a vacuum, and most of them don't really progress the main story. The only one that do is Minthara's quest, and it is literally "go kill the people in the grove because eeeevil". What is compelling about that? Why should even a super cartoonishly evil character would do it? Why create all those leaders if they have no part in the story?
Evil route in Baldur's Gate 3:
Do evil things for sake of evil.
Who is doing evil things that don't give him anything? Is there a reason for him to do evil things?
Originally Posted by Riandor
I guess half the issue is the evil route isn’t obvious.

The game starts making a big deal out of getting rid of the tadpole and the druids seem to offer up the clearest path towards doing this, so why shouldn’t I just murder the goblins and free Halsin? The fact that this idea of a cure is to say “hey no rush buddy, go to place x and get some answers there”, feels a bit cheap.

If the Absolute do have plans for you, or if the game wants to at least grant this as an option maybe they should try and get the message out to you sooner. I mean yeah the Druid leadership sucked and I would have happily slaughtered them, but you’re informed Halsin is not such an arse and can likely cure you. Should have know better after the Nettie incident.

Also if there are NPC’s, whether Goblins, Drow or Aunties out there to provide alternative options, maybe the party members, especially the murkier ones could suggest we hear these alternative arguments out?!

So anyway, I didn’t set out to be good per say, it’s just following the concept of tadpole = bad means that one focuses on one’s self and the so called good side just seems the logical choice.

In other words, the “evil” play through could do with some additional marketing!


This is super on spot
Originally Posted by Riandor
Ok that all got a little long, but on one of my points the whole Absolute tell you in your dreams... Not using the Tadpole enough.
Again, the game screams at you from moment one Tadpole bad, Ceramorphosis bad, don't use it.

I think the angle they want you to go for is a One Ring type of deal where everyone keeps telling you its power should not be used, but you let yourself get corrupted by it anyway.
Originally Posted by Abits
The evil path is nothing. You go to the goblin camp (and with the way the game works usually you already have the quest to kill the goblins by that point after establishing them as threat and providing you with possible rewards), and it's actually a cool place with a lot of nice side activities and very short, unrelated and nice short stories (the goblin kids, the chicken chasing, Volo, the dick goblin who asks you to lick his boots). But there is nothing else. Each goblin "leader" has a totally different side quest for you, each of them feels as though it exists in a vacuum, and most of them don't really progress the main story. The only one that do is Minthara's quest, and it is literally "go kill the people in the grove because eeeevil". What is compelling about that? Why should even a super cartoonishly evil character would do it? Why create all those leaders if they have no part in the story?

To top it all off, at the end all of these little side stories lead to a big 'ole nothing when the goblins betray you. There exists a very likely outcome that you come out of the "evil" path with less than when you washed up on the beach. The game points you in the direction of Halsin at every turn and the fake options like Ethel / Nettie / Gut only make this pointing more obvious. Minthara doesn't even have a cure for you, just a potential way to get to Moonrise. One that you could easily miss or decide not to use, and then what do you have.
Abits

Yes, you get there either with quest to kill goblins, with promissed rewards wich you were warn about it "will not be much".
Or, you simply get there without the quest, since you dont need to care about Tieflings, nor Druids ... but even then you do allready know that they present potential threat for groove.

True ... there is not much in goblin camp ...
Unless you count temple inside, that will pretty much double it.
Still it may not seem like much, but since goblins just infest abandonned places, than build anything own ... it seem understandable to me.
On the other hand, in groove isnt so much more ... i mean there probably is more things, but not like double, or triple. :-/

Im not sure what do you mean with that vacuum ... like they all are selfish? Ofc they are, they are goblins. laugh

Well ... if main story is geting rid of tadpole, there really are just Minthara, and Gut ... aggain, simmilar to groove, where is only Halsin(potentialy) and Nettie.

IMHO Minthara is more like "go kill the people in the grove, because that is the only possible reason you are here" ... all she know about you is the fact that you are true soul, and one can understand that someone like her would presume that you two will not talk, if you were there to kill her ...
Also i was there so far talking to her only with Sazza ... Sazza is talking about posibility of attack, and you have no objection, so that is another reason to presume you are there to join the attack.

Why create leaders ... who do you mean?
Goblin leaders that Halsin want you to kill? Probably bcs quest "go and kill five completely random goblin" will be quite stupid. laugh
Or do you mean Zevlor, Halsin, and Kagha? ... I gues for same reason as Minthara, Dror Ragzlin, and Gut.
I gues if you dont specificly do what are you specificly told not to do ... at last one of leaders from each side should be alive, more like 2. And i gues every one of them will have some story in future, wich will depend on wich one of them survived.

And second question ... you ask why would any character join Minthara.
I hope reasons for mine chaotic evil Drow will surfice:
1) Its a Drow, i know that this race isnt known for some racial loayality, but still my character is closer to her, than some surfacedwellers.
2) Why not? My character dont care about litteraly anyone in that groove, and raid with goblin army sounds like fun.
3) Multiple persons from groove did repeatly insult my character for being a Drow ... it may not seem like much, but those simple reveges warms her cold heart.
4) Minthara is servant of the Absolute, wich as it seems control mine tadpole ... so my chances with someone who allready have control over my parasite seem biger, than with someone who may study some parasite for some limited time.
5) There is Cult that worships Absolute, wich potentialy promises power.
6) Absolute promises better life for Goblins, Hopgoblins, Ogres, Duegars, Drow, etc. ... ofc. my character probably see "better life" differently than that goblin, that tells her about it, but that is nothing she will care about.
7) Every treasure, every valuable, and every artefact i found in groove will be mine.
8) Bcs screw druids, that is why. :P laugh
9) And finaly and maybe most important ... its evil. >:]

Hope this form of answer will be more "readable" for you, dont get used to it ... i dont do that often, i writen it all as usualy, and then just deleted your quotes, i simply cant write anyhow else, since then i loose myself in it. laugh
My evil playthrough is happening with a Drow Warlock.

I was prepared to do evil things to get rid of the tadpole. I would've wiped out an entire good or neutral faction to get it done. They set up the perfect motivation to do evil things, and then.............. the game completely ignores this! So far anyway, but it's not looking very interesting.
Only thing about the evil route I disliked was having to wait for the AI to have the goblins take their turns on the tiefs in the cave...which took ages-would have liked an auto-tactic mode to throw on for that while I watched something in another tab, it was kinda tedious.
Thinking about it, is there any way to actually portray a path that involves having a parasite in your brain as a sane path, evil or otherwise? I feel like unless they have it come out that the Absolute is either a new deity or an established one playing a game that they really can't make that path all that appealing. The Mind Flayers aren't exactly an inclusive people so it's unlikely that keeping the tadpole would ever work out well for you. People make pacts with demons and ancient ones sure but typically those people have an overriding lust for power, are insane/damaged; or believe that they're smart and/or cunning enough to break the deal, keep the power and not get obliterated in the process. The tadpole doesn't offer that kind of an opportunity since once its gone so are the powers and said powers are tied to the Mind Flayers which would be a constant issue. Topping it off the tadpoles powers are just more or less hive mind connections. While an evil path doesn't have to have immediate gains, there needs to be some solid promise of future power and with the cult all you really get promised is a knife to the back or turning into a Mind Flayer at some inevitable point.

Regarding the ai being slow during big fights, that can be really annoying. It was funny watching Kagha shockwave her own druids repeatedly during that battle though, and they were healing her.
The dead illithid in the goblin castle says its a circle of elder illithid in a circle in absolute unity, absolute power. Theres a few other clues, namely the worms in everyones brains, but its either a great smoke and mirrors or its a group of illithid working, potentially without an elder brain, but using what is most likely a netherse artifact (hag when she tries to get rid of your worm says its wrapped in netherese magic and its far beyond her power - and her power is great) to shield the slugs until the mass invasion (shown by dead illithid with infinite nautilus popping out of deep space for an attack).
Right, wasn't 100% on remembering that part. It would have to be some well done smoke and mirrors at this point involving a god or something manipulating the Mind Flayers for their own goals though I can't see it being the case. More than likely this means the main story path is getting rid of the parasite and potentially stopping an apocalyptic invasion. If that's the case maybe they're aiming for evil and good choices to be less linear paths and more divided into the individual quests? Taking that into account I imagine there was never an idea for characters to stick with the cult and their intention was more use it to figure out what is going on and how to get rid of the tadpole. Which is certainly the darker path, killing the teiflings and druids to accomplish it, but its definitely an out of the way choice with little incentive or reasoning. I could also speculate a whole bunch of ideas on where the story goes and what could be the "evil" path but from what we've been given so far, and as has been covered, you're really not incentivized to follow it. Hell, everything you learn through the story is that it's not good for your health, don't use the tadpole and get that sucker out quickly, stasis or no stasis. Safer to work with any amenable people to get rid of the tadpole and more than likely stop any Mind Flayer plot.

On the whole If their evil path is just a whole lot of slaughter the innocence for the lols I imagine I wont be choosing it, though I have done a run through of it. That's something I'd do in Fable because I was bored or wanted to purchase some more houses. Another part to think about is the fact that so far most of the evil characters are enslaved by the tadpoles and don't even know it which makes it more a priority to either kill them or get the tadpole out of their heads rather than aiding them in accomplishing the Absolutes plans. The more I think about this the wilder, and not in a good way, the evil path becomes.
Yeah I had a thread called minthara and the nature of evil that went over this and someone used the word "psychotic" for evil path. Pretty spot on.

Random note on the plot too is of you read the notes on the table where you first met kagha and read the harper notes from the sea cove below astarion meeting spot, you combine the absolute illithid ring with a rogue selunite sect that has apparently been involved and helping the shadow druids sicken the land. The good druids tried to cleanse the trees and the darkness leaps back at them when it's attacked.

The moonrise towers seem to have an absolute crap storm around them. You, knowing none of this, want to get to a huge city and get cured. The only thing is after doing tons of good stuff you'd get enough info to know that moonrise probably has more answers than BG.

if you did evil stuff, you wouldn't know, and would want to go to bg. Now that you are good, and know the details, you could decide to swap sides and use the power - but think of how strong the allure of evil & absolute would have to be. Plus you're sticking it in a hornets nest by being down with illithid, shadow druid, and rogue selune. I get the feeling the dark justiciars of the underdark aren't not related to this.

Why, God why, would even an evil person who lived this stuff, rationally make the choice that this is your best bet to survive in the long term

Wrote that on my phone, probably tons of errors
No not at all op but then i never do enjoy anything evil.. To be fair this isn't evil imo its just rude and antagonistic.. Evil people can be just as pleasant as good people before you get to know them..
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
No not at all op but then i never do enjoy anything evil.. To be fair this isn't evil imo its just rude and antagonistic.. Evil people can be just as pleasant as good people before you get to know them..



Some of the choices are definitely evil, I'd say that raiding the Grove is.
But yeah a lot of people are calling characters like Lae'Zel evil and I wouldn't really say that.
She's just a jerk xD...
Originally Posted by Svalr
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
No not at all op but then i never do enjoy anything evil.. To be fair this isn't evil imo its just rude and antagonistic.. Evil people can be just as pleasant as good people before you get to know them..



Some of the choices are definitely evil, I'd say that raiding the Grove is.
But yeah a lot of people are calling characters like Lae'Zel evil and I wouldn't really say that.
She's just a jerk xD...

I feel they all are jerks tbh.. the companions, the tiefs, the druids, the goblins, the animals you speak to.. pretty much every single person you meet is an ahole right from the start.. except maybe the hag.. It just becomes an echo chamber of hate and i as a customer tune out.. Then the game loses me.

Pretty much i meet a new character, "spouts hate at me".. ok not interested in interacting with you anymore.. and this for me continues the whole game so far. Even damn squirrels were hateful.
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
Originally Posted by Svalr
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
No not at all op but then i never do enjoy anything evil.. To be fair this isn't evil imo its just rude and antagonistic.. Evil people can be just as pleasant as good people before you get to know them..



Some of the choices are definitely evil, I'd say that raiding the Grove is.
But yeah a lot of people are calling characters like Lae'Zel evil and I wouldn't really say that.
She's just a jerk xD...

I feel they all are jerks tbh.. the companions, the tiefs, the druids, the goblins, the animals you speak to.. pretty much every single person you meet is an ahole right from the start.. except maybe the hag.. It just becomes an echo chamber of hate and i as a customer tune out.. Then the game loses me.

Pretty much i meet a new character, "spouts hate at me".. ok not interested in interacting with you anymore.. and this for me continues the whole game so far. Even damn squirrels were hateful.


Gale, Zevlor and Wyll aren't.
I forgot the name of the black Druid in the Grove who has an argument with Kagha but he was cool too and I found the Tieflings to be too.
I didn't find Shadowheart to be hateful towards me either, only when I pushed too much and tried to dig in her past.
My problem with the evil option in most games is that it usually requires you to be a mindless sociopath.

Like in The Old Republic, I watched Jesse Cox play a Sith Inquistor who was a Darksider..........the character just came across as a Psychopath who did evil for the lulz.
Whereas if you rolled a Lightside Sith, the story was actually pretty damn interesting (That's what I did, characters both Imperial and Republic were so confused by the character, it was a riot and if you play that game and haven't rolled a Light Side Imperial, you're missing out.).
Admittedly Darksiders on the Rebublic (And to a degree, the non Force Using Imperials.) were a bit more interesting, but my point is that Playing a Darksider was just playing a Psychopath who did what they did for the lulz instead of for any practical or pragmatic reason.

I find it difficult to roll such a character, because I then go "Wait, why would you do that, there is no benefit to doing that." in more than one instance.

Jesse Cox even went in at least one instance in said Playthrough "Wait, That seems like a dumb thing to do, I know I'm playing Dark Side, but come on.".

So what I'm saying is, make Evil Choices that aren't pants on head stupid/For the Lulz Evil.
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
the tiefs

What thiefs?
(I almost cant believe that there is still something im missing. O_o)

Originally Posted by Kou The Mad
My problem with the evil option in most games is that it usually requires you to be a mindless sociopath.

Nope ... they dont. laugh
But people usualy do ... bcs they dont see over "darkside metter".

Usualy you see people work like this: "Oh this is Darkside choice, i play Darkside character, therefore i should choose this."
You wouldn't believe how often, when a developer adds dark and light side indicators to a text, people don't even read the options, and just go with indicator.
(Personaly i would love to add few traps in conversations ... Darkside option: Commite a suicide. ... Just for the fun of those who dont read. laugh )

Its totaly usual style of play, and totally possible style of play ...
But no, its not right, and once aggain no, you totally should not do that ...
When you wish to play psychopat character who is cruel and dont miss any chance to harm someone ... you have that option ...
When you wish to play cold and calculative bastard, who allways do what most benefits him ... you have that option ...
When you wish to play neutral bastard, who just dont care about anyone and anything and dont wanna be involved in anything ... well, this one is the real problem, but sometimes you can too laugh
And when you wish to play goldstar who will help anyone anywhere and anytime no matter the cost ... you have that option ...

And you are suppose to read those options and choose wich one suits your character the best ... and that is right way to roleplay. :3
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
the tiefs

What thiefs?
(I almost cant believe that there is still something im missing. O_o)


He means tief-lings. The plural of thief is thieves.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Kou The Mad
My problem with the evil option in most games is that it usually requires you to be a mindless sociopath.

Nope ... they dont. laugh
But people usualy do ... bcs they dont see over "darkside metter".

Usualy you see people work like this: "Oh this is Darkside choice, i play Darkside character, therefore i should choose this."
You wouldn't believe how often, when a developer adds dark and light side indicators to a text, people don't even read the options, and just go with indicator.
(Personaly i would love to add few traps in conversations ... Darkside option: Commite a suicide. ... Just for the fun of those who dont read. laugh )

Its totaly usual style of play, and totally possible style of play ...
But no, its not right, and once aggain no, you totally should not do that ...
When you wish to play psychopat character who is cruel and dont miss any chance to harm someone ... you have that option ...
When you wish to play cold and calculative bastard, who allways do what most benefits him ... you have that option ...
When you wish to play neutral bastard, who just dont care about anyone and anything and dont wanna be involved in anything ... well, this one is the real problem, but sometimes you can too laugh
And when you wish to play goldstar who will help anyone anywhere and anytime no matter the cost ... you have that option ...

And you are suppose to read those options and choose wich one suits your character the best ... and that is right way to roleplay. :3


You don't seem to get the difference between roleplaying in your head and roleplaying in the game. These other paths you describe may be ways for you as a person to see your character but the reality of the game is that there are two paths, no more or less. You help the Tieflings and are good or you murder them all and get betrayed / punished because you are bad. Larian themselves even put it that way in their last update. The only other "option" is a failsafe for when absolutely everyone is dead and I'm not sure if that even exists.

Unless the "evil" path is rewarding and more nuanced that 75% to 25% statistic is not going to change. It's also not divided further because, again, there are no other paths.
Is a character acting entirely in a self-serving manner really "good" just because the best course of action for them happened to save lives?

Allow me to rephrase: Are you really *not* evil because you're only helping someone to get yourself cured?

I think the issue a lot of you are having is that you're conflating evil with "join the goblins and the Absolute." Sadly, Larian perpetuates this misunderstanding by describing helping the tieflings as good and helping the goblins as evil. An evil character could quite realistically (as many have said) be convinced to help the "good guys" to get themselves cured.

Or perhaps the issue is that joining the Absolute more or less requires the sort of psychopathy of chaotic evil, when most people appear to be approaching this with a more lawful or neutral evil mindset. You guys are being self serving, and are willing to do evil acts to further yourself, but you're not recklessly destructive, seeking to do evil for no other reason than to do evil.

Mind you, this is still a problem that should be addressed, in my opinion. Joining the Absolute is not currently an appealing option in the slightest, and I think if not for Larian telling us they wanted people to play as evil this go around, fewer people would have done so naturally.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
You don't seem to get the difference between roleplaying in your head and roleplaying in the game.

There isnt suppose to be any difference ... except the fact that in your head you can answer whatever you wish ... the the game, you need to choose between options that developers give you.
So you roleplay in your head thinking "what would Ragnarok do in this situation" ... and then, when that become clear, you can see the options, and ask in your head another question "wich one of those options is close to that what i was thinking".

Any else attitude, is certainly possible and valit ... just not exactly right. laugh
Then you need to ask some questions like "why would my character choose this" ... and my answer is: Exactly. wink

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
the reality of the game is that there are two paths, no more or less.

Sadly nope ... there are at least two outcomes that to be sure, but there is certainly much more paths ...
Lets move to another quote:

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
You help the Tieflings and are good or you murder them all and get betrayed / punished because you are bad. Larian themselves even put it that way in their last update. The only other "option" is a failsafe for when absolutely everyone is dead and I'm not sure if that even exists.

If you are right ... you will have no problem to answer me this few questions:

1) I decided to persuade Druids to stop ritual ... my diceroll failed, and i killed them all ... therefore i helped Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
2) I decided to side with Goblins and i killed Halsin, but at gate i reconcider and betrayed them ... therefore i helped Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
3) I decided to steal the holy idol to give it to Tieflings, so they can sold it and pay ressurection for Arabela ... Druids killed Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
4) I decided to persuade Tieflings to escape ... my diceroll failed, and i killed them all ... therefore i didnt help Tieflings, yet i killed Goblins and saved Halsin ... am i good or evil?
5) I decided to not get involved between Druids, Tieflings and Goblins ... i killed Githyanki, stole their artefact and go search for Creche (not implemented yet i know) ... am i good or evil?

Since you tell me that there are only two paths, i bet you will have no problem to decide those situations. smile
Ofc. you can simply admit that there is more. wink

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Unless the "evil" path is rewarding and more nuanced that 75% to 25% statistic is not going to change. It's also not divided further because, again, there are no other paths.

I will not repeat myself, but for now i will quote myself. laugh
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
But if you will give it the work, and search some statistics you will find you that most people in Videogames are following the good path.
Its never 50:50 ... usualy it moves between 60-70% for good choices. wink Some examples: here, here, here, here, and here. smile
So on the contrary, this statistic dont show us that evil path is anyhow bad ... it shows us that players are acting exactly as they usualy do, wich kidna prooves that its witen accurately. laugh

That is the problem with statistic i have my whole life (I was educated in this field) ...
People can interpet numbers differently without required context. wink
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
You help the Tieflings and are good or you murder them all and get betrayed / punished because you are bad. Larian themselves even put it that way in their last update. The only other "option" is a failsafe for when absolutely everyone is dead and I'm not sure if that even exists.

If you are right ... you will have no problem to answer me this few questions:

1) I decided to persuade Druids to stop ritual ... my diceroll failed, and i killed them all ... therefore i helped Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
2) I decided to side with Goblins and i killed Halsin, but at gate i reconcider and betrayed them ... therefore i helped Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
3) I decided to steal the holy idol to give it to Tieflings, so they can sold it and pay ressurection for Arabela ... Druids killed Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
4) I decided to persuade Tieflings to escape ... my diceroll failed, and i killed them all ... therefore i didnt help Tieflings, yet i killed Goblins and saved Halsin ... am i good or evil?
5) I decided to not get involved between Druids, Tieflings and Goblins ... i killed Githyanki, stole their artefact and go search for Creche (not implemented yet i know) ... am i good or evil?

Since you tell me that there are only two paths, i bet you will have no problem to decide those situations. smile
Ofc. you can simply admit that there is more. wink



1) Good
2) Good
3) Failsafe / Evil (you say nothing about the goblins)
4) Failsafe
5) Unimplemented neutral path

This is a video game with quantitative data so Larian cannot take these nuances you make up in your head into account. They say good / evil is 75% / 25% because they checked all gamestates and noticed an X amount of "the tiefling party happened" and "the goblin party happened" states. All of this other stuff you mentioned is irrelevant window dressing, and a third path where the party goes "well, we fucked up, all of our leads are dead" does not exist as far as I know.

So again; you can make up as many of these nuances and permutations as you like. I play a pragmatic evil character that saw Halsin as my best bet as a cure and thought the Absolute was probably a sham, so I helped the Tieflings. This makes be good because "the tiefling party happened" checkbox is marked in my playthrough. Whatever else I tell myself or even what I do besides the Tiefling / Goblin choice does not matter.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
You help the Tieflings and are good or you murder them all and get betrayed / punished because you are bad. Larian themselves even put it that way in their last update. The only other "option" is a failsafe for when absolutely everyone is dead and I'm not sure if that even exists.

If you are right ... you will have no problem to answer me this few questions:

1) I decided to persuade Druids to stop ritual ... my diceroll failed, and i killed them all ... therefore i helped Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
2) I decided to side with Goblins and i killed Halsin, but at gate i reconcider and betrayed them ... therefore i helped Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
3) I decided to steal the holy idol to give it to Tieflings, so they can sold it and pay ressurection for Arabela ... Druids killed Tieflings ... am i good or evil?
4) I decided to persuade Tieflings to escape ... my diceroll failed, and i killed them all ... therefore i didnt help Tieflings, yet i killed Goblins and saved Halsin ... am i good or evil?
5) I decided to not get involved between Druids, Tieflings and Goblins ... i killed Githyanki, stole their artefact and go search for Creche (not implemented yet i know) ... am i good or evil?

Since you tell me that there are only two paths, i bet you will have no problem to decide those situations. smile
Ofc. you can simply admit that there is more. wink



1) Good
2) Good
3) Failsafe / Evil (you say nothing about the goblins)
4) Failsafe
5) Unimplemented neutral path

This is a video game with quantitative data so Larian cannot take these nuances you make up in your head into account. They say good / evil is 75% / 25% because they checked all gamestates and noticed an X amount of "the tiefling party happened" and "the goblin party happened" states. All of this other stuff you mentioned is irrelevant window dressing, and a third path where the party goes "well, we fucked up, all of our leads are dead" does not exist as far as I know.

So again; you can make up as many of these nuances and permutations as you like. I play a pragmatic evil character that saw Halsin as my best bet as a cure and thought the Absolute was probably a sham, so I helped the Tieflings. This makes be good because "the tiefling party happened" checkbox is marked in my playthrough. Whatever else I tell myself or even what I do besides the Tiefling / Goblin choice does not matter.



Oooof 1 being good is chaotic Good at best. Yikes, I mean statistically the game might see it as part of the good solution, but you get my point.
Originally Posted by Riandor
Oooof 1 being good is chaotic Good at best. Yikes, I mean statistically the game might see it as part of the good solution, but you get my point.

Of course, I'm not blind to the nuance of it. But statistics are.
No, the evil route is pretty trash.
There should be a lot more incentive to being evil than being good. The rewards should be better and the path should be easier. It should be hard to do the right thing.
Currently the only reward for going the evil route is targeting the pre-teens who apparently go mental by seeing their character have sex with a drow and need to go share it on reddit.
I honestly give up ... you are not even trying. -_-
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I honestly give up ... you are not even trying. -_-


I mean...
Its not a debate thread.

Its a feedback thread.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I honestly give up ... you are not even trying. -_-


Bruh what do you want me to say. I'm not trying to make something that isn't there. Larian says they consider the good and evil paths to be if you had the Tiefling or Goblin party so that is that.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez"
the tiefling party happened" and "the goblin party happened"

Those are outcomes ... not paths. -_-
But maybe its my fault ... maybe i wasnt illustrative enough ...

Lets see some images:


Now ... this one suits best to our situation here:
(yes im too lazy to create my own)
[Linked Image]
A: Is protagonist fiding out about tadpole, deciding that s/he need healer.
B-F: Making a decision ... w/e.
G: Goblin party.
H: Tiefling party.

Everything in between is called a "path" ...

Originally Posted by Vhaldez"
I play a pragmatic evil character that saw Halsin as my best bet as a cure and thought the Absolute was probably a sham, so I helped the Tieflings. This makes be good because "the tiefling party happened" checkbox is marked in my playthrough.

And you honestly dont see that contradiction? o_O

Originally Posted by Vhaldez"
Whatever else I tell myself or even what I do besides the Tiefling / Goblin choice does not matter.

Honestly, this is sadest thing i seen in some while. frown
If you really believe this, i hope your feedback will be ignored by Larian, since you clearly dont understand the words "good path" and "evil path" ... or maybe just the word "path" at all. frown
Do you think Larian measured all the data on a sheet with all of these steps in mind? If they did, why didn't they say so? "X% of players took this and this path..." with all the permutations outlined?

You know, even if we take those permutations into account, all of the dialogue choices in the evil path put you in such a low position that I see no reason why a character who knows what we know ingame would bother with it. You are treated as trash by Minthara all the way through, that is not an incentive to stick to her.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I honestly give up ... you are not even trying. -_-

You're putting in the effort, hats off...

However, the issue for me (other than what I have already contributed), is that the Druids don't realllly feel like a "good" option, given that when you meet them they are trying to selfishly hide themselves from harm and boot out the Tieflings. So other than wanting to find Halsin for my own selfish purposes; I am not immediately inclined to help them. If I am evil, I likely don't care.

The Tieflings need help, sure, so if I am good I need to solve the Goblin issue OR sort the Druids issue (can one do that without killing the Goblins?). If I want to play a bad character, I am likely not interested in their plight as they other than being a burden they don't have a lot to offer me, again, evil doesn't mean I want to kill them, but they aren't offering me an incentive to help, such as stop/kill the druids and they will help me with MY issue, because being Evil my needs are more important to me that anyone elses.

The Goblins betray you and Auntie Ethel can't help, so what is my play here? Evil does not equal mass murderer by default and being satisfied. Now killing everyone might be the solution to a problem, but only if it advances me towards my goals. Now if Mynthara wants to betray the goblins now that I and my companions have embraced the power of the manipulated tadpole and she offers me up a path to godhood or a form of power, yeah ok, but no one is selling me this, not at first glance at any rate. Again, the dreams seem massively untrustworthy given the character creation process of choosing your potential mate at first reeks of tadpole manipulating you.

Were the companions of a certain power pursuasion more open with their opinions the tadpole situation could be exploited because clearly something here is different, then maybe I explore it. Maybe I missed it, maybe it's just an issue of Act1 wanting to be vague, but IF Larian want to know why we are being good it isn't as far as I am concerned because Good is my default playstyle, it's because Evil isn't seductively whispering in my ear.

We are perhaps in danger of going round in cirlces, but if RagnarokCzD is the only one able to fight the good fight for the cause of Evil, then it suggests to me more that there is an issue in the presentation of Evil and its choices in game.

I am also willing to accept that having only played 35hrs or so and not actively TRYING to be evil (or to be good per say) that I might simply have not paid enough attention to the Evil route, but to me that highlights that again, Evil isn't an attractive option vs the so called good side.
RagnarokCzD
I wrote it the way you like. I suspect you like it because it allows you to drown us in pointless examples that don't prove anything but have it your way.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Yes, you get there either with quest to kill goblins, with promissed rewards wich you were warn about it "will not be much".
Or, you simply get there without the quest, since you dont need to care about Tieflings, nor Druids ... but even then you do allready know that they present potential threat for groove.

you didn't really refute anything I wrote here so I don't understand why you wrote it at all. Perhaps to highlight the option to ignore the grove even after the cutscene and battle and go straight to the goblin camp, an option that although possible, right now sort of breaks the game since clearly, you are not supposed to do it. I wrote about it before. here is a quote:
in my who knows which playthrough of the game (I had many) I went for a crazy mage build with 8 int when my goal was to get the circlet that gives you 18 int as soon as possible. I tried to avoid the grove gate fight and head straight to the ogres but couldn't avoid the fight. After the fight, instead of going into the grove I moved on to fight the ogres and came back afterwards. But sadly it seems I successfully broke the game (again). When I entered the grove Zavlor was standing in the entrance alone and there was no way to interact with him.


Quote
True ... there is not much in goblin camp ...
Unless you count temple inside, that will pretty much double it.

I'm not sure whether you are just clueless or playing clueless. When I wrote "goblin camp" I meant it in the most extensive way possible, temple included.

Quote
Still it may not seem like much, but since goblins just infest abandonned places, than build anything own ... it seem understandable to me.
On the other hand, in groove isnt so much more ... i mean there probably is more things, but not like double, or triple. :-/

Im not sure what do you mean with that vacuum ... like they all are selfish? Ofc they are, they are goblins. laugh

This something I'll probably come back to, but "like they all are selfish? Ofc they are, they are goblins" is utterly and completely head cannon. and again, I'm not sure whether you deliberately take something I say and use it to say something else completely, but you did here as well. I wrote, "Each goblin "leader" has a totally different side quest for you, each of them feels as though it exists in a vacuum, and most of them don't really progress the main story." this is not an argument about characterization, it's an argument about story structure and character interaction. Vacuum means that every goblin leader quest exists completely on its own, with no regard to the others. the fact that the goblin leaders don't act like there are other goblin leaders doesn't make them look selfish, it makes them look like they are not aware they exist.
Quote
Well ... if main story is geting rid of tadpole, there really are just Minthara, and Gut ... aggain, simmilar to groove, where is only Halsin(potentialy) and Nettie.

this is a head cannon. nothing in the game directly points to what you say here.

Quote
IMHO Minthara is more like "go kill the people in the grove, because that is the only possible reason you are here" ... all she know about you is the fact that you are true soul, and one can understand that someone like her would presume that you two will not talk, if you were there to kill her ...

another great head cannon. I only wish she would say it. and even if it's true, how does it make the evil path well written?
Quote
Also i was there so far talking to her only with Sazza ... Sazza is talking about posibility of attack, and you have no objection, so that is another reason to presume you are there to join the attack.

not sure what you're talking about here sorry.
Quote
Why create leaders ... who do you mean?
Goblin leaders that Halsin want you to kill? Probably bcs quest "go and kill five completely random goblin" will be quite stupid. laugh

It's a stupid reason. "go kill one leader" isn't so different than "go kill three". If you don't have a reason for a character to exist, don't create it.
Quote
Or do you mean Zevlor, Halsin, and Kagha? ... I gues for same reason as Minthara, Dror Ragzlin, and Gut.

This is not a topic about the "good path". there are problems there as well, sure, it doesn't prove anything about the evil path.
Quote
I gues if you dont specificly do what are you specificly told not to do ... at last one of leaders from each side should be alive, more like 2. And i gues every one of them will have some story in future, wich will depend on wich one of them survived.

nice speculation. no proof whatsoever and doesn't help your claim at all. I judge what's in the game.
Quote
And second question ... you ask why would any character join Minthara.
I hope reasons for mine chaotic evil Drow will surfice:
1) Its a Drow, i know that this race isnt known for some racial loayality, but still my character is closer to her, than some surfacedwellers.
2) Why not? My character dont care about litteraly anyone in that groove, and raid with goblin army sounds like fun.
3) Multiple persons from groove did repeatly insult my character for being a Drow ... it may not seem like much, but those simple reveges warms her cold heart.
4) Minthara is servant of the Absolute, wich as it seems control mine tadpole ... so my chances with someone who allready have control over my parasite seem biger, than with someone who may study some parasite for some limited time.
5) There is Cult that worships Absolute, wich potentialy promises power.
6) Absolute promises better life for Goblins, Hopgoblins, Ogres, Duegars, Drow, etc. ... ofc. my character probably see "better life" differently than that goblin, that tells her about it, but that is nothing she will care about.
7) Every treasure, every valuable, and every artefact i found in groove will be mine.
8) Bcs screw druids, that is why. :P laugh
9) And finaly and maybe most important ... its evil. >:]

Hope this form of answer will be more "readable" for you, dont get used to it ... i dont do that often, i writen it all as usualy, and then just deleted your quotes, i simply cant write anyhow else, since then i loose myself in it. laugh

all of these reasons (other than 8-9, which are just, sorry, kind of lame excuses, and 7, which has nothing to do with the story) are head cannon, speculations, or irrelevant. . nothing in the game. you basically confirmed the main point which is - evil path is for murder hobos who don't care about story (but apparently have quite the imagination).
I enjoyed it as a lolth drow who finds pleasure in betrayal, violence, and carnage. He learns that the goblins are being lead by a female Drow, which peaks his curiosity, He then finds out goblins show him respect because he is a Drow and a " true soul", and he takes advantage of that fully. He meets the female Drow who he instantly feels a bond with for her beauty and cruelty. then the two lead an army of Goblins that kill everything in their path, then they have sex on a sacrificial altar while the corpses of the ones they killed are laying all around.

