Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Lore problems

That's also why writting and game design are regarded as art. They are not simply a+b=c. It's extremely difficult to find the right balance in all of that and its impossible to make everyone happy. That said, I simply am not impressed with the decisions Larian has been making in this game. I'm certain their style suits a large amount of players, but for me its just not on the same level with other game studios that get you completely immersed into their works. With Larian everything screams constantly themepark to me. But its largely just personal taste.

Racial differences and cultural exchanges as a rich and present part of the world is one thing; it's great to have that. Having a game make the vast majority of people you interact with speak in distinctly racist ways, and force you, the player, to just accept that as okay because it's the norm, and not allow you to call it out, is different. In DOS2 Larian did the latter, VERY heavily, all the way through the game. I do NOT want to see the same thing here... and yet there are early signs of it.


Yes. Yes it is, and yes it should be. No arguments here.



You know what would be really neat? Little 1-2 minute intro videos that give some atmospheric descriptions of the culture, lifestyle and general considerations facing each race... something you could click to watch/listen to, when you're selecting race and subrace in character creation... The active story can only do so much to ground people in the general realms lore, without feeling ham-fisted and poorly executed, and yet the game needs to be friendly to people without any existing realms lore under their belt. It's a tricky balance.


Okay, how about this: There are more racial/cultural/religious slurs thrown back and forth by npcs at other npcs in the first act of this game than in the ENTIRE Neverwinter Nights series of games and all of their expansions combined.

That amount is a distinctly toned down density of racial prejudice and slur language used in DOS2.

It's not necessary, it doesn't add anything to the game, and it's just unpleasant to have to listen to people talking like that, and just have our character carry on and respond to them normally as though that's just a normal and fine way to speak, without any option to object.... by doing that, they create a game world that is telling us, the players "This is okay; it's normal and fine; no-one really objects to this, and that's why your character can't".


To be fair, Larian kinda chickened out with their depiction of Gith for some reason, and made them look a lot less non-human than they should be... there's even dialogue about their nasal design which doesn't at all line up with Lae'zel's fairly human-normal-looking (slightly upturned) nose.


Well I don't know about you but I'm actually a moogle; internet anonymity is great because everyone thinks you're just joking...
That aside, anyone coming to baldur's gate three, because they are fans of baldur's gate one and baldur's gate two... or who are looking for another d&d video game, which this one promises itself to be... is going to know those things. You could also read the racial descriptions provided on the character screen, which informs you at least a little bit. That is not to say that the game shouldn't be doing a better job of sharing relevant lore to the players in a smooth way, and trying to make itself play-friendly to people with no background realms knowledge - it can and should.


Why? Why should they be? They are entities that live in the realms and know full well what tieflings are - mortals that bleed when you stick them with arrows. Why should a few unusual calcified outcroppings instill fear in them? Or an extra appendage or two? Why shouldn't the refugees who barely know which end of a sword to point outward not be afraid of violent raiders who raid and pillage for a living and who want to kill them? Why should their skin colour, or bony head ornaments mean that they have nothing to fear?

Many things have already been said, thanks Niara for explaining stuff.

- The PHB says, humans, elvs, half elvs, dwarves and halflings are common races, nothing special. Gnomes, half orks, tieflings and dragonborn are relatively rare compared to the others, but they are still normal people. Most other races would be considered exotic or alien, at least in Fearun. But this is a fantasy world full of magic. I think you could use anything as player race as long as it is humanoid (1 head, 2 arms, can walk on 2 legs) and behaves civilized (wearing clothes, speak common, not acting very aggressive). Though there should be a good explanation or reason when it is very exotic.
Many powerful creatures are able to change their look. Drow may not be liked by surface people in general, but they will let you in when you help them to fight a goblin attack.

- Racism should not be a huge problem in a fantasy world with tons of different races. There can be some very racist people or groups though.

- I think people who know githyanky should be more afraid of them than those who don't.

- I think the main problem is immersion. There is a difference between character knowledge and player knowledge. What would a normal citizen of Baldurs Gate know vs what does the average player know. Not everyone is familiar with DnD lore, especially those who come from D:OS.

I dislike that WotC uses world changing events all the time. It's so confusing to know which God is alive now and many other things.
There must be a way to change some rules over time without turning the whole setting upside down.

You can create new interesting stories in a word without destroying this world every few years.

