Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Latest News Community Update #10 - Romance Numbers & Cinematic Tweaks

Sure, but in that case Larian should have told us there is only a good path in BG3 and remove the Lolth Drow and evil aligned companions from the game entirely. And they should not have requested us to come try out the evil path in EA. And finally, they should also refund my 60e. I bought the game expecting to be able to play the role of evil in a roleplaying game. *shrugs*

There is a game "Fable - The Lost Chapters", a classic Action / RPG genre. Yes, it is completely linear in terms of the main quest. and she is almost 20 years old. But in decision making and side quests, the path of evil and the path of good are equally popular, equally balanced in terms of content. All players play the game at least twice as a good and evil hero, and both times they enjoy playing the role. Baldurs Gate 3 is a much more replayable game anyway, there is much more freedom in it, but more attention is paid to a good passage

After an evil passage, I will most likely try good, and people who pass for good will most likely try evil in the second passage. Yes, not all, but many. I rightly believe that the amount of content and work expended should be equal to both a good passage and an evil one, especially considering that the announcements promised dark fantasy and a focus on the "evil path". Many came here for this. About the path of evil ... now it is 100% chaotic evil, and I want to be Lawful Evil together with Minthara.

And I'm still interested in the possibility of a neutral path. For example, helping Kaga in the grove of the druids (clearly a neutral path), or killing the leaders of the goblins but sparing Minthara, who is forced to swear allegiance to you and join the party. Educate her about the tadpole in her head, and get a chance to befriend her in search of power and answers

If Larian has enough desire to do everything cool (money and resources are not a problem with such sales), then we will be happy to buy DLS with the continuation of the adventures of our favorite heroes and pre-order BG4 immediately after the release of the third part. There are very few high-quality RPGs, the last one was released 10 years ago and was called Dragon Age Origin. BG3 has every chance of becoming an even greater game than DA:O and the Witcher 3 combined

Obviously it is not up to me to tell you or anyone else how you should feel about anything. That's just not something I have any wish to ever do. However, I think you are being a little extreme in your reaction (no judgment). I think there's a big difference between playing your character as an evil-oriented person (which I completely support in terms of the game--any game--allowing this), versus expecting that your evil-oriented character is going to be able to reshape the world around in evil ways to any significant way. So yes, you can, and should be able to, play your character your way. But this should be with the understanding that the setting for this game is a generally good-aligned setting, and your personally evil playthrough cannot fundamentally change the world into an evil place where evil outcomes prevail. I don't know if I'm explaining this particularly well. May be someone else will be able to better explain it.

Sure. But I think the difference is in the particular setting being used for a game. In this case the FR setting just doesn't allow for outcomes where evil "wins" in a big way. That would just go against the setting's established lore. Settings like FR which have so much history and lore are great for an RPG because the devs have so much raw material already developed from which to draw for their story and characters. But the flip side of that is all that rich lore also serves to limit how far you can take things with your game in a way that an "open canvas" setting does not.

Let's all remember this is EARLY ACCESS. The game is literally still in development. Launch is realistically at least a year away, and there could be absolutely massive changes and additions to the game in that time. So, no point on getting upset about anything at this point.

In other words, please do not be entitled, whiney pricks.

@kanisatha I have a suspicion that you just don't understand what being evil actually means. The argument people have hare, that in the current state evil characters, if they are not idiots (I mean in-game characters, not players), will side with tieflings too. Therefore, the claim that siding with tieflings is an indicator of roleplaying a good character is just false.

No I do understand very well.

In the case of this example of yours, I can agree with you that Larian shouldn't label the action of siding with the tieflings as good or evil. But at the same time, players can label it any way they want. And I am very certain the overwhelming majority of players who like playing good will surely label it as the "good" path, whether those of you playing "evil" agree or not.

Siding with the Tieflings is most likely supposed to be the good path. The issue is that this is happening because the current evil path is for stupid evil not intelligent evil. There needs to be a better reason to not kill the goblins. Many playing evil may not even care about the Tieflings, they got saved by accident.

I played an evil party. I killed all the Tieflings and the all the goblins. I sided with the evil drow (because I was playing one), but then turned on Minathra because she turned from Lloth. So I don’t know where I stand in this 75/25 split.