With that said, I don't think I could enjoy being evil as any other race in the EA. It feels out of place, and the times I have tried, my immersion broke.
Originally Posted by Svalr
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
Originally Posted by Svalr
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
No not at all op but then i never do enjoy anything evil.. To be fair this isn't evil imo its just rude and antagonistic.. Evil people can be just as pleasant as good people before you get to know them..



Some of the choices are definitely evil, I'd say that raiding the Grove is.
But yeah a lot of people are calling characters like Lae'Zel evil and I wouldn't really say that.
She's just a jerk xD...

I feel they all are jerks tbh.. the companions, the tiefs, the druids, the goblins, the animals you speak to.. pretty much every single person you meet is an ahole right from the start.. except maybe the hag.. It just becomes an echo chamber of hate and i as a customer tune out.. Then the game loses me.

Pretty much i meet a new character, "spouts hate at me".. ok not interested in interacting with you anymore.. and this for me continues the whole game so far. Even damn squirrels were hateful.


Gale, Zevlor and Wyll aren't.
I forgot the name of the black Druid in the Grove who has an argument with Kagha but he was cool too and I found the Tieflings to be too.
I didn't find Shadowheart to be hateful towards me either, only when I pushed too much and tried to dig in her past.

Gale might be but i don't really use him as hes a magic item vacuum cleaner.. Wyll is still painful and Zevlor hardly has a role.. but you are right Zevlor was nice. Three or so characters in a whole game isn't great.

To be honest from what i've seen and read of others doing evil playthroughs half the evil outcomes don't even work or fizzle out to nothing.. You kill the druids and the tieflings then what? become master mindflayer or boss goblin leader.. nope.. nothing most totally evil endings seems to bug the game out..
Originally Posted by cool-dude01
I enjoyed it as a lolth drow who finds pleasure in betrayal, violence, and carnage. He learns that the goblins are being lead by a female Drow, which peaks his curiosity, He then finds out goblins show him respect because he is a Drow and a " true soul", and he takes advantage of that fully. He meets the female Drow who he instantly feels a bond with for her beauty and cruelty. then the two lead an army of Goblins that kill everything in their path, then they have sex on a sacrificial altar while the corpses of the ones they killed are laying all around.

With that said, I don't think I could enjoy being evil as any other race in the EA. It feels out of place, and the times I have tried, my immersion broke.

Again, it's a video game. You shouldn't expect the player to make explanations in their heads as to why the story is the way it is
I think the problem of the evil path could be summed up with the Underdark Mushroom things vs the dwarves vs the exiled mushroom king.

In this one zone if I enter as "good"/peaceful I will meet the Society of Brilliance or whatever they are called.
Really cool interactions there! Even with a peaceful mindflayer.
They send me off on a quest and the reward is more illithid power.

There is also a deepgnome who is hurt who will give me a quest to save some slaves.
If I cure her poison I can have her pay me to free her brethren or I could just help her from the goodness of my heart.
Regardless as a player I just had a fun interaction.

There is also a dwarf lady looking for an employee, she works at Baldur's gate and needs me to find her man... which has some back story too that I felt were left unsaid. She promptly prepares leaves to Baldur's gate if I help her.

Then there is the Duegar threat and a very mad mushroom king wants me to help him get revenge.

So Evil Option 1) I side with the duegar and kill all these characters. I have to kill insane amounts of enemies equipped with poisons. Lose all these potential storylines for.... what? Some level 3-4 loot?

In that moment. Without knowing anything besides those as a player it seems such a destructive act to side with the duegar.
Its similar to killing my Origin characters. Like... I can do it but why?
So siding with the Duegar is a no go.
Not as a player because I am making the narrative of the game worse by killing all these little storylines.
Not as a pragmatic morally challenged character because all these dumb dwarves are looking for is an escaped slave and treat me like a wayward employee. And I have to help them... because absolute is bae?
Um... no? Why should I? Besides... she escaped you buddy, your slave, your problem.

Evil Option 2) kill the Duegar and side with the exiled king.
Kill all the storylines happening just like the Duegar option but this time its even harder! I am already getting rewards.
This guy has literally nothing.
He is a refugee.
What could he possibly give me? Why should I waste my time?


So again SEEMINGLY I am killing off very interesting characters for virtually nothing besides I want to badthings because I am just so darn evil.
Thats not interesting to me.
I am being inconveniences, my loot is the same, i dont need more gold. I already have like 9000 gold.
And I am killing important characters that apparently have some storylines to offer me.

Playing evil seems to give me a poorer experience as a player.
And before someone tells me "well you don't know if the evil gameplay wont become interesting later" yes... well it might idk but I have to make my decisions based on Act 1 and the things I see in it.
And so far its very barebones.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
I think the problem of the evil path could be summed up with the Underdark Mushroom things vs the dwarves vs the exiled mushroom king.

In this one zone if I enter as "good"/peaceful I will meet the Society of Brilliance or whatever they are called.
Really cool interactions there! Even with a peaceful mindflayer.
They send me off on a quest and the reward is more illithid power.

There is also a deepgnome who is hurt who will give me a quest to save some slaves.
If I cure her poison I can have her pay me to free her brethren or I could just help her from the goodness of my heart.
Regardless as a player I just had a fun interaction.

There is also a dwarf lady looking for an employee, she works at Baldur's gate and needs me to find her man... which has some back story too that I felt were left unsaid. She promptly prepares leaves to Baldur's gate if I help her.

Then there is the Duegar threat and a very mad mushroom king wants me to help him get revenge.

So Evil Option 1) I side with the duegar and kill all these characters. I have to kill insane amounts of enemies equipped with poisons. Lose all these potential storylines for.... what? Some level 3-4 loot?

In that moment. Without knowing anything besides those as a player it seems such a destructive act to side with the duegar.
Its similar to killing my Origin characters. Like... I can do it but why?
So siding with the Duegar is a no go.
Not as a player because I am making the narrative of the game worse by killing all these little storylines.
Not as a pragmatic morally challenged character because all these dumb dwarves are looking for is an escaped slave and treat me like a wayward employee. And I have to help them... because absolute is bae?
Um... no? Why should I?

Evil Option 2) kill the Duegar and side with the exiled king.
Kill all the storylines happening just like the Duegar option but this time its even harder! I am already getting rewards.
This guy has literally nothing.
He is a refugee.
What could he possibly give me? Why should I waste my time?
Besides... she escaped you buddy, your slave, your problem.

So again SEEMINGLY I am killing off very interesting characters for virtually nothing besides I want to badthings because I am just so darn evil.
Thats not interesting to me.
I am being inconveniences, my loot is the same, i dont need more gold. I already have like 9000 gold.
And I am killing important characters that apparently have some storylines to offer me.

Playing evil seems to give me a poorer experience as a player.
And before someone tells me "well you don't know if the evil gameplay wont become interesting later" yes... well it might idk but I have to make my decisions based on Act 1 and the things I see in it.
And so far its very barebones.

Exactly.. This is pretty much my opinion in nearly every game that has good and evil paths, why would i bother when the story goes to nothing, the murdering everything gives no added benefits and 99% of the time it screws my game story over and sometimes literally bugs the game out...

Its why most customers don't play evil routes in games at all, its pointless and takes you no where..
Originally Posted by Abits
It's a video game. You shouldn't expect the player to make explanations in their heads as to why the story is the way it is

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Playing evil seems to give me a poorer experience as a player.
And before someone tells me "well you don't know if the evil gameplay wont become interesting later" yes... well it might idk but I have to make my decisions based on Act 1 and the things I see in it.
And so far its very barebones.

+1 to both of these. Sums up the discussion so far and the problems with the evil route nicely.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
I see no reason why a character who knows what we know ingame would bother with it. You are treated as trash by Minthara all the way through, that is not an incentive to stick to her.

Bcs you are unable to thik outside one single character archetype ... i bet you are choosing everything by "what would I do". -_-

Originally Posted by Riandor
However, the issue for me (other than what I have already contributed), is that the Druids don't realllly feel like a "good" option, given that when you meet them they are trying to selfishly hide themselves from harm and boot out the Tieflings. So other than wanting to find Halsin for my own selfish purposes; I am not immediately inclined to help them. If I am evil, I likely don't care.

That is what i try to explain here since paige 2 (i think) ...
NO faction is "just good" or "just evil" ...

And if you try to search "true neutral" on Wikipedia, you find out that Druids are archetype of this behaviour ... Druid is that kind of character that is able to save people from Gnolls, and then turn against them if they wish to exterminate them ... bcs they just maintain ballance, not good, nor evil.
Also their leader, Kagha i think, is not even druid, but something called Dark Druid (didnt searched yet what that mean, but i gues it means that she is not exactly model druid).
Also i think most people here forgeting how they are threated ... i allready writed that down in more details, but just sumarize: Groove is their place to live, they offered shelter to refugees, and refugees repay them by stealing, refusing to obey their laws, or way of living, and allready are inhabiting much more than half Groove, also you met tieflings at gate, but not single druid ... coincidence?

Originally Posted by Riandor
The Tieflings need help, sure, so if I am good I need to solve the Goblin issue OR sort the Druids issue (can one do that without killing the Goblins?). If I want to play a bad character, I am likely not interested in their plight as they other than being a burden they don't have a lot to offer me, again, evil doesn't mean I want to kill them, but they aren't offering me an incentive to help, such as stop/kill the druids and they will help me with MY issue, because being Evil my needs are more important to me that anyone elses.

I would say being anything except pure good ... but yeah, sort of.

Originally Posted by Riandor
The Goblins betray you

I would not recommend including this fact in my decision-making process. Firstly, you don't know at the moment, secondly, it's not certain.
It's true that given their nature, you can assume it, but that's a different song.

Originally Posted by Riandor
Evil does not equal mass murderer by default and being satisfied. Now killing everyone might be the solution to a problem, but only if it advances me towards my goals.

And here is where you are as wrong as everyone else (except maybe one person so far). frown
So sad ...
If you wrote that being evil doesn't necessarily mean killing everyone, I would sign it for you with a smile.

But when it is presented like this, it is simply wrong. You completely rule out one possibility of a bad character just because you don't fit the pattern of a completely different bad character. And that's the problem here.

Originally Posted by Riandor
Now if Mynthara wants to betray the goblins now that I and my companions have embraced the power of the manipulated tadpole and she offers me up a path to godhood or a form of power, yeah ok, but no one is selling me this, not at first glance at any rate.

Personally, I just don't feel like she has to ... she probably considers her army more than enough.

Sure, if the success of the whole event depended solely on your help, it would be appropriate for her to persuade you, but they don't really need you. It was even mentioned here that no one took part in the attack at all, and the Qlog just updated to "Goblins destroyed the groove before you could do anything."

So your character is not a major breakthrough in plans for Minthara, just a usable tool, and he treats you as such.

Originally Posted by Riandor
Again, the dreams seem massively untrustworthy given the character creation process of choosing your potential mate at first reeks of tadpole manipulating you.

That is once aggain omething your character dont know ...
So, i dare to ignore this fact since its not roleplay.

Originally Posted by Riandor
Were the companions of a certain power pursuasion more open with their opinions the tadpole situation could be exploited because clearly something here is different, then maybe I explore it. Maybe I missed it, maybe it's just an issue of Act1 wanting to be vague, but IF Larian want to know why we are being good it isn't as far as I am concerned because Good is my default playstyle, it's because Evil isn't seductively whispering in my ear.

And that's exactly the bad archetype I was talking about here. Yes, it is true that many people do not decide on the basis of what is moral and what is not, but on what will bring them the greatest benefits or profits.
But what is not true and what a lot, I would even say almost everyone holds, is the claim that everyone has it that way.
So just so we understand, I'm not saying this approach is wrong ... even though it sounds like that, but I can't say otherwise.
I argue that the claim that this is the only possible right approach is wrong.

In the past, the question has arisen as to why someone would throw stones at a bear if no one would pay for it. The answer is simple: Because it's just a sadistic bitch who likes to hurt others because she just enjoys it.
There is no seduction, no reward, no promise of greater power, or the strengthening of bonds with other characters. Just a chatotic evil character.

Originally Posted by Riandor
We are perhaps in danger of going round in cirlces, but if RagnarokCzD is the only one able to fight the good fight for the cause of Evil, then it suggests to me more that there is an issue in the presentation of Evil and its choices in game.

It's one way to look at it.
At the moment we have 8 pages here and about 4-15 people are generally arguing about them ... so I would rather say that this forum and the participants of this "discussion" are completely irrelevant for the creation of any statistical sample.
In addition, keep in mind that this is just one topic and only the gods know how many more are hidden under other names in this forum.
In addition, keep in mind that the mere fact that there are so many sites discourages a lot of people from getting involved.


Abits
Originally Posted by Abits
I wrote it the way you like. I suspect you like it because it allows you to drown us in pointless examples that don't prove anything but have it your way.

Its bcs its simplier for me to focus on that part i am reacting, without need to search it in tons of sauce.
But, w/e ...

Originally Posted by Abits
This something I'll probably come back to, but "like they all are selfish? Ofc they are, they are goblins" is utterly and completely head cannon.

Are you honestly sugesting that i made up in my mind that Sazza requested from Minthara this:
"I thought we stick a few holes in her, show her how greatful we are."
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DJ5dfCPBdE&ab_channel=Kazuliski 4:53 wink

Originally Posted by Abits
I wrote, "Each goblin "leader" has a totally different side quest for you, each of them feels as though it exists in a vacuum, and most of them don't really progress the main story." this is not an argument about characterization, it's an argument about story structure and character interaction. Vacuum means that every goblin leader quest exists completely on its own, with no regard to the others. the fact that the goblin leaders don't act like there are other goblin leaders doesn't make them look selfish, it makes them look like they are not aware they exist.

I want you to do something and i dont care if there is anyone else who want something from you that may even contradict this ... ? That sound pretty selfish to me.

Also i dint do yet any goblin "leader" quest, so honestly i dunno.

Originally Posted by Abits
Quote
Well ... if main story is geting rid of tadpole, there really are just Minthara, and Gut ... aggain, simmilar to groove, where is only Halsin(potentialy) and Nettie.

this is a head cannon. nothing in the game directly points to what you say here.

This seems like you either didnt talk to them, or didnt even read your own questlog ...
Probably both.

Are you just trolling me now with quoting segments of my post and saying "not true" "not true" "not true" "not true" "not true" ... or is there any point in this? O_o

Originally Posted by Abits
Quote
IMHO Minthara is more like "go kill the people in the grove, because that is the only possible reason you are here" ... all she know about you is the fact that you are true soul, and one can understand that someone like her would presume that you two will not talk, if you were there to kill her ...

another great head cannon. I only wish she would say it. and even if it's true, how does it make the evil path well written?

I have honestly no idea how this shortcut was made ... but IMHO means "by mine opinion" ...
What else you expect than my opinion, when sentence starts with information that i give you mine opinion. o_O

And how does it make "evil path" well written? Since characters are acting by their personality.

Originally Posted by Abits
Quote
Why create leaders ... who do you mean?
Goblin leaders that Halsin want you to kill? Probably bcs quest "go and kill five completely random goblin" will be quite stupid. laugh

It's a stupid reason. "go kill one leader" isn't so different than "go kill three". If you don't have a reason for a character to exist, don't create it.

And how should i know ... do my nick seem to be "Swen Vincke"? laugh
Maybe you should ask him why did they create some NPC ...

Originally Posted by Abits
Quote
Or do you mean Zevlor, Halsin, and Kagha? ... I gues for same reason as Minthara, Dror Ragzlin, and Gut.

This is not a topic about the "good path". there are problems there as well, sure, it doesn't prove anything about the evil path.

I probably dont know either what you were asking, nor what are you telling now.
You asked why leaders are there ... i give you answer, that the reason will be simmilar to leaders of other faction ... and you tell me that we are not talking about that faction here.

Neither did i ... this starts to feel like really poor trolling man, you could at last try a little bit. frown

Originally Posted by Abits
Quote
I gues if you dont specificly do what are you specificly told not to do ... at last one of leaders from each side should be alive, more like 2. And i gues every one of them will have some story in future, wich will depend on wich one of them survived.

nice speculation. no proof whatsoever and doesn't help your claim at all. I judge what's in the game.

Again ... not Swen. -_-

Originally Posted by Abits
[quote]And second question ... you ask why would any character join Minthara.
I hope reasons for mine chaotic evil Drow will surfice:
1) Its a Drow, i know that this race isnt known for some racial loayality, but still my character is closer to her, than some surfacedwellers.
2) Why not? My character dont care about litteraly anyone in that groove, and raid with goblin army sounds like fun.
3) Multiple persons from groove did repeatly insult my character for being a Drow ... it may not seem like much, but those simple reveges warms her cold heart.
4) Minthara is servant of the Absolute, wich as it seems control mine tadpole ... so my chances with someone who allready have control over my parasite seem biger, than with someone who may study some parasite for some limited time.
5) There is Cult that worships Absolute, wich potentialy promises power.
6) Absolute promises better life for Goblins, Hopgoblins, Ogres, Duegars, Drow, etc. ... ofc. my character probably see "better life" differently than that goblin, that tells her about it, but that is nothing she will care about.
7) Every treasure, every valuable, and every artefact i found in groove will be mine.
8) Bcs screw druids, that is why. :P laugh
9) And finaly and maybe most important ... its evil. >:]

asdasdasdWell 8 and 9 was just me making fun of you ... w/e.
7 is exact use of game mechanics for purpose of story ... you kill it, you rob it ... this is how loot works.
The rest is of course from my head ... and you will know that even before you asked if you read at last one sentence i ever writed here whole. -_-

I try to simplify it for you:
Larian job = make options.
Player job = choose.

You know this debate is remind me one of (few i admit that) DnD session i was in ...
GM had enough of one player who still demanded better motivations ... and then he just decide that we all goes on adventure, except this asshole who live rest of his miserable life in his dirty, muddy house, bcs he was "not motivated enough" to move his lazy ass and go out.

Its quite simple rule: If you cant find reason why your character should do something ... you probably should choose different option. But if you really need me to tell you this, there is something horribly wrong. :-/
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

The rest is of course from my head ... and you will know that even before you asked if you read at last one sentence i ever writed here whole. -_-

I try to simplify it for you:
Larian job = make options.
Player job = choose.

You know this debate is remind me one of (few i admit that) DnD session i was in ...
GM had enough of one player who still demanded better motivations ... and then he just decide that we all goes on adventure, except this asshole who live rest of his miserable life in his dirty, muddy house, bcs he was "not motivated enough" to move his lazy ass and go out.

Its quite simple rule: If you cant find reason why your character should do something ... you probably should choose different option. But if you really need me to tell you this, there is something horribly wrong. :-/


Larian's options suck
Hence this thread and EA.

Larian has asked for feedback, especially for Evil story path.
Hence why this thread exists.

Also that little story of yours just goes to show you had a bad GM and dare I say it?
You were a bad player that I have no interest playing with
I played the EA not necessarily from an evil or good perspective-- more of a 'what is best for my character in this instance' -- and it worked out great, have 0 complaints.
I think such rpgs are not designed for evil gameplay, because being simply evil does not make sense in 99% of cases anyway.

You would need a completely different plot designed for interesting evil gameplay, especially when it's not only "killing good guys" but interesting interacting, plotting and intrigues.
Almost every game trying to enable a designated good and evil walkthrough would fail. Good to some sort of greyish is the best someone could expect (I'm okay with that), but interesting evil walkthrough which does not break the actual campaign is very hard to implement.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
emoji's and ...


The problem is there is only an incentive -in the game- to take the evil path with the goblins if you're chaotic evil, evil for evil's sake aka chaotic stupid. There is no incentive to play a smart lawful evil -in the game-.You seem quite happy with the way things are and when things don't fit story wise you're fine with thinking of convoluted ways and bending over backwards in your mind about how to motivate yourself to continue to play evil. Might I suggest it's because you're playing chaotic evil? I can't see how else you are the only one in this thread thinking the evil path is fine the way it is.
Originally Posted by Grantig
I think such rpgs are not designed for evil gameplay, because being simply evil does not make sense in 99% of cases anyway.

You would need a completely different plot designed for interesting evil gameplay, especially when it's not only "killing good guys" but interesting interacting, plotting and intrigues.
Almost every game trying to enable a designated good and evil walkthrough would fail. Good to some sort of greyish is the best someone could expect (I'm okay with that), but interesting evil walkthrough which does not break the actual campaign is very hard to implement.


The only good way to do it now would be to make it run parallel to the good path and that seems to have been the intent Larian had by introducing Minthara, however she can betray you and then you end up with nothing at all. If she was guaranteed to be a recurring character it would be a little better, but Act 1's evil path also seems to be a closed narrative with failsafes (such as the goblins being out of the picture in a "by the way, the entire camp is aggro now lol bye" way).
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
To be honest from what i've seen and read of others doing evil playthroughs half the evil outcomes don't even work or fizzle out to nothing.. You kill the druids and the tieflings then what? become master mindflayer or boss goblin leader.. nope.. nothing most totally evil endings seems to bug the game out..

Are you aware that you are evaluating the "end result" after the first third of the story?

Originally Posted by Eddiar
I think the problem of the evil path could be summed up with the Underdark Mushroom things vs the dwarves vs the exiled mushroom king.

In this one zone if I enter as "good"/peaceful I will meet the Society of Brilliance or whatever they are called.
Really cool interactions there! Even with a peaceful mindflayer.
They send me off on a quest and the reward is more illithid power.

There is also a deepgnome who is hurt who will give me a quest to save some slaves.
If I cure her poison I can have her pay me to free her brethren or I could just help her from the goodness of my heart.
Regardless as a player I just had a fun interaction.

There is also a dwarf lady looking for an employee, she works at Baldur's gate and needs me to find her man... which has some back story too that I felt were left unsaid. She promptly prepares leaves to Baldur's gate if I help her.

Then there is the Duegar threat and a very mad mushroom king wants me to help him get revenge.

So Evil Option 1) I side with the duegar and kill all these characters. I have to kill insane amounts of enemies equipped with poisons. Lose all these potential storylines for.... what? Some level 3-4 loot?

In that moment. Without knowing anything besides those as a player it seems such a destructive act to side with the duegar.
Its similar to killing my Origin characters. Like... I can do it but why?
So siding with the Duegar is a no go.
Not as a player because I am making the narrative of the game worse by killing all these little storylines.
Not as a pragmatic morally challenged character because all these dumb dwarves are looking for is an escaped slave and treat me like a wayward employee. And I have to help them... because absolute is bae?
Um... no? Why should I? Besides... she escaped you buddy, your slave, your problem.

This is just perfect example of dementation.
(Its not an insult, i just cant find more fitting word in this language ... In my language, this word means to set the initial attributes so that any observer of the phenomenon cannot in any case have a different result than desired one.)

You say you don't take into account anything that's not in the game yet ...

On the other hand, you are talking about:
- Society of Brilliance, where do you get what ... one vendor and one side quest that can be done and get all his rewards anyway?
- About the deepgnome lady who gives you the task of rescuing slaves ... which is not in the game yet.
And as for interacting with her, as in the previous case, there is nothing stoping you from doing so too.
- You're talking about a dwarf lady who, like the two previous cases, offers no job now, since its not implemented yet, only gives you the task of finding her husband. And she won't offer you (and I don't think she's going to give you, if I'm not mistaken) any reward.
Everything else falls into the category "not yet in play".

So no, your rewards are not "just 3-4 loot". wink

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Evil Option 2) kill the Duegar and side with the exiled king.
Kill all the storylines happening just like the Duegar option but this time its even harder! I am already getting rewards.
This guy has literally nothing.
He is a refugee.
What could he possibly give me? Why should I waste my time?


So again SEEMINGLY I am killing off very interesting characters for virtually nothing besides I want to badthings because I am just so darn evil.
Thats not interesting to me.
I am being inconveniences, my loot is the same, i dont need more gold. I already have like 9000 gold.
And I am killing important characters that apparently have some storylines to offer me.

Playing evil seems to give me a poorer experience as a player.
And before someone tells me "well you don't know if the evil gameplay wont become interesting later" yes... well it might idk but I have to make my decisions based on Act 1 and the things I see in it.
And so far its very barebones.

The same ... you only loose anything if you are stupid enough to engage fight before you get your rewards ...
That is not misstake of game, its yours. :-/

Exiled mushroom will promise you some reward ... i dont quite remember wich, but i know there was some option like "whats in it for me" and he did have some response, i just dont remember what. laugh

This is also quite good example of dementing something ...
First you ask what is reward ... and then, with the same breath you declare that you dont even care about reward, since you allready have enough anyway. laugh
What exactly is your point here? That you dont wanna do it no matter everything? Then just dont! Nobody need you to do "evil things", its your session ... play it however you like ffs. laugh
Just to summarize.

Its obvious being that being "good" has received the bulk of the development.
With voiced characters, storylines, games, songs and etc.

Being "evil" is just a gimick to fight NPC's you would have otherwise interacted with.

Just think about it this way.
Where is the Alfira of the goblin path?
Volo? Whether I am good or not I can always get him but the only way to interact with Alfira is help the Tieflings.

I guess you could argue that I could join the Tieflings and see all these things only to betray and kill them. I mean Alfira says she is going to this famous Bard's Inn in Baldur's Gate. But if I kill her then her storyline is over...

If I was evil I wouldn't murder her for the lolz.
I would just enslave her and have her sing for me for free... seems more practical to do that imo.
Originally Posted by Eddiar

Where is the Alfira of the goblin path?
Volo? Whether I am good or not I can always get him but the only way to interact with Alfira is help the Tieflings.

I guess you could argue that I could join the Tieflings and see all these things only to betray and kill them. I mean Alfira says she is going to this famous Bard's Inn in Baldur's Gate. But if I kill her then her storyline is over...

If I was evil I wouldn't murder her for the lolz.
I would just enslave her and have her sing for me for free... seems more practical to do that imo.


It's worse than that.

They actually thought of this. Volo is re-imprisoned by the Goblins and never seen again after those betray you. Another Goblin brings you Alfira's broken lute and comments something about finishing the job in relation to her tutor, so she dies horribly because of your actions. Shadowheart is another example, her romance path is locked because she drinks herself into a stupor to forget all the horrible things you did. This is all very, very punishing.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
To be honest from what i've seen and read of others doing evil playthroughs half the evil outcomes don't even work or fizzle out to nothing.. You kill the druids and the tieflings then what? become master mindflayer or boss goblin leader.. nope.. nothing most totally evil endings seems to bug the game out..

Are you aware that you are evaluating the "end result" after the first third of the story?

I'd argue that the "end result" of the first third is much more relevant to evil playthroughs than the full story ending. Typically, "evil" should have immediate benefits but long-term detriments. (e.g., You kill someone for their stuff. Great, you got their stuff! But now the town is after you and you either have to bribe guards, leave town, or get arrested. Or: evil overlord amasses power takes over the country. But eventually, inevitably, heroes come to kill the evil overlord)

In BG3 Act 1: The evil route should result in you having gotten significant power. Evil is tempting for this reason! Characters don't just decide "hey, I'm going to be evil now." Characters make evil choices because they are selfish and the evil choices benefit them at the expense of others!

But, the current ending of the evil act is "You killed a bunch of tieflings and druids, basically acting as our servant/murderhobo, and then you get betrayed" (I didn't play this "evil route" so I might be mistaken)

tl;dr. Any evil route should have immediate or at least easily apparent benefits. The "evil route" in BG3 act 1 has basically no benefits that your PC would know of.
Originally Posted by luciant
I played the EA not necessarily from an evil or good perspective-- more of a 'what is best for my character in this instance' -- and it worked out great, have 0 complaints.

Yeah me too which is why perhaps I missed a truer path towards playing the Evil side.

Though there seems to be (understandably) a difference of opionion as to what Evil actually means.

I would have to be off the charts bat shit crazy to want EVERYONE dead, so for me this just doesn't work in any kind of meaningful scenario. But I think actually enough people in here agree that at least at the start of the game the concept of an evil playthrough doesn't really present itself.

1 - Unless a character willingly WANTS to turn into a Mindflayer, our immediate and ONLY purpose is to resolve the tadpole issue and being Evil we are willing to do whatever it takes.

2 - Agree that depending on your particular flavour of Evil that may or may not include taking particular companions along, and disposing of the others in any means you feel comfortable with in order to further drive your current agenda.

3 - Agree also that the Druids are Neutral themselves and true neutrality is a little tricky to pull off, so it's not surprising that they feel more Good leaning as a whole, or at least in so far as IF I was playing Good I would at least look to sort the issues out.

4 - Regarding what I know vs Character... Well I do know it and I know as a character even enough come the end credits of EA to say that choosing Evil feels unfulfilling and even darn right un-rewarding. Specifically on the Tadpole though, no I don't know but the information fed to me until someone tells me otherwise (happened to be Halsin for me) was that I was in danger of becoming a Mindflayer, so anything dream wise or power wise coming from the Mindflayer I am going to inherently distrust. Now Sure, a power craving being might well take the risk, but the flavour of what is Evil argument works both ways. No way I am letting myself be controlled.

As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter though as all discussion here is hopefully fruitful for the Larian Devs who can themselves decide what to do with it.

I stand firmly in the camp of I could see a form of Evil working here, but given the various forms of what it means to be Evil, there isn't currently enough here to entice MY form of Evil. Though that playing Drow, killing the Grove and having sex amongst the destruction wasn't too shabby an example, just seems too much of a hassle.


Originally Posted by Eddiar
Larian's options suck
Hence this thread and EA.

Clearly not to everyone. smile
I allready told you, multiple times even ... its ok to agree on disagree ... we can have different opinions, its not a crime (at last not here, dunno where you are from).

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Larian has asked for feedback, especially for Evil story path.
Hence why this thread exists.

And we all (yes, that means me included) are providing it. smile

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Also that little story of yours just goes to show you had a bad GM and dare I say it?
You were a bad player that I have no interest playing with

I dont think you are right, since you dont know even aˇ10% part of story ... but hey, if you want to condemn a person you don't know for something you don't really know about, I won't stop you. smile
As for mine qualities ... i will not judge that, since that is more like up to others ... no one ever complained tho. O_o
And i bet that the fact you dont want to play with me i shall survive somehow. smile

Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
emoji's and ...

I like emoji ... dont you? They can help to add tone to the text. wink

Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
The problem is there is only an incentive -in the game- to take the evil path with the goblins if you're chaotic evil, evil for evil's sake aka chaotic stupid.

Chaotic evil is usualy as stupid as chaotic good ... i cant help the feeling that it have something to do with that chaotic part.

Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
There is no incentive to play a smart lawful evil -in the game-.

Correct me if im wrong, but should not smart evil try to not being recognized as evil? O_o

Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
You seem quite happy with the way things are

Quite, yes.

Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
and when things don't fit story wise you're fine with thinking of convoluted ways and bending over backwards in your mind about how to motivate yourself to continue to play evil.

Well ...
No, I'd say this is not the case.
I'm quite taken aback by where you actually get the idea that a person who repeatedly and directly admits that he thinks before choosing which option would suit his character the most, thinks back how else it could be used to justify the option he likes best. .
That sounds like the complete opposite to me.

Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
Might I suggest it's because you're playing chaotic evil?

Yes, I did, in one case ... as I repeatedly admitted.
So i gues there is no need to suggestin anything. O_o

Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
I can't see how else you are the only one in this thread thinking the evil path is fine the way it is.

In that case, you probably didn't read it very carefully.
I'm not saying that there are crowds of us ... rather (as I said before) it's more of a stubborn fight with five people on one side and five to ten on the other.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
This is all very, very punishing.

Or rewarding ... depends on your perspective.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I'd argue that the "end result" of the first third is much more relevant to evil playthroughs than the full story ending.

You'd (am i using it right?) not argue ... since i would agree with you, im just saying that Act1 isnt yet complete. wink

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Typically, "evil" should have immediate benefits but long-term detriments. (e.g., You kill someone for their stuff. Great, you got their stuff! But now the town is after you and you either have to bribe guards, leave town, or get arrested. Or: evil overlord amasses power takes over the country. But eventually, inevitably, heroes come to kill the evil overlord)

Typically ... yes.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
In BG3 Act 1: The evil route should result in you having gotten significant power. Evil is tempting for this reason! Characters don't just decide "hey, I'm going to be evil now." Characters make evil choices because they are selfish and the evil choices benefit them at the expense of others!

That part i dont kinda agree on ...
Every character you create is suppose to have Alignment ... they sadly abandoned this system now, since they want us to explore more "grey" areas ...
But when you had Alignment ... your character didnt ever "just decided to being evil from now" ... they usualy allready were. Why? That is up to you. wink

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
But, the current ending of the evil act is "You killed a bunch of tieflings and druids, basically acting as our servant/murderhobo, and then you get betrayed" (I didn't play this "evil route" so I might be mistaken)

You are partialy ... its a bit more complex. smile
I recomend to at last try it. wink

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
tl;dr. Any evil route should have immediate or at least easily apparent benefits. The "evil route" in BG3 act 1 has basically no benefits that your PC would know of.