As I said: medieval setting implies intollerance and prejudice. The point is how it is used by an author.

Also it has narrative potential, to play a marginalized race (and again: thieflings are the offsprings of demons, they are the offsprings of beings whose only purpose is to corrupt, bring chaos, nurture mayhem, that crave for reckless and complete devious moral acts, they're not a race with demon like appeareance. I get the will to be incusive and so on, but in any setting I'll find naive that people that litterally descend from demons is accepted like there was no problem. I know the sins of the parents shouldn't fall upon the sons and daughters, but one thing is a sin and a fault another complete different thing is when you are litteraly blood related not only to demons themselves but to beings like Baal) can show a mild player what prejudice means, how hard is to have to do every day of your life with intollerance, and it can also show how easily is to fall in prejudice and become intollerant.

Seriously I don't get the reasons to play a race that descends from demons, that fall in the domain of Asmodeus, Baal and so on (I get that Lucifer, the show, depicts a conflicted almost relatable prince of demons, but I hope we all agree that is far stretched, way more than to try vampires relatable) and get surprised that they are regarged in a suspicious way and are targets of intollerance.

The problem is the writing of Larian that fall in the "white/black" duality, where in reality intollerance and prejudice, and the way they take form, are way more nuanced. Kagha is a plain and banal way to show intollerance, and that the race they choose to be an epitome of racism is one that (specially in that set) has the biggest reasons to be feared and watched with suspicious (I have a question: how many of us, no matter how hard we try in our lives not to be ridden with prejudice and intollerance, would easily welcome someone who is blood related with the devil themself, and furthermore have as guardian deities the likes like Asmodeus, Baal, and Beelzebub? I don't require an answer I just put the question aloud putting in place all the factors that characterize the thiefling race) a race that in D&D has it angelic counterpart in the Aaasimars.

About the Goblins/Tieflings.

Drows are mortal that can bleed and die.

Still the Goblins fear them, and not only because of the tadpole, hell all Faerun fears them. And that because they are followers of Loth thus they are involved since birth in internal fights, master betrayal and manipulation, learn to use other sentient beings as tools for their own plans.

The why do Goblins don't fear people that have the blood of demons flowing in their veins and that follow Baal, Asmodeus, Beelzebub (also known as three demon princes above all the others and only below Lucifer himself)? That is a complete lack of logic.

Again the problem relies in the will of Larian to emulate the OS DII presence of a character (the Red Prince) with very outstanding somatic traits, so they went for the Tieflings with their horns and tail that recalls their previous game but doesn't feel just a copy of that game like it would have been if they have made the lizardfolk playable (with the lizard folk they would have the same chance to tackle in racism and prejudice but without the weak point of the demonic stuff), and how plain and banal the racism is displayed.


That highlights another big problem of D&D: if they don't want to delve in the problems of racism and intollerance they had to change the pantheons they built up. Lets be serious, how would you act if you had to interact with someone that belongs to a culture that is faithful to a god whos domain is treachery, murder, chaos? Or to a god whose domain is pure violence done for its own sake? Or a deity that wants human sacrifices?

Actual gods, with actual domains.

Because that is what happens in Faerun, the pantheon includes deities whose domain is just evil, that are cruel, that want blood, that nurture pain, again I ask how would you feel knowing that the one near you is a follower of Shar, Loth, Loviatar, Cyric, Baphomet? I also add another question lets suppose you are a follower of a deity whose domain is life, peace, altruism, justice, how would you feel about someone who is a follower of a deity whose domain is death, violence, egoism, murder, chaos? I my self will be always cautious.

[And no, that line of thoughts and arguments doesn't apply to real life were all religions have a backbone that is about life, altruism, justice, and it's up to the single preacher or follower to interpret the religious tests to align with extremists views that contradict said backbone]

I actually noticed that and was a bit confused because I thought her nose was perfectly normal. Thanks for pointing out that Githyanki are supposed to look slightly different.

I also want to point out that I still consider Baldur's Gate 3 a good game. I just think that with all the work going into fully voicing even obscure events (The squirrels complaining about the singing of the Tiefling!) you could shift some of those ressources to better world building. However, I do admit that this takes time and you can't just "buy" a good story, even if you have great writers.

Wow that discussion busted also with much interest.


