Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General So who else is taking Swen’s advice?

Motivation is what I find worth discussing. Imagine the sequel to BG III coming along, where a very high level adversary is attempting to disrupt the balance of the cosmos by actually wiping out one of the planes of existence. The simple battle lines of good and evil might not apply in such a situation.

Yes, I'm very curious how they will handle dark path. I often give up on evil because in most RPGs it's just "kill instead of spare" and "be rude for this NPC" - so generally it cuts content/dialogues. I hope this one will be different and I will have some battle within my brain how to handle the situation.

I will take a walk on the wild side, he got me curious.

Count me in the "can't play evil well, too fluffy inside, will cave eventually" club. But I AM a Paragade deeper in my bones than anything else, and that's my window here--in my opinion, someone who staunchly upholds the law even in a case like that of a killer from Dragon Age 2 is actually less good than someone willing to kill him. The situation, for anyone who doesn't know, is that you are hired to bring in a serial killer... and when you meet this serial killer, he literally BEGS you to kill him in a moment of clarity after almost harming a sweet elven girl. She begged you not to, and you're only going to get paid if you complete the contract as ordered, but the killer himself knows two things that he uses to persuade you: 1. his father, the magistrate, WILL let him go again and no one will override that decision. 2. He WILL kill again; he isn't sane enough and doesn't have the willpower to stop. This being let go and killing again is a pattern that has already repeated.

I think in a case like that, it's pretty clear that the good and selfless option is to actually just kill him (assuming you are wise enough to believe him, in this case). Letting him go to spare your own conscience and get paid a few coins also causes a lot of deaths of young elves. For context, in this universe there are no asylums, and people who are different are largely treated with ignorance and fear--plus his father would just jettison him anyway even if you could put him in an asylum. Knowing this, the lawful choice is also evil. No good you are doing by letting him live outweighs the stream of innocent dead that follows.

So in other words, I'm saying... if you take that just a little bit further, I think you can make a more vicious well-intentioned person who thinks you need to do tough love to scare the weak, while those who are strong but excessively cruel should die. Even the worst evil person might regard their own safety as a factor, especially if a vampire, and thus want to take out the strong leaving only a herd of weak civilians around them. Imagine being an evil bastard who gets the adoration of every town she passes through, with very few people actually knowing the truth. So you could do good for bad reasons, or bad for good reasons.

I can't really persuade myself to be cartoonish or insane evil, that's not fun for me... but I'll definitely be a more ruthless sort, brutal and unafraid to dirty her hands. One can be pragmatic and good at the same time, I think, especially if more chaotic in nature. I think the worst I can do is Dexter--evil that serves a positive purpose. Sadism that is only practiced on those who really earned a taste of their own medicine.

I'll probably test how robustly the game handles tension between a neutral good PC and evil (i.e. the available) companions. I still fondly remember my character returning from an errand downstairs at the Friendly Arm to find Jaheira standing over the corpses of Xzar and Montaron.

I'm like most people commenting here and tend to play good or neutral characters 99 % of the time...but I don't see any reason not to try it. It can also be your second or third playthrough, it doesn't matter much.

I actually started a game as an evil character in BG2 after Swen's suggestion and it's doable without feeling like it doesn't make sense. You help others because you will get paid and you know you will get loot from fighting their enemies. If the pay is bad, you cheat them or you kill them afterward for wasting your time. At least that's the way I play it. Sometimes, relatively "good" decisions are made for you, and sometimes I kinda forget the fact that I'm supposed to play an evil character, but then I turn it into an opportunistic and manipulative act. "Big bad evil" can be boring and troublesome to play for many people, but "smart deceiving evil" is certainly worth a try.

Im going to be doing every combination available when EA comes out. Im just so excited for the game and want to play it.

I will NOT be testing the evil options.

I think Larian is wasting a TON of time on edge cases when they should be focused on providing more options like races and subclasses that far more people could enjoy.

Calling people edge cases for being evil in role playing games is a pretty edgy hot take. 😂

They are including at least everything from the PHB + githyanki. That is plenty of character creation options. Lots of dialogue options and quest resolutions are appreciated.