Here i disagree completely ...
Yes, most evil character will need to see some benefit, yes players (especialy bad roleplayers, no offence, I don't mean anyone specific) do like to have benefits ...
But if your character is sadistic asshole, who just enjoy to torture others ... he dont need any motivation to torture others, its rewarding for him just for the pleasure.

Originally Posted by Riandor
Though there seems to be (understandably) a difference of opionion as to what Evil actually means.

That is for sure.

Originally Posted by Riandor
I would have to be off the charts bat shit crazy to want EVERYONE dead, so for me this just doesn't work in any kind of meaningful scenario.

Well i presume its just the option to kill anyone (wich i see as good thing) taken to quite extreme. :-/ laugh
But im personaly quite happy that option is presented in the game. Its bold move.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
This is all very, very punishing.

Or rewarding ... depends on your perspective.

How is Alfira dying and Volo being put in a cage rewarding. Is killing origin characters when you meet them rewarding? It locks you out of all of their quests. The game even stresses that you made an "evil" decision by rubbing it in your face in the first two cases.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Riandor
I would have to be off the charts bat shit crazy to want EVERYONE dead, so for me this just doesn't work in any kind of meaningful scenario.

Well i presume its just the option to kill anyone (wich i see as good thing) taken to quite extreme. :-/ laugh
But im personaly quite happy that option is presented in the game. Its bold move.

I take killing the Goblins or everyone at the Druid Grove as par for the course.
Better for me would be if after witnessing specific events I kill the Druids and offer up their grove to the Tieflings to stay at, because the Druids are a ptential thorn in my side should I side with the Drow, Tielfings however could be swayed at a later date, especially by me if I have provided them shelter.
I.e. more devious manipulation please Larian.
I agree, I think the evil playthrough is really half baked and we should have more options like taking leadership of the goblins or demonstrating the absolute as a false God to Minthara. Even for evil stuff in CRPGs it's incredibly brutal and simply not a choice most people will pick. To me it's a lot like in PST
putting Morte back in the pillar

it certainly is an option, and options to do bad things should exist in CRPGs however the evil path in BG3 has so little motivation, logic, or reason. It only makes sense for a player who really really wants to murder children and druids.
So deep! You can kill every NPC in the game! Wow what a well thought out mechanic
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I'd argue that the "end result" of the first third is much more relevant to evil playthroughs than the full story ending.

You'd (am i using it right?) not argue ... since i would agree with you, im just saying that Act1 isnt yet complete. wink

lol probably? I'm pretty bad at grammar
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
But, the current ending of the evil act is "You killed a bunch of tieflings and druids, basically acting as our servant/murderhobo, and then you get betrayed" (I didn't play this "evil route" so I might be mistaken)

You are partialy ... its a bit more complex. smile
I recomend to at last try it. wink

I plan on it! I'm currently stuck on wiping at the grove whose multiple small combats are taking soooo long. I just need to push my way through them

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
In BG3 Act 1: The evil route should result in you having gotten significant power. Evil is tempting for this reason! Characters don't just decide "hey, I'm going to be evil now." Characters make evil choices because they are selfish and the evil choices benefit them at the expense of others!

That part i dont kinda agree on ...
Every character you create is suppose to have Alignment ... they sadly abandoned this system now, since they want us to explore more "grey" areas ...
But when you had Alignment ... your character didnt ever "just decided to being evil from now" ... they usualy allready were. Why? That is up to you. wink
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
tl;dr. Any evil route should have immediate or at least easily apparent benefits. The "evil route" in BG3 act 1 has basically no benefits that your PC would know of.

Here i disagree completely ...
Yes, most evil character will need to see some benefit, yes players (especialy bad roleplayers, no offence, I don't mean anyone specific) do like to have benefits ...
But if your character is sadistic asshole, who just enjoy to torture others ... he dont need any motivation to torture others, its rewarding for him just for the pleasure.

Oh for sure. If you're playing as a sadistic evil (chaotic evil) then the murders themselves are the reward! I'm just saying that other (Lawful and neutral) evil characters don't really have a reason to follow Larian's evil path rn. So I guess saying that "any evil path should..." was incorrect of me. I think we're in agreement here ^_^
Originally Posted by Abits
So deep! You can kill every NPC in the game! Wow what a well thought out mechanic

What is the feedback value of a comment like this? If you want to vent use twitter or something.
Originally Posted by Worm
Originally Posted by Abits
So deep! You can kill every NPC in the game! Wow what a well thought out mechanic

What is the feedback value of a comment like this? If you want to vent use twitter or something.

Ragnarok is pretending this mechanic is not just a means to lock yourself out of content. I think Abits was referring to it as such too. We shouldn't be having an argument where we all want more deep permutations on the evil path and one person is like "but if you roleplay as liking the path is becomes well thought out!".
Instead of easily robbing every merchant blind and breaking the economy in the process, I hope the game will present more moral dilemmas and temptations.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Worm
Originally Posted by Abits
So deep! You can kill every NPC in the game! Wow what a well thought out mechanic

What is the feedback value of a comment like this? If you want to vent use twitter or something.

Ragnarok is pretending this mechanic is not just a means to lock yourself out of content. I think Abits was referring to it as such too. We shouldn't be having an argument where we all want more deep permutations on the evil path and one person is like "but if you roleplay as liking the path is becomes well thought out!".

Right on. If this mechanic doesn't serve the story in any meaningful way, it's useless. Bg1-2 also had the option to kill every thing you see. Never heard of someone using it because the alternative (actually experiencing the story) was better. If killing everything is your (and by "your" I'm talking to ser RagnarokCzD) idea of good storytelling we can't find any common ground for discussion.
I was wondering if a failsafe state existed for not interacting with the Tieflings and Goblins at all, turns out there is none. So the argument of there being some kind of neutral third path is now void.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
I was wondering if a failsafe state existed for not interacting with the Tieflings and Goblins at all, turns out there is none. So the argument of there being some kind of neutral third path is now void.

I tried that as well. There is no way to avoid the initial fight in the grove. I tried to avoid everything else (meaning I left immediately after the battle was over without entering the grove) but I kinda broke the game.
I've just rolled a Seldarine drow Ranger (yeah I know - but in my defense there's a hairstyle I really love in Alana's mod and my Wizard was half elf).

So with no particular wish to do good we set off to druid grove:
- told Zevlor to feck off

- asked around where the f*** is the healer - were told to check out Nettie

- met Kahga - told her to quit prattling about tieflings cause again couldn't care less, rolled persuade just because it never suceeds but it somehow did and we even saved Arabella

- checked out Nettie and intimidated her not to poison us -learned Halsin actually knows something about tadpoles and judging by his diaries a lot of other stuff so as Astarion put it "with that merry song in our hearts" we set off to find him

- met Ethel - told her everything - you know for fun as Astarion suggested

- met Sazza - couldn't really care if she gets shot, certainly not putting my life on the line there, complimented Arka on her shot

- met True soul Edowin, told those two imbeciles we we're from the ship as we wanted to learn their motives having said they're looking for us and they didn't really look as they could have presented a threat, proceeded to kill them

- befriended goblins, checked out Gut who didn't even know about tadpoles, tried to poison me and then attacked, proceeded to kill her

- found Minthara who again is totally clueless about the tadpole AND a Lolth drow (or is she still?) so definitely not going to bow to a Lolth drow - proceeded to kill her too!

- found Halsin (everyone was mentioning bear - Rath for one and we're not stupid) and as we've already killed two out of three leaders and you know we were already IN THE CAMP (didn't even have to walk anywhere) plus he said he'd help we proceeded to kill Razglin too

- well Astarion then suggested it'd be fun if we just killed them all, so we did

Now are we actually good? I was going for chaotic neutral but whole my motivations may differ the end result is the same as with my good aligned wizard.

Because while I may be CN/E I'm certainly not chaotic stupid which would be required of me to cooperate with that drivel of Absolute, which I know for a fact are out to get us and are totally oblivious of any tadpoles, so what help can I possibly expect of them?

On the other side I've got a renowned healer, whom I've just stumbled upon in the camp and who I know for a fact studied the tadpole, only asking me to kill that one person?

What do I stand to gain in the first scenario?
You get to kill stuff 😉🤣😜😉🤣😜😉
Originally Posted by Azarielle
I've just rolled a Seldarine drow Ranger (yeah I know - but in my defense there's a hairstyle I really love in Alana's mod and my Wizard was half elf).

So with no particular wish to do good we set off to druid grove:
- told Zevlor to feck off

- asked around where the f*** is the healer - were told to check out Nettie

- met Kahga - told her to quit prattling about tieflings cause again couldn't care less, rolled persuade just because it never suceeds but it somehow did and we even saved Arabella

- checked out Nettie and intimidated her not to poison us -learned Halsin actually knows something about tadpoles and judging by his diaries a lot of other stuff so as Astarion put it "with that merry song in our hearts" we set off to find him

- met Ethel - told her everything - you know for fun as Astarion suggested

- met Sazza - couldn't really care if she gets shot, certainly not putting my life on the line there, complimented Arka on her shot

- met True soul Edowin, told those two imbeciles we we're from the ship as we wanted to learn their motives having said they're looking for us and they didn't really look as they could have presented a threat, proceeded to kill them

- befriended goblins, checked out Gut who didn't even know about tadpoles, tried to poison me and then attacked, proceeded to kill her

- found Minthara who again is totally clueless about the tadpole AND a Lolth drow (or is she still?) so definitely not going to bow to a Lolth drow - proceeded to kill her too!

- found Halsin (everyone was mentioning bear - Rath for one and we're not stupid) and as we've already killed two out of three leaders and you know we were already IN THE CAMP (didn't even have to walk anywhere) plus he said he'd help we proceeded to kill Razglin too

- well Astarion then suggested it'd be fun if we just killed them all, so we did

Now are we actually good? I was going for chaotic neutral but whole my motivations may differ the end result is the same as with my good aligned wizard.

Because while I may be CN/E I'm certainly not chaotic stupid which would be required of me to cooperate with that drivel of Absolute, which I know for a fact are out to get us and are totally oblivious of any tadpoles, so what help can I possibly expect of them?

On the other side I've got a renowned healer, whom I've just stumbled upon in the camp and who I know for a fact studied the tadpole, only asking me to kill that one person?

What do I stand to gain in the first scenario?


Lol honestly your adventures reminds me of this skit.
[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/GPUgjy-Pn-4[/video]
Originally Posted by Abits
You get to kill stuff 😉🤣😜😉🤣😜😉


Hey but I got to kill stuff (possibly even more "stuff" than if I went to Druid Grove) plus (don't judge) I find it EXTREMELY satisfying to blow up the ones in the courtyard.

Agreed on that with Astarion at camp party before you know "letting the dogs out" 🤫🤷
Originally Posted by Azarielle

What do I stand to gain in the first scenario?


Amazingly, if you kill the goblin leaders autonomously and help the Tieflings indirectly without ever meeting them, you should be counted in the "good" stastistic. The end result is literally the only thing that matters lol
Originally Posted by Azarielle
Originally Posted by Abits
You get to kill stuff 😉🤣😜😉🤣😜😉


Hey but I got to kill stuff (possibly even more "stuff" than if I went to Druid Grove) plus (don't judge) I find it EXTREMELY satisfying to blow up the ones in the courtyard.

Agreed on that with Astarion at camp party before you know "letting the dogs out" 🤫🤷

I know I was only joking. Really if "kill stuff" is what you're looking for there's plenty of goblins so wtf

Quote
Lol honestly your adventures reminds me of this skit.
[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/GPUgjy-Pn-4[/video]


Yeah I was even on board with Arabella dying - even had that snarky remark ready, but thought "well I might as well try as it always fails anyway..."

And with Nettie it kinda makes more sense to intimidate her first telling her, you're gonna tear apart her beloved grove not just her, if she doesn't cut the crap (ofc killing her if it didn't work). As for swearing on anything - come on Nettie we're not in kindergarden!
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
I was wondering if a failsafe state existed for not interacting with the Tieflings and Goblins at all, turns out there is none. So the argument of there being some kind of neutral third path is now void.

I tried that as well. There is no way to avoid the initial fight in the grove. I tried to avoid everything else (meaning I left immediately after the battle was over without entering the grove) but I kinda broke the game.


If you only do the grove gate fight the ending cinematic only mention you discovered the Grove and the Tielfings (which you did), then it skip to the dark fortress part.

If you watch the video from the start, you'll see how he bypassed the grove gate fight.


And I'm not sure I get the "no failsafe state = no neutral third path". The cinematic at the end is what you are thinking of (your reverie), why would you know anything about things you weren't around for?
Originally Posted by azarhal

If you only do the grove gate fight the ending cinematic only mention you discovered the Grove and the Tielfings (which you did), then it skip to the dark fortress part.

If you watch the video from the start, you'll see how he bypassed the grove gate fight.

I think that line and the fortress line are the start and finish trigger with all the permutations in between, but maybe you can get a boat -> fortress narration if you skip the grove through sequence breaking?
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by azarhal

If you only do the grove gate fight the ending cinematic only mention you discovered the Grove and the Tielfings (which you did), then it skip to the dark fortress part.

If you watch the video from the start, you'll see how he bypassed the grove gate fight.

I think that line and the fortress line are the start and finish trigger with all the permutations in between, but maybe you can get a boat -> fortress narration if you skip the grove through sequence breaking?


The guy skipped the grove fight by never triggering it via jumping across paths. The ending script recognized not doing the Grove fight so he never meet the druids and Tieflings and tus the two unavoidable parts are mentioned in the cinematic: prologue and the dark fortress.

The lines in that cinematic aren't necessarily in the order you did them too from my experience.

So there is a way to avoid that fight altogether? Stupid stupid Larian
Originally Posted by azarhal

The guy skipped the grove fight by never triggering it via jumping across paths. The ending script recognized not doing the Grove fight so he never meet the druids and Tieflings and tus the two unavoidable parts are mentioned in the cinematic: prologue and the dark fortress.
The lines in that cinematic aren't necessarily in the order you did them too from my experience.


I knew it, that's hilarious.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
How is Alfira dying and Volo being put in a cage rewarding. Is killing origin characters when you meet them rewarding?

Isnt it obvious? I dont like either of them ...

Originally Posted by Riandor
I take killing the Goblins or everyone at the Druid Grove as par for the course.

Sure, but that is only one group ... we were talking about "kill everyone" ... meaning all 3g roups.

Originally Posted by Worm
Originally Posted by Abits
So deep! You can kill every NPC in the game! Wow what a well thought out mechanic

What is the feedback value of a comment like this? If you want to vent use twitter or something.

Its basic rule of trolling ... i say something is good, so he must say its bad.
And when i dont say something, he would not care, pretend that i did, and then being against it.

I would not recomend search for some depth in this.

Originally Posted by Azarielle
Now are we actually good? I was going for chaotic neutral but whole my motivations may differ the end result is the same as with my good aligned wizard.

And does it even matter? smile
It sounds like fun, and everything was "acording to character" wasnt it?
I only wish more people here would undestand that ... frown
Again, I’m not against you wanting to go all out Armageddon, but I’m arguing for a more nuanced approach as well. One that is more suggestive to the player as to what options they have (companion dialogue or NPC’s etc...) and one which rewards the devious.

Like I said, why not slaughter the Druids, hand over the grove to the Tieflings, then corrupt and bring them into the collective of the Absolute?

That’s just an example, which might be overstating the player’s importance to the area around Act 1, but in essence I would like more ways to skin this cat.

Though saying that I’m likely going to be more good than evil when I play properly, but you never know.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
How is Alfira dying and Volo being put in a cage rewarding. Is killing origin characters when you meet them rewarding?

Isnt it obvious? I dont like either of them ...



I don't know how to tell you this my guy, but Volo is one of the most enduring characters in all of Dungeons and Dragons and Alfira is almost guaranteed to be performing multiple songs throughout the full game considering the devs just reshoot her entire singing scene. That you do not like them does not change the fact that you lock yourself out of m huge amount of content by killing them. Volo will probably even come back on his own so I assume you will keep trying to kill him over and over again then. Go you, I suppose. You seem to be exactly the kind of person Larian had in mind when they designed the evil path.
so i changed my outlook on this recently and the "Evil" router isn't about choosing EVERY evil option. there are nuances and over all i did enjoy is up until the unavoidable
The absolute wants you dead now! don't go back to the goblin camp; you'll be KoS
after the grove arch.


Edit: I looked at my previous stance i and still agree with OPs suggestions. only mu over all outlook on the main arch story wise being better if you don't go full edgelord
You know... if this Ragnarok fella enjoys chaotic evil so much...
He wont even be inconvenienced by the changes people are suggesting.

Its obvious he is going to headcanon his own story anyway.
So if Minthara joins him or the Absolute minions join him in a more constructive way.... who cares?

Ragnarokczd is soooooooooo evil he would kill them anyway with his evil edgy swords.
So... who cares?

Edit: oh right i forgot the emojis eek smile laugh laugh laugh
Originally Posted by Riandor
Again, I’m not against you wanting to go all out Armageddon

In one of my seven playthrough. So far. laugh
As i sayd ... Only a Sith deals in absolutes. wink

Originally Posted by Riandor
Like I said, why not slaughter the Druids, hand over the grove to the Tieflings, then corrupt and bring them into the collective of the Absolute?

Im not against it at all ... O_o
On the contrary, i would like to see civillians chased in that prison ... and when that fight will be over i would let your character to decide if they are going to be eaten by Goblins, or sold to slavers, or maybe sacrificed to the Absolute prehaps, or even set to be free ... or "set to be free" chased by goblins. >:]
There is enouch place for many forms of evil. wink

Seem like interesting idea, not sure how much it fits to rest of the story tho ... but that is up to Larian ... also i recomend to send somewhere else, feddback you have on launcher prehaps, bcs here it probably will be forgotten really quick. :-/

I was just talking about our previous conversation earlier ... wink

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
I don't know how to tell you this my guy, but Volo is one of the most enduring characters in all of Dungeons and Dragons and Alfira is almost guaranteed to be performing multiple songs throughout the full game considering the devs just reshoot her entire singing scene. That you do not like them does not change the fact that you lock yourself out of m huge amount of content by killing them. Volo will probably even come back on his own so I assume you will keep trying to kill him over and over again then. Go you, I suppose. You seem to be exactly the kind of person Larian had in mind when they designed the evil path.

As David Lister once said:
I never wanna see or hear from that scum sucking, lying, weasel minded smeghead in my entire life.

In other words, yes i know i will lock myself out of "some" amount of content ... content that i would probably skip anyway.
Also i know who Volo is, but i never liked him ... anyway when you create anoying character it dont matter how "enduring" it is, or how many songs you prepared for her ... mainly its just anoying. :-/

Its same with Marigold (Dandelion in english i think, never understanded why they change names in different languages) from Witcher ... being in Gerald skin, he would not survive single episode. :-/
He anoying, useless, and prowide double throubles than help. :-/

Im not sure why are we discussing this ... im happy i get rid off them ...
You are not, therefore you would probably not killing them.
Everyone happy? smile
So long as we have more choices, let anyone do as they please.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
You know... if this Ragnarok fella enjoys chaotic evil so much...
He wont even be inconvenienced by the changes people are suggesting.

Its obvious he is going to headcanon his own story anyway.
So if Minthara joins him or the Absolute minions join him in a more constructive way.... who cares?

Ragnarokczd is soooooooooo evil he would kill them anyway with his evil edgy swords.
So... who cares?

Edit: oh right i forgot the emojis eek smile laugh laugh laugh


Do you have anything worthwhile saying in the thread, other than obsessing about other people?

If you can't post something of original thought that contributes to the thread, I advise not posting. You don't have to post.

Behave guys.
Its a valid point.

Much of the thread is this person debating 8 different people about how the current choices are fine as they are and constantly pushing the idea that being evil is all about betrayal and killing people whenever and wherever.

He has stated before he hopes that Larian does not implement any of the changes that people are suggesting.
But I said... why.
Even if Larian does implement everything people suggest he can still do everything he wants.
Attack and kill whomever he wants so his resistance and the current debate going on is pointless.
Especially considering the fact as it has been raised by several people this person makes up their story as they explain their preference.
So there is no need to worry about changed voice acted dialogues or cinematics events.

The whole point of the post was to put the whole debate for the past... 5 pages? Into perspective.

I find your post kind of interesting though.
Did my emoji joke go so far? Really? I mean this guy has called me demented and has used other slurs. Right now the front page is 4 or 5 different threads about nudity and fetishes.
But I went too far? Sigh... ok I guess...
It's not your job to determine what is valid or invalid feedback. Feel free to raise your own thoughts, but it's not an opinion-competition.

If you believe people are stepping out of line, use the report button. Don't feed the troll, as people say.

I didn't.

I raised a point that his version of evil.
Chaotic evil can still be achieved, even if all the changes were implemented.

I am not even the first to point this out either.
If the need is to be allowed to betray people and kill them for no other reason than to betray and kill you could do that.

You can even kill origin characters.
How was this post not constructive in the wider debate?

I don't even know why you decided to warn me like this publically.
We could have discussed over the DMs.
But if we must discuss it here I am happy to. I would love to understand what makes these posts unconstructive?
If you dont mind ... this person would like to defent itself.
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Much of the thread is this person debating 8 different people about how the current choices are fine as they are

This part is true.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
and constantly pushing the idea that being evil is all about betrayal and killing people whenever and wherever.

This whole time hes telling you it depends on your character ...
When you play chaotic evil, its fine as it is ... and he specificly told you, that if you are missing any options to fit your character better, that should in his opinion content of your sugestions. O_o

You two even agreed on paige 2, or 3, that take some prisoners would be great idea. O_o

Originally Posted by Eddiar
He has stated before he hopes that Larian does not implement any of the changes that people are suggesting.

And he still do ...
He dont mind adding options, he mind changing current options, since he likes them.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
Even if Larian does implement everything people suggest he can still do everything he wants.

He certainly hopes so. smile
He is glad you two can agree on something.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
I mean this guy has called me demented and has used other slurs.

Let him repeat himself:
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
(Its not an insult, i just cant find more fitting word in this language ... In my language, this word means to set the initial attributes so that any observer of the phenomenon cannot in any case have a different result than desired one.)

Now let him provide a proof: https://cs.wiktionary.org/wiki/dementovat

And finaly let him provide and appology ... he honestly mean what he said, it was never ment to be insult. frown
He is sorry. (I checked!)
I made a Drow Lolth priest to check out the evil path, but when I got to the druid battle and took the side of the goblins...
The goblins just attacked me and the druids didn't retailiate. I even shot one of their prone warriors. How much more evil can you get ?
But the goblins didn't take the hint. So, they didn't want to let me fight on their side.
Not that I want to be evil, but Larian wants us to try it, so I tried, but there seems to be a glitch.
Originally Posted by ldo58
I made a Drow Lolth priest to check out the evil path, but when I got to the druid battle and took the side of the goblins...
The goblins just attacked me and the druids didn't retailiate. I even shot one of their prone warriors. How much more evil can you get ?
But the goblins didn't take the hint. So, they didn't want to let me fight on their side.
Not that I want to be evil, but Larian wants us to try it, so I tried, but there seems to be a glitch.


I agree this part is too much oriented towards good. There is nothing much you can do apart from either take the side of the grove or look from afar and eventually clean the remaining goblins.
I dare to disagree ...
Those goblins are there to kill anything that isnt goblin ... it would be nice if they recognize Drow, or Duegar (if they will be playable) and concider them as "not kill on sight, unless they proove themself to be hostile" ... but in that case, defenders should be hostile before you attack some Goblin to show you dont belong to them.

That should add some interesting flavor to that fight.
But otherwise? I believe they should attack us. :-/
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
To be honest from what i've seen and read of others doing evil playthroughs half the evil outcomes don't even work or fizzle out to nothing.. You kill the druids and the tieflings then what? become master mindflayer or boss goblin leader.. nope.. nothing most totally evil endings seems to bug the game out..

Are you aware that you are evaluating the "end result" after the first third of the story?


Yes but from the first Act its not hard to see the direction they are going, also asking us to try evil everything when 99% of the evil playthroughs literally don't work or go no where seems crazy and honestly a bit pointless.
I just wanna say that at this point Larian can add tons of things to do in the "evil path" without removing anything that is already there. I saw that some of you who defended the current state of this story thread are concerned about that.

But like I said, right now the evil path is so bare bones that there is really not much you can remove, only add. I can't think of anything, but if you have specific things you're worried will be removed please mention them and we'll see if we can figure out how to keep them and add more options. The only thing I can think about is perhaps that there would be no option to kill everyone in the grove, but I honestly don't see why not.
I tried one 'evil' playthrough . . . but honestly siding with the goblins still didn't feel like a compelling option. Halsin still seemed like the best option to solve our problem. Killing the goblin leaders (and a few others) was the most expedient method to resolving our problem. Perhaps I missed some dialogue with Minthara? She didn't seem to offer me any reason to side with her. Perhaps as an evil character you are supposed to be so excited about the growing power from your tadpole that you want to ally with the Absolute? Buy that isn't made clear by the story.

I still played as a selfish, pretty evil character, but killing a few goblins and freeing Halsin doesn't have to be considered 'good' by any measure. Mostly my evil character just wanted the tadpole removed and was looking for the most efficient way to go about it. I didn't care about either group.

Larian needs to introduce a compelling reason why you would side with Minthara and the goblins.
I wrote a big message detailing what players most often ask to fix in an evil way, I collected everything in one place. You can read my open letter to Larian and discuss at the link:

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=722417#Post722417


Originally Posted by trengilly
Larian needs to introduce a compelling reason why you would side with Minthara and the goblins.


To be fair, there isn't a compelling reason to be good or evil from what I have seen. Tieflings aren''t your problem, and they have nothing but their sob story to give you. Goblins aren't really your problem either, because they aren't after you. Halsin does seem like the best bet, until you find out there is a good chance he might be dead, and there isn't a compelling reason to believe he is alive. So, in the end, the choice comes down to choosing the winning side or the losing side in a conflict you get swept into anyway.
Originally Posted by Abits
I just wanna say that at this point Larian can add tons of things to do in the "evil path" without removing anything that is already there. I saw that some of you who defended the current state of this story thread are concerned about that.

But like I said, right now the evil path is so bare bones that there is really not much you can remove, only add. I can't think of anything, but if you have specific things you're worried will be removed please mention them and we'll see if we can figure out how to keep them and add more options. The only thing I can think about is perhaps that there would be no option to kill everyone in the grove, but I honestly don't see why not.


I think the Goblin "party" needs to be removed, but they could also just tone down the atmosphere of you having done something irredeemable (Volo in the cage, Alfira being murdered, corpses everywhere etc.).
You keep talking about Volo and Alfira ... just like you didnt just helped to murder 20 another tieflings, civilians, and kids included and 40 druids. laugh

Atmosphere of that "party" seem acurate to what you did. :-/
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
You keep talking about Volo and Alfira ... just like you didnt just helped to murder 20 another tieflings, civilians, and kids included and 40 druids. laugh

Atmosphere of that "party" seem acurate to what you did. :-/


Well maybe that should not be my only option if I want to be "evil"?
Interesting ... and here i was thinking that all what matter to you, is who is on party ...
And since you say "need to be removed" instead of "need to have alternative" i thought that you want to removing, instead of adding. smile

Well, i stand corected. laugh

Truth is multiple people here was talking about playing selfish evil character, yet ended up in Tiefling party ... so i presume that is not what you want. smile

Not sure what other alternatives there is ... do you have anything in mind?
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
You keep talking about Volo and Alfira ... just like you didnt just helped to murder 20 another tieflings, civilians, and kids included and 40 druids. laugh

Atmosphere of that "party" seem acurate to what you did. :-/


I'm gonna have to concur - the atmosphere of goblin "party" certainly fits and helps to bring home the message of whom you're associating with.

In other words it tells you, you chose stupid evil especially after your new found "friends" will murder you on sight the next day.

Btw do goblin "party decorations" stay in your camp forever (I've never had the stomach to continue on from there)?
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Not sure what other alternatives there is ... do you have anything in mind?


I've been looking over the way Larian programmed the party scenes and it seems very diffcult to create an alternative without reworking the existing code.

Companions are assigned "available for romance / sex" flags if their opinion of you is high enough and you are flagged as being at the Tiefling party. I think this might even mean that you can't have romance scenes at the goblin party, but that might not be true.


Another problem is that everything revolves around these party scenes. They are your reward in the good and bad ending and it is (I think) how Larian measures those statistics. There are a lot of ways to add to the evil path, OneManArmy laid out a few in his separate thread. I could come up with some idead myself if you want, but I think what others have said covers it nicely.

Originally Posted by Azarielle

Btw do goblin "party decorations" stay in your camp forever (I've never had the stomach to continue on from there)?


God I hope not.

I was thinking of Korriban... Does anyone remember Korriban? It was great 😁
Originally Posted by Abits
I was thinking of Korriban... Does anyone remember Korriban? It was great 😁


Now I wish Moonrise was a True Soul academy, nice job.
Originally Posted by Azarielle
Btw do goblin "party decorations" stay in your camp forever (I've never had the stomach to continue on from there)?

Yes and no ... there is few bodies left, but all those Absolute shrines are sadly gone. frown

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
There are a lot of ways to add to the evil path, OneManArmy laid out a few in his separate thread. I could come up with some idead myself if you want, but I think what others have said covers it nicely.

I know ... i reacted on most of them ...
I mean how would you like to alter this party.
I only found this thread now, after I have already given a lot of feedback and talked about how dissapointed I am with the evil playthrough. I wrote feedback via the launcher, aswell as on reddit and in my own thread.

However, I hope that if I also post here, there will be a bigger chance for the devs to read it and incorporate my feedback.

Tl;Dr: Upfront: There is not enough incentive for an evil playthrough. The Questlog reads "Removing the parasite" for the whole EA. Even though it was already revealed that not all characters would want to get rid of the tadpole since it has positive effects. So why does the game already push you into that direction?

Instead something like "Learn about the Parasite" would fit much more. Change the quest from removing it, to first learning about it and then give players time to form a decision.

The rewards for an evil playthrough are terrible. The powerful magic items are in the hands of goblin leaders and mintharra. You end up killing a bunch of poor refugees who mostly carry junk items. On the other hand, the rewards from the dream scenes with your lover (Illithid powers) are the best surprise in all of EA. I was expecting rewards of similar quality and power in an evil playthrough. There are many ways to play evil. Its not always about mindlessly killing everyone. You can be evil and keep the tadpole, or decide to find a healer. But the goblin path doesn't help you with your tadpole problem other than Priestress gut hoping that you turn into a mindflayer.

Siding with the goblins doesn't make sense from a story point of view because they never offer you any help in your problem. Now I know the Priestress is unaware of her Tadpole if you mention it to her. However, she is clearly very powerful because of it, just like you. So the goblin route should focus on the powers of the tadpole. Giving you options to maybe enhance it, or other quirks. Just something meaningful as a reward!

Playing evil should be about power and authority. Just like the text says. But it doesn't offer this at all. You get no authority. You get no slaves or servants for your camp. You end up with a bunch of dead bodies and you end up getting betrayed. You end up with that Altar of the absolute (or so I think?) in your camp but cannot interact with it.

The part about the Brand of the absolute is not explained at all. Apparently it means you can use items of the absolute? This must be explained. There needs to be an option to have your companions be branded aswell force them via Illithid powers if they refuse. And there needs to be a tag in the character screen about the fact that this character has the brand of the absolute, since this is obviously important for dialogue and items.

[EVIL PLAYTHROUGH FEEDBACK, from me and other players]

Feedback after raiding the grove. First of all, there need to be a couple hints as to who should be killed. The tieflings at the gate, the ones in the hollow. The player needs to Enter the room with Zevlor and the Druid cove. This should be market on the minimap since many players have struggled with finishing this quest, myself included.


The rewards for doing this are laughable and not worth it at all, compared to the items and artifacts you obtain by killing the Goblin leaders. You only kill a few refugees, but whats worse is you all of the traders you previously had access to.
And if you simply kill the goblin leaders, you gain very powerful items and keep the traders alive. This Questline needs to reward the player with powerful items aswell. Mintharra for example wears a necklace which allows you to use misty step. This is incredibly powerful. But you do not get this item by siding with the goblins.

I suggest the following: The goblin leaders will hand you their powerful artifacts, the same as you would obtain by killing them, as a reward after raiding the grove. Mintharra gives you her magic items.


The camp with goblins and dead villager was a nice addition. It felt very appropriate. However, then comes the scene where Mintharra turns against you and threatens to kill you.
With some clever dialogue choices while sleepin with her, you can prevent this and she will point you to moonrise towers, even point you to a creature which will lead you there. This is clever and I like it a lot.

But a big problem remains. The rewards for doing an evil playthroughs and siding with the goblins are really, really bad. Now Mintharra warns you, that the goblins will be enemies to the player now, so I think you can simply go back to the goblin camp and kill their leaders to get their powerful magic items.
But that takes very long and is quite tedious. And if you just kill the goblins for their good items, you might aswell have sided with refugees and the druids and killed the goblins. This saves a lot of time and Wyll doesn't quit your party.

I fear that most players, after deciding to raid the goblin cove, will fight against Mintharra in camp and kill her. And then the Goblins are also an enemy against you. So in the end, you have to fight the refugees AND the goblins. This makes the evil playthrough feel really bad.
I asked myself "Why did I even do this?" I should have just defended the grove, killed the goblins, gotten a lot of nice items from them, not have Wyll leave my party and not have my companions dissaprove of me for siding with the Absolute. And I would have gotten much better rewards and not felt like an idiot. Just a day before,
goblins were covering in fear. This makes no sense to me.