I actually know of the "Eilistrae-Drow" only since like half a year. And I must wonder if those Drow are included in people's mind when they speak about Drow that are untypically friendly to non-Drow.
When in fact it is their very faith to be so and honor good relationships with all Races to one day usher in an true Age of Salvation and union with every being on Fae'run.
Shocking I know.

Everyone who did not knew this, I can recommend the first 3 hit's at least.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eilistrae+lore
Ve~ry interesting.


About the Tieflings, well - there is only one thing I truly wonder about and that is why the "Blacksmith Tiefling" has eyes less Infernal like all the others. Thats it.
Or why Zevlor has very cool eyes and everyone else's log like a placeholder in comparisation.

Seems to me the real problem is tieflings. They are hellspawn. Can't change that. If they wanted them to be more humanized, then they should have retconed the way they look. Since they are so retcon happy. Remove the rough demon looks and give them smoother features, smaller horns/tails, less pigmentations. At the moment they are copy paste fiends without wings. Ironic isn't it. The reality is you can't have your cake and eat it too. You want humanized races but then go half assed. Tsk.

One problem (in my opinion) is that the early writers of DnD (back when it was TSR, but that didn't change with WOTC) took an approach to world-building that I would qualify as very "teenager", for lack of a better idea. On the one hand, there is a fantasy setting, which can be used for many things (playing games, telling stories in books, etc). On the other hand, there are the rules of the game. Instead of having the world-building be independent, they made is subordinated to the rules. So whenever the game designers change the rules, the writers change the setting accordingly.

It's as if they don't believe people can deal with a bit of abstraction, and must have an in-universe explanation for everything. Now, what's funny is that even if, nowadays, the world-building is somewhat shaped by the rules, the inspiration for some of the rules originated from a literary setting (more specifically, the fact that magic users memorise spells was influenced by books by Jack Vance).

I don't know of any other game + literary setting pair that works like this. I don't think it's a good idea. And another problem is that modern DnD designers/writers don't seem ready to change that (much like they don't seem ready to drop the spell slots system and use a simpler MP system).

Actually, no, it doesn't. That's a pure historical fallacy with no basis in any historical fact. It's a false assumption that, more than anything else, has traditionally been used either to make historical reports glorify their 'much more enlightened' modern way, OR by bigots to justify their bigotry. Please do some research before you parrot stuff like that; it's harmful to honest discussions.


No, they're not. That's the point that you're missing. They have fiendish (by the way, important distinction; you can have demonic tieflings, devilish tieflings and even lothic tieflings; all quite different, all are fiendish as an overarching category) influence upon them sufficiently enough to affect their outward appearance in visible ways, and to sometimes grant minor abilities, no stronger than the things elves are innately born to. How they came to be that way is quite a varied spread of possibility, but the one thing they aren't is direct near-blood descent of fiends. Some have never had a fiend anywhere near their bloodline AT ALL - they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time when a planar brushing happened. They are equivalent to plane-touched; it just happens that the plane they're touched by is the hells, or the abyss.

Incidentally, do remember that Baal was a mortal human adventurer before he won his godhood.


Yes, they often face wariness and mistrust... generally from people, and I am sorry to say this... like you are acting right now. They aren't in the domain of dark gods, unless they are of specific tiefling lines that have been cultivated and watched by their influencing patron (which is a specific thing and not the norm), at least not innately, no more than any other mortal is.


A fairly irrelevant question, since it has no bearing on what tieflings are. But I'd be duly wary of a Cambion in my home, certainly. Especially one who had deities acting as their guardian - but that's a pretty improbably situation and a ridiculous assertion, since none of that happens day to day or is in any real way related to the discussion of tieflings. Tieflings are not fiends; they don't register on special sense that are specifically tuned to pick up fiendish creatures and evil things. They don't. They aren't. That's a fact. Aasimar are not celestials; they don't register on any special senses or spells designed to detect the presence of celestial creatures or goodly beings; They don't; they aren't; these are facts.

None of this is new lore; there is no modern-day retcon here; this is how they have always been.


Because they don't. Not automatically or innately; individuals might, just as any individual mortal might. Also, please keep you 'this-world' religious pantheon and beliefs out of this conversation. It has no place here. Baal was a mortal human ascended to godhood, and is now the lord of murder, Asmodeus is the lord of the nine hells - a god in his own right now, and not a prince at all (the title of which has distinctly different connotations), and no such entities as beelzebub or lucifer exist here, at least not on a greater-entity scale.