Also, I slept with no one (possibly because Shadowheart is a gimp and wasn’t in my group, and Lae’zel looks like the Grinch). We’ll see on subsequent playthroughs.

This is really the whole point of Early Access. So Larian can see what's working and what isn't. Not just bug but storylines. If most people are generally disappointed with the 'evil' path then I expect Larian to make modifications to it. The expectation going into Early Access should be that many things aren't going to be working or fleshed out well.

Now if Larian spends the next year and doesn't improve the game, then I will be disappointed. But at the moment I'm super impressed with what we currently have. The game looks better than I expected, the game play is mostly fun, and there is more interactivity then in most games.

At this stage, I'm disappointed with the evil side.

I'm not interested in a romantic scene with Mintara. Tieflings after save talk about future support. What does evil side give us? Nothing, as if we didn't do anything and didn't affect the situation in any way. I really like that most of our companions are evil. But I also didn't see much support for them in this situation. Only Will had a reaction, and again, cuz he was a good one, so he leave.

Just think about it. Or make it in another way, so that when we choosing evil, we get approval from our companions. Then anyone who wants Astarion will think three times what to do. Many people change their minds for romance. It works.

Right now they don’t care, you don’t get refused if you choose good, only if evil, I rly don’t like it.

(btw sorry bad eng ;<)

I knew I recognized that face! Too funny!

On the contrary, I really liked the opportunity to romance Minthara, in the corrected evil root this will still be my main goal, and I hope for interesting adventures in her company. But in general, yes, we need other incentives so that it is not tied only to this. There are those who romance SH, or there are heterosexual female players who like to play on the dark side of power. The game cannot offer them anything on the evil path.

Excuse me? They asked us to come play the evil path. They asked for feedback. We give it and they draw the wrong conclusions out of raw metrics. So yes, we give feedback on that too.

Entitled, whiney pricks? Condescending much?

Damn. I hooked-up with the Grinch's sister. Hopefully I'll only see him on Thanksgiving and Easter.

Well I don’t think its bad! Mintara cool! I just love my vampire duck, so I don’t care.

I just don't want main reason for choosing evil to be only romance with Mintara. And she can't be denied, she immediately regards this as an relationship, it would be good to have a choice.

And again If we choose evil, we lose Will. I'm not he's fan, but let the good side lose some companions, too? Or something other maybe? Idk. Make harder to choose. It's not fair. I lose part of he’s history just because of my path, but they don't lose anything. This is why they can choose good and don’t care about it. It's not cuz 'more ppl want play good'. Cuz it’s rly more ez.

I just want people to lose their companions when they make good choices. Let Astarion or Lae'zel leave them as Wyll leaves evil. It would be fair to deprive them of something important...

Interesting comments.. some parts more about 'playing evil', some about fun, some about balance (why should you lose companions only if you play 'evil).
I understand that 5e is less about alignments and BG3 is more about consequences of your actions (which sounds very reasonable).
In part the team is a bunch of strangers thrown together in a difficult situation and choosing to work together.
On the continuum between you look at the companion the wrong way and they kill you in your sleep and you need to reload.... to they leave... to they just go along with the team (with losing romantic options), i prefer the later more than the former. Ive played games where the characters can just leave your party (or suddenly sides and kill you in a middle of a fight!), but isn't this about 'gather your party' not get some randoms who will kill you later.
And if they are avatars (in your starting team) will they/ can they leave?

And about balance.. well "good" characters tend not to steal from friendly/ ally merchants.. they don't murder-hobo for exp and equipment. Stealing and killing helps your party alot so is playing "good" the hardest option?

No, that's the shortcut Good path that actually doesn't have the best outcome.

If you take the detective route to finding out Kagha's motivations and pass a few dialog checks, you can prevent a battle at the Druid grove and deal with the goblins separately, however you like.

This reminds me of something Peter Molyneux said for Fable II, pre release; very few, if any, players took the 'evil' options in Fable I apparently, and the same was with Fable II apparently. Fable III had 'evil' choices but it was more 'needs of the many' stuff since you were a king/queen.

This is not true, Fable - The Lost Chapters each went through at least twice in different ways. I do not know no one Fable player who has passed only for good and all over these twenty years.
First playthrough ... after so many years does it matter who did what on the first playthrough?