Part of serving the absolute and helping the goblins is power and authority. And now the game takes authority away from the player again. And every time you say "I side with the absolute" almost everyone in your party will dissaprove of you. It just does not feel rewarding! Larian, you told us that 25% players chose to side with the goblins. If the goblin path had actually good rewards, I am sure there would be many more players siding withthem. Because there is not enough incentive to do so. They do not help you solve the Tadpole situation, they should atleast tell you how to expand your Tadpole powers (the true souls that is).

When I play evil, I expect it to be rewarding. I expect my character to become powerful, at any cost. I expect there to be slaves, servants and npcs who are afraid of me. I don't expect to just kill everyone. Playing evil is not about murdering everyone, there are many sides to it. For example, the player should be able to side with the Shadow Druids.



[What about the new powers by the Absolute?]

After successfully raiding the grove, the Quest log reads as follows:

"With the Tieflings dead, the Absolute granted us new powers. Tonight we celebrate at camp."

But what powers? I gained no new abilities, and I checked my inventory and saw nothing new. Since long rests are not limited at all, I used long rest everytime I wanted. So I already have access to the special abilities like "supernatural attraction" from my dream lover.
Are these the abilities which we are supposed to get after raiding the camp? Otherwise, again, the path of siding with the goblins does not feel rewarding enough compared to siding with the refugees.


[Making the Evil path feel more rewarding, by reddit user u/Crashen17]

Yeah, the main issue with an evil run is motivation. There isn't really any reason to side with the goblins besides fucking Minthara. The goblins turn on you if you help them, if you go to Priestess Gut about your worm, she turns on you and tries to kill you. If you talk to Rogzlin and don't pass a pursuasion check the Ilithid outs you and turns against you.

In the end, if you want to be evil, you have to kill men women and children for no reason and for no special personal gain. The gobbos betraying you is both predictable and kind of nonsensical for this particular story. Regular goblins and drow? Yeah makes perfect sense. But goblins and drow united under the Absolute and taking orders from True Souls have no reason to turn on you (a True Soul) who actually butchered an entire druid grove to complete their mission.

A better narrative arc would be to have two true souls at the grove. Have the drow be in the cage alive, and the girl gobbo be a true soul, dead in halsin's lab. When you talk to the imprisoned drow, you connect and he introduces you to the concept of true souls. He promises to take you to the gobbos where they will help you control your powers and grow strong, if you help him escape.

From there you either kill him, leave him, or help him. He meets you outside the Blighted Village and joins the party as a pet (same way Halsin does) and will get you into the camp and past the goblins if you are terrible at social skills or don't want to use the tadpole for some reason. Otherwise things proceed normally and you meet the three leaders. With him returned, Minthara now knows where the druid grove is and sends you to kill Liam the prisoner.

Meanwhile, Priestess Gut wont try to poison you and imprison you. She will promise to help you "harness your True Soul" but only after the Druid Grove is dealt with. If you do, she basically takes the place of Halsin in the story, directing you towards Moonrise Towers.

Next, if you decide to take out the druid grove, you can either lead the goblins right to them and kill everyone, or you can find some way to sneak back to camp and warn the tieflings to leave, possibly extorting them somehow. The druids stay and have to die however. Maybe you can use Liam to send a message to Zevlor and help him escape.

Reasons for giving the tieflings a chance to escape are simple. Either your character doesn't really care about them and removing them from the picture will make razing the grove easier. Or your character wants the goblin's help in controlling the tadpole, but doesn't want to kill a bunch of innocent refugees to do it. The druids so far are pretty shitty so killing them isn't so bad, but the tieflings haven't really wronged you at all.

Or you can just kill everyone.

After the raid, things progress as normal. Priestess Gut inspects you and determines something is different about you (the Tadpole in her head is probably creating a mental blindspot preventing her from realizing you guys have brain worms). She determines that you need to go to Moonrise Towers to speak to so-and-so. Or to present yourself before the Absolute itself. Whatever Larian plans on having there.

She can warn you that because your True Soul is damaged somehow that the Shadow Cursed areas might have unpredictable affects on you, and tell you to ask Minthara how to get there. Minthara can then set you on a path to the Underdark. The goblins then leave, being directed somewhere else. Maybe Minthara joins your camp in place of Halsin, or maybe you just lose that whole narrative thread for being a dick.

Later on, if you gave the tieflings a chance to escape, maybe you find their caravan slaughtered by gnolls bearing the Absolute's mark. Or maybe they make it to Baldur's Gate and have mixed feelings towards you. Maybe only some of them make it to Baldur's Gate and tell you the rest were killed on the road by goblins or drow or gnolls or whatever.

Either way, you still get a good chunk of refugees killed, you just don't necessarily get your hands dirty.

[Another evil playthrough feedback]

It takes approximately two or three uses of the tadpole power before the player begins to "change" and the mysterious figure (likely Absolute) seems to stymie the transformation. Players may avoid long rests for perceived (or real) gameplay reasons and therefore limit how much insight they get about the 'evil' path. Players that might skip a majority of side content could end up going into the goblin temple with only one or two long rests, long before any real encounter with the mysterious figure.

I suggest you actually have this transformative conversation occur in a forced rest scene sometime around entering the Druid Grove irrespective of how much they use their powers. Players need to have a tantalizing reason to believe the Cult of the Absolute actually could lead them to either mastering or eliminating the tadpole, leading to a more reasonable cause to join with them against the druids. Encourage the player, in this dialogue, to use their powers more to bring them closer together. Basically, give evil players more of a reasonable position to begin siding with the Cult. It'd also provide us insight as to why we are not transforming - this mysterious figure is seemingly holding it at bay. Tangible proof that they can be our salvation.

I might suggest ways to convert the tieflings, convince them to turn against the druids beyond stealing the idol, or any other solutions where evil - but not quite sociopathic - characters might have a compelling reason. I still feel as though the excuse to wipe out the druids feels flimsy.

[Playing as Evil feedback from another user].

Other than some (quite nice) boobs, there's no real incentive or indication to play evil.
It doesn't even feel like an option. Joining them feels like something you set out to do after knowing what happens. It should be an organic decision; something that leads you on that path before you know about other options.



So far, these are my biggest complains. You asked us to play an evil playthrough. The best part are the tadpole powers, which I love. Aswell as the Dream scenes. There needs to be more like this. The Goblin raid of the grove and the rewards are just terribly dissapointing and poorly written. Please read the suggestions carefully and change this up, so that it makes more sense to side with them, with greater incentive and greater rewards.
Did you just copy the same post ... or is there anything different?
[quote=RagnarokCzD]Did you just copy the same post ... or is there anything different?[/quote]

I copied most of it. Since this thread seems to be getting a lot more attention, and my thread so far only got attention from you, I suggest we continue our discussion in this thread.
If you read it ... you find out that at least half of this thread is me arguing with others. laugh
I assure you, it dont matter where we continue. laugh
Im starting feeling like CRPG just cant do evil route very well. I mean its a night and day difference between something like Tyranny and Crusader Kings with how you deal with "evil choices".
Originally Posted by Cyka
Im starting feeling like CRPG just cant do evil route very well. I mean its a night and day difference between something like Tyranny and Crusader Kings with how you deal with "evil choices".
But Tyranny does a great job? It's just that BG3's setting is so biased towards good that all evil is cartoonish.
Tyranny is like Overlord though, you're evil, there is no good or evil path just different forms of be a bad guy. RPGs overall have difficulty with evil paths as they typically boil choice down to kill a person or don't kill, torture a person or don't torture a person. Swtor is good example of this issue since a lot of its dark side choices can be viewed as either psychotically evil or just stupid. They do occasionally hit the mark but I'd say it's still 50-50 at best. It's rare to see options such as manipulation, political power plays or any kinds of thought out actions being offered that can be viewed as morally questionable. That's the problem really, a path shouldn't be seen as blatantly evil it should be seen as an alternate choice, sure some may look at the path and think it's morally questionable but others will look to it and say its the better choice. So far in this EA the evil paths are pretty blatant and offer little at best or actively screw you at worst. I mean burning down the grove for the Absolute or handing it over to the shadow druids gives you nothing. For the short term you get little reward and in the long term you've made no reliable allies, you're just left with blood and ash. If you protect the grove you gain the thanks and adulation of the Teiflings who will be showing up in Baldur's Gate. Ya the druids are a bunch of little shits but keeping them alive and shadowless is the best option as the shadow druids are about as trust worthy as the Absolute cult and it keeps Halsin happy and he's currently the most useful npc you find.

Another issue is when the reward for either side is just a shiny trinket since then it not only lacks any kind of depth but you're also simply playing killer for hire.
Originally Posted by Cyka
Im starting feeling like CRPG just cant do evil route very well. I mean its a night and day difference between something like Tyranny and Crusader Kings with how you deal with "evil choices".

There are no evil choices in Crusader Kings! Its all for the good of the realm!! 😉
Neverwinter Nights 2 OC, Mask of the Betrayer and Mysteries of Westgate and some of the Bioware games handled evil quite well so it's not a cRPG issue imo.

I think the issue is that there's too much focus on the good path and a mistake in demographics. Apparently Larian thinks people playing evil are few and those that do are all chaotic evil male players.
Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
Neverwinter Nights 2 OC, Mask of the Betrayer and Mysteries of Westgate and some of the Bioware games handled evil quite well so it's not a cRPG issue imo.

I think the issue is that there's too much focus on the good path and a mistake in demographics. Apparently Larian thinks people playing evil are few and those that do are all chaotic evil male players.

Mask of the Betrayer had an amazing "corrupted by power" evil route. BG3 is flopping hard by comparison.

I'm in the middle of the evil route with my gith wizardess and I'm not sure whether to continue. At this point a) the druids have nothing to offer (she already learned from the hag about the netherese magic, what would a druid know about it?), b) the goblins bring nothing interesting to the table, and c) Minthara seems yet another female drow obsessed with her goddess, which is typical for them, but she has nothing substantial for the PC either.

Frankly, the most promising offer so far seemed to be the hag. But of course that was a red herring.

edit: Also Minthara's dialogue is quite buggy.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Frankly, the most promising offer so far seemed to be the hag. But of course that was a red herring.
Everything is.
Gut, Volo and Omeluum are too. The tadpole is there to stay, as is the divine power infused in it. Datamining has shown that the Absolute intends to usurp the domain of the gods (Shadowheart says so in one of her lines at Moonrise), so the "good" and "evil" paths will converge there.
Personally I would want to know what this "evil" path will grant us over the "good" path in the long run, improvements to how it plays out in Act 1A aside. It is definitely in need of some touching up but unless Larian locks you into sticking with "good" and "evil" forever after Act 1A (which I doubt, seeing as on the evil path you could now end up with 0 allies if you fail to convince Minthara not to kill you) there is always room for more moral choices down the line.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Frankly, the most promising offer so far seemed to be the hag. But of course that was a red herring.
Everything is.

I wasn't clear, sorry. By red herring I meant I was expecting her to play a bigger role.
In regard to choosing good or evil I think they made it worse. You actually dont know what is evil in this game. You can do whatever.
FIrst I was kinda nervous about killing the grove, but after I did it and a while I realized: "Well nothing is happening, hmmm let me continue killing everything, hmmm I finished the first act and everything is dead. Did I actually have a choice and did it matter?"
It's like the Idiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark movie: You dont need the characters (like Indiana Jones) in order for the story to happen.
I enjoyed it, as in general I enjoy the option of an evil route but for my first (and favourite) mc, killing the tieflings (which in EA seems to be the main "evil" decision available) didn't really work RP-wise for my character despite the fact that she's super evil. Would love to see more diverse evil (as well as good and neutral, even though I only evil characters lol) options for different situations (ie: different reasons to make those decisions, more specific dialogue options, etc.) I also like getting the 'Gale disapproves' notif whenever I do something naughty lol
So ... i finaly get to goblin camp with another character, without Sazzas help this time, as True Soul ...
And spaming "detect thoughts" on myself before any conversation. laugh

And i must say i was amazed how many things i missed earlier. :3
Im exited once aggain.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Frankly, the most promising offer so far seemed to be the hag. But of course that was a red herring.
Everything is.
Gut, Volo and Omeluum are too. The tadpole is there to stay, as is the divine power infused in it. Datamining has shown that the Absolute intends to usurp the domain of the gods (Shadowheart says so in one of her lines at Moonrise), so the "good" and "evil" paths will converge there.
Personally I would want to know what this "evil" path will grant us over the "good" path in the long run, improvements to how it plays out in Act 1A aside. It is definitely in need of some touching up but unless Larian locks you into sticking with "good" and "evil" forever after Act 1A (which I doubt, seeing as on the evil path you could now end up with 0 allies if you fail to convince Minthara not to kill you) there is always room for more moral choices down the line.


At least Omeluum acts in good faith and gives you a decent alternative to protect yourself. The hag and Gut just want to skrew you over and Halsin explains the netherese shadow magic protecting the tadpole makes it impossible to rid yourself of the critter. The same I immagine would be true for the Gityanki "purification" ritual
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Frankly, the most promising offer so far seemed to be the hag. But of course that was a red herring.
Everything is.
Gut, Volo and Omeluum are too. The tadpole is there to stay, as is the divine power infused in it. Datamining has shown that the Absolute intends to usurp the domain of the gods (Shadowheart says so in one of her lines at Moonrise), so the "good" and "evil" paths will converge there.
Personally I would want to know what this "evil" path will grant us over the "good" path in the long run, improvements to how it plays out in Act 1A aside. It is definitely in need of some touching up but unless Larian locks you into sticking with "good" and "evil" forever after Act 1A (which I doubt, seeing as on the evil path you could now end up with 0 allies if you fail to convince Minthara not to kill you) there is always room for more moral choices down the line.


At least Omeluum acts in good faith and gives you a decent alternative to protect yourself. The hag and Gut just want to skrew you over and Halsin explains the netherese shadow magic protecting the tadpole makes it impossible to rid yourself of the critter. The same I immagine would be true for the Gityanki "purification" ritual


Don't forget Volo, maybe in good faith but you will end seriosly damaged. Being a bad, very bad, player I'm tempted to create a really low int character that tries both the Hag and Volo's cures. Just to see how much of impact there is in playing a toon that has lost both his eyes, or to see if the poor fella wil die. laugh laugh laugh
Yeah, even when I wanted to play an evil character, the "evil" route seemed to provide little to no rewards or reasons for playing it. It seemed way more rewarding and logical to make good choices but for evil reasons, something the game of course ignores because it doesn't ask you for your reasons. That leads to the game seeing your evil character as good, which is not exactly ideal but I suppose there isn't a way around this.

The best solution would be to provide some nuance and more options for the Evil route. Someone in another thread suggested removing Kagha entirely and reworking the Grove conflict to yield rewards for the evil route as well. That feels a little radical to me, personally, I feel like Kagha could be salvaged with some adjustments and rewriting. Perhaps make her conflicted side more visible, and make siding with her rewarding.

Also, I'd like formally apologise for Ragnarok and say that not all Czech people are like that.
Originally Posted by firebird71
Also, I'd like formally apologise for Ragnarok and say that not all Czech people are like that.

That was rather unnecessary. We'll have less of that, please.
Originally Posted by Eddiar

Maybe the evil playthrough can impact my camp look as well. It would become more savage looking, maybe I can hire Drow and Ogre merceneries.
Have evil pillage and conquest questlines... something!
Honestly burning the orphanage just because it makes me so edgy is not that attractive of a choice.


LoL - now this is what I call speaking me from the soul.
I started my EarlyAccess "Evil run" a day ago and I already see myself failing it miserably.
These are not evil choices.
These are DUMB choices!!
Insane choices! They do not make sense and give much benefit.


But I am only at the start of it all. Maybe I find a way to masterfully play them all for my evil mastermind purposses like the "evil Fouldblood Tiefling" that I am.
Should I be unable to properly ally with the Goblins, Duergar or Drow though, then I see no reason to make myself even more enemys.
I dunno ... it seem to me like many people making that mistake, to expect themself to become pupetmaster in level 2, act 1, after few seconds of talking with few people in allready established machinery of goblin army, wich is working just fine without them until now ...
I wonder what rewards do you expect to get ...

That reminds me first slide of one comics, simmilar to order of the stick, if you know it ... also based on DnD:
Narrator: In the begining there was world ... and few people decided to play.
1st player: "I will play ultra powerfull Elf-Wizard."
2nd player: "Then i shall play undefeatable Human-fighter!"
3rd player: "In that case i would like to be skilled Dwarf-alchemist."
4th player: "I shall play feared Halfling-rogue tief with lot of criminal history."
Narrator: And that is how world gets its heroes.
DM: (out of story, sitting by desk with four people) "I hate to ruin it to you guys, but you are all technicaly on level 1."
Narrator: And that is how world gets its yet quite insignificant characters, that will try to find their place in it.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I dunno ... it seem to me like many people making that mistake, to expect themself to become pupetmaster in level 2, act 1, after few seconds of talking with few people in allready established machinery of goblin army, wich is working just fine without them until now ...
I wonder what rewards do you expect to get ...

That reminds me first slide of one comics, simmilar to order of the stick, if you know it ... also based on DnD:
Narrator: In the begining there was world ... and few people decided to play.
1st player: "I will play ultra powerfull Elf-Wizard."
2nd player: "Then i shall play undefeatable Human-fighter!"
3rd player: "In that case i would like to be skilled Dwarf-alchemist."
4th player: "I shall play feared Halfling-rogue tief with lot of criminal history."
Narrator: And that is how world gets its heroes.
DM: (out of story, sitting by desk with four people) "I hate to ruin it to you guys, but you are all technicaly on level 1."
Narrator: And that is how world gets its yet quite insignificant characters, that will try to find their place in it.
You're not playing TT DnD. This is a video game. Larian defines the boundaries of their storytelling very rigidly. It is up to the players to give them feedback on these boundaries and see where they need to be expanded or adjusted. What you are doing is pushing these boundaries in your imagination without relaying it back to the game. This gets us nowhere.
At the very least we should have an evil path that is not the chaotic evil we currently have.
I feel like cheotic evil is a comfortable excuse for bad writing. "The storyline is weak and doesn't make sense? That's because it's cheotic evil!"
Originally Posted by Abits
I feel like cheotic evil is a comfortable excuse for bad writing. "The storyline is weak and doesn't make sense? That's because it's cheotic evil!"

I think it makes a lot of sense. Some people are just slower at seeing at the moment; the current story doesn't reveal that much either.
I have no idea how no one even points out an 'ethereal plane spider' down in the 'Whispering depths'.
Normally, creatures on the Ethereal Plane cannot attack creatures on the Material Plane, and vice versa.
We are all under some sort of illusion, or worse...

I wrote some more of my personal observations here - https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=730431#Post730431
Originally Posted by Vamathi
Originally Posted by Abits
I feel like cheotic evil is a comfortable excuse for bad writing. "The storyline is weak and doesn't make sense? That's because it's cheotic evil!"

I think it makes a lot of sense. Some people are just slower at seeing at the moment; the current story doesn't reveal that much either.
I have no idea how no one even points out an 'ethereal plane spider' down in the 'Whispering depths'.
Normally, creatures on the Ethereal Plane cannot attack creatures on the Material Plane, and vice versa.
We are all under some sort of illusion, or worse...

I wrote some more of my personal observations here - https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=730431#Post730431

Great theory there too bad half of it looks like Chinese to me.
I've said it before, if it's not in the game, it's invalid. And I'm not talking about all these Easter eggs themselves, I'm talking about the context that the player need to realize their significance. When adapting anything into something else (in our case, a world setting into a video game) the adapted product must stand on its own. I don't particularly care about forgotten realms lore and I don't know much about it. But if a game set in the forgotten realms is good enough, it will tell me enough about it to enjoy it. There are aspects of FR lore that bg3 explains well enough, for example mind flyers and tedpoles. I don't need to know everything there is to know about them, just enough for the game to make sense. If I need to read dozens of FR lore pages just to understand the story, the story is bad.

Other than that, your theory doesn't address any of the main issues we raised regarding the flaws of the evil path, specifically the lack of incentives to presue it.
I was going to complain that the good route was too limiting and that I was forced to take evil actions too often. After failing several social checks with my 16 Cha warlock that had training in all three social skills and friends cantrip up, it was either slaughter time for evil goblins or let the poor tieflings die. I choose the goblins. So pissed that I got every last one of them. I didn't like being stuck with the evil fighter and cleric, but compromises must be made in the name of good. I think evil and good should meet in the middle to work together and get a job done...hey wait, that's neutral! So your evil PC has to work with non-evil characters and do non-evil things to further their goals, namely getting the damned tadpole out of your head, just like my good character has to bloody the blade once in a while. There are no good options of building an orphanage for the goblin children after you slaughter their tribe...

Bigger complaint was that my character is far less interesting and engaging than anyone of these bozos I've met and their sinister backgrounds.
Originally Posted by Abits
Great theory there too bad half of it looks like Chinese to me.
I've said it before, if it's not in the game, it's invalid. And I'm not talking about all these Easter eggs themselves, I'm talking about the context that the player need to realize their significance. When adapting anything into something else (in our case, a world setting into a video game) the adapted product must stand on its own. I don't particularly care about forgotten realms lore and I don't know much about it. But if a game set in the forgotten realms is good enough, it will tell me enough about it to enjoy it. There are aspects of FR lore that bg3 explains well enough, for example mind flyers and tedpoles. I don't need to know everything there is to know about them, just enough for the game to make sense. If I need to read dozens of FR lore pages just to understand the story, the story is bad.

Other than that, your theory doesn't address any of the main issues we raised regarding the flaws of the evil path, specifically the lack of incentives to presue it.

While I completely see your point, some of the more recent DnD adventures, that I played myself as well - have been significantly popular - because the players were constantly pushed towards certain goal.
They were less about get lost doing random evil things and more about survival. This creates really interesting party dynamics.
It also let's players deal with some interesting moral choices and can lead to a lot of surprise plot twists. Usually, when you look back at your choices, you are like: 'How didn't I see that? It was right there, in front of me...'

I believe Larian might gone onto similar route, dropping players as strangers in this world.
Familiar enough to recognize some things, but quite chaotic and senseless.
I hope things will get much clearer once we left Moonrise. I do enjoy puzzles and figuring stuff out, but the plot is all over the place right now.
Originally Posted by Vamathi

While I completely see your point, some of the more recent DnD adventures, that I played myself as well - have been significantly popular - because the players were constantly pushed towards certain goal.
They were less about get lost doing random evil things and more about survival. This creates really interesting party dynamics.
It also let's players deal with some interesting moral choices and can lead to a lot of surprise plot twists. Usually, when you look back at your choices, you are like: 'How didn't I see that? It was right there, in front of me...'

I believe Larian might gone onto similar route, dropping players as strangers in this world.
Familiar enough to recognize some things, but quite chaotic and senseless.
I hope things will get much clearer once we left Moonrise. I do enjoy puzzles and figuring stuff out, but the plot is all over the place right now.

What you are talking about here reminds me of the first Witcher game (it is something that was in the subsequent games but much more subtle there) the idea of a choice coming back to bite you in the ass much later down the line or creating unexpected results. But if that is what Larian tried to do here, they still failed. Even in the smallest choices of that nature in the Witcher, you had something to gain and something to lose from each choice and you had some vague idea of what that is. There might be other consequences you were not aware of, but there were risks and rewards that were instantly appearnt.

In our case it is simply not so. Even a cheotic evil character can kill as many goblins as tieflings, so unless you roleplay as a tiefling racisi or a goblin lover chaotic evil character, there is absolutely no reason to choose to kill all the tieflings and not all the goblins. Killing all the goblins will lead you to a solid lead to solving your problem, and killing all the tieflings is... What Mintara told you to do so it's evil?
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
What you are doing is pushing these boundaries in your imagination without relaying it back to the game. This gets us nowhere.

Im not ... and i spend more than enought time showing you multiple examples where anything i ever wroted is related to game ... you dont want to see it, you just want me to be wrong, no matter what i say ... we dont have dialogue here, its two independent monologues.
That certainly dont gets us anywhere ...

Originally Posted by Abits
I feel like cheotic evil is a comfortable excuse for bad writing. "The storyline is weak and doesn't make sense? That's because it's cheotic evil!"

Oh please ... 95% of people here are mostly disliking the fact they didnt get powerfull enough items, and huge bonuses ...
I have seen like 2, maybe 3 who didnt like the writing and being even able to tell why they didnt like, or what they didnt like about it. -_-

Does that makes this topic also just "confortable excuse" to get advantage in equipment?
What equipment who cares about stupid equipment? We talk about writing.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
The evil path should lead to equal, if not greater rewards compared to the good path...

Originally Posted by nation
i wonder how/if larian incorporates any feedback to modify an 'evil' playthrough to make it more worthwhile to pursue for the player to even out that 75v25 dynamic, ie quest rewards,

Originally Posted by Abits
You go to the goblin camp (and with the way the game works usually you already have the quest to kill the goblins by that point after establishing them as threat and providing you with possible rewards)

Originally Posted by coredumped
The rewards should be better and the path should be easier.

Originally Posted by Eddiar
So Evil Option 1) I side with the duegar and kill all these characters. I have to kill insane amounts of enemies equipped with poisons. Lose all these potential storylines for.... what? Some level 3-4 loot?

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
The rewards for an evil playthrough are terrible.

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
Just something meaningful as a reward!

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
The rewards for doing this are laughable and not worth it at all, compared to the items and artifacts you obtain by killing the Goblin leaders.

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
The goblin leaders will hand you their powerful artifacts, the same as you would obtain by killing them, as a reward after raiding the grove. Mintharra gives you her magic items.

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
The Goblin raid of the grove and the rewards are just terribly dissapointing and poorly written. Please read the suggestions carefully and change this up, so that it makes more sense to side with them, with greater incentive and greater rewards.

Originally Posted by firebird71
Yeah, even when I wanted to play an evil character, the "evil" route seemed to provide little to no rewards or reasons for playing it.

Originally Posted by firebird71
Perhaps make her conflicted side more visible, and make siding with her rewarding.


Yeah ... "writing" ...
As my man captain Jack said "not all treasure is silver and gold my friend". I honestly think you are much smarter than you show here, and I honestly doubt that you honestly think that when we talk about rewards we talk about magic items.
When you read those quotes ... and its not even everything ...
You will find out that some people litteraly did. wink
Yeah now I remember why I don't like arguing with you. Instead of talking to me you prefer to invest a lot of time in debunking something I never said, while taking a thing I did say out of context
Loot is one thing, but for me the reward is in the outcome of the plot and the immediate world around me based upon my decisions and thus my morale compass.

So far the evil route doesn’t appear to sell itself at all to you. Even the dream sequences don’t seem to suggest control and power, at least not enough to overwrite the idea of it being a horrible trap into giving in and becoming a mindflayer.

Then no one else “I met”, even suggested another way. Again, the whole set-up is “get rid of tadpole”! Every character we meet who tags along says the same, Raphael tries to tempt us in order to help. That is for all intents and purposes “our story”.

So based upon that how do I act? And I think this is the issue of kinda not being that important (hero/messiah complex) and being free to waltz around. No one tries to pick you out of a crowd. Anyone you meet usually ends up wanting to insult and or kill you. I certainly feel as though the goblins need to not just be subjugated by you using your tadpole but also actively then want to get you in front of Minthara first and foremost. Then it’s a who makes the best case. I might not trust Minthara, but if she sells the Absolute and being able to help me sooner then I might listen.

The issue is, by the time I get to her I might as well just slaughter them all and free the Druid. There you go, I’m either a hero or still a murderhobo but it’s disappointing that I’ve not been sold a seedy darker route out of my predicament early enough for me to care.

I caveat all of this by saying I’ve only done 1 play through so far and was rather chaotic good/flirted with evil, so I’m not a character to seek it out, but that has always been my point, I shouldn’t have to work at being evil, evil should be the easy route. Avoiding the temptation, working for a good outcome and becoming the hero, that’s the challenge and that’s reward.

TLDR reward very much = story (oh and the odd shiny item).
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
When you read those quotes ... and its not even everything ...
You will find out that some people litteraly did. wink
"Rewards" does not mean gold and swords, but it could mean a more solid lead on fixing the tadpole problem or giving you stronger allies down the line. The evil route does not do that at the moment, the goblins always betray you and Minthra often does too. Halsin is objectively your best bet, because Minthara, Gut and the goblins all want to kill you. The player knows this even without meta knowledge. A smart evil player would therefore always side with the Tieflings; they just have the most to offer and stand the least in your way.

Honestly Kagha as a third option would already solve a lot, if Zevlor didn't ape jump you when you tell him it's time to leave. When you betray him at the gate, the player says "sorry, but Minthara and her cult are the best option I have". When was this established? They are hostile to you all the time, show they know nothing about the tadpole and Halsin clearly does. He even studied one up close. What in all of that incentivises the player to murder a group of innocent refugees for some hostile tadpole denialists that betray you, other than "ooh I'm evil!"?
Originally Posted by Abits
What you are talking about here reminds me of the first Witcher game (it is something that was in the subsequent games but much more subtle there) the idea of a choice coming back to bite you in the ass much later down the line or creating unexpected results. But if that is what Larian tried to do here, they still failed. Even in the smallest choices of that nature in the Witcher, you had something to gain and something to lose from each choice and you had some vague idea of what that is. There might be other consequences you were not aware of, but there were risks and rewards that were instantly appearnt.

In our case it is simply not so. Even a cheotic evil character can kill as many goblins as tieflings, so unless you roleplay as a tiefling racisi or a goblin lover chaotic evil character, there is absolutely no reason to choose to kill all the tieflings and not all the goblins. Killing all the goblins will lead you to a solid lead to solving your problem, and killing all the tieflings is... What Mintara told you to do so it's evil?

Yes, I think it could be much like TW1 quests (although I see a lot of links with deities/factions so I think it could directly affect their power). So sad there weren't a lot of quests like Whispering Hillock Spirit in TW3.
And I agree, it's frustrating not to know right now. As I said, I hope it's obvious once we leave Moonrise.

I think evil character should just get enough information from both to know they are useless (Halsin doesn't even tell you anything before you kill the leaders, so he is also manipulating you and than just wants to get to Moonrise...)
do some other encounters and/or exploration to get XP and head to Moonrise. I know it's doable to be level 4 without engaging with either of them. I know I will be speedrunning there once the game releases... I need to know.
There's flaws with the whole D&D morality system itself. I'll post more on that once I've powernapped. For now I'll say there's this little thing called "reasons" and "context". Why people do "evil" things. yet may be "loyal" for example.

Anyone else remember that evil dwarf in Throne of Bhaal in BG2? You can play as a good none judgemental character (or any alignment really). And he'll quickly stick an axe in you if you claim the moral high ground (at least that's what he implies). But if you simply coexist" you'll have a little moment just before the final boss where he starts to become just a tiny bit sentimental.

The drow from BG2 is also another good example. And Sarevok from the Throne of Bhaal expansion. Not "Evil" for the sake of it, but "complex". Driven. "Action and reaction".
Originally Posted by Taramafor
Not "Evil" for the sake of it, but "complex". Driven.
This. You can stop all discussion from here on out, this is all you need.
Originally Posted by Taramafor
There's flaws with the whole D&D morality system itself. I'll post more on that once I've powernapped. For now I'll say there's this little thing called "reasons" and "context". Why people do "evil" things. yet may be "loyal" for example.

Anyone else remember that evil dwarf in Throne of Bhaal in BG2? You can play as a good none judgemental character (or any alignment really). And he'll quickly stick an axe in you if you claim the moral high ground (at least that's what he implies). But if you simply coexist" you'll have a little moment just before the final boss where he starts to become just a tiny bit sentimental.

The drow from BG2 is also another good example. And Sarevok from the Throne of Bhaal expansion. Not "Evil" for the sake of it, but "complex". Driven. "Action and reaction".


I don't think the morality system is necessarily flawed, it's just that people always focus on the 'evil' part and not what comes before, which usually leads to every 'evil' choices in games converging into the most extreme form of 'chaotic evil'.

Lawful and neutral evil usually get the shaft, despite being the most nuanced alignments (imo), and arguably producing the most interesting characters. Edwin, and in some measure Viconia, are prime examples from the BG franchise itself.

When i think about this Kotor usually comes to mind. Revan is described as this 'lawful evil' mastermind, and yet in-game the only choices are smart/good or chaotic stupid evil.

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Taramafor
Not "Evil" for the sake of it, but "complex". Driven.
This. You can stop all discussion from here on out, this is all you need.


Not just complex, evil should be rewarding. Why people steal or work for mafia? They do if for profit. If the whole benefit is having sex with some drow who sounds like an old truck and wants to kill you afterwards then it is not exactly rewarding. It seems like a bad investment.
Originally Posted by Verte
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Taramafor
Not "Evil" for the sake of it, but "complex". Driven.
This. You can stop all discussion from here on out, this is all you need.


Not just complex, evil should be rewarding. Why people steal or work for mafia? They do if for profit. If the whole benefit is having sex with some drow who sounds like an old truck and wants to kill you afterwards then it is not exactly rewarding. It seems like a bad investment.

Well they also do it out of fear, or depseration, but the rest of the point works.

One of the thoughts I had was regarding Sezza the Goblin (the one in the Tiefling cell within the Grove). She herself tries to sell us on the Absolute and we can free her and sneak out or presumably fight our way out (last time I went through front door a fight ensued) but Sezza dies immediately). Why can't I talk my way out, be deceiptful and say I am using the Goblin to get closer to the Goblin leadership in order to murder them. I mean it's technically a solid plan as far as the Tieflings should be concerned. If I fail to convince them, maybe I could pretend to put Sezza back in her cell (escaping via the back route) / sneakily murder the guards and get out said other way when they insist on locking her back up.