I thoroughly disagree. It seems a fundamental part of the game design to give as much choice to players in how they approach and deal with any situation as possible, and apparently with the game world reacting to their decisions. I don’t see how they can do that while only allowing “good” options and outcomes. Even if I generally aim for being a nice guy most of the time, that choice is meaningless if there isn’t an alternative route I could have taken.

Like others I’ll probably never play a character that’s just psychotically evil, which seems to be how dome interpret an evil play through. I don’t find that very interesting. However I might well play a character who’s prepared to do evil things if it furthers my own goals. Which is real world plenty evil enough.

I tend to play an evil character quite a bit, so I'm looking forward to seeing how Larian has designed an evil playthrough.

They don't waste any time. They are just following the strict D&D rules for alignment which allow anyone to play evil if they so choose to. I guess you've never played the tabletop game. You would know what I am talking about if you did. Not having evil paths in a D&D game is not an option, it's heresy.

Evil characters generally ruin group cohesion in tabletop campaigns. Some people may think it's edgy and cool, but eventually no one invites them to play in their next campaign.

No that's not true. As a DM it's more difficult to handle but it doesn't mean it's not fun. I have run many evil characters campaigns and it was always entertaining. There is even a game in which you play demons, so evil is the default, 'In Nomine Satanis' and it's hilarious.

And it doesn't have to be edgy either. Once I was playing a D&D campaign with friends, and my mage was corrupted by a lich in a world we visited. And after consulting with the DM, we decided the lich had possessed my mind back home and I was doing my best to undermine everything the other players were doing without them noticing. It was fun for everyone.
One of my friends was playing a king and his character was obsessed with his appearance. So for his wedding, my mage offered a lovely painting of his person to put in his chamber so he could admire his own self every morning. But the painting was cursed. Each time he was looking at it, he had a chance to lose charisma. And it took him very long to find out what was going on, cause he trusted his old friend so much.

Not me.

I'll probably play a LE sorcerer/wizard cos I'm pretty sure my co-op group want to be goody two-shoes. I tend to play Evil after I've played the main campaign a one or two times cos usually the Good path has more to offer and I hate to chose the [Execute them] option if I'm unsure what it will lead to in the long run. Alot of the time Evil options leads to abrupt ends.

I am gonna take his advice and play evil. Honestly the problem is that most people's idea of evil tends to go over the top during play to the point where they become charicatures. I think if you're reasonable and thoughtful, the evil alignment does provide plenty of potential. The real key is to make sure evil doesn't become synonymous with just being a dick. An evil person who is also rational should be able to tell when the evil option isn't in their best interest. And especially in D&D terms, all evil really means is that you're concerned with your self interest first and foremost, and you're willing to harm other people to get what you want. It doesn't mean you're suddenly incapable of doing good.

I'm gonna probably play an evil ranger, since I always play magical classes and this seems a good opportunity to play a non magical class. Most likely I'll end up being neutral evil, a character who's just interested in results and dealing with the whole tadpole situation and is willing to throw others under the bus if it's necessary.

I think this approach of focusing the EA on evil playthroughs is not a good strategy for the game. It runs the risk of making the evil path default for the game, because that's what will get all the iterative improvement attention. Even the good aligned companions won't show until after EA, and so won't benefit from that iterative improvement. A good EA strategy would allow a representative slice of the game to be iterated and not just one particular way of playing the game.

I do wonder what Larian has in mind for evil actions. Getting into combat is going to happen regardless of alignment. Hmmm, what is a truly evil act? Perhaps we can pull from ancient wisdom, going back thousands before the time of Moses and the Ten Commandments, to the Old Dynasty of the Egyptian empire, written on the walls of the pyramid of Unas ... "I have not borne false witness." False testimony might be a great theme for an evil story arc ... I would consider playing that one out.

As far as I know, the only way EA focuses on evil is that there are no good aligned companions at launch. Other than that, all good options are still present in the game. Your companions will get upset with you, but there is nothing stopping a player from being just.

The good aligned companions will be in EA, just not day 1, so they will have a chance to benefit from the EA process too.

Plus, Minsc is almost certainly going to be in the game, and he is such an incorruptible paragon of righteousness, I don’t think there will be anything to worry about.

Have I mentioned before that I really like Minsc?

😁