Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 19 20
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
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.


Last edited by Eddiar; 24/10/20 05:28 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Can only agree.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
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


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
Eddiar Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
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!!!!"

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
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


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
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?


Last edited by Vhaldez; 24/10/20 05:53 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
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.

Last edited by Baraz; 24/10/20 08:10 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
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.

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
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...

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
vel Offline
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
This thread is spot on. An evil playthrough is not compelling, regardless of siding with the drow/Absolute or betraying them.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
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""


Joined: Aug 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2019
It's pretty unsatisfying presently.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
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? ''.

Last edited by Svalr; 25/10/20 01:52 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Oct 2020
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

Joined: Oct 2020
F
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
F
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Joined: Apr 2014
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Apr 2014
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.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
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.


Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 19 20

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5