Either way, I am not interested in the Absolute, why would I be? Later, oh later maybe, but Sezza could be just such a hook to ensure her mistress could help me (That or Sezza needs to sell the abilities of the Absolute more so I think to myself that they "could" be an option). With Sezza in tow through the Goblin camp I can "skip" the insults and be sold the concept of helping Minthara and destroying the Druids. Power could be mine!
Originally Posted by Vamathi

Yes, I think it could be much like TW1 quests (although I see a lot of links with deities/factions so I think it could directly affect their power). So sad there weren't a lot of quests like Whispering Hillock Spirit in TW3.
And I agree, it's frustrating not to know right now. As I said, I hope it's obvious once we leave Moonrise.

I think evil character should just get enough information from both to know they are useless (Halsin doesn't even tell you anything before you kill the leaders, so he is also manipulating you and than just wants to get to Moonrise...)
do some other encounters and/or exploration to get XP and head to Moonrise. I know it's doable to be level 4 without engaging with either of them. I know I will be speedrunning there once the game releases... I need to know.


I agree about the Helsin point, and I think this is the problem when we define the paths as good or evil. I discussed it earlier here with killerabbit and I don't think he realised where I'm coming from so I'll try again. Good evil neutral it doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that if you have a choice to do something in a game, that this choice would feel interesting and meaningful to presue.

And when I say interesting and meaningful to presue I do mean rewarding, but not in the literal item sense of reward, but narratively rewarding. It could even be a bad consequence for my character as long as it is something interesting and impactful.

Example from The Witcher 3 - if you help Triss and the mages escape Novigrad, when you come back you discover the fanatics turned on the non humans. And it is bad, very bad. But in the meta narrative sense, it is a reward. You did something, and it had a meaningful effect on the world.
I only have conjecture to back this up with, but;
Shadowheart has a voice line where she says; "Usurping the gods' domains? I just want my brain back!" which to me is an indication of the fact that the "good" and "evil" paths in Act 1 are going to become irrelevant once we get to Moonrise and it is revealed the Absolute is trying to become the new Divine and replace Lucian usher in the age of mortals.
Of course, all of our feedback on the evil path is still valuable, but it is worth keeping this in mind should we eventually see it proven to be true.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Vamathi

Yes, I think it could be much like TW1 quests (although I see a lot of links with deities/factions so I think it could directly affect their power). So sad there weren't a lot of quests like Whispering Hillock Spirit in TW3.
And I agree, it's frustrating not to know right now. As I said, I hope it's obvious once we leave Moonrise.

I think evil character should just get enough information from both to know they are useless (Halsin doesn't even tell you anything before you kill the leaders, so he is also manipulating you and than just wants to get to Moonrise...)
do some other encounters and/or exploration to get XP and head to Moonrise. I know it's doable to be level 4 without engaging with either of them. I know I will be speedrunning there once the game releases... I need to know.


I agree about the Helsin point, and I think this is the problem when we define the paths as good or evil. I discussed it earlier here with killerabbit and I don't think he realised where I'm coming from so I'll try again. Good evil neutral it doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that if you have a choice to do something in a game, that this choice would feel interesting and meaningful to presue.

And when I say interesting and meaningful to presue I do mean rewarding, but not in the literal item sense of reward, but narratively rewarding. It could even be a bad consequence for my character as long as it is something interesting and impactful.

Example from The Witcher 3 - if you help Triss and the mages escape Novigrad, when you come back you discover the fanatics turned on the non humans. And it is bad, very bad. But in the meta narrative sense, it is a reward. You did something, and it had a meaningful effect on the world.

Triss is quite the uhhh reward too!! :hihi:
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
I only have conjecture to back this up with, but;
Shadowheart has a voice line where she says; "Usurping the gods' domains? I just want my brain back!" which to me is an indication of the fact that the "good" and "evil" paths in Act 1 are going to become irrelevant once we get to Moonrise and it is revealed the Absolute is trying to become the new Divine and replace Lucian usher in the age of mortals.
Of course, all of our feedback on the evil path is still valuable, but it is worth keeping this in mind should we eventually see it proven to be true.

I'm pretty sure none of what we do in act 1 would have any influence on act 2. In dos2 even killing Alexander (which is an unavoidable fight mind you) doesn't affect anything lol
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
I only have conjecture to back this up with, but;
Shadowheart has a voice line where she says; "Usurping the gods' domains? I just want my brain back!" which to me is an indication of the fact that the "good" and "evil" paths in Act 1 are going to become irrelevant once we get to Moonrise and it is revealed the Absolute is trying to become the new Divine and replace Lucian usher in the age of mortals.
Of course, all of our feedback on the evil path is still valuable, but it is worth keeping this in mind should we eventually see it proven to be true.

I totally agree that there may well be aspects to the story we just don't know at this juncture that make our feedback "less useful", but I would still argue that given most players only play a game through once (unlike the likes of us), the options could do with being more "enticing" or overtly diverse.
I disagree. Most of the criticism is not about rewards (come guys evil path has the best reward right now) per se, but about incentives. Some reason to get up of our lazy evil ass and lift a finger for the evil team.
Originally Posted by Abits
I'm pretty sure none of what we do in act 1 would have any influence on act 2. In dos2 even killing Alexander (which is an unavoidable fight mind you) doesn't affect anything lol
Oh yeah. [Linked Image]
Originally Posted by Riandor
I totally agree that there may well be aspects to the story we just don't know at this juncture that make our feedback "less useful", but I would still argue that given most players only play a game through once (unlike the likes of us), the options could do with being more "enticing" or overtly diverse.
No argument there, just trying to make an educated guess as to what cards Larian has up their sleeve. It seems like bad practice to me that they would let players partake in an early access program while witholding all relevant story details so their plot feedback is useless, but I suppose there was no way to predict that. It does not render the smaller points such as the "evil" path being cartoonish and unrewarding useless either.
Originally Posted by Abits
I disagree. Most of the criticism is not about rewards (come guys evil path has the best reward right now) per se, but about incentives. Some reason to get up of our lazy evil ass and lift a finger for the evil team.
Well, you see, if I am right about what I said in my previous post there won't be such a thing as an "evil team" lol.
I don't want to sound presumptuous but taking down the gods is an almost universally "good" idea in my opinion.


Originally Posted by Abits
I disagree. Most of the criticism is not about rewards (come guys evil path has the best reward right now) per se, but about incentives. Some reason to get up of our lazy evil ass and lift a finger for the evil team.

WHo are you disagreeing with, because we seem to entirely AGREE?!
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Abits
I disagree. Most of the criticism is not about rewards (come guys evil path has the best reward right now) per se, but about incentives. Some reason to get up of our lazy evil ass and lift a finger for the evil team.

WHo are you disagreeing with, because we seem to entirely AGREE?!

I Disagreeeeee
Originally Posted by Abits
I agree about the Helsin point, and I think this is the problem when we define the paths as good or evil. I discussed it earlier here with killerabbit and I don't think he realised where I'm coming from so I'll try again. Good evil neutral it doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that if you have a choice to do something in a game, that this choice would feel interesting and meaningful to presue.

And when I say interesting and meaningful to presue I do mean rewarding, but not in the literal item sense of reward, but narratively rewarding. It could even be a bad consequence for my character as long as it is something interesting and impactful.

Example from The Witcher 3 - if you help Triss and the mages escape Novigrad, when you come back you discover the fanatics turned on the non humans. And it is bad, very bad. But in the meta narrative sense, it is a reward. You did something, and it had a meaningful effect on the world.

Yup, this is why I think something different is going on with the story. We don't really get any sort of help from anyone, potentially making the tadpole even more powerful with our actions and who knows what else.
I am definitely wrong with a lot of my theories though. I see how some could be implemented and could work with the story, but I might be wrong with all the symbolism¬

On my first playthrough Keira ended up dying in Novigrad, didn't see that coming at all. In general I made some choices, that I later did regret, but you are right.
They felt meaningful. None of the choices we are provided right now feel like that.
Originally Posted by Vamathi
Originally Posted by Abits
I agree about the Helsin point, and I think this is the problem when we define the paths as good or evil. I discussed it earlier here with killerabbit and I don't think he realised where I'm coming from so I'll try again. Good evil neutral it doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that if you have a choice to do something in a game, that this choice would feel interesting and meaningful to presue.

And when I say interesting and meaningful to presue I do mean rewarding, but not in the literal item sense of reward, but narratively rewarding. It could even be a bad consequence for my character as long as it is something interesting and impactful.

Example from The Witcher 3 - if you help Triss and the mages escape Novigrad, when you come back you discover the fanatics turned on the non humans. And it is bad, very bad. But in the meta narrative sense, it is a reward. You did something, and it had a meaningful effect on the world.

Yup, this is why I think something different is going on with the story. We don't really get any sort of help from anyone, potentially making the tadpole even more powerful with our actions and who knows what else.
I am definitely wrong with a lot of my theories though. I see how some could be implemented and could work with the story, but I might be wrong with all the symbolism¬

On my first playthrough Keira ended up dying in Novigrad, didn't see that coming at all. In general I made some choices, that I later did regret, but you are right.
They felt meaningful. None of the choices we are provided right now feel like that.

Just to make sure I understand, your theory is that a lot of the story is some sort of an illusion?
Originally Posted by Abits
Just to make sure I understand, your theory is that a lot of the story is some sort of an illusion?

Yup; based on my limited knowledge of Forgotten Realms I think it's most likely related to Shadowfell (there is plenty of gods that would love for Shadows to take over), but considering there is also a Phase Spider Matriarch aka Predator of the Ethereal plane, it could be something else entirely. Demons could still fit in the story, as it seems there is something off going on with the souls once they enter Shadowfell. Larian can basically take this anywhere. I really think it's intended to be as some sort of the playground, alas not a complete one right now.
While it is possible to see into the Material Plane from the Ethereal Plane, the Ethereal Plane is usually invisible to those on the Material Plane. Normally, creatures on the Ethereal Plane cannot attack creatures on the Material Plane, and vice versa. A traveler on the Ethereal Plane is invisible, incorporeal, and utterly silent to someone on the Material Plane. This makes the Ethereal Plane very useful for reconnaissance, spying on opponents, and other occasions when it's handy to move around without being detected.


It would also explain some of the 'factions' so far. It also explains why Omeluum is convinced, that the nautiloid templates were lost in the war against Gith and honestly there is so many other breadcrumbs like that.. We might have been time warping through the planes. Honestly I can go on about the crazy possibilities... Lore has grown so much and it keeps growing not to mention it's clear Larian did get some creative approval and this is not just your typical 5e homebrew. This looks like it will be a rather epic adventure in the end. At least I definitely want to see Astarion as a master vampire!
WotC seems to want to have more multiverse as well, more inclusivity, etc... so I really wouldn't be surprised, if we did see Illithid Sthrad mastermind. Cheesy, but ok.
That's what I thought you suggested. Sounds interesting, but the first thing I thought of was the Indoctrination Theory of Mass Effect 3. And it's not a good thing for one big reason:

The indoctrination theory was some sort of alternative explanation for the bad writing bits of Mass Effect 3 (I doubt anyone would have thought of this theory if the game's story was able to deliver a satisfying conclusion). I just don't think Larian are clever enough to pull off something like that. The good news is that we don't know yet either way.
Originally Posted by Abits
That's what I thought you suggested. Sounds interesting, but the first thing I thought of was the Indoctrination Theory of Mass Effect 3. And it's not a good thing for one big reason:

The indoctrination theory was some sort of alternative explanation for the bad writing bits of Mass Effect 3 (I doubt anyone would have thought of this theory if the game's story was able to deliver a satisfying conclusion). I just don't think Larian are clever enough to pull off something like that. The good news is that we don't know yet either way.
If I may pitch in, with all the datamined content discoveries so far the plot post Act 1 looks more like a do-over of DOS2 than anything as lofty as this. The Absolute is just Lucian again, the gods are tackling this new threat by sending their champions after you ("locked" companions stay loyal to you and everyone else becomes a conduit for their god) etc. etc. You even get shipwrecked and saved by a god AGAIN.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Abits
I disagree. Most of the criticism is not about rewards (come guys evil path has the best reward right now) per se, but about incentives. Some reason to get up of our lazy evil ass and lift a finger for the evil team.

WHo are you disagreeing with, because we seem to entirely AGREE?!

I Disagreeeeee

I’ve said all along incentives are missing, so how do we disagree?? I’m confuuuuuuuuuuuused... it happens too regularly. :-(
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Abits
That's what I thought you suggested. Sounds interesting, but the first thing I thought of was the Indoctrination Theory of Mass Effect 3. And it's not a good thing for one big reason:

The indoctrination theory was some sort of alternative explanation for the bad writing bits of Mass Effect 3 (I doubt anyone would have thought of this theory if the game's story was able to deliver a satisfying conclusion). I just don't think Larian are clever enough to pull off something like that. The good news is that we don't know yet either way.
If I may pitch in, with all the datamined content discoveries so far the plot post Act 1 looks more like a do-over of DOS2 than anything as lofty as this. The Absolute is just Lucian again, the gods are tackling this new threat by sending their champions after you ("locked" companions stay loyal to you and everyone else becomes a conduit for their god) etc. etc. You even get shipwrecked and saved by a god AGAIN.

Well my theory is obviously not datamined, I went through lore and the evidence of illusions we have in game.
But yes, I am purely speculating and we don't have evidence that Larian is going to attempt something as crazy as this.
Originally Posted by Riandor
Loot is one thing, but for me the reward is in the outcome of the plot and the immediate world around me based upon my decisions and thus my morale compass.

Ofc.
Loot is one thing ... Reward as another thing ... and Outcome as another thing ... there we kinda agree as it seems.

Ofc, "rewarding experience" is just another words for "satisfying experience" ... sadly, if you actualy read trough those 14 paiges, most people are simply talking about "need better reward" ... i dont see much space for missunderstanding, even if some will for sure tell me that they meaned it as satisfaction with story. -_-
Funny enough, if you really actualy read trough those 14 paiges, you will find out that many people are actualy comparing Mynthara's neck and mace ... and loot from Zevlor and Kagha ... if anyone here wants to tell me that those people are talking about "writing" i have nothing but laugh for them. :-/

Originally Posted by Riandor
So far the evil route doesn’t appear to sell itself at all to you. Even the dream sequences don’t seem to suggest control and power, at least not enough to overwrite the idea of it being a horrible trap into giving in and becoming a mindflayer.

And are you sure, you have seen them all?
Burning Baldur's Gate, and your "dream mate" telling you: "Your enemies will fall, the world will bow, you'll have everything you could ever desire."
That seem not enough suggesting? laugh In that case i kinda cannot imagine what more do you want.

Originally Posted by Riandor
Then no one else “I met”, even suggested another way. Again, the whole set-up is “get rid of tadpole”! Every character we meet who tags along says the same, Raphael tries to tempt us in order to help. That is for all intents and purposes “our story”.

Well ... i think you didnt listen so carefully ...
Wyll is kinda pasive about tadpole, he have his own problems and tadpole seem dormant, so he dont seem to care that much.
Astarion even wanted to control that thing, so he can exploit it as much as possible.
Gale wants to do the same with Raphael, outsmart him in his own game.
Shadowheart seem to be desperate ... if you talk to her, she is only one willing to give herself to Gut, or the Hag ... just to get rid of that thing.
And Lae'zel was even in EA proven to be wrong about her people ... what if even other of their teachings are wrong? :P

And if you want to count NPC aswell ... most of them wants to get rid of your tadpole, or yourself, just to be sure ... bcs tadpole in general means potential trouble (big one, i admit that), but many of them are confess with same breath that your parasite is unusual and they have litteraly no idea what will be going in the future.
Hells, even Halsin himself (wich is for some reason concidered around here as best expert ... odd since, you have even mind flayer in Underdark, wich i presume should know more about his own kind than some Elf that was watching tadpole crawling out of dead Drow) tells you: "Good news is, you have time. Bad news, i dont know how many."

Originally Posted by Riandor
So based upon that how do I act? And I think this is the issue of kinda not being that important (hero/messiah complex) and being free to waltz around. No one tries to pick you out of a crowd. Anyone you meet usually ends up wanting to insult and or kill you. I certainly feel as though the goblins need to not just be subjugated by you using your tadpole but also actively then want to get you in front of Minthara first and foremost. Then it’s a who makes the best case. I might not trust Minthara, but if she sells the Absolute and being able to help me sooner then I might listen.

I like our insignificence ... we are suppose to be random nobody who was abducked by Nautiloid.

I kinda have feeling that i was sended to Minthara ...
When i played my first evil playthrough, i released Sazza ... and she was leading me straight to Minthara ... and since i did that i was automaticly concidered as ally by Minthara ...
In my second evil, tadpole using, playthrough (as Wood Elf) ...
i left Sazza to be shooted by that Tiefling, since i dint see any profit in there ... i was told by almost every goblin that True Souls are gathering inside and planning next move ... when i finaly reached to Minthara, she specificly told me that Goblins are usable and expendable tools for the Absolute ... i have found no reason to presume that she see at myself differently ... she send me to torture that prisoner to get from him location of the groove, proof of my loayality ... and when i freed him she even inspect my own mind with her tadpole, to find out if i know about groove, there was wisdom check to cloud your mind with shatered memories ... but i tell her where groove is after that ... i was even able to demand reward after that, but since i failed in diceroll, i was just told to gather whatever i found there, and that the Absolute will reward her loyalists with her favour.

It seem pretty selling to me. Ofc. she is this whole time still arogant and haughty b***h ... but that is just what she is, and i like it. smile
You ofc, need to keep in mind that you are this whole time talking to someone, who as you know DO have tadpole (even if not knowingly) and dont seem to have any problems with that. So there obviously is a way to get all pros, but none cons.

Originally Posted by Riandor
The issue is, by the time I get to her I might as well just slaughter them all and free the Druid. There you go, I’m either a hero or still a murderhobo but it’s disappointing that I’ve not been sold a seedy darker route out of my predicament early enough for me to care.

You certainly might ... that ofc seem like perfect example of those "stupid" choices you were talking about ...
Especialy since main goblin camp is not hostile to you, even if you kill all goblins at first gate, and they manage to play their alert drum (kinda odd to me, probably bug).
For myself i presume that every character, no matter if neutral or evil ... should at least first explore his options, before he starts to kill anyone ... ofc. if you wish to play chaotic evil homicidal maniac and attack litteraly everyone on sight ... that is kinda different story. laugh But i presume we arent talking about that right now.

I hear you, but cant imagine any situation how you could find out about that option sooner ...
No one but Minthara can offer you place on raid, since they dont even know where groove is ... that information is delivered by yourself, in that second plans for raid starts to exist, and you are instantly given opourtunity to join them ... and there is even few options to avoid it! Goblins can do all dirty work for you!

Do you have anything in mind about how do you wish to find out sooner?
I know that some people here are convinced that we are not suppose to tell Larian how they should to their story ... but i cant help the feeling that "this story seem dull, improve it" isnt even half as helpfull, as "here i would like to be sugested to join goblins at their camp and listen to their counter-proposal".

Originally Posted by Riandor
I caveat all of this by saying I’ve only done 1 play through so far and was rather chaotic good/flirted with evil, so I’m not a character to seek it out, but that has always been my point, I shouldn’t have to work at being evil, evil should be the easy route. Avoiding the temptation, working for a good outcome and becoming the hero, that’s the challenge and that’s reward.

I cant help the feeling that this is old way ... and that Larian are geting this new much more nuanced, and thereofre much better route.
I see it as simple two sides conflict ... you dont even need to join one, and there will be hard choices on every path ... i dont think any should be easier, or more challenging ... they are just different and that is more than enough.

Honestly im not even sure if we can talk about some good route, and evil route ... what is good for tiefling is just as bad for goblins as the other side around.
Sure, we can talk about good and evil characters, but that is simply theme about motivations of our protagonist.


Originally Posted by Vhaldez
"Rewards" does not mean gold and swords, but it could mean a more solid lead on fixing the tadpole problem or giving you stronger allies down the line.

Read those quotes ...
Or even better, read those Reply, from where i quoted ...

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
The evil route does not do that at the moment, the goblins always betray you and Minthra often does too. Halsin is objectively your best bet, because Minthara, Gut and the goblins all want to kill you. The player knows this even without meta knowledge.

Gut dont want to kill you, she is more like Hag, or Raphael and wants to exploit you as much as possible ...
Same with Minthara ... she also wants to use you, then she wants to kill you ... unless she will find pleasure in you.
And Razglin wants to kill you only if you reveal yourself as enemy of their cult.

Anyway its coresponding their characters ... therefore i dont see any problem.

Laezel wants to do that too ... multiple times ...
Astarion wants to do that too ... multiple times ...
That Dwarf druid wants to do that too ...
And i bet that only reason Zevlor, or Kagha dont turn hostile toward you for the same reason is that there isnt any dialogue choice to tell him that you were infected with tadpole and may turn to Mind Flayer. Nobody know how they would react ... but concidering litteraly everyone else? I think we can gues.

No, Evil route dont offer you a way to get rid of tadpole, it offer you a way to conquer it, get all its benefits and minimalize the risk.
You will find out by the end, when you are talking to Minthara, if you convince her to not kill you.

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
A smart evil player would therefore always side with the Tieflings; they just have the most to offer and stand the least in your way.

Maybe ... i however dont make decisions as player, but as character. smile
Its called roleplaying. wink

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Honestly Kagha as a third option would already solve a lot if Zevlor didn't ape jump you when you tell him it's time to leave.

What do you mean would ... she allready is there as option, im honestly not exactly sure how i managed it, maybe its some certain amount of long rests after telling Zevlor that they have to get out imediatly (and kill him ofc.)
But then Ritual of thorns is done, and you dont help no one ... since Tieflings are dead in groove (there is still way to get inside and check), and since you cant attack the groove Minthara gets pissed off, and attack you ...
So both sides dead.

Then i personaly rescued Halsin, who even no longer cares if you kill goblin leaders or not.
(Note: He will tell you that without them world will be better place, and goblins keep friendly toward you until you kill Ragzlin)

So ... if we want to concider wich story is most interesting for player, where he gets best loot, and how can he get his best chances to get rid of that tadpole ... i presume that "smart evil player" will do exactly this. wink :P

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
When you betray him at the gate, the player says "sorry, but Minthara and her cult are the best option I have". When was this established? They are hostile to you all the time, show they know nothing about the tadpole and Halsin clearly does. He even studied one up close. What in all of that incentivises the player to murder a group of innocent refugees for some hostile tadpole denialists that betray you, other than "ooh I'm evil!"?

Who is hostile to you? Goblins? They are not ... they welcome you at their celebration, they trade with you, they offer you a plae on raid, they even not attact you when you beat one of them (yup, Crusher) ... that dont seem hostile at all.

When was established that Minthara is your best option? Its common sence.
She and leaders of her cult have tadpoles in mind clearly for longer time than you, since they was not it that Nautiloid ... the godess they are praying to is the same being that is alterning your own tadpole and therfore is saving your life allready ... they are also gathering strenght around whole sword coast, allready managed to wipe out two towns, and even Tieflings are affraid of them ... and ofc. there are those dreams promising power and domination.

First of all, they dont betray you ... they may potentialy betray you ... we allready was talking about this, more than once ...
Second, Halsin studied one ... wich you will find out just after you kill goblins, so no metaknowlenge here ... you know that there is either some druid that maybe possibly able to help you, unless you thrust Lae'zel that strictly tells you that he have litteraly no chance, and all hopes holding toward his skills are empty ...
Third, Minthara and her cult, are connected direclty to godess (or some entity that is presented as godess) that is directly controling your tadpole allready ... so some elf who watched one crawling out of dead drow eye have certainly less experience than she ...
And finaly ... everyting else abowe, and possibly even under this sentence. laugh

Originally Posted by Verte
Not just complex, evil should be rewarding. Why people steal or work for mafia? They do if for profit. If the whole benefit is having sex with some drow who sounds like an old truck and wants to kill you afterwards then it is not exactly rewarding. It seems like a bad investment.

Yet another great example of someone who is litteraly talking about writing, and dont demand any better items, right?
Nah ... do you at least realize that you are rating quest before completing it? :-/

Originally Posted by Riandor
One of the thoughts I had was regarding Sezza the Goblin (the one in the Tiefling cell within the Grove). She herself tries to sell us on the Absolute and we can free her and sneak out or presumably fight our way out (last time I went through front door a fight ensued) but Sezza dies immediately). Why can't I talk my way out, be deceiptful and say I am using the Goblin to get closer to the Goblin leadership in order to murder them. I mean it's technically a solid plan as far as the Tieflings should be concerned. If I fail to convince them, maybe I could pretend to put Sezza back in her cell (escaping via the back route) / sneakily murder the guards and get out said other way when they insist on locking her back up.

That sounds like a bug ... when i freed her, and take it trough village i was able to talk my way out.
It was pretty hard roll however, and since my character have -1 to charisma ... well ... we fighted.

Originally Posted by Riandor
Either way, I am not interested in the Absolute, why would I be? Later, oh later maybe, but Sezza could be just such a hook to ensure her mistress could help me (That or Sezza needs to sell the abilities of the Absolute more so I think to myself that they "could" be an option). With Sezza in tow through the Goblin camp I can "skip" the insults and be sold the concept of helping Minthara and destroying the Druids. Power could be mine!

This is exactly the question no one can answer for you ... you are the one who are making your character's personality ... therefore you are the one, who need to find answer for every "why would i". :-/
And if you dont ... i gues you would not. laugh

Speaking for myself ... my drow was interested, since Absolute promises some races (Drow included) better life (Sazza tells you) ... im quite sure that my Drow had different image of that life in mind than for example Sazza, but that is nothing he would worry about. smile


Originally Posted by Vamathi
Yup, this is why I think something different is going on with the story. We don't really get any sort of help from anyone, potentially making the tadpole even more powerful with our actions and who knows what else.

If i recall it corectly in some interwiev someone from Larian (not sure if that wasnt Swen himself) was asked if this game main antagonist will be Mind Flayers ... and that one answered something like: "Oh you dont know even a tiny bit of what we prepared for you."
So honestly i wont be even surprised if we manage to either remove our tadpole after Moonrise Towers, and possibly keeps some of its power ... or make it permanently dormant. laugh

Originally Posted by Vamathi
Originally Posted by Abits
Just to make sure I understand, your theory is that a lot of the story is some sort of an illusion?
Yup

Or we simply died falling out the Nautiloid, and this forum ... errrr i mean sword coast is our hell. laugh
No really ... i just wanted to say that we may not even go so far to gods ... after all there was some tadpole activity just before we should smash on that beach ... maybe we are still laying there and all Act1 is just hapening inside our minds, some simualtion controlled by tadpole to make us dormant before we change.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Abits
That's what I thought you suggested. Sounds interesting, but the first thing I thought of was the Indoctrination Theory of Mass Effect 3. And it's not a good thing for one big reason:

The indoctrination theory was some sort of alternative explanation for the bad writing bits of Mass Effect 3 (I doubt anyone would have thought of this theory if the game's story was able to deliver a satisfying conclusion). I just don't think Larian are clever enough to pull off something like that. The good news is that we don't know yet either way.
If I may pitch in, with all the datamined content discoveries so far the plot post Act 1 looks more like a do-over of DOS2 than anything as lofty as this. The Absolute is just Lucian again, the gods are tackling this new threat by sending their champions after you ("locked" companions stay loyal to you and everyone else becomes a conduit for their god) etc. etc. You even get shipwrecked and saved by a god AGAIN.


Between this and POE2 I've had it with these motherhugging gods in these motherhugging games
I think overall more diversity to why you choose a certain route (whether it be evil or good) would make the options make sense for a larger group of players. Not every evil character is going to slaughter the tieflings because it may not make sense for their cause/purpose, despite that fact that they're evil. And I agree with the reward comments as you currently get rewarded much more by siding with the druids. I'm interested to see what Larian will be doing to make the evil route(s) more immersive and appealing in the full game smile
Maybe Larian is just bad at writing.
Originally Posted by Abits
Between this and POE2 I've had it with these motherhugging gods in these motherhugging games

Everyone, even the characters in a game has to be greater than us ;(
I will just have to wait and see. But I like it so far.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
If i recall it corectly in some interwiev someone from Larian (not sure if that wasnt Swen himself) was asked if this game main antagonist will be Mind Flayers ... and that one answered something like: "Oh you dont know even a tiny bit of what we prepared for you."
So honestly i wont be even surprised if we manage to either remove our tadpole after Moonrise Towers, and possibly keeps some of its power ... or make it permanently dormant. laugh

Or we simply died falling out the Nautiloid, and this forum ... errrr i mean sword coast is our hell. laugh
No really ... i just wanted to say that we may not even go so far to gods ... after all there was some tadpole activity just before we should smash on that beach ... maybe we are still laying there and all Act1 is just hapening inside our minds, some simualtion controlled by tadpole to make us dormant before we change.

I think I remember that from some interview with Swen as well. There is plenty of ominous remarks they made...
I kinda stopped thinking about the tadpole completely. Either we will live with it or find a way to remove it, but I still have to go help Astarion on his quest!
It's affected by netherese magic for now and there are netherese runes around us; maybe absolute does have something to do with this directly, but I don't think so.

I'd like to point out, that in the trailer intro we can see, that this looks like a rogue illithid. There are illithid corpses around us even before we have the tadpole in our heads.
So there isn't just one party of illithids here. This was someone who got on the ship - that was presumably working with the Absolute 'as there are images of goblin, human, etc history'.
This illithid, that put the tadpole in us might have been working on his own completely.
Also how do we even know to connect these slimy nerves and teleport close to Baldur's Gate?... We teleport through who knows what. The light flashes are very different, than to what we saw a nautiloid disappearing into literally nothing in the trailer. Maybe we became tied to the etheareal plane?

I could get behind us dying as well, wouldn't surprise me if this was some sort of purgatory, especially for our companions.

But we do know from the interviews that illithids will obviously be threat to the city and to us.
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Maybe Larian is just bad at writing.

Always a possibility, but Astarion's voice actor will carry the game for me (and I think that almost all of the voice acting is really really good; script and options is another matter).
I abhor Astarion's voice actor. He is feigning to affect Tim Curry with an atrocious southern accent, like they wanted Gabriel Knight with a "bit of sass".

He is disgusting, and wholly off putting in every mannerism. I kill him on sight out of principle. /spit
Astarion's accent is not Tim Curry's or 'Southern'. It is British, with a nod to the upper-middle- or upper-class accent of the likes of Terry Thomas and Leslie Phillips.
Astarion's voice is silky smooth
Originally Posted by Abits
Between this and POE2 I've had it with these motherhugging gods in these motherhugging games
Who hasn't. We can't fault Larian for it but it definitely factors into my decision making as a player that in every CRPG besides Tyranny the gods are tangible beings who you can and often will usurp for their power. Aethas especially in PoE2 made followers of gods in these settings look like deluded morons.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Cyka
Im starting feeling like CRPG just cant do evil route very well. I mean its a night and day difference between something like Tyranny and Crusader Kings with how you deal with "evil choices".
But Tyranny does a great job? It's just that BG3's setting is so biased towards good that all evil is cartoonish.


Tyranny at best is Neutral. If you take evil decisions (and there are a couple) you basically lose out chunk of story and get bad ending (like you have to basically skip the entire DLC if you are lawful evil?). The worse case of this is with a vendor in prologue. If you follow lawful evil you miss out entire tree of skills. You can be devious here and there but Crusader King beats it by a long mile for sure lmao.
Originally Posted by Cyka
Tyranny at best is Neutral. If you take evil decisions (and there are a couple) you basically lose out chunk of story and get bad ending (like you have to basically skip the entire DLC if you are lawful evil?). The worse case of this is with a vendor in prologue. If you follow lawful evil you miss out entire tree of skills. You can be devious here and there but Crusader King beats it by a long mile for sure lmao.
Ah yes, I forgot that being in the Oldwalls was illegal. You are there for half of the game lol. The Bastard's Wound sucked, but I would still argue that basegame Tyranny has the best CRPG writing in terms of player agency.
I'll concur that writing evil is harder. Moreover, other than Kotor, I don't remember any game that had any actual evil path. moreover, properly defining an evil path is hard. Even the drow city in bg2 and Korriban were not "evil paths" per se, but a mandatory parts of their respective games that had an option for evil flavour, but playing evil in them didn't change the story drastically.

With all that in mind, I think the fact is that Larian didn't have to tell the story in the way they did. It is much more difficult to create two storylines than creating one storyline with good/evil nuances. But if they did, I expect the same quality of writing from both.
In D&D I absolutely hate Lawful Good characters because they are REALLY inflexable. It makes it a drag, cannot steal or do anything to forward your cause without some snarky whiney lecture. The "evil" route would be to kill EVERYTHING and nick all their shit. You would have figured a way to kill the Druids and Tieflings probably by setting up BOTH sides for heavy losses then killing the leftovers. Evil characters are out for themselves, tadpole or no. The second an "evil" character figured out they cannot get help off either party the gloves would have come off OR they would just move on if they couldn't be arsed.

There is no "evil route". If you pick "the path of least resistance" that makes you smart/lazy not evil.
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
In D&D I absolutely hate Lawful Good characters because they are REALLY inflexable. It makes it a drag, cannot steal or do anything to forward your cause without some snarky whiney lecture. The "evil" route would be to kill EVERYTHING and nick all their shit. You would have figured a way to kill the Druids and Tieflings probably by setting up BOTH sides for heavy losses then killing the leftovers. Evil characters are out for themselves, tadpole or no. The second an "evil" character figured out they cannot get help off either party the gloves would have come off OR they would just move on if they couldn't be arsed.

