Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Nettie. To swear or not to swear.

I'm interested in hearing your views on the situation. How do you respond to Nettie?
From your point of you, how does your choice fit on the alignment spectrum?

Personally,
I'm not playing an evil Tav (but a chaotic one). It seems ill-fitted to take an oath because I'm being blackmailed into doing so.
Also, while I don't mind using deception at times (which we can't do here technically), taking an oath when I know it's a lie (wyvern poison...not my 1st choice as last resort) is going against my personal codes. It's taking the deception game to far.

I usually pick the option "No. I'm not taking poison from a woman I can't trust."
Even though, it's not really about trust.

Edit :
I realize I made some arguments here that don't really reflect my views...I do find it hard to put down my thoughts on this matter. Maybe trying a little to hard to convince myself? Maybe I just don't know how to feel about the situation. Hence this post

What's your response to Nettie? single choice
	I swear.
	No. I'm not taking poison from a woman I can't trust.
Votes accepted starting: 24/08/22 01:43 PM
View Results

I usually swear (lie) because it seems like the logical thing to do (though I had some characters who were roleplay-wise devoid of logic...). As a player I know that there is a book with an antidote recipe in a nearby room, but as a character I don't know that. So Nettie might be just solely holding my life in her hands, and everything she wants is just some reassurance that she os doing the right thing. The one I can gladly give...

I mean, what's even the moral dilemma here?

It's poison. That you are explicitly offered and supposed to take as a way to off yourself if things go dire.
What are we supposed to be worried about? It being too poisonous?

Anyway, it's a fairly easy promise to make for me, both because as a player I don't think we'll ever get to the point I turn into a mindflayer (and if I do it hardly matters at that point) and because in that same circumstance I'd actually think "Better dead by other means that being taken over by a random octopus dude replacing me".

If anything the real question should be: would I even get the chance to make the choice?
Chances are the moment I lost control I... well, lost control. It would be the mindflayer in my place making decisions, not me anymore.

The only situation I can think of where I would not take the poison would be if I played as super duper rightous character who doesn't want to take the poison, but is also to goody two shoes to lie. Then again, a person who would worry about lying, is also a person who would likely be worried about becoming a monster and killing everyone.

It's one of those none-choices for me. Whatever my thoughts and intentions why wouldn't I take the poison? Promising to take it doesn't mean the character is willing to take it. You either side with her, or you make the promise to get away from the weirdo druid as fast as possible (and free, powerful poison for your enemies in the inventory!) It's definitely one of those moments I wish for Planescapes' "I promise (Lie)" option for roleplaying purposes.

This is a matter for individual characters, which we each may play many different instances of.

If your main focus is playing a chaotic character, though, generally swearing an oath to someone isn't going to get in your way as a concern; chaotic characters generally act as they feel is right in the moment - what is 'right' for them will vary along the other half of the spectrum, but they generally won't feel constrained by what is 'expected' of them, legally or socially, if their feeling for what is right in this particular moment runs against those things.

In this sort of situation, generally speaking, a chaotic character who feels that they need to acquire the poison from Nettie, and has that as their immediate personal goal, or who just wants to resolve the situation peacefully, won't get too hung up about swearing to her, if that's the most straightforward way of doing that and it doesn't run against any of their other personal inclinations. If you're playing a character who feels strongly enough that an oath sworn should be kept, and will also not swear an oath that they intend to break, even though refusing this will negate their actual goals, in order to keep to that, then you are really playing a more lawful character than anything else; lawful doesn't necessarily mean following social legal codes, it just means putting codes of conduct or principle ahead of your personal views on right action if the two conflict.

I generally play chaotic characters most commonly, and most of them will make the promise to nettie to put her at ease, even if they have no intention of actually doing what she asks; if they feel she's misguided in what she's trying to do, but can't convince her of that (due to lack of conversation options), then just putting her at ease and getting her to let them move on unhindered is the next best thing, and it doesn't really matter if that involves making a promise they've got no intention of keeping to - especially one about ending their own life.

I appretiate your responses already. Thank you all.


I guess it's a matter of wording and intepretation. In this case, I did bring the "principle" argument. When I was playing I was mostly thinking "don't blackmail me and tell me what to do" (but also, I don't want to aggravate the situation) x) I do find it hard to put my thoughts on this situation. Hence this post :p
Usually, I'm more one to follow my conscience but also put a lot of value on freedom. But in this case there was no option that clicked with me.
It's pretty 50-50 for me I guess...I'm conflicted for sure xD

You're all making some good points.

Everything I've seen shows being devoured by a parasite is a fate infinitely worse than death. Much as I may not be a fan of Nettie's manipulation as soon as I genuinely felt like I would be turning into a Mindflayer I'd drink it in an instant.