Tieflings aren't devil-worshippers, and they aren't followers of dark gods, unless an individual chooses to be so. That's something that you're putting on them that simply isn't the case. They don't HAVE a cultural background or practice that unifies them as a race because they come from and are born to all kinds of different cultural background and races; a tiefling born to elven parents, if they are accepted and raised by their parents, will likely have elven sensibilities. A tiefling born to halfling parents will develop a grounding in halfling cultural norms; humans are everywhere and have so many different cultural sets that a tiefling born to human parents might have any kind of upbringing under the sun. There is no 'tiefling culture'. THAT is one of the interesting racial tension points that can be explored, because they are usually treated as a unified race of people, but in reality they aren't one.


Again, no-one is saying that these things shouldn't exist in the setting. They are things to be resisted by goodly characters, and they have a place. What they shouldn't be is the pervading background norm that players are expected to just put up with coming from almost everyone around them, directed towards almost everyone else, and be told in no uncertain terms that this is just 'okay', and that everyone thinks that it's okay and normal - the game does that by putting it there in the dialogue and not giving us any opportunity to reject it, at ANY point.

Worshippers of evil gods generally don't advertise the fact because they will be made unwelcome, if not actively driven out, by a community of more or less goodly people. They only tend to act openly in the service of their gods when they are amongst fellows, or when they are acting overtly and openly against a group of people in their deity's name.

Personally, it still bugs me that pain domain is considered evil; loviator's priests (despite depiction in this game) value pain as an expression of life, yes, but they do not believe in permanent injury or disfiguration, and causing lasting harm of any sort is seen as a grievous failure. They practice very good aftercare, generally speaking, and most temples to loviator that are permitted to exist in the open (a rarity, granted), offer their dedications freely, but without pressure or compulsion.

Still... Yes; I'd be duly cautious of someone who chose to worship a dark deity, and I'd certainly keep my eye on them. But what does that have to do with tieflings?


We desperately need more tiefling customisation options. Tieflings come in all sorts of looks and appearances, and we haven't even started to scratch the surface of what should be possible yet. We need a lot more on this score.


No, they aren't. That's the point. They are no more hellspawn than genasi are elementals or assimar are celestial; they are not those things. This isn't new. This is how they have been since their inception. 'Hellspawn' is a slur that some people use, but it is just that - a slur. It is not factual.

Tieflings are hellspawn. It's literally a bloodline. You don't even understand that racism in dnd is 100 percent due to the Gods that made them and how they interacted with each other. You know the Gods that literally made each and every race.

You are so quick to put political bs in a fantasy setting that you missed the whole point of culture. Thanks for showing why dnd is falling apart so thoroughly. I wasn't even going to point out any of your bs, but you are pushing it.

Not since 4e they don't. What we have ingame right now already covers the entirety of Tiefling variation.

@Aishaddai
Hmmmmmmmm, you sure about that?

I am pretty sure this "Aboleth" creature is part of the game's universe.
And there were some kind of people who created the first gods, or... more gods(?) to overthrow their enslavers.
Which where the Aboleths!

Of course I know the story of the Elven Pantheon (by now, lol)
and how all the different kinds of Elves came to be.
But all the others... pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.


Racism is always 100% though.
In our real world just used to define the ability to simply see people as different due to their genetical heritage, which they have and cannot be denied.
Often mistaken for "race hatred" when you just count facts up.
Just because some people cannot deal with it and cry "racism" as in "race hate".
Which are entirely different things.


So basically the "normal-ness" of the Tieflings in the Grove is bad?
They must praise the nine Hells instead and call us normal Mortals losers?
Naaaaah that can't be it. ^_^

I dunno about the looks which indeed differ greatly from what I saw in other Forgotten realms videogames - but I doubt that there is some kind of behaviour code for Tieflings.

From what I heard Tieflings have infernal heritage in themself.
But they are half non-devil, just like a Cambion actually.
° But Tieflings feel no loyalty to the nine Hells.
° Cambions on the other hand do.

Why that is? Beh, who knows?

Seems like Cambions are half-breeds who try to live between fiends ... and so they need to act as one (as much as possible).
And Tieflings are half-breeds who try to live between humans ... and so they need to act as one (as much as possible).

Or Cambions ar simply "a little more fiend than a human" and Tieflins on the other hand "a little more human than a fiend".