There is no "evil route". If you pick "the path of least resistance" that makes you smart/lazy not evil.

And which path would you consider to be "the path of least resistance" in this game currently?
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
In D&D I absolutely hate Lawful Good characters because they are REALLY inflexable. It makes it a drag, cannot steal or do anything to forward your cause without some snarky whiney lecture. The "evil" route would be to kill EVERYTHING and nick all their shit. You would have figured a way to kill the Druids and Tieflings probably by setting up BOTH sides for heavy losses then killing the leftovers. Evil characters are out for themselves, tadpole or no. The second an "evil" character figured out they cannot get help off either party the gloves would have come off OR they would just move on if they couldn't be arsed.

There is no "evil route". If you pick "the path of least resistance" that makes you smart/lazy not evil.

I agree with you about hating Lawful Good Sometimes what they do I consider evil. frown

I do not think you are seeing evil as anything other than Chaotic Evil however. Sometimes evil will do good things to gain benefits, sometimes they just simply don't care. Sometimes it is even better to keep people alive, most of the time someone with nothing left to lose is much more dangerous than someone with hope who you can keep in line. There are many other things an intelligent evil character would do before murdering everyone (ofc this is also an acceptable route, just pointless.) Not sure what you mean with "path of least resistance."
As a side quest - I collect all the human skulls i find in the world and on corpses and take them back to camp for decoration. The blood is still on the ground from my party - and it's starting to feel cozy.
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
In D&D I absolutely hate Lawful Good characters because they are REALLY inflexable. It makes it a drag, cannot steal or do anything to forward your cause without some snarky whiney lecture. The "evil" route would be to kill EVERYTHING and nick all their shit. You would have figured a way to kill the Druids and Tieflings probably by setting up BOTH sides for heavy losses then killing the leftovers. Evil characters are out for themselves, tadpole or no. The second an "evil" character figured out they cannot get help off either party the gloves would have come off OR they would just move on if they couldn't be arsed.

There is no "evil route". If you pick "the path of least resistance" that makes you smart/lazy not evil.

I agree with you about hating Lawful Good Sometimes what they do I consider evil. frown

I do not think you are seeing evil as anything other than Chaotic Evil however. Sometimes evil will do good things to gain benefits, sometimes they just simply don't care. Sometimes it is even better to keep people alive, most of the time someone with nothing left to lose is much more dangerous than someone with hope who you can keep in line. There are many other things an intelligent evil character would do before murdering everyone (ofc this is also an acceptable route, just pointless.) Not sure what you mean with "path of least resistance."


And besides you meet evil characters in the game you don't even notice they are. Like how many players assume the flaming fist are lawful evil mercenaries after they meet them in the game?
Originally Posted by Nyanko

And besides you meet evil characters in the game you don't even notice they are. Like how many players assume the flaming fist are lawful evil mercenaries after they meet them in the game?
They are? I thought they were like the Order of the Flaming Rose from TW1.
It was mentioned somewhere that the Flaming Fist extort people for a living (a book? don't remember).
Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
It was mentioned somewhere that the Flaming Fist extort people for a living (a book? don't remember).
But they're saving people from burning buildings in this game. Will they show up elsewhere and be evil later?
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Nyanko

And besides you meet evil characters in the game you don't even notice they are. Like how many players assume the flaming fist are lawful evil mercenaries after they meet them in the game?
They are? I thought they were like the Order of the Flaming Rose from TW1.


Weren't those guy lawful evil too? Pretty sure they even attack you in the neutral route, while the elves (chaotic neutral/evil) are chiller

Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
It was mentioned somewhere that the Flaming Fist extort people for a living (a book? don't remember).
But they're saving people from burning buildings in this game. Will they show up elsewhere and be evil later?


If they are lawful evil, that's just fullfilling their contract. To be honest i imagine most mercenary groups with little qualms about their contractors would be lawful evil as organizations
I SERVE THE FLAMING FIST!

Uh Evil are they?
"The Flaming Fist is a well-established mercenary organization that brings law to the northern half of the Sword Coast." So they are mercenaries yes, but are supposed to bring law to the Sword Coast, though I gues no one said Law had to be good!
https://www.ign.com/articles/baldurs-gate-3-early-access-changes-player-data-feedback-larian

okay so this article is probably gonna pop up in more places in the forum soon, but I want to address something specific Sven talks about in it:
Quote
“The writers have a tendency of being good and not putting in the evil options,” Vincke says. “We had to actually force them to go through everything and put in more contrasting options so that they could put the evil ones in there.” It’s all about offering the players “real” choices, he explains - a variety of options falling all across the spectrum of morality, rather than just slight variations on ‘the good one’. “For choice to be there, you need to have the ability to do good and evil and things in between, and edge cases, and stuff like that. That is a modus operandi for the remainder of the game.”

the bad news is that yeah, the evil path does feel like someone was forced to write it. The good news is that it seems like something they really care about and might work on improving
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Evil route in Baldur's Gate 3:
Do evil things for sake of evil.
Who is doing evil things that don't give him anything? Is there a reason for him to do evil things?


Ransacking the druid grove gives you tons of stuff and is easy to solo.

But yea, Minthara needs a more proper introduction and possibly a new path should be made from where we meet Lae'zel to the Goblins in the village that we can trick with our tadpole. Making both sides equally straightforward to run into and if we go straight to the goblin camp we are directed to Minthara who needs help finding her scouts and doesn't want to send out anymore of her own people.

Then you can go help the goblins kill the adventurers (who in this situation wouldn't be at the gates yet) that were with Halsin looking for Nightsong and bring back the goblins, earning their trust.

From there we have an actual starting narrative that is at least a bit more equivalent to the "good" side. I wish Larian would hire some more writers it really is needed to flesh out a game with so much choice in such a deep and established world. DM me wink

Originally Posted by Abits
I'll concur that writing evil is harder. Moreover, other than Kotor, I don't remember any game that had any actual evil path. moreover, properly defining an evil path is hard. Even the drow city in bg2 and Korriban were not "evil paths" per se, but a mandatory parts of their respective games that had an option for evil flavour, but playing evil in them didn't change the story drastically.

With all that in mind, I think the fact is that Larian didn't have to tell the story in the way they did. It is much more difficult to create two storylines than creating one storyline with good/evil nuances. But if they did, I expect the same quality of writing from both.


I think instead of "evil" people should more write "machiavellian", because Larian has a habit of writing comically crazy evil characters that no one would be sane enough to ally with. Truly powerful evil characters would abuse advantages to their own goal, that is including helping people for their own gain, murder hobo is just stupid.
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Cyka
Tyranny at best is Neutral. If you take evil decisions (and there are a couple) you basically lose out chunk of story and get bad ending (like you have to basically skip the entire DLC if you are lawful evil?). The worse case of this is with a vendor in prologue. If you follow lawful evil you miss out entire tree of skills. You can be devious here and there but Crusader King beats it by a long mile for sure lmao.
Ah yes, I forgot that being in the Oldwalls was illegal. You are there for half of the game lol. The Bastard's Wound sucked, but I would still argue that basegame Tyranny has the best CRPG writing in terms of player agency.


I also really did not like how the dread system linked to companion endings. Dread is AMAZING as an alternative to get people's loyalty without kissing people's arse, yet the game sicks out bunch of companions go dead or crazy endings if i go for the dread route, making the system entirely pointless.
Originally Posted by Abits
I'll concur that writing evil is harder. Moreover, other than Kotor, I don't remember any game that had any actual evil path. moreover, properly defining an evil path is hard. Even the drow city in bg2 and Korriban were not "evil paths" per se, but a mandatory parts of their respective games that had an option for evil flavour, but playing evil in them didn't change the story drastically.

With all that in mind, I think the fact is that Larian didn't have to tell the story in the way they did. It is much more difficult to create two storylines than creating one storyline with good/evil nuances. But if they did, I expect the same quality of writing from both.


I am currently playing through BG 2 and took the vampire side just to be edgy and I'm playing chaotic neutral so thought it was appropriate. Surprisingly even Bodhi The Bitch Queen gives you a choice between a good and evil quest to further to her final quest.

Minthara should be designed similarly where instead of her being default evil with evil quests, we get the choice, whether outright or through deception, we can go along with the evil quest or redirect her to the "good" or "neutral" one since it is "good" according to an evil character.

The BG 2 quest lines required this flexibility to keep a party together for the PC in the early game and I think it is a good compromise for creating the branching storylines that are associated with alignment but also not requiring that someone just blindly go along with whatever they are told.

Honestly Larian is thinking too basically about their evil NPCs and need to get more writers who are enthusiastic about writing evil and neutral storylines.
Originally Posted by Abits
https://www.ign.com/articles/baldurs-gate-3-early-access-changes-player-data-feedback-larian

okay so this article is probably gonna pop up in more places in the forum soon, but I want to address something specific Sven talks about in it:
Quote
“The writers have a tendency of being good and not putting in the evil options,” Vincke says. “We had to actually force them to go through everything and put in more contrasting options so that they could put the evil ones in there.” It’s all about offering the players “real” choices, he explains - a variety of options falling all across the spectrum of morality, rather than just slight variations on ‘the good one’. “For choice to be there, you need to have the ability to do good and evil and things in between, and edge cases, and stuff like that. That is a modus operandi for the remainder of the game.”

the bad news is that yeah, the evil path does feel like someone was forced to write it. The good news is that it seems like something they really care about and might work on improving

Interesting article ... thanks fot it.
They should concider hiring Brian Mitsoda, that man have experiences with writing great "evil", or at least morally grey stories, and screw with player in the way that people usualy even enjoy. laugh
Its funny how JRPG already beat modern west CRPG in complex moral grey writing in the form of Fire Emblem three houses.
I would like to say how I see the ideal path of "lawful evil" (moderate evil) and "chaotic evil" (absolute evil)

In a chaotic evil way, we will have to betray Minthara for the sake of the Absolute or Lolth who wants to punish her for her betrayal, lead the army, and do many disgusting deeds, both motivated and not very motivated, and in the end it is possible to turn into a Mind Flayer or gain too much power. I don't know who will play it, this way does not tempt me.

In the "lawful evil" path, I want to open Minthara's eyes to tadpoles and deception, to oppose the Absolute or play your own game together, to protect her from the clerics of Lolth, and gain her trust and true friendship. But this must be an evil role-playing. As a team and reliable allies, we will act using any method, including the possible killing of tieflings and anyone else, putting personal gain first of all, without being someone's puppets. It would be really fun and interesting. This is what will give me the pleasure of role-playing.

This is the path that will allow you to combine honor and friendship, evil roleplay and personal gain. I would like this roleplay, and I really hope that Larian will make it possible.
I do not want the evil way as only "absolute evil", the moral choice and the boundaries of good and evil in some moments should be more difficult.
They would do themselves a service in opening up more neutral decisions as well not just straight good vs. evil. That's not all it's about. I want to be able to play as a dedicated diplomat or a disinterested wanderer if I please.
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum
I want to be able to play as a dedicated diplomat or a disinterested wanderer if I please.


There is already a bit of Neutral roleplay. You may not give a damn about Sazza, Arabella or Liam. You're just trying to find a healer and head back home. In that case, you're not going to go out of your way to help other people (my definition of Good), but you're not causing any suffering to others for your personal gain (my definition of Evil). You're just a (possibly hardened-hearted) passer-by. A disinterested wanderer, I suppose.

To me, if you save the tieflings because you sympathise with their plight and want to help them, you're Good. Maybe you're very brave and not afraid of taking on armies of goblins and you make sure to kill all the goblins, so that the region will be ultra-safe for the tieflings' passage (no new leader emerging and rallying the goblins). But you could be more Neutral and end up saving the tieflings merely because Halsin wouldn't be available to heal you until the goblin leadership was dead (he himself has his own reason for wanting that, and it's not to help the tieflings).

The difficulty with Neutral, is that it's not so much a clear ideal and morality. It's often what is neither Good nor Evil, and presumably in the middle (as Good and Evil are often thought of as being on a one-dimensional spectrum, which certainly is restrictive). As a result, Neutral could be narrower, or much broader, than Evil or Good, depending on how far you see these areas expanding toward the middle.

I guess Larian should start by ensuring that they have equally good and motivated paths for both Good and Evil. Then find how much room there is in-between the two paths. Ideally, Neutral shouldn't end up being the same result as Good, but for slightly different motivations. That being said, I'd already be happy if there's a good Evil path and a good Good path. Having an interesting Neutral path sounds like the icing on the cake.

Note: in fact, probably, they shouldn't start by thinking of writing a Good path and an Evil path, but they should start think in terms of "how could things naturally unfold, what could various characters do, seek, and how would that affect the end situation".
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
In a chaotic evil way, we will have to betray Minthara for the sake of the Absolute or Lolth who wants to punish her for her betrayal, lead the army, and do many disgusting deeds, both motivated and not very motivated, and in the end it is possible to turn into a Mind Flayer or gain too much power.

Says who exactly? O_o
the only true evil route is the route where I chose to join the mind flayers smile but I can't frown
[quote=OneManArmy]I would like to say how I see the ideal path of "lawful evil" (moderate evil) and "chaotic evil" (absolute evil)

In a chaotic evil way, we will have to betray Minthara for the sake of the Absolute or Lolth who wants to punish her for her betrayal, lead the army, and do many disgusting deeds, both motivated and not very motivated, and in the end it is possible to turn into a Mind Flayer or gain too much power. I don't know who will play it, this way does not tempt me.

In the "lawful evil" path, I want to open Minthara's eyes to tadpoles and deception, to oppose the Absolute or play your own game together, to protect her from the clerics of Lolth, and gain her trust and true friendship. But this must be an evil role-playing. As a team and reliable allies, we will act using any method, including the possible killing of tieflings and anyone else, putting personal gain first of all, without being someone's puppets. It would be really fun and interesting. This is what will give me the pleasure of role-playing.

This is the path that will allow you to combine honor and friendship, evil roleplay and personal gain. I would like this roleplay, and I really hope that Larian will make it possible.
I do not want the evil way as only "absolute evil", the moral choice and the boundaries of good and evil in some moments should be more difficult. [/quote]

Yes evil needs to be a lot more nuanced. There must be a choice between power at all cost and serving the absolute and trying to use your newly gained power and overthrow the absolute and rule yourself. Something like that. Currently the only evil option is to blindly follow the absolute, for no reason at all. And playing evil is not just murdering everyone! You should still have companions who follow you. Because they are afraid of your power. Because you threatened their life. Because you rule by fear. You should acquire devoted servants and slaves, companions who worship you and would die for you. Thats how you properly write an evil character. Look at how Knights of the Old republic 2 did it. If you play an Evil Sith Lord in that game, your followers will also become evil and one will even sacrifice herself so you gain more power. Thats what this game deserves! Evil playthrough with good writing!

Your dream lover doesn't tell you to side with the goblins. There is no incentive to raiding the grove. Its only the goblins and absolute followers who talk about great rewards. But your personal character has never even heard of the absolute, and has discovered that the True Souls are also infected by tadpoles. So why would you play stupid and help them? You want to get the tadpole out. Or, in the case of Astarion, you want to learn about the tadpole and control it. By the way, why does our questlog say "removing the Parasite" all game long? Thats not my intention! Like Astarion, my personal goal is to make use of its powers. But the game immediately pushes the player to remove the tadpole. Even though Larian devs have talked about the fact that some characters may want to keep the tadpole.

The Absolute needs more npc's which convince you that its useful if you join them. They need actual good rewards. And they need to have a choice and an effect to solving your main issue: The tadpole. The goblin quest of raiding the grove doesn't help you at all. Your goal is to find a healer, whether or not you want to keep the tadpole or not. And the first thing the goblin priestess does to you is put you in chains and leave you to die.

The rewards are just pitiful. You murder a bunch of refugees, Kadga and Zevlor. But their magic items don't compare to the magic items obtainable by the goblin leaders at all! The goblin leaders should award you with powerful magic items because you helped them raid the grove.

And the absolute itself should reward you! The questlog says "The absolute has awarded me with more power" once you finish the raiding the grove quest. But that's a lie. You get nothing. Ironically, getting the Hag to help you with your Tadpole situation and then sparing her life actually gets you a skill point. Thats what I would have expected from serving the absolute. Additional skill points, special, otherwise unobtainable feats. And skills like blessing of the absolute, which Mintharra uses! And more great skills like those you get from your dreams. Those are awesome and by far the best rewards to any questline in this game.
One thing that got to me reading the last interview Sven did with some news channel.

There he said, not exactly these words, but it's what I understood from it "We had to force our writers to put in the evil choices in the scenes" because they tend to be good.

I think they need a few people specifically to lay out the evil routes.

Most of us struggle to be evil, but there are ways in which being evil can actually be enjoyable.

I've said it many times, and most people I read here tend to suggest something along the same lines: Currently there's chaotic evil path, it's weird, it's like burning everything for the sake of saying "I'm the bad guy". That's fine.

What we need is neutral and lawful evil options, like manipulating people into doing your dirty work and just harvesting the results or convincing one faction to attack the other, or even corrupting some of the people to overthrow their leadership and become your pawns.

I think most of what is lacking is a means to solve stuff in an evil way without combat.

Anyways, this topic is of extreme importance to me. I hope they do something about it.
Originally Posted by malks
What we need is neutral and lawful evil options, like manipulating people into doing your dirty work and just harvesting the results or convincing one faction to attack the other, or even corrupting some of the people to overthrow their leadership and become your pawns.

Allready there. -_-
Been contemplating for a few hours. I have come to one conclusion. Acceptance.

"Flux" has to be taken into consideration as well. Think about it. "Good. Bad. Bad. Good Good Get rewarded. Get punished. Sleep on the couch. Get in my bed."

Each person. Each situation. Always adapting. I don't fear confusion and chaos. I find peace and happiness in it. I think chaos get misunderstood a lot. "Out of control" is ONE type of chaos. But chaos can also have control. Especailly when you have support.

Hmm... There's a thought. You can't really alignment yourself if you need support. Not in single player games anyway. Some things are only possible with others. A reason for that control. Or a reason to be lost and confused while being guided with happiness. Puts things into perspective doesn't it?

Btw, lawful is something I consider harmful. Due to fear. Lawful people "fear monsters" easily. Not all kobolds are evil. As I've had to tell a paladin in Neverwinter Nights 1. My logic always adds up. Turns volatile situations around in my real life too. Even with my back against a wall. It's not about choice alone. It's also "automatic response". Habits. What matters is the RESPONSE. How you respond to a situation. Regardless of the situation. A lawful good paladin can be just as close minded and abusive as a chaotic evil out of control demon. But if the logic adds up, it adds up. BG2. The one giant demon in that building that attacks you on sight. You don't FIGHT it. You HEAL it.

I used to go with chaotic good. But now I see sense in chaos. And now none of it applies and it has to be together. because that's what we all are. Two sides of the ever spinning, ever turning coin. In each moment that changes. With each person we face.

How can you possibly align that?
Ok so now it's clear that the "evil" path means...

...using the tadpole to gain more power. Allying yourself with this evil faction you know nothing about that is trying to kill you.

It makes no sense.

Motivation is the most important thing in writing evil characters. If I play evil it's an intelligent, methodical evil that has a goal. That goal can be personal power, but I wouldn't ally myself with whatever evil faction comes along or keep such a meaningless power source knowing it can kill you. Furthermore, the goblins and the other weak-willed misguided individuals don't exactly scream "join us". I'd rather ally with the Zhentarim who are an established faction with smart people.

Having a shadow magic infused tadpole in your head and being a part of someone else's unknown plan means you are not in control. The first thing a sensible evil character would do is get back in control. Besides, a slimy parasite in your brain that is largely unknown is simply gross. And you know it wants to kill you. Say the creator of the shadow magic decides to kill you. They can just dispel it and you die a horrible death and turn into a Mind Flayer. Getting the tadpole out is the only sensible thing anyone would do. And also the perfect motivation to do evil things. But this is not even an option in BG3. I would totally wipe out the Tieflings if the Shadow Druids would remove the tadpole in return. Getting cool powers seems more like it's for gameplay reasons to get more Bonus Actions and doesn't outweigh the fact that you can be killed or controlled by the shadow magic tadpole.

So my evil Drow Warlock ended up killing the other evil characters for Halsin because he seemed like the best or only option to remove the tadpole. I was really annoyed this didn't happen. And the parasite is gross, I just want it out regardless of whatever.

Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ok so now it's clear that the "evil" path means...

...using the tadpole to gain more power. Allying yourself with this evil faction you know nothing about that is trying to kill you.

It makes no sense.

Motivation is the most important thing in writing evil characters. If I play evil it's an intelligent, methodical evil that has a goal. That goal can be personal power, but I wouldn't ally myself with whatever evil faction comes along or keep such a meaningless power source knowing it can kill you. Furthermore, the goblins and the other weak-willed misguided individuals don't exactly scream "join us". I'd rather ally with the Zhentarim who are an established faction with smart people.

Having a shadow magic infused tadpole in your head and being a part of someone else's unknown plan means you are not in control. The first thing a sensible evil character would do is get back in control. Besides, a slimy parasite in your brain that is largely unknown is simply gross. And you know it wants to kill you. Say the creator of the shadow magic decides to kill you. They can just dispel it and you die a horrible death and turn into a Mind Flayer. Getting the tadpole out is the only sensible thing anyone would do. And also the perfect motivation to do evil things. But this is not even an option in BG3. I would totally wipe out the Tieflings if the Shadow Druids would remove the tadpole in return. Getting cool powers seems more like it's for gameplay reasons to get more Bonus Actions and doesn't outweigh the fact that you can be killed or controlled by the shadow magic tadpole.

So my evil Drow Warlock ended up killing the other evil characters for Halsin because he seemed like the best or only option to remove the tadpole. I was really annoyed this didn't happen. And the parasite is gross, I just want it out regardless of whatever.




Makes sense yeah!
Originally Posted by /u/Happymemories2010
We can only hope Larian puts a ton of work into improving the writing of the evil storyline. There is no incentive to side with the goblins and the rewards are just abysmal. And you end up feeling like an idiot after the narrator tells you about power and authority 30 times, yet all the goblins end up turning against you after you did the dirty work.

This isn't an evil storyline, its a "go on a muder spree for no reason, even though you are about to turn into a squid" storyline. It makes no sense. I would have expected this path to strengthen the connection to your tadpole and offer you amazing powers like the dream scenes. Best rewards and best part of EA for sure. The connection to the absolute needs to be explained better, feels like they Showup out if the blue. There is no reason to side with them, they never promise any help with your tadpole situation.
Thought this and the comment after it were interesting.
Originally Posted by Pale_Efficiency6831
It's made all the more confusing by Larian encouraging people to play the evil storyline.

Like, they must have been somewhat proud of it, otherwise they would have marked it as a work in progress, but no they outright tried to present it as a valid choice to be made.
Larian wants to incentivize the player IRL to do evil but kind of forgot to do it ingame.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the "evil" path is even about. When I went to the Goblin camp and it was presented to me, my first thought was "Why? Why is this a choice? Why would I do this?"

It's like the evil character is meant to be stupid or just do things for no reason.

IMO, better evil dilemmas would Auntie Ethel giving power or knowledge for eliminating the brothers. Kagha offering their magic to limit the ceremorophisis process and giving more chances to use its power without transforming in exchange for eliminating the Teiflings or forcing them out, knowing it's likely their deaths.

Give me, the player, some gameplay bonuses and the PC some powers like more abilities or the ability to use the worm more without consequence to the PC in exchange for doing "evil" things.

You can even layer choices. Kagha offers some powers or influence throughout the rest of the game for some evil act. You do the act and find she lied or used you, you then get the option to use the Goblins to wipe out the Grove for revenge and to show that you shouldn't be used or mislead.

In the Goblin camp you're able to kill these absolute people, why not give the PC the ability to fight them and then force them to obey you instead. Hell, for the scenes with characters like Minthara they could make it an abuse of the characters power and position instead.

Edit: In Fallout 2 I could play all the families, gain their trust and use them, then sell them out to the next family. I could bone the Bishop family leader's wife and daughter. Those are more evil choices that to me make sense.
Originally Posted by Blade238
Yeah, I'm not sure what the "evil" path is even about. When I went to the Goblin camp and it was presented to me, my first thought was "Why? Why is this a choice? Why would I do this?"

It's like the evil character is meant to be stupid or just do things for no reason.

IMO, better evil dilemmas would Auntie Ethel giving power or knowledge for eliminating the brothers. Kagha offering their magic to limit the ceremorophisis process and giving more chances to use its power without transforming in exchange for eliminating the Teiflings or forcing them out, knowing it's likely their deaths.


That's true.. Auntie Ethel just reveals her knowledge when she could trade. Make you do something evil and horrible for her. And trick the player in a true hag fashion while doing it so you get another motive to kill her so you don't miss out on a fun fight either.

Shadow Druids, same thing. "Do this for us just because". No motivation for getting rid of the tieflings related to what is driving the player at the moment.

It's like they miss every opportunity to let the player make an evil choice that is motivated by their own plot device. Maybe the tadpole is meant to stay and give you cool bonus actions no matter what and that's interfering with the storytelling.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ok so now it's clear that the "evil" path means...

...using the tadpole to gain more power. Allying yourself with this evil faction you know nothing about that is trying to kill you.

It makes no sense.

Motivation is the most important thing in writing evil characters. If I play evil it's an intelligent, methodical evil that has a goal. That goal can be personal power, but I wouldn't ally myself with whatever evil faction comes along or keep such a meaningless power source knowing it can kill you. Furthermore, the goblins and the other weak-willed misguided individuals don't exactly scream "join us". I'd rather ally with the Zhentarim who are an established faction with smart people.

Having a shadow magic infused tadpole in your head and being a part of someone else's unknown plan means you are not in control. The first thing a sensible evil character would do is get back in control. Besides, a slimy parasite in your brain that is largely unknown is simply gross. And you know it wants to kill you. Say the creator of the shadow magic decides to kill you. They can just dispel it and you die a horrible death and turn into a Mind Flayer. Getting the tadpole out is the only sensible thing anyone would do. And also the perfect motivation to do evil things. But this is not even an option in BG3. I would totally wipe out the Tieflings if the Shadow Druids would remove the tadpole in return. Getting cool powers seems more like it's for gameplay reasons to get more Bonus Actions and doesn't outweigh the fact that you can be killed or controlled by the shadow magic tadpole.

So my evil Drow Warlock ended up killing the other evil characters for Halsin because he seemed like the best or only option to remove the tadpole. I was really annoyed this didn't happen. And the parasite is gross, I just want it out regardless of whatever.


Yep, I was playing a githyanki wizard, so there was no incentive whatsoever. The reasonable choice seems to be to shrug and move on, leaving the goblins and the tieflings to fight it out, because an evil character would not care. And possibly assassinate the absolute leaders on your way out, as retaliation for daring to try to kill you.
Originally Posted by 1varangian


It's like they miss every opportunity to let the player make an evil choice that is motivated by their own plot device. Maybe the tadpole is meant to stay and give you cool bonus actions no matter what and that's interfering with the storytelling.

I originally didn't care for the tadpole, but it's the perfect motivator for evil choices, but it's never utilized.

A good character would never use it, they'd want to get rid of it at all costs, even to their detriment at times.

An evil character would think how they can get rid of it, but would also consider how it could be used for their gain.

There could be tons of characters that could make use of the plot device for evil decisions. Raphael could convince the PC to sacrifice their own good companions for instance.

It's a huge wasted opportunity at present. Hell, with all of the dialogue options, there should be ways to deceive NPCs to do things your way.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ok so now it's clear that the "evil" path means...

...using the tadpole to gain more power. Allying yourself with this evil faction you know nothing about that is trying to kill you.

It makes no sense.

Motivation is the most important thing in writing evil characters. If I play evil it's an intelligent, methodical evil that has a goal. That goal can be personal power, but I wouldn't ally myself with whatever evil faction comes along or keep such a meaningless power source knowing it can kill you. Furthermore, the goblins and the other weak-willed misguided individuals don't exactly scream "join us". I'd rather ally with the Zhentarim who are an established faction with smart people.

Having a shadow magic infused tadpole in your head and being a part of someone else's unknown plan means you are not in control. The first thing a sensible evil character would do is get back in control. Besides, a slimy parasite in your brain that is largely unknown is simply gross. And you know it wants to kill you. Say the creator of the shadow magic decides to kill you. They can just dispel it and you die a horrible death and turn into a Mind Flayer. Getting the tadpole out is the only sensible thing anyone would do. And also the perfect motivation to do evil things. But this is not even an option in BG3. I would totally wipe out the Tieflings if the Shadow Druids would remove the tadpole in return. Getting cool powers seems more like it's for gameplay reasons to get more Bonus Actions and doesn't outweigh the fact that you can be killed or controlled by the shadow magic tadpole.

So my evil Drow Warlock ended up killing the other evil characters for Halsin because he seemed like the best or only option to remove the tadpole. I was really annoyed this didn't happen. And the parasite is gross, I just want it out regardless of whatever.



That was my conclusion and wrote a similar post. Evil does not mean you suffer serious mental retardation. Evil is simply the methodology applied to forward your motivation.

Goal - cure a plague

Evil - Requires slaves, power and material goods as reward, not interested in colateral damage incurred or methods used to obtain cure. Torture, theft, murder....preferable. No reward? Bye bye. Ends justify MY means.

Neutral - Similar rewards unless this demand complicates scenario. Will consider all options and methods if said methods increase chances of success, can be subjectively good or evil. The ends justify the means.

Good - Altruistic nature may refuse reward, may refuse task if plague is "seen" as divine or just. Will apply morality and feelypoos even if it means everyone dies. The ends do NOT justify the means.

Good in this context is a limiting factor. Morality makes easy solutions ridiculously convoluded in most cases. Neutral people understand that sacrifice is sometimes necessary to obtain a desired result. Evil people don't give a shit as long as the rewards outweigh the risks, they may even obtain the cure to blackmail the client...then kill them.

Good, neutral and evil characters with the same goal may come to the exact same conclusion. In this case "the tadpole" is clearly a controlling factor to all allignments and everyone would want it gone for different reasons. By joining forces with a group you know for a fact is controlled by tadpoles you destroy a potential cure for no discernible benefit, it is utterly idiotic.

[spoiler] The vampire wants to control the tadpole because it offers him a solution to a his slavery, understandable motivation. Nobody else does.
I believe the offer of easy outcomes by using the tadpole and thus power is an attempt at motivation, but if I’m evil I’m not stupid.

Until someone confirms I’m not about to turn all mr tentacles and lose my life, I’m not seduced. So until then I need other opportunities to express my less than altruistic self, such as stabbing Nettie with that bloody branch of thorns and torturing an answer out of her with a promise of antidote. The cow...

Or offering the dark Druid to dispose of her Tiefling issue in return for help, luring the Tiefling a out and then letting them get massacred by the goblins, potentially stabbing the goblins in the back afterwards to make sure they don’t present a threat down the line.

None of that helps me with the tadpole? Then I’m gone.

Want players to be seduced by the tadpole? Maybe Raphael should suggest that we are being manipulated and our fate sucks two fold as either the manipulation ends and we go full mindflayer, or we stay controlled for someone’s nefarious purposes... oh controlled you say, not going to instantly die? Ok... maybe I’ll take my chances and let myself be seduced, I’ve got this, the power boost is quite handy whilst I’m figuring it out.

Obviously I know now, but the story should make sense the first time you play it.
Suggestion: We need the ability to create a Mind-Flayer as our 'dream romance'...lol
Then my baby and I can create all the thralls we need to conquer this silly mudball.
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar


The vampire wants to control the tadpole because it offers him a solution to a his slavery, understandable motivation. Nobody else does.

Astarion has 9 intelligence, so I guess that's what it takes, lol.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ok so now it's clear that the "evil" path means...

...using the tadpole to gain more power. Allying yourself with this evil faction you know nothing about that is trying to kill you.

Litteraly everyone in this game is trying to kill you ... some need to check some conditions ...
But Minthara, Ragzlin, Gut, Crusher, Shadowheart, Astarion, Ethel, Kagha, Zevlor, Nettie, Halsin ... they all try to kill you, some sooner, some later ... and i bet this list is not even complete yet.

Originally Posted by 1varangian
Motivation is the most important thing in writing evil characters. If I play evil it's an intelligent, methodical evil that has a goal. That goal can be personal power, but I wouldn't ally myself with whatever evil faction comes along or keep such a meaningless power source knowing it can kill you. Furthermore, the goblins and the other weak-willed misguided individuals don't exactly scream "join us". I'd rather ally with the Zhentarim who are an established faction with smart people.

Not necesarily, usualy yes, but certainly not allways ... and it makes me sad to see how many people here is so black and white ...

Originally Posted by 1varangian
Having a shadow magic infused tadpole in your head and being a part of someone else's unknown plan means you are not in control. The first thing a sensible evil character would do is get back in control. Besides, a slimy parasite in your brain that is largely unknown is simply gross. And you know it wants to kill you. Say the creator of the shadow magic decides to kill you. They can just dispel it and you die a horrible death and turn into a Mind Flayer. Getting the tadpole out is the only sensible thing anyone would do. And also the perfect motivation to do evil things. But this is not even an option in BG3. I would totally wipe out the Tieflings if the Shadow Druids would remove the tadpole in return. Getting cool powers seems more like it's for gameplay reasons to get more Bonus Actions and doesn't outweigh the fact that you can be killed or controlled by the shadow magic tadpole.