I voted for “I swear.” It won’t come to that in the game, but to me as a last resort it seems better to die by poison than become a mind flayer.

I sweared every time ...
Partialy bcs that posion kicks like mad ox ... partialy bcs all my characters would.

Good characters mean it, since they dont want to endanger anyone ...
Evil characters says it, so that pesky Dwarf give them break ...
Neutral characters says it for various reasons, at least my rogue simply wanted that poison even in Roleplay.

And yes, the game dont offer us [deception] "I swear" ... and yet, at least talking for myself, it often is deception ... personaly i see it as Netie wanting us to swear it so badly, so she would believe anything, therefore there is no roll, since our sucess is guaranted.

I always swear to drink it, accompanied by the option that it won't come to that when a companion calls us out. Since I would rather die by my own hand on my own terms than go through the worst imaginable pain ever and die, only to give birth to another creature and cause even more death down the road.

Now that I think about it, it kind of reminds me of Ellen Ripley in Alien 3

Even though I doubt we will fully transform in the full game as none of the other True Souls have and they've had the tadpole far longer than us. At worst I imagine once we become True Souls from overusing the tadpole, we will be mindcontrolled during certain events.

Some more good points were made. Thank you all again


Yeah, I think I like that logic. Maybe I will try that on my current run.

Also, I appreciate the reference to Alien haha

I didn't vote because no poll responses match my playthroughs. I stressed the urgency of my healing to her, but she decided to stall the time, my lifetime... Even after I asked for an antidote she was uncooperative so I took the chance... I launched my "first strike" to kill her in self-defense for poisoning me and then withholding and refusing the antidote.

I swear and take this OP poison that allows you to OS a bulette.

I always swear and take the potion because at that point the conversation with Nettie has dragged on so long I am tempted to end it all.

I find this encounter could do with some editing...its the longest one in EA by far I believe.

Either way you are fucked. So, why not take the oath and drink the poison if you start turning into a mindflayer?

The swear is all very unenforcable and inconsequential in a mechanics sense. The game's not going to stop you from progressing if you refuse to drink the poison. So, how would the game be able to distinguish between a dialogue option that just gives you the poison and a dialogue option that gives you the poison but [DECEPTION]? Maybe you can fail? But then why choose the option that makes you fail, when you can choose the automatic success and have it make no impact on your character's development. I can't think of any specific examples, but there's a sense of deja vu in the inconsequential nature of the decision. I know that roleplay hardliners would like it a lot (and I respect that) because it gives you more opportunities to define yourself to a greater degree of specificity, but nothing really comes of it. I think you should actually have the option to end the game by suicide at any point, to drive home the impending threat (and horror) of becoming a mindflayer.

All my characters swear and take the poison. Becoming a Mind Flayer is not like contracting lycanthropy or even becoming a vampire. There is no "you" after that. You just die and a new entity is born from your corpse.

My good characters take it because it is the morally right thing to do. Death is preferable to allowing your death to usher in a great evil that will harm and infect more people.

My neutral characters take it because if they are going to die they might as well go out on their own terms and prevent an evil creature from being born in their body.

My evil characters take it to spite the parasite in their head and the mindflayers who infected them for causing their inevitable death.

In most of my playthroughs I have taken the poison and sworn I’ll use it, and agree with everyone here who has said that almost any character of whatever alignment is going to have a pretty good reason to take that path, and even to mean it. I have played a couple of contrary, awkward characters who wouldn’t share any info with Nettie and ended up intimidating/persuading her instead.

It’s almost a pity, given there are so many other ways to get out of the situation, that the easiest one is also one that it’s actually a bit tricky to justify not doing.

I don’t think I’ve had to do anything more creative than speak to her since the very early patches when I don’t think we had the same options, and/or the persuade/intimidate checks were harder to pass.

EDIT: I agree with the OP that the line about not taking a poison from a woman we don’t trust is a weird one, and it would be better to have different ones to refuse with. I could understand not taking a healing potion from someone I couldn’t trust (ahem, Ethel), but when the advertised purpose of a potion is to kill you I can’t see any good reason for distrust!

I always swear. You get an useful poison and if it comes to the worst, you are prepared

Well, I think that if you fail deception check, then Nettie stops to trusts you - positions you with the branch? Attacks?

Honestly, I would be fine with just (lie) option - mechanical difference I would like to see is different companion approval. I occasionally find it frustrating is when I say something to an NPCs and companions take it at face value. At the very least the difference can be a good roleplaying tool - in Planescape a lot of choices didn’t get reactivity as fas as I know, but being able to express character’s intention is good! If the game can naturally react to it is even better.