Settings like running man, tributes of panem, zombie apocalypse, medieval settings etc. are not chosen because they necessarily imply conflicts or prejudice but because we *want* to depict conflicts in a movie/book/game and need a "pretense" for that

If it's not a cultural or ethnic conflict, it might simply be a religious one - for example a new deity called the 'absolute' whose followers seek to wipe out the disbelievers Then you don't have Drow Elves vs High Elves anymore, but instead religion A vs religion B.

By the way, it's completely fine to criticize Western, 'enlightened' societies. But it should also be clear that literally every single country in the world is more intolerant, more discriminatory and more racist than the West. Just to keep the popular bashing of Western societies a little bit in line.

Lookup Ao who is second only to what I think is the actual developers of dnd personified. The Gods were first but not all gods are equal or were even made at the same time in the beginning. Other creatures were made at a similar time but after some gods. On the current Dnd world, Aboleths were the first to be active and ruled the planet, but as I hope you know the gods did come in and pretty much tell them to go sit some where. Since then they have had an undying hatred for the gods. Also would like to point out that some monsters have Gods too. I feel like you might be missing that. A lot of retconning and revising has muddled things significantly. So at this point continuity is destroyed, but what's left is being picked apart because people keep bringing in real-world politics.

So you don't know about the orc gods? Halfling goddess? etc? That's on you because each and every race has a god and a story. Do research. Not going to bother with that. It's on youtube too. I can recommend one if you wish. It's quite interesting actually. Also categorizing race, species, and monsters is a headache waiting to happen.

100% what? What are you even trying to say? Your definitions are bull. Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

As a black man, just stop. You are trying to make wiggle room around racism so you don't feel guilt. This is not about real-world issues. Focus on the fantasy world in question. Dnd. I refuse to let that drag any further with me. I just won't respond because this is not the time or place for that conversation.

Is the rest of your post sarcasm? I honestly can't tell and would prefer not to assume.

There is no loyalty in hell. You are either bound to hell or not. Tieflings are hellspawn and their very being is tied to a bloodline that gives them the passives that distinguish them from one another.

Using your example Cambions are half breeds while tieflings are mutts.

I'm in the process of just letting dnd lore go. The creators don't really care and I'm not sure why I should even give a crap. I say believe what you want.

I've explained, in simplified terms, the established lore surrounding tieflings. They are plane-touched; they are not hellspawn. It would be very easy for you to fact-check me and get yourself properly informed, if you were interested in doing so. If you want to continue to reiterate and double down on your ignorance as a form of argument, that's up to you. There are many ways that tieflings can come about, and direct blood lineage is only one of them (though since Asmodeus' gambit, it is tractably the most common example). Regardless of the source of the infernal legacy, in tieflings it is diluted enough that it has no impact upon their individual personhood, beyond visual physical traits, and sometimes a few minor powers. They are perhaps more vulnerable to influence and temptation by the hells, perhaps, but that is mostly as a result of their social circumstance and the prejudice they regularly face.



If you have an issue with my conduct, or what I'm saying, then please, by all means, air it - or send me a message. Posturing like that serves no purpose. I am doing my best to keep things civil and to be as open-handed in my discussion as I can; I'm mostly only really citing established lore.

To Dexai,

Yes and no - that was a singular big power move by Asmodeus, when he claimed his godhood by wresting it from azuth (I believe). He 'claimed' all tieflings as his, and in that moment everyone with any infernal legacy was transformed into an Asmodeus teifling. However, it was a one-off power move. Since that point, tieflings have continued to be born and to arise from all of the normal other means and methods - individual other fiends have made their own bloodline pacts again, and planar contact with the hells or the abyss has given rise to those various types of naturally occurring tieflings again as well. Asmodeus tieflings, right now, are by far and away the most common and populous type, because of what Asmodeus did, but certainly since the second sundering, many other appearances have begun to creep in again.

The "origin" of Tieflings has varied from infernal heritage to pacts with devils/curses.

The tiefling situation is painfully simple. I am kind of surprised so many people are getting hung up on this.

Yes, they are the product of infernal powers. Yes, they carry the mark of the Hells upon them because of this. But no, they are not subjects of evil. Tieflings are basically just normal people who carry a curse that makes them look fiendish and gives them some minor infernal powers.

If anyone remembers that Van Helsing movie this quote is pretty apt.

"Evil may have created it. Evil may have left its mark on it. But evil does not rule it, and so I cannot destroy it."