What do you mean not even an option ... whole story is just about doing precisely this.
Yes, you didnt yet come to and end ... since when does that mean that there is nothing happening? O_o

Originally Posted by 1varangian
So my evil Drow Warlock ended up killing the other evil characters for Halsin because he seemed like the best or only option to remove the tadpole. I was really annoyed this didn't happen. And the parasite is gross, I just want it out regardless of whatever.

And its perfectly possible ... i dont see your point here. O_o

Originally Posted by Blade238
Yeah, I'm not sure what the "evil" path is even about. When I went to the Goblin camp and it was presented to me, my first thought was "Why? Why is this a choice? Why would I do this?"

Why is this a choice ... so anyone who DO have reason, could do it ... that should be obvious. O_o
Why would i do this ... if you have to ask, you probably should not ... simple as that.

Originally Posted by Blade238
It's like the evil character is meant to be stupid or just do things for no reason.

If you want to play them as such ... you should have that option.

Also the fact that your current character dont see any reason to do *something*, does not mean that no one ever had any reason to do exactly the same thing ... its just about thinking outside your box ... after all is a Role-playing game ...
Sad to read trough this forum and see how many people cant do that. frown

Originally Posted by Blade238
IMO, better evil dilemmas would Auntie Ethel giving power or knowledge for eliminating the brothers. Kagha offering their magic to limit the ceremorophisis process and giving more chances to use its power without transforming in exchange for eliminating the Teiflings or forcing them out, knowing it's likely their deaths.

Oh please, Ether can (and will with some dialogue choices) kill both those peasants with snap of her fingers ... why should she give you anything for that? laugh
Kagha should kill you the second she find out what is in your head.

Originally Posted by Blade238
Give me, the player, some gameplay bonuses and the PC some powers like more abilities or the ability to use the worm more without consequence to the PC in exchange for doing "evil" things.

You cant be serious here. laugh

Originally Posted by Blade238
You can even layer choices. Kagha offers some powers or influence throughout the rest of the game for some evil act. You do the act and find she lied or used you, you then get the option to use the Goblins to wipe out the Grove for revenge and to show that you shouldn't be used or mislead.

You allready can use goblins to wipe out the groove ...

Originally Posted by Blade238
In the Goblin camp you're able to kill these absolute people, why not give the PC the ability to fight them and then force them to obey you instead. Hell, for the scenes with characters like Minthara they could make it an abuse of the characters power and position instead.

I presume it have something to do with the fact that Knockout is still kinda useless ...
Maybe im wrong here, but in your camp there is cage ... and when you choose bounty hunter specialisation for your ranger ... there is specificly told that people restrained by you will have harder escape ... so i dare to presume that there will be some option to take people to custody.

Originally Posted by Blade238
Edit: In Fallout 2 I could play all the families, gain their trust and use them, then sell them out to the next family. I could bone the Bishop family leader's wife and daughter. Those are more evil choices that to me make sense.

Its just another option ... not the only right way.

Originally Posted by 1varangian
Shadow Druids, same thing. "Do this for us just because". No motivation for getting rid of the tieflings related to what is driving the player at the moment.

I know about single shadow druid only ... and its Kagha ...
She never told me to "do this for us just because" ... more like "do this if you wish to help them(notice them, not us), or get out of my sight, i dont have a time for you, nor i care about what do you want".

Originally Posted by Blade238
A good character would never use it, they'd want to get rid of it at all costs, even to their detriment at times.

An evil character would think how they can get rid of it, but would also consider how it could be used for their gain.

Good character can use it, maybe not lawfull good character, bcs they would see it as some kind of stain ...
But for example Wyll is good (kinda selfish, but in general he wants to help others ... therefore he is good) ... yet he made his deal with Fiend ... is that so different from tadpole? After all, ends justify the means. wink

Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
Evil - Requires slaves, power and material goods as reward, not interested in colateral damage incurred or methods used to obtain cure. Torture, theft, murder....preferable. No reward? Bye bye. Ends justify MY means.

This is the problem ... you are thinking as player, not as character ...
Or you are simply another black/white judge who see only his way as the righ one, and everyone else are siply wrong ... or stupid ... or both ...

Sadly, world is a little bit more complex. :-/

I wonder what reward you think those goblin kids had to throw rocks at Halsin in his bear form.

Originally Posted by Riandor
stabbing Nettie with that bloody branch of thorns and torturing an answer out of her with a promise of antidote. The cow...

Nice idea ... i like this! :3

Originally Posted by Riandor
Or offering the dark Druid to dispose of her Tiefling issue in return for help, luring the Tiefling a out and then letting them get massacred by the goblins, potentially stabbing the goblins in the back afterwards to make sure they don’t present a threat down the line.

This would be a bit problematic ... i need to try sometimes to kill Halsin and then kill goblin leaders so i see what will happen ... but so far it seems like groove concidering goblins to "no longer present a threat" only when he returns ...
Otherwise, its interesting idea ... yet, im not sure if Minthara would agree with killing only bunch of tieflings, and letting druids to live happily ever after. :-/

Originally Posted by Riandor
Obviously I know now, but the story should make sense the first time you play it.

And it does not? O_o
By make sense, I meant more along the lines of the path open to you to be evil needs to be more transparent. Like I said, I’m not daring the tadpole until I know I’m not going all mr tentacles. ;-)
Can you please give me some example of good written, but transparent evil story? O_o
There is reason why plots, are usualy make behind closed doors. laugh

Some dare, some not ... its up to you. smile

I see it same as with Gale and Raphael ... there is no such thing as absolute certainity ... you either dare, or not ... and if you dare, you either sucess, or not ... that is one of magic of DnD ... nothing is set in stone. wink
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ok so now it's clear that the "evil" path means...

...using the tadpole to gain more power. Allying yourself with this evil faction you know nothing about that is trying to kill you.

Litteraly everyone in this game is trying to kill you ... some need to check some conditions ...
But Minthara, Ragzlin, Gut, Crusher, Shadowheart, Astarion, Ethel, Kagha, Zevlor, Nettie, Halsin ... they all try to kill you, some sooner, some later ...


And for my evil character anyone who tries to kill her is her enemy. To consider an alliance, they'd have to provide both a compelling reason and some common grounds between them, otherwise it simply looks like a setup.

Astarion for example: he too is tadpoled and you have a common enemy (whoever tadpoled both of you), and as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy..." At this point my PC agreed to travel together, since a) he posed little threat to her and b) his rogue skills were of use. But if I were playing an evil rogue, my PC would have likely killed him there and then.

And therein lies the problem. From the list you've provided my PC killed most of them in retaliation, because they had nothing to offer. Take priestess Gut for example, she doesn't even give you a reason to let her live, nevermind an alliance with her boss.

As it is, the absolute manages to be less convincing then an elf with intelligence as his dump stat.
Anyone who tries to kill you is your enemy ...
Yet you agreed to travel with Astarion, even if your first encounter with him started with knife on your throat?
Odd ...

That is the thing with Gut ...
She played her cards, and lost ... she didnt want to aly with you, she wanted to exploit you ... she failed. laugh
That is what evil characters usualy do. smile

As for other goblin leaders ... they both see themselves on top of foodchain ... you either proove them right, or wrong ... depend of your own character motivations ...
Anyway they have no reason to bargain with you ... you either obey, or kill them ... anything else would be out of role.

As for intelligence ... feel free to think im wrong, but taken what things is tied to intelligence rolls, that stat should be more like named knowlege. smile
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Anyone who tries to kill you is your enemy ...
Yet you agreed to travel with Astarion, even if your first encounter with him started with knife on your throat?
Odd ...
I know I should know better than to reply to this, but you realise Astarion is one of the main characters right? I would kill him every single time if it didn't mean I would miss out on 1/8th of all story content...
Ofc. i do. smile
Thats is why we have replayability ...

For myself is much more interesting to keep my character's profile, than see everything in single gameplay (also that goal is litteraly impossible) ... its called role-playing. wink

First time i play someone who kill anyone who tryes to kill me ... Astarion didnt survive. smile
Second time i played someone with a little loosened rules about self preservation ... like, yes i do fight if i have to, yet i glagly avoid it, if that option is there ... and he survived just fine. smile
I would like to try some pacifist, who believes that everyone can be redepted ... but that is curently impossible, since knockout does litteraly nothing. :-/

Also ...
You are loosing content every time you do something the same way as last time ...
On youtube i find out that there is unique effects if you leave Shadowheart and dont offer her to join your party ... so right now im trying to leave at least one companion out with every gameplay.
So far, i tryed Lae'zel ... expected her to reach Gith patrol on her own, sadly ... didnt see her there. frown
You are really this game's ideal audience.
Thank you. smile
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Can you please give me some example of good written, but transparent evil story? O_o



Prince of Thorns
Hannibal
American Psycho
American History X
The Talented Mr Ripley
Richard III
Dexter
Strangers on a Train
Lolita
The Lies of Locke Lamora

.... just off the top of my head.

In pure fantasy settings, Raistlin from Dragonlance is a superbly written evil player character, as are the cosmic representations of good and evil in the entire Dragonlance universe.

What makes characters compelling, good or evil, is the conflict they encounter AS A CHARACTER that allows for dynamic growth. For evil characters, that means grappling with the consequences of their actions in whatever way allows them to continue pursuing their goals. Evil protagonists are often their own antagonists.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

As for other goblin leaders ... they both see themselves on top of foodchain ... you either proove them right, or wrong ... depend of your own character motivations ...
Anyway they have no reason to bargain with you ... you either obey, or kill them ... anything else would be out of role.

As for intelligence ... feel free to think im wrong, but taken what things is tied to intelligence rolls, that stat should be more like named knowlege. smile

So what if they consider themselves superior, if this is not backed by any serious firepower? They are still just a bunch of goblins with overreaching ambitions. I was playing a githyanki, they also consider themselves superior. (They even get a line bragging about how they build their cities on corpses of gods.) The goblins have no reason to bargain with my character? Well, neither has my character any reason to bargain with them, because they have nothing to offer. And yet Minthara & co act as if they do; I guess they rolled a one on that intelligence roll.
It looks like a new patch is about to hit, they are working on localisation. Lets hope Larian will take in our feedback and overhaul the evil storyline soon.
DING! Just been in a debate on a youtube vid about this. Someone called what Shadowheart did as evil when she comes to the camp then tries to kill you after a failed roll. But really, when you're protecting your own SANITY that is SELF PRESERVATION! Honestly. Some people need to stop avoiding giving a straight answer and just tell me their opinion on that matter already. Yeez.

I roleplay as a hellhound online. It's quite fun. IMO what makes you evil is that you're "just there". Hell, you might not even be a target. I just want fun. It will be at your expense. Amuse me or die. And even then you still might die.

But an evil red dragon (or an ice one) might still spare you if you AMUSE them. And show you have a brain. Suddenly you might end up as their personal lover or pet (or whatever else). The harm still being present yet with affection and affirmation. In life and in games we don't always choose that. But how do you RESPOND to the situation? You're no use if you're not useful. And "good" will easily turn their backs on you. Perhaps MORE so then evil. At least evil will toy with you. Which can turn into something more.

I'm more definitely an evil character. But which one? I know direction even if I thrive in chaos. I follow but I also lead when I must. Prefer following. That evil stuff I do? Do it to me too.

I'm nothing if not fair. Does this mean I just made evil fair? Huh.
The writer who should write Evil root (Larian's opinion):
[Linked Image]


The writer who should write Evil root (players opinion):
[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by Edward_Warren
Larian Studios: We don't want our players to feel constrained by an arbitrary good/evil aliment system, so we got rid of it.

Also Larian Studios: The first major quest of the game revolves around whether or not you help a horde of Mad Max raiders brutally murder a band of refugees and little orphan children, who are all also members of a persecuted race.

The only way it could be more on the nose who the devs want you to side with is for the evil quest reward to be "Boots of Puppy and Kitten Stomping".
This sums up the evil path nicely in my opinion.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
So what if they consider themselves superior, if this is not backed by any serious firepower? They are still just a bunch of goblins with overreaching ambitions.

Yup.

Originally Posted by ash elemental
I was playing a githyanki, they also consider themselves superior. (They even get a line bragging about how they build their cities on corpses of gods.)

Yup.

Originally Posted by ash elemental
The goblins have no reason to bargain with my character? Well, neither has my character any reason to bargain with them, because they have nothing to offer.

Exactly. smile

Originally Posted by ash elemental
And yet Minthara & co act as if they do

Ofc she do ... read what you writed abowe, and it should make sence. wink
Originally Posted by Taramafor
DING! Just been in a debate on a youtube vid about this. Someone called what Shadowheart did as evil when she comes to the camp then tries to kill you after a failed roll. But really, when you're protecting your own SANITY that is SELF PRESERVATION! Honestly. Some people need to stop avoiding giving a straight answer and just tell me their opinion on that matter already. Yeez.

That is main problem with aleigances in general ... they are just limiting.

You can see yourself as lawfull good paladin, that will protect poor villagers from bloodthirsty goblin raiders ... but from goblin perspective you are nothing but chaotic evil murderhobo (since that word is so popular around here) who kill anyone on sight. smile

Originally Posted by Taramafor
I roleplay as a hellhound online. It's quite fun. IMO what makes you evil is that you're "just there". Hell, you might not even be a target. I just want fun. It will be at your expense. Amuse me or die. And even then you still might die.

And great thing is that, its possible. smile
Sadly ... for some people even that possibility alone will work like "the only way" argument. frown
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD


Originally Posted by ash elemental
And yet Minthara & co act as if they do

Ofc she do ... read what you writed abowe, and it should make sence. wink

Makes sense for whom? Just because Minthara is evil, the goblins are evil and my githyanki wizard is evil doesn't mean they all share the same point of view. That is what makes alliances between evil characters of different backgrounds so difficult to write, and this is where the writers have failed so far. When you lack a common goal, you need to bring something to the negotiating table that the other side might be interested in.

Good characters can be united in their willingness to help those in need. And my impression is that the writers thought that this means the opposite must be true; evil characters must be motivated in their willingness to rampage and murder. Minthara & Co are acting as if an evil PC would be on their side, even though they come to the negotiating table empty handed.
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by ash elemental
And yet Minthara & co act as if they do

Ofc she do ... read what you writed abowe, and it should make sence. wink

Makes sense for whom?

No idea what do you mean whom ... it makes sence in general.

We were specificly talking about that Minthara "consider themselves superior" to quote your own words ... therefore it makes sence, that she dont offer you anything.
We were specificly talking about that your character also "consider themselves superior" ... therefore s/he have no reason to bargain with Minthara.
This simply should make sence. :-/

We ofc. could argue about if Minthara simply overestimated her power, or its the basic RPG problem: "god < player". :-/
But in mine eyes ... she have on her side powers of Goddess, whole cult of fanatics, quite some conciderable army of goblins, and she herself is no strainger to battle ... you have 3 dudes (or ladies) ... from pure roleplay perspective, she have every right to feel ontop.

Originally Posted by ash elemental
Just because Minthara is evil, the goblins are evil and my githyanki wizard is evil doesn't mean they all share the same point of view.

Never told that they should. O_o

Originally Posted by ash elemental
That is what makes alliances between evil characters of different backgrounds so difficult to write, and this is where the writers have failed so far. When you lack a common goal, you need to bring something to the negotiating table that the other side might be interested in.

I disagree ...
If you created character that gets to dead end, unable to cooperate with anyone, yet unable continue without them ... that is storytelling problem ... but as far as you have where to go, yet you simply refuse and demand to change course of all characters around so you can continue in way you choosed, no matter the consequences ... that is player problem.
Here, where I come from, we usualy call it "protlačit to na sílu" ... closest translation i found will probably be "forced power play".

Its simple as that ... if you as player wish to cooperate with Minthara, you need to play character that is able to cooperate with Minthara ... you specificly played character that is not able, so you probably should not (or you can ofc. that is completely up to you, but it probably would feel kinda odd).
To create world where everyone is able to cooperate with your character no matter what character you play is litteraly impossible. O_o

Originally Posted by ash elemental
Good characters can be united in their willingness to help those in need. And my impression is that the writers thought that this means the opposite must be true; evil characters must be motivated in their willingness to rampage and murder.

I think you are watching it from bad angle ...
There are two factions ... tiefling and goblins ... and you need to choose between them. Honestly i believe that Druids are there simply to add some presure to Tieflings and support the inevitability of conflict ... if Tieflings could stay as long as they need, there is simply no problem, since goblins are unable to harm them as long as they stay inside.
No good, no evil ... just two sides of one conflict.

Then your character comes in ... and since that second its all up to you ...

You play goldstar hero that will help anyone in need? You help Tieflings.
You play sadistic butthole who enjoy murder and mayhem? You help Goblins.
You play greedy bastard, who wants just profit at the expense of others? You help the one who offers more. (Tieflings right now, unless you sucess in persuation check with Minthara, asking for reward.)
You play selfish person, who dont care about anyone and anything except his own comfort? You probably dont help any side, since you dont want to expose yourself to risk.
Dunno ... any other profiles?

//edit:
It all depend on point of view ... you can also say that your lawfull good character helped goblins, since you killed their leaders that were forcing them to attack surounding settlements, and therefore alowed them to keep living in peace ... yes, you would also help Tieflings, so it dont change anyting in the end, just saying that there is multiple sides to see this whole conflict.
After all, whole point of killing goblin leaders is presume that without them, goblins will no longer attack anyone, there is no need to kill every single goblin in their camp. laugh

Originally Posted by ash elemental
Minthara & Co are acting as if an evil PC would be on their side, even though they come to the negotiating table empty handed.

Not sure who is "they" but it seem to me that both sides come to negotiation table same empty handed ...

Minthara may seem to expect player to join her ... but that have several reasons:
For one, why else should player even talk to her, if he isnt open to this option?
For two, she concider player to be True Soul ... therefore she can expect player to worship Absolute, same as herself ... and therefore their goals should be simmilar.
For three, player is not forced to be part of that raid, he is just offered that place. There are some dialogue choices (that i didnt try so far) where player can tell her, that he helped when he bring her location of groove, but raid is her job. Also, im quite sure i have read somewhere in this threat that someone missed whole raid somehow.
And last, but not least ... there is that fact that Minthara is smug b**ch that see herself as superior. smile

So her acting make sence to me.
This whole raid was planned long before player even show himself around, so she have whole plan prepared even without player ... all she needed was groove location. Players participation on this raid, is welcome bonus ... but its not crittical. smile
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD


Not sure who is "they" but it seem to me that both sides come to negotiation table same empty handed ...

Minthara may seem to expect player to join her ... but that have several reasons:
For one, why else should player even talk to her, if he isnt open to this option?
For two, she concider player to be True Soul ... therefore she can expect player to worship Absolute, same as herself ... and therefore their goals should be simmilar.
For three, player is not forced to be part of that raid, he is just offered that place. There are some dialogue choices (that i didnt try so far) where player can tell her, that he helped when he bring her location of groove, but raid is her job. Also, im quite sure i have read somewhere in this threat that someone missed whole raid somehow.
And last, but not least ... there is that fact that Minthara is smug b**ch that see herself as superior. smile

So her acting make sence to me.
This whole raid was planned long before player even show himself around, so she have whole plan prepared even without player ... all she needed was groove location. Players participation on this raid, is welcome bonus ... but its not crittical.

Nope. My PC did not come empty handed; she could offer the location of the grove and a way in, since she was a welcome visitor there. It is literally in the first few sentences you exchange with Minthara. Had she been able to raid the grove on her own, she would have done so already. Her impatience indicates that she is running out of time. Whether this is the absolute's will or Minthara's own initiative, she is currently failing in this task. As an ex-Lloth drow she should be familiar with competing for the favor of a deity and what happens to those that fall out of favor. And yet neither she nor the goblins have anything to offer in return, and the writers haven't taken this into account. Perhaps this makes sense to you, but to me it does not.
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ok so now it's clear that the "evil" path means...

...using the tadpole to gain more power. Allying yourself with this evil faction you know nothing about that is trying to kill you.

It makes no sense.

Motivation is the most important thing in writing evil characters. If I play evil it's an intelligent, methodical evil that has a goal. That goal can be personal power, but I wouldn't ally myself with whatever evil faction comes along or keep such a meaningless power source knowing it can kill you. Furthermore, the goblins and the other weak-willed misguided individuals don't exactly scream "join us". I'd rather ally with the Zhentarim who are an established faction with smart people.

Having a shadow magic infused tadpole in your head and being a part of someone else's unknown plan means you are not in control. The first thing a sensible evil character would do is get back in control. Besides, a slimy parasite in your brain that is largely unknown is simply gross. And you know it wants to kill you. Say the creator of the shadow magic decides to kill you. They can just dispel it and you die a horrible death and turn into a Mind Flayer. Getting the tadpole out is the only sensible thing anyone would do. And also the perfect motivation to do evil things. But this is not even an option in BG3. I would totally wipe out the Tieflings if the Shadow Druids would remove the tadpole in return. Getting cool powers seems more like it's for gameplay reasons to get more Bonus Actions and doesn't outweigh the fact that you can be killed or controlled by the shadow magic tadpole.

So my evil Drow Warlock ended up killing the other evil characters for Halsin because he seemed like the best or only option to remove the tadpole. I was really annoyed this didn't happen. And the parasite is gross, I just want it out regardless of whatever.



That was my conclusion and wrote a similar post. Evil does not mean you suffer serious mental retardation. Evil is simply the methodology applied to forward your motivation.

Goal - cure a plague

Evil - Requires slaves, power and material goods as reward, not interested in colateral damage incurred or methods used to obtain cure. Torture, theft, murder....preferable. No reward? Bye bye. Ends justify MY means.

Neutral - Similar rewards unless this demand complicates scenario. Will consider all options and methods if said methods increase chances of success, can be subjectively good or evil. The ends justify the means.

Good - Altruistic nature may refuse reward, may refuse task if plague is "seen" as divine or just. Will apply morality and feelypoos even if it means everyone dies. The ends do NOT justify the means.

Good in this context is a limiting factor. Morality makes easy solutions ridiculously convoluded in most cases. Neutral people understand that sacrifice is sometimes necessary to obtain a desired result. Evil people don't give a shit as long as the rewards outweigh the risks, they may even obtain the cure to blackmail the client...then kill them.

Good, neutral and evil characters with the same goal may come to the exact same conclusion. In this case "the tadpole" is clearly a controlling factor to all allignments and everyone would want it gone for different reasons. By joining forces with a group you know for a fact is controlled by tadpoles you destroy a potential cure for no discernible benefit, it is utterly idiotic.

[spoiler] The vampire wants to control the tadpole because it offers him a solution to a his slavery, understandable motivation. Nobody else does.



Originally Posted by Riandor
I believe the offer of easy outcomes by using the tadpole and thus power is an attempt at motivation, but if I’m evil I’m not stupid.

Until someone confirms I’m not about to turn all mr tentacles and lose my life, I’m not seduced. So until then I need other opportunities to express my less than altruistic self, such as stabbing Nettie with that bloody branch of thorns and torturing an answer out of her with a promise of antidote. The cow...

Or offering the dark Druid to dispose of her Tiefling issue in return for help, luring the Tiefling a out and then letting them get massacred by the goblins, potentially stabbing the goblins in the back afterwards to make sure they don’t present a threat down the line.

None of that helps me with the tadpole? Then I’m gone.

Want players to be seduced by the tadpole? Maybe Raphael should suggest that we are being manipulated and our fate sucks two fold as either the manipulation ends and we go full mindflayer, or we stay controlled for someone’s nefarious purposes... oh controlled you say, not going to instantly die? Ok... maybe I’ll take my chances and let myself be seduced, I’ve got this, the power boost is quite handy whilst I’m figuring it out.

Obviously I know now, but the story should make sense the first time you play it.



These two post highlight the issue with the evil path very well. The current goblin evil path is just a boring murder spree and doesn't make sense. You end up helping some sort of cult with characters who have tadpoles in their head. Why would you do that? Your goal is to understand whats going on, get rid of the tadpole OR learn to control it. I keep having to repeat this, the Quest log should push you to make a choice and say "Learn about the tadpole" and not "Remove the parasite" after you learned about its upsides.

There are 2 npcs you can talk to, the Hag and the Mindflayer who will tell you that something is off with your Tadpole and you are not turning into a mindflayer (yet). Consider this. Maybe once you learn this, maybe then it makes sense for the PC to not remove the tadpole. But before you obtain this information, any character whether or not ts evil or good would want to find out more about the Tadpole. And not waste time going on a murder spree that doesn't help. The Druid is your best bet at learning about the Tadpole and he is trapped by the goblins, so why would you help the goblins? This is just a stupid move and evil does not mean stupid.

The evil path needs a lot of work. It needs some npcs added that you can talk to. Npcs carry the plot, like Halsin. Mintharra may end up dying, she doesn't carry the plot. Especially because she tries to kill you.
I was enjoying the one that I had in progress, but the patch arriving on Stadia fouled that one up. I will repeat it at some point, but am recreating my lightfoot halfling rogue at the moment and he is a fine fellow not prone to evil urges, thievery yes, but not the sleeping with the enemy vibe!
I just want to chime in that even D&D roleplayers seem to get confused about what evil is and play it like some kind of chaotic psycho. The fact is you can play an evil character who is actually nice, under most circumstances, but puts his own needs first. In other words, an evil character might help the Grove out, if he thinks he'll get more out of it than helping the goblins. And thus I echo that to be interesting and to be tempted to make evil choices, the player needs some sort of incentive in place other than "I want to kill all the good people teehee."
I'd like to point out some have said "evil is not stupid" but conveniently leave out that evil is not smart either. Intelligence has nothing to do with with evil or good. Evil templates are usually method and goals. Not intelligence, wisdom, or cunning as those are augments more than anything. Easy to get that confused.
Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
The current goblin evil path is just a boring murder spree and doesn't make sense.

It does.
Curently at least one introspective conversation was added, where you character is thinking about his next move ... and one of options clearly says: "They will kill the tieflings, but i shall gain her thrust."

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
You end up helping some sort of cult with characters who have tadpoles in their head. Why would you do that? Your goal is to understand whats going on, get rid of the tadpole OR learn to control it.

And that cult do have tadpoles, and clearly since they were not on the same ship as you were, they have it in their head longer than you ... so logicaly they either do know something about it, or you should have at least more time than they have ...
And once again logicaly ... who knows more about it ... some random druid that was watching it for few days, or someone who is living with that thing in his head for some time allready?

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
I keep having to repeat this, the Quest log should push you to make a choice and say "Learn about the tadpole" and not "Remove the parasite" after you learned about its upsides.

Not everything need to be specificly said out loud. :-/

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
There are 2 npcs you can talk to, the Hag and the Mindflayer who will tell you that something is off with your Tadpole and you are not turning into a mindflayer (yet).

And Lae'zel, Gale, Wyll, Halsin, Nettie.

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
Consider this. Maybe once you learn this, maybe then it makes sense for the PC to not remove the tadpole. But before you obtain this information, any character whether or not ts evil or good would want to find out more about the Tadpole.

Every character, maybe unless he have intelligence 1, wich is not possible as far as i know ... should notice that he is not turning, nor feeling any physical discomfort.
Not everything need to be said out loud once again, and your character can simply "presume" that he wil find a way to outsmart this thing ... especialy once he find out that keeping that thing carries some benefits.

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
And not waste time going on a murder spree that doesn't help.

It does, just not directly.

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
The Druid is your best bet at learning about the Tadpole and he is trapped by the goblins, so why would you help the goblins? This is just a stupid move and evil does not mean stupid.

He is not your best bet ... you have limited point of view. Only one of options, nothing more.
Only one who is sugesting to try him is Nettie, and even she is not sure if he will even be able to help you.

Originally Posted by feedback_wizard
The evil path needs a lot of work. It needs some npcs added that you can talk to. Npcs carry the plot, like Halsin. Mintharra may end up dying, she doesn't carry the plot. Especially because she tries to kill you.

Halsin can die aswell ... he even can die even if you decide to kill goblin leaders.
Plot does not need NPC to follow you.
I think we should first define what evil is. Ther are so many ways to go about this really...
I mean for Astarion, exterminating the goblins is not morally bad, because goblins are vermin, and I agree with him. Killing goblins is not an evil thing to do.
So we can establish that simply killing a bunch of deminhumans is not neccessarily evil. So then what is evil?
I think evil is malevolence. When you not only do the deed but derive a significant amount of satisfaction from performing it to the point that it becomes an incentive for you to keep doing it. This leads to something of a psychopathic character, but I don't think most evil people are well adjusted at all anyway.

If you give a bunch of benefits to the evil path to compel people to walk it, you are suddenly turning evil into reasonable, in fact your character becomes more reasonable then evil.

Situation: I'm infected with a disease that can kill me at anytime
The druids direct me to find an archdruid who may or may not be able to cure me
The goblins tell me they will give me a surefire way to keep control over the disease is I do their bidding.

It's completely reasonable, and thus morally defensible to side with the goblins in such a case (this is not what happens in BG3, its just an example)

Evil is also something that stems from the inside. In the situation above, we don't yet know whether you are sorry to work with the goblins but are strung along due to your circumstances or whether you revel in killing innocents in their name. This must be exposed through dialogue and that's where companions should come in and comment on your deeds, so that you can respond in different ways to express your true intentions and motivations.

An evil character would always say something along the lines of: "I don't care if others got hurt, because I got my way" or "I enjoyed harming them, it caused me great joy".
Originally Posted by Bruh
I think we should first define what evil is. Ther are so many ways to go about this really...

There are so many ways to define it but we have to be careful to not define it with our own prejudices and opinions. Example, for most people cannibalism would be evil. An isolated tribe who eats their dead would disagree. They may consider it an honour to be eaten after their death as it gives life back to the tribe. Members of one religion will believe those of another religion to be evil. Anything someone doesn't like or understand, they will often call evil. The silliest example of this was when I was called evil because I like pvp in certain games.

Quote
I mean for Astarion, exterminating the goblins is not morally bad, because goblins are vermin, and I agree with him. Killing goblins is not an evil thing to do.
So we can establish that simply killing a bunch of deminhumans is not neccessarily evil. So then what is evil?

You can establish. I would disagree. I would kill them (or anyone) if they were hostile to defend myself or those I care about, but if there was an option to not do so then I would take it. I do not kill based on race but rather on actions, even my Drow characters (who I tend to play as evil) would consider some of other races more useful alive.

Quote
I think evil is malevolence. When you not only do the deed but derive a significant amount of satisfaction from performing it to the point that it becomes an incentive for you to keep doing it. This leads to something of a psychopathic character, but I don't think most evil people are well adjusted at all anyway.

This may often be the case but not always. Again, this is opinion. I have met people who I would consider evil and they were very well adjusted but perhaps missing something in the brain. Consider also that many Drow are evil because they were raised to be this way and it is all they know. They do not all do what they do for satisfaction but rather for survival.

Quote
If you give a bunch of benefits to the evil path to compel people to walk it, you are suddenly turning evil into reasonable, in fact your character becomes more reasonable then evil.

Why would this be an issue? Not all evil people do what they do because they want the evil label. If being reasonable accomplishes the desired goal then this should be fine.

Quote
Situation: I'm infected with a disease that can kill me at anytime
The druids direct me to find an archdruid who may or may not be able to cure me
The goblins tell me they will give me a surefire way to keep control over the disease is I do their bidding.

It's completely reasonable, and thus morally defensible to side with the goblins in such a case (this is not what happens in BG3, its just an example)

This could have been an interesting path.

Quote
Evil is also something that stems from the inside. In the situation above, we don't yet know whether you are sorry to work with the goblins but are strung along due to your circumstances or whether you revel in killing innocents in their name. This must be exposed through dialogue and that's where companions should come in and comment on your deeds, so that you can respond in different ways to express your true intentions and motivations.

Evil can also be created from outside influence, not just from inside. Companions should have more dialogue options related to all large choices, being able to explain our reasoning to them would be wonderful.

Quote
An evil character would always say something along the lines of: "I don't care if others got hurt, because I got my way" or "I enjoyed harming them, it caused me great joy".

Not always, but these are the stereotypical types. There are different shades of evil. Some may even regret that they had to harm others.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Situation: I'm infected with a disease that can kill me at anytime
The druids direct me to find an archdruid who may or may not be able to cure me
The goblins tell me they will give me a surefire way to keep control over the disease is I do their bidding.

Actualy this is what happened in BG3 ... only with small difference.
Goblins are just minions, they have litteraly no position to offer you anything. So i presume that you were talking about goblin leaders: Minthara, Dror Ragzlin and Priestess Gut ... and those leaders do have the same disease as you, and it can kill them anytime ... yet they are completely fine, even better since they did find a way to use this disease to their advantage ...

Do you really need Game Master to show there and tell you: "Oh look, maybe if you play it right, you can overcome this disease the same way they did."
Isnt that option obvious enough? :-/
Originally Posted by Zarna
Some may even regret that they had to harm others.

Now this is something I just can't even conceive of, unless they are sorry because they fell away from some benefit by causing harm.
Good and evil are completely subjective. Villains don't see themselves as the bad guy, they see themselves as the only one that's right. After all even things like Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing are actual and constant events and I doubt the people committing them think themselves evil, merely that they're making the hard choice. You can argue whether a sociopath or extreme narcissist can be considered inherently evil and not everyone would agree or disagree. Same goes for the nature of good, just because a billionaire donates to a charity doesn't make them good it can also be viewed simply as their method of buying their way into a good afterlife. After all how did that billionaire even earn their money, how many lives did they ruin on their way to such wealth and how much harm did they cause in the long term. You can even argue the motives behind good actions, the guy who helps out at a local shelter is doing something good, but can be doing it simply because it makes them feel good. They're doing a good action but for a completely selfish reason. Good and evil, justice and revenge are concepts created and enforced by the community not natural concepts instilled in every human being.
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by Zarna
Some may even regret that they had to harm others.

Now this is something I just can't even conceive of, unless they are sorry because they fell away from some benefit by causing harm.

The stereotypical benefit would be that the people would have been more useful alive, but many evil people do care for others. Sometimes this care is what drives them to "evil" acts.

Originally Posted by FelLich
Good and evil are completely subjective. Villains don't see themselves as the bad guy, they see themselves as the only one that's right. After all even things like Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing are actual and constant events and I doubt the people committing them think themselves evil, merely that they're making the hard choice. You can argue whether a sociopath or extreme narcissist can be considered inherently evil and not everyone would agree or disagree. Same goes for the nature of good, just because a billionaire donates to a charity doesn't make them good it can also be viewed simply as their method of buying their way into a good afterlife. After all how did that billionaire even earn their money, how many lives did they ruin on their way to such wealth and how much harm did they cause in the long term. You can even argue the motives behind good actions, the guy who helps out at a local shelter is doing something good, but can be doing it simply because it makes them feel good. They're doing a good action but for a completely selfish reason. Good and evil, justice and revenge are concepts created and enforced by the community not natural concepts instilled in every human being.

You said this much better than I could. smile

It is probably hard for game developers to create a proper evil path because of this. Many people want a clear definition of which path is which, often because they want to feel the positive emotions that they get from doing the "right" thing. Others are used to the old ways of writing where good and evil are obvious and good always wins, they do not like the idea of sometimes evil being right and good being wrong.. There are also many people who prefer a more realistic version of things where good and evil all have shades of grey and the decisions are harder to make. Impossible to please everyone. If you throw the option of evil in a game just to placate those who wish to play it, then it ends up feeling shallow. If the option is not there at all then it makes the game feel unrealistic and to many of us, boring and frustrating. Well done evil options give much more depth to a game and there is good potential for it to be in this one.
Good and evil can't be completely subjective, there must be an objective element to them, otherwise we would have never developed these concepts.
Philosophically speaking the good is always prior to evil, and evil is a lack of goodness, falling short of a certain standard. If good and evil were equal but opposing forces, then we could talk about full subjectivity in morality, however they are not equal or even symmatrical forces.
Evil can only exist contingent on something good, it is parasitic in nature, while good can exist on it's own and be satistactory as such. This means that even evil people want something good, but they go about it the wrong way.

I think this would naturally lead to the conclusion that the root of evil is ignorance amongst most normal people and malevolence amongst psychopaths.
Evil is consciously pursuing personal goals at cost of other living beings freedom, wellbeing and life.
Good is consciously aiming to restore, preserve and improve freedom, wellbeing and life of other living beings.

Possible delusions and fails are irrelevant. Moral is not about being smart or effective, it's about goals and aims.
Originally Posted by Zellin
Evil is consciously pursuing personal goals at cost of other living beings freedom, wellbeing and life.
Good is consciously aiming to restore, preserve and improve freedom, wellbeing and life of other living beings.

Possible delusions and fails are irrelevant. Moral is not about being smart or effective, it's about goals and aims.


I agree with you by and large.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Bruh
Situation: I'm infected with a disease that can kill me at anytime
The druids direct me to find an archdruid who may or may not be able to cure me
The goblins tell me they will give me a surefire way to keep control over the disease is I do their bidding.

Actualy this is what happened in BG3 ... only with small difference.
Goblins are just minions, they have litteraly no position to offer you anything. So i presume that you were talking about goblin leaders: Minthara, Dror Ragzlin and Priestess Gut ... and those leaders do have the same disease as you, and it can kill them anytime ... yet they are completely fine, even better since they did find a way to use this disease to their advantage ...

Do you really need Game Master to show there and tell you: "Oh look, maybe if you play it right, you can overcome this disease the same way they did."
Isnt that option obvious enough? :-/


I'm not sure, but they don't even seem to know they're sick. When I asked guts for help, she denied that she had a worm. In a sense, they are all pawns of Abslute, this is a stupid position, and I don't like it.

Originally Posted by Bruh

I mean for Astarion, exterminating the goblins is not morally bad, because goblins are vermin, and I agree with him. Killing goblins is not an evil thing to do.



Also for Astarion killing anyone at all is not a evil thing. It's fun. He doesn't think murder is evil. He doesn't feel guilty, unlike Shadow.
Originally Posted by Nyloth
I'm not sure, but they don't even seem to know they're sick. When I asked guts for help, she denied that she had a worm. In a sense, they are all pawns of Abslute, this is a stupid position, and I don't like it.

True ... but the fact they dont know dont change anything about having that sicness, nor that is not harming them in any way. O_o
Being pawn of the Absolute is certainly kinda bad position ... but also one that canot happen to you, since unlike the others, you know what happened.
The Absolute cult are a group of puppets that may also be a Mind Flayer sleeper cell where at the time and place of their choosing they'll hit a button and turn them all into Mind Flayers, as seen with the button on the ship. Nothing about that is a positive, our knowing simply gives us a chance to escape it. Again this is the core issue with working with the cult, they're deluded puppets with nothing of value to offer other than their deaths. Wiping them out isn't even good it's just the rational choice, they're screwed so you might as well put them down and prevent future issues.
Who is looking forward to the next panel from hell? Personally, I'm hoping that Larian has read and understood our criticism. The goblin path needs a lot of work. There is no good incentive and no good rewards. Even the hag is able to give the player 1 attribute point. The absolute should be able to do the same, and even more.

The good path has Halsin, and the Tieflings as NPC's to carry the story and maybe appear later on?

The evil path has a Drow girl that tries to kill you on the next day. And nothing else. I was expecting my camp to fill up with slaves and servants in the evil playthrough, as opposed to a good character who would gather friends and supporters. Just like it happens in Star Wars Knights of the old Republic.

Keep hoping that Larian doesn't turn the evil playthrough into "murder everyone because of greed and because you can" playthrough. What we have currently is very dissapointing. The evil playthrough needs to reward the player with interesting characters and reveal interesting information about our companions, just like a good playthrough would. Gale doesn't talk a lot if you choose to side with the goblins, but apparently if you save the tieflings, he's revealing a lot more about himself.

There needs to be content for both sides, without favouring one above the other. The current companions are supposed to be "evil" yet the only one that really enjoys the goblin path is Astarion. Even Shadowheart just gets drunk at the party and doesn't open up herself.
This is just a guess, but it looks like the main reward for the Evil Murder Hobo playthrough is that you get to engage in combat much more often and that you have bigger and (more interesting? again, I'm guessing) battles. For instance: Tieflings vs. Druids, you vs. the winner of the grove, or Goblins vs. whomever is in the grove, then, if you are still feeling a bit bloodthirsty, you vs. goblins.

Which is an excellent gameplay reward that also ties in with the Baldur's Gate lore about gods of murder and bloodshed AND with the Illithid tadpole's tendencies to eat each other up before they ascend to your eye.
I give up. -_-
Just hope they dont.
My thoughts of it Definetly not something you would expect able to do but I was not able to Finnish it due The alternative Road to moonrise Tower was blocked so could not see how far to The bottomless pit of The abyss can you take the story. Good that story in both sides of The Road thou, but it makes you think there's just so many characters each side of voin that wish that there would Be somekind middle ground veteen hero and Villain.
The current evil playthrough could be classified as a chaotic evil, simply because there is little of choice besides slaughtering everyone. You cannot infulence what will happen to the tieflings, you cannot cause an internal war in goblin camp, there are not enough quests there. You can't influence how siege is being played out either.
For example a neutral evil, lawful evil, true neutral characters could still side with the Absolute only because they could see this as a chance for cure (I will not give spoilers why, unless asked to do so), but they absolutely wouldn't just decide to slay everyone in the grove. After all if they pretend to be a "good guy", who during the siege comes and actually lets them go out safely, (because either we persuaded Minthara, killed/bribed goblins to stay away they can get some Benefit from this later in Baldurs Gate 3 -> such as improved reputation etc. That doesn't mean that druids would be spared though.

The lack of choice is what boggles me the most, because for the good side we've the entire Kagha quest, interaction with the Parents, quest with Harpies, you can even kill the druids but when you save the grove Halsin says that it's okay. So there is other way to finish the whole plotline on the "good" side than on the "evil" one. That is a problem. The lack of choice.

How could this be solved? I have explored the options in another topic.
Quote
Problem:Not enough options are present
Solution:
a)Another quest from Minthara before attacking should be present. The questline ends too quickly compared to the "good" side.
b)There aren't enough possible outcomes for tieflings. Solutions mentioned in this thread include:
- Sell them to slavery ... either to Zhentarim, or to Underdark
- Sacrifice them for the Absolute ... either right there, or send them to Moonrise Towers
- Give them to goblins
- Let them go, to spread word of what happened here ... with possibility to send goblins after them.
c)We should be able to weaken the druid grove by playing on the conflict between Druid Kagha and Zevlor. A way to make them fight between each other should exist, like showing the tieflings that Kagha works for Shadow druids, which would result in her + few of druids (not all) fighting against Zevlor, us and tieflings + druids loyal to Halsin.
d)Zevlor, Kagha, Halsin should be possible to capture.

Quote
If we happen to fight the drow lady, after the camp celebration and knock her out, no matter the previous treatment (if we were nice to her, or not) and we return to camp after the long rest, she is initiating the fight with 1 hp. Even if we knock her out again + come back after another long rest. It makes no sense.
We should be able to capture her afterwards or decide to patch her up. (if we treated her well and failed the 5 DC persuasion check)
Both could happen as well at same time.

Exact same problem happens with Halsin, when he attacks us. We can cause infinite amount of fights with him being 1 hp at the start.
Could be easily solved by a dialog happening between him and us, with a possibility to not kill him and via persuasion still gain the help (although the degree should be lesser, compared to the "good side"). He should be possible to capture here as well, if fight happens.

Quote
Problem: Currently, the siege on both sides isn't the most interesting combat in the game, because:
a) It's long due to big amount of combatants
b) We can't influence it much
c) Little outcomes exist except wiping out the enemies

Solution:
- Possibility of convincing the leader of Goblins to use the secret tunnel, resulting in different scenario of attack. Cutscene should appear at the start, with PC deciding which side to take. The attackers should divide into 2 groups, one coming from the tunnels and one from the side of the gate.
- Leader of the opposing force dying/being knocked out/incapitated should affect their soldiers negatively.
- Killing enough enemies should not only affect the combat effectivness of the particular side, but also if enough combatants die, the rest should flee.
- During the fight, Minthara and Zevlor should be brought down to 1 hp first, instead of being outright killed. Only player should be able to finish them off for good. Scroll of revieve/resurrection should still be able to bring them back though.


Quote
Problem: Outcomes of the battle being different, instead of just killing all the enemies.
a) Minthara is knocked out, battle ends. Zevlor talks to us, what to do with new prisoner.
The options should include:
- Giving her to druids/tieflings
- Finishing her off
- Taking her as a prisoner
b) Minthara is dead, battle is over. Current version of cutscene is started.
c) Minthara is unable to fight, due to being too wounded and exhausted, but still conscious + fight is over. First, we can approach her, to ask a few questions and possibly foreshadow our intentions, then cutscene with Zevlor discussing with us about what to do with drow starts. Or we just finish her off.
d) Attackers flee, the Drow warlord is at full health. Tries to escape, ends up being captured. Altered cutscene with Zevlor plays.
e) The Cleric of Absolute is surrounded by the enemies and the rest of her soldiers flee. She tries to make the last stand. Player should be given the possiblity to persuade her to surrender, promising no harm etc. Otherwise she fights until the moment of not being able to fight anymore (1 hp). PC gets to decide to do with warlord afterwards.

Quote
4)Goblin Camp and evil path
Problem: It's very hard to get inside without being a drow or helping Sazza.
Solution:
Siding with goblins during the first grove fight should let us obtain Symbol of the Absolute, carried by all of the cultists, essentially acting as a proof that we are one of them. Same symbol should be possible to loot from one of Goblins, obtained via persuasion/intimidation from the guards at first gate, or we could just force the guards to give it to us via strength, simliar to how we convince the Novice Crusher to listen to us.
This would solve the need for multiple DC due to numerous guards asking for our identity.

Quote
Problem: Game puts a pressure on us, to side with tieflings, or straight tells us "how bad we are now", like what happens with Volo in the camp during the celebration, or the fact that we are handed down the broken lute belonging to Alfira previously. This results in deterring effect towards undecided players.

Quote
Problem: The evil questline is too short and we are told too little about it, until the very end.
Solution: Adding a bit of mind-reading checks here and there, adding a few quests in the Goblin Camp area, with some being restricted only to evil path.
This is especially visible when looking at how often we are told, almost straight from the start, how powerful Halsin is, who is he, what abilities he has etc. The lack of simliar narration for the "bad guys" is a little disappointing.

Quote
5) Important characters (Kagha, Zevlor, Halsin, Dror, Priestess Gut, Minthara) should feature additional possibilites, such as:
a) resurrecting, either as an ally (if for example Halsin dies during the escape fight), or just so that we can capture them afterwards
b) capture for interrogation and in case of Minthara and Halsin, convincing them to join our side (not instantly obviously)
Our interactions with prisoners should be varied, in terms of how well we treat them. Especially the 2 most important npcs in act 1, who show a good potential for next acts - Minthara and Halsin.
A good treatment (such as being given a bedroll inside the prison cage, normal food instead of bread and water, etc.) could give an opportunity to recruit them later as a companions (and if player wishes to) even romance. It would be interesting too, seeing how we can either redeem/drag them towards the darkness.

Taken from:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=748888&page=2


There are numerous problems with basically every part when it comes to the evil side. It certainly has to be improved, so that it's not really 1 option that is possible to be done there.
If I want to roleplay an selfish character who sides with Absolute only for the power/possible way to cure, but doesn't want to cause unneeded harm? Can't be done.
Capturing prisoners for information or to possibly drag them towards darkness? Can't be done.
Originally Posted by TheOnlyRealTav
For example a neutral evil, lawful evil, true neutral characters could still side with the Absolute only because they could see this as a chance for cure (I will not give spoilers why, unless asked to do so), but they absolutely wouldn't just decide to slay everyone in the grove.
Last time i tryed (patch 2) there was option to "miss the raid" ...
It was simple, you send Minthara with her Goblins to attack and then simply long rest few times not caring about it ... then once you wake up, your questlog update to "the groowe was destroyed before you could do anything about it" or something like that.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by TheOnlyRealTav
For example a neutral evil, lawful evil, true neutral characters could still side with the Absolute only because they could see this as a chance for cure (I will not give spoilers why, unless asked to do so), but they absolutely wouldn't just decide to slay everyone in the grove.
Last time i tryed (patch 2) there was option to "miss the raid" ...
It was simple, you send Minthara with her Goblins to attack and then simply long rest few times not caring about it ... then once you wake up, your questlog update to "the groowe was destroyed before you could do anything about it" or something like that.
Thanks for letting me know, I actually could try to test it right now in the Patch 4, as I have plenty of saves. When I'm done I will upload some screenshots and post them here, to check the results.
But, still if we want to side with Absolute for power/possible cure and do not slaughter everyone, that's still not possible to do frown .
For all the hate directed at the evil path, the good path is just as meaningless. After you "save the grove" and Halsin joins your camp, you can go right back to the grove, murder everyone and take the idol for Gale. In EA, there is absolutely no way to see how your choices matter further down the line when you enter Baldur's gate. So it is kind of impossible to accurately judge how deep EITHER path is. The evil path is not a murder hobo path, it is a cult path. So the question is, how will that effect the story when you reach Baldur's gate?

Not to mention, the murder path does not murder the children tieflings, so there is a chance that they will reach Baldur's Gate and totally out you as evil. There are so many variations at this point, that trying to judge the value of either path, is moot.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
For all the hate directed at the evil path, the good path is just as meaningless. After you "save the grove" and Halsin joins your camp, you can go right back to the grove, murder everyone and take the idol for Gale. In EA, there is absolutely no way to see how your choices matter further down the line when you enter Baldur's gate. So it is kind of impossible to accurately judge how deep EITHER path is. The evil path is not a murder hobo path, it is a cult path. So the question is, how will that effect the story when you reach Baldur's gate?

Not to mention, the murder path does not murder the children tieflings, so there is a chance that they will reach Baldur's Gate and totally out you as evil. There are so many variations at this point, that trying to judge the value of either path, is moot.
This isn't a defense of the evil path.

It is a condemnation of the writing for the entire game.
Originally Posted by divideby8
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
For all the hate directed at the evil path, the good path is just as meaningless. After you "save the grove" and Halsin joins your camp, you can go right back to the grove, murder everyone and take the idol for Gale. In EA, there is absolutely no way to see how your choices matter further down the line when you enter Baldur's gate. So it is kind of impossible to accurately judge how deep EITHER path is. The evil path is not a murder hobo path, it is a cult path. So the question is, how will that effect the story when you reach Baldur's gate?

Not to mention, the murder path does not murder the children tieflings, so there is a chance that they will reach Baldur's Gate and totally out you as evil. There are so many variations at this point, that trying to judge the value of either path, is moot.
This isn't a defense of the evil path.

It is a condemnation of the writing for the entire game.

I mean that is your opinion.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Not to mention, the murder path does not murder the children tieflings
I believe you can find their corpses in "Dragon cave" ...
Or at least that is how it was last time i played evil route (patch 3)
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Not to mention, the murder path does not murder the children tieflings
I believe you can find their corpses in "Dragon cave" ...
Or at least that is how it was last time i played evil route (patch 3)

Actually, though I haven't tested it yet I think it might depend. If you just attack, you may be able to kill the children. But if you go in, and speak to a specific female tiefling, she states that we got time to seal them away. So if you then go to the gate, and go traitor I think under that circumstance the kids might live. It would be cool if that were true, it would give 2 different options. I am going to try it on my next evil run through. There is a few ways you can do it. I did the same thing in SWTOR, just because your evil does not mean you have to choose every dark choice. I found that pretty dull. I much more enjoyed making my character a little more nuanced, same with the good characters I would play.

But like I said, I think it is far far to early to judge what the evil path is in regards to quality, because we have yet to see the long term repercussions of it. We haven't even seen what the result is at Moonrise tower.
I didnt tryed so far to warn them ...
I know i was curious about those childern, so i visited Dragon Cave ... and there was couple goblins in pool of blood. :-/
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I didnt tryed so far to warn them ...
I know i was curious about those childern, so i visited Dragon Cave ... and there was couple goblins in pool of blood. :-/

Those tiefling children can be nasty. Talk about a child from Hell...It was probably Mol that killed them, she is a viscous little sprite.
I really hope they will change evil path. At the beginning it looks good but result is unsatisfying. Minthara should be in our camp like Halsin and there should be more plot not just cuting content and companions (one that leaves after battle)
Funny, i really hope they dont ...
And if you wish to know why, there is 18 pages of it. laugh
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Spoilers obviously but I really wanted to give it a try but it is such a chore to go through.

Literally nothing incentivizes me to do evil things... well besides doing evil just for being evil. If anything I am penalized for going down that path even though I should probably be incentivized more to be evil rather than good.
So if I am good I know that all the tieflings I help will be found in Baldur's Gate so my good actions will have longterm benefit.
Apparently if I help Mol I would also have the new thieves' guild as allies? Just so many characters and potential plotlines for Act 2 and 3 that I anticipate in seeing them resolved in the next acts.

There is also the underdark issue where the refugee fungal king wants me to betray my current employer for "rewards"... buddy I am already getting rewards, why should I clear a WHOLE city of friendlies? There are also many unrelated NPCs that will give me quests and show me interesting interactions that I would probably have to kill too. Why? Why should I do that?

It just seems to me the only people that would go down the Evil path are those that are somewhat masochistic and also psychotic. Only the insane would do bad things because it makes them feel good.
Larian needs to incentivize me to be evil.

Here are some potential ideas.
1) Give me Sazza as a companion... well more like a subservient underling. I am a True Soul afterall.
2) Give me Minthara as a companion, maybe I can bend her to my allegiance rather than the Absolute's down the road.
3) Give me a Goblin Horn to summon a goblin raiding party to aid me in difficult fights.
4) Give me thralls and minions of true soul. Like the two siblings I meet on the road, they could be interesting characters to learn more about. And who knows maybe to torment or reward as I see fit.
5) Give me the option of not killing the refugees and druids in a massive massacre. Weren't there talk of slave traders in Goblin Fortress? Give me choices! Maybe certain characters can be spared and sold, Why should I kill Mol and her buddies when I can just spare them and have them work for me!

There are a lot of options.
Maybe the evil playthrough can impact my camp look as well. It would become more savage looking, maybe I can hire Drow and Ogre merceneries. Have evil pillage and conquest questlines... something!
Honestly burning the orphanage just because it makes me so edgy is not that attractive of a choice.

Anyway that's my 2cents. I did not find the evil play through interesting at all.

Doing evil "things" in general is the easier solution. A alignment system would help clear this up so people would actually see what they do is X alignment. I'll do two examples, the first is the confrontation at the ruin entrance. You hear people talking loudly at the entrance, they look like a band of thugs and actually are their to plunder the ruins for richs. Do you leave them be and find another route? Confronting them, you can out right kill them, lie / minipulate, try and convince them, or fail your rolls and go into battle. If you go into battle do you out right kill them or do non-lethal damage and knock them out? I would guess the people that failed the rolls probably 90% of them out right killed them. What alignment would you consider this. I'd say its a evil act, cause you just murdered a bunch of humans cause it was easier than knocking them out.

Example two: there is a goblin in a cage and a Teifling has a bow pointed at her, most of you should know this scenario. Even if it is a goblin do you try and save the creatures life or let her die.

These are alignment based choices, there is no "evil route", there are good, neutral, lawful, chaotic, and evil choices.

I was going to post the alignment section of d&d 5e freebe pdf but that small paragraph doesn't explain anything.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by Eddiar
Spoilers obviously but I really wanted to give it a try but it is such a chore to go through.

Literally nothing incentivizes me to do evil things... well besides doing evil just for being evil. If anything I am penalized for going down that path even though I should probably be incentivized more to be evil rather than good.
So if I am good I know that all the tieflings I help will be found in Baldur's Gate so my good actions will have longterm benefit.
Apparently if I help Mol I would also have the new thieves' guild as allies? Just so many characters and potential plotlines for Act 2 and 3 that I anticipate in seeing them resolved in the next acts.

There is also the underdark issue where the refugee fungal king wants me to betray my current employer for "rewards"... buddy I am already getting rewards, why should I clear a WHOLE city of friendlies? There are also many unrelated NPCs that will give me quests and show me interesting interactions that I would probably have to kill too. Why? Why should I do that?

It just seems to me the only people that would go down the Evil path are those that are somewhat masochistic and also psychotic. Only the insane would do bad things because it makes them feel good.
Larian needs to incentivize me to be evil.

Here are some potential ideas.
1) Give me Sazza as a companion... well more like a subservient underling. I am a True Soul afterall.
2) Give me Minthara as a companion, maybe I can bend her to my allegiance rather than the Absolute's down the road.
3) Give me a Goblin Horn to summon a goblin raiding party to aid me in difficult fights.
4) Give me thralls and minions of true soul. Like the two siblings I meet on the road, they could be interesting characters to learn more about. And who knows maybe to torment or reward as I see fit.
5) Give me the option of not killing the refugees and druids in a massive massacre. Weren't there talk of slave traders in Goblin Fortress? Give me choices! Maybe certain characters can be spared and sold, Why should I kill Mol and her buddies when I can just spare them and have them work for me!

There are a lot of options.
Maybe the evil playthrough can impact my camp look as well. It would become more savage looking, maybe I can hire Drow and Ogre merceneries. Have evil pillage and conquest questlines... something!
Honestly burning the orphanage just because it makes me so edgy is not that attractive of a choice.

Anyway that's my 2cents. I did not find the evil play through interesting at all.

Doing evil "things" in general is the easier solution. A alignment system would help clear this up so people would actually see what they do is X alignment. I'll do two examples, the first is the confrontation at the ruin entrance. You hear people talking loudly at the entrance, they look like a band of thugs and actually are their to plunder the ruins for richs. Do you leave them be and find another route? Confronting them, you can out right kill them, lie / minipulate, try and convince them, or fail your rolls and go into battle. If you go into battle do you out right kill them or do non-lethal damage and knock them out? I would guess the people that failed the rolls probably 90% of them out right killed them. What alignment would you consider this. I'd say its a evil act, cause you just murdered a bunch of humans cause it was easier than knocking them out.

Example two: there is a goblin in a cage and a Teifling has a bow pointed at her, most of you should know this scenario. Even if it is a goblin do you try and save the creatures life or let her die.

These are alignment based choices, there is no "evil route", there are good, neutral, lawful, chaotic, and evil choices.

I was going to post the alignment section of d&d 5e freebe pdf but that small paragraph doesn't explain anything.

Chaotic evil is an example of it actually often being harder. If a PC wants to play like a "murder-hobo" I wouldn't say that it's easier, when entire world is an enemy. Also having reliable allies, access to merchants, etc; none of this can happen if PC is playing like a "murder-hobo" and just slaughters everyone. Also you lose access to information from NPCs if all that you do is just attacking them outright as soon as you see them (although it's fixed to a certain degree thanks to Speak with Dead spell).

Also being very selfish (and that is described as evil thing pretty often in D&D, even if you cause no harm to others) can cause lots of problems, simply because it can make people turn against you.
Or Imagine an evil, 2000 IQ wizard who is ruling an evil kingdom and manipulates the people living there into believing that he is actually good. I wouldn't describe this as a "easy solution" either.

I wouldn't say that it's "easy choices" in general. It's mega dependant on situation. Good that entire alignment system is being slowly made less and less important with each edition, because all that it does is making very limited character creation choices and makes the entire narration too simple.
More and more morally grey characters appear in new games because they are the most interesting ones. (and they resemble real life personalities the most)
Originally Posted by Salto89
I really hope they will change evil path. At the beginning it looks good but result is unsatisfying. Minthara should be in our camp like Halsin and there should be more plot not just cuting content and companions (one that leaves after battle)
Instead of changing it, they can simply add new options and everyone will be satisfied.
Want to play it in the old chaotic evil style? No problem!
Or lawful evil-style? Yep that can be done too.
For the evil playthrough, adding things like described here, would be enough:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=748888&page=2

Go to the post in middle of the topic, which contains the summary of all things there.
We shouldn't be forced to play only in a chaotic-evil way.
The fun part is that you are not forced to play chaotic evil at all ...

Take Githyanki, for example ...
They are strictly Lawfull Evil ... Kithrak tells Beretha litteraly: "Question, kill, then move on!"
From your perspective they may seem chaotic evil, since they "chaoticaly" killed everything they met ...
And that is where that definition is wrong. smile
Since Chaotic / Neutral / Lawfull ... only means how strict order, or rules if you wish, do your character follow ...
Since Githyanki are strictly millitary nation, they are Lawfull, since whole species lives by same set of rules, that is passed on them since hatching. smile

Take Goblins ...
They are Neutral Evil ... that kinda mean pure pragmatic, there are some "rules" that may differ goblin to goblin, and if they disobey them ... usualy nothing happens. laugh
Yet they may seem to be chaotic evil, since they also "chaoticaly" raid, plunder, betray and kill everyone they can ... but its more bcs its simply more beneficial for them, than any other reason. laugh

And finaly, take Gnolls ...
That is your chaotic evil race ... Gnolls have no rules to behaviour at all, Gnolls never "want to do" anything, when they want something, they simply do it and there is no set of rules or prohibitions that will stop them. smile
Gnolls dont have any rules, they have no use for them ... and that is what makes them Chaotic race.

Its not what your character do what defines him as "chaotic evil" but why does he do that. wink
If you wipe out whole Druid groove bcs you are expected to do that ... you are Lawfull evil.
If you wipe out whole Druid groove bcs its more profitable to do that ... you are Neutral evil.
If you wipe out whole Druid groove bcs you simply wanted to ... you are Chaotic evil.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
If you wipe out whole Druid groove bcs its more profitable to do that ... you are Neutral evil.

This is my problem, there is no benefit in this compared to any other option. This is very expensive, long and it is not really useful. At least that's what I thought.

buuuuuut


Larian has changed something, now in a dialogue with Mintara she says that the Absolute has blessed you and you are "transform" you can accept the transformation or reject it. I don't see what it gives, but maybe in the future it will give new abilities??? A new power? Then the path of evil makes sense. I've never seen this cutscene before. I don't know if it's patch 4 or if it's because I killed druids myself before goblins came. But now, in theory, you have a benefit in the form of "power", but you need to understand how risky it is. The very word "transformation" is frightening.

Even if it's "profitable," it still looks silly, as does accepting hallmarking. It also annoys me that I have to kill goblins later. Why should they be mad about this situation? I really don't understand.
Originally Posted by Nyloth
This is my problem, there is no benefit in this compared to any other option. This is very expensive, long and it is not really useful. At least that's what I thought.
To quote Kryten: You are quite right sir! As usual. ... How could i made such and elementary misstake? As usual?

No, but honestly ...
You are right, i should have write: "because you believe it would be more profitable" ... since none of our characters can forsee how profitable would any action actualy be. smile

Originally Posted by Nyloth
Larian has changed something, now in a dialogue with Mintara she says that the Absolute has blessed you and you are "transform" you can accept the transformation or reject it. I don't see what it gives, but maybe in the future it will give new abilities??? A new power? Then the path of evil makes sense. I've never seen this cutscene before. I don't know if it's patch 4 or if it's because I killed druids myself before goblins came. But now, in theory, you have a benefit in the form of "power", but you need to understand how risky it is. The very word "transformation" is frightening.
Nah, i certainly seen the same in previous patches ... just not sure wich one it was. :-/
I presumed it was just some of her zealous blubeling. :-/

But now, when you mentions it ...
We are able to use only one tadpole-mind trick per long rest ... but in Wylls conversation with Spike, there are two uses in the row, funny enough, if you pass the first chance, you never get the second one ... so either its overlook, or its meant to be failed ...
Maybe we get option to use Tadpole-mind trick more often? O_o
Have you checked your character sheet? Especialy passive features?

Originally Posted by Nyloth
Even if it's "profitable," it still looks silly, as does accepting hallmarking. It also annoys me that I have to kill goblins later. Why should they be mad about this situation? I really don't understand.
You dont "have to" ... as long as you avoid their camp. :-/
And i dont think they are "mad" at all ... they simply have their orders, and same as those twins you meet near owlbear cave, those orders says to kill anyone and everyone who was on that Nautiloid.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Maybe we get option to use Tadpole-mind trick more often? O_o
Have you checked your character sheet? Especialy passive features?

I didn't think about it, maybe I'll check it today. =0

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
And i dont think they are "mad" at all ... they simply have their orders

Yea but I mean why? Because my party say, "the goblins will be furious when they find out what happened." And what exactly happened?

Minthara wanted to betray us and take all glory for herself, I understand that, but apparently other leaders didn't like Minthara very much anyway, so I can't make out connection... Unless Absolut ordered them all to kill me, but that doesn't explain. We're just being confronted with the fact that now the goblins want to kill us, too.
Originally Posted by Nyloth
I didn't think about it, maybe I'll check it today. =0
Certainly let us know how that ended! :3

Originally Posted by Nyloth
Yea but I mean why? Because my party say, "the goblins will be furious when they find out what happened." And what exactly happened?
I didnt get my evil play since patch 3 yet, so im not familiar with in what situation they say it. :-/

Originally Posted by Nyloth
Minthara wanted to betray us and take all glory for herself, I understand that, but apparently other leaders didn't like Minthara very much anyway, so I can't make out connection... Unless Absolut ordered them all to kill me, but that doesn't explain. We're just being confronted with the fact that now the goblins want to kill us, too.
Well ... i can only speculate here, since none of that was specificly "told" so far ...
And to be completely honest i just hope it will never be. :-/ Since i kinda like this hints that you need to connect yourself.

I dont think Absolute ordered to kill "you" specificly ...
More like she knows that proces of your tadpoling was unfinished, and therefore you are threat ... either to herself personaly, or to her plan since you (as far as it seem) are the only one (six so far, including companions? :D) who even knows about what is happening.
And therefore she give order to kill everyone who survived that crash.
Now to specific reactions:
- Twins try to kill you, once you reveal you are their target, they are merely soldiers who follows their duty.
- Gut tryed to outsmart and use you for her personal benefits, partialy disobeyed the Absolute ... kinda brave for her ... but on the other hand, once that Mind flayer will hatch, you will exist nomore ... so, you will be technicaly dead anyway.
- Ragzlin imediatly try to kill you, since (honestly) he just seem to be more muscles, than brain ... and this is just the way he is dealing with problems.
- And Minthara? Oh, that is entirely different story. She is loayal to the Absolute, so she plan to kill you since the begining, but she is also cunning and insidious ... so she decided to use you first with her attack. Either you will die during the attack and her mission will be completed, or you will be wounded and her mission will be easier ... after that she even slept with you, to exhaust you even more. She basicaly is in win/win position this whole time. laugh

Personaly i simply believe that Minthara send to goblin camp message, or maybe told everyone that if you return, the Absolute ordered them to kill you.
It would be maybe clearer if she would tell "i was ordered to kill you here" instead of "as far as they know, you were suppose to die today". :-/ But in the end, there is little diference. smile
Do I need to follow the Evil path if I wanted to... "have a little death" with Astarion through my gameplay?

...just asking, ya know.
© Larian Studios forums