Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Did anyone genuinely enjoy the "Evil" Route?

Bruh what do you want me to say. I'm not trying to make something that isn't there. Larian says they consider the good and evil paths to be if you had the Tiefling or Goblin party so that is that.

Those are outcomes ... not paths. -_-
But maybe its my fault ... maybe i wasnt illustrative enough ...

Lets see some images:


Now ... this one suits best to our situation here:
(yes im too lazy to create my own)

A: Is protagonist fiding out about tadpole, deciding that s/he need healer.
B-F: Making a decision ... w/e.
G: Goblin party.
H: Tiefling party.

Everything in between is called a "path" ...


And you honestly dont see that contradiction? o_O


Honestly, this is sadest thing i seen in some while.
If you really believe this, i hope your feedback will be ignored by Larian, since you clearly dont understand the words "good path" and "evil path" ... or maybe just the word "path" at all.

Do you think Larian measured all the data on a sheet with all of these steps in mind? If they did, why didn't they say so? "X% of players took this and this path..." with all the permutations outlined?

You know, even if we take those permutations into account, all of the dialogue choices in the evil path put you in such a low position that I see no reason why a character who knows what we know ingame would bother with it. You are treated as trash by Minthara all the way through, that is not an incentive to stick to her.

You're putting in the effort, hats off...

However, the issue for me (other than what I have already contributed), is that the Druids don't realllly feel like a "good" option, given that when you meet them they are trying to selfishly hide themselves from harm and boot out the Tieflings. So other than wanting to find Halsin for my own selfish purposes; I am not immediately inclined to help them. If I am evil, I likely don't care.

The Tieflings need help, sure, so if I am good I need to solve the Goblin issue OR sort the Druids issue (can one do that without killing the Goblins?). If I want to play a bad character, I am likely not interested in their plight as they other than being a burden they don't have a lot to offer me, again, evil doesn't mean I want to kill them, but they aren't offering me an incentive to help, such as stop/kill the druids and they will help me with MY issue, because being Evil my needs are more important to me that anyone elses.

The Goblins betray you and Auntie Ethel can't help, so what is my play here? Evil does not equal mass murderer by default and being satisfied. Now killing everyone might be the solution to a problem, but only if it advances me towards my goals. Now if Mynthara wants to betray the goblins now that I and my companions have embraced the power of the manipulated tadpole and she offers me up a path to godhood or a form of power, yeah ok, but no one is selling me this, not at first glance at any rate. Again, the dreams seem massively untrustworthy given the character creation process of choosing your potential mate at first reeks of tadpole manipulating you.

Were the companions of a certain power pursuasion more open with their opinions the tadpole situation could be exploited because clearly something here is different, then maybe I explore it. Maybe I missed it, maybe it's just an issue of Act1 wanting to be vague, but IF Larian want to know why we are being good it isn't as far as I am concerned because Good is my default playstyle, it's because Evil isn't seductively whispering in my ear.

We are perhaps in danger of going round in cirlces, but if RagnarokCzD is the only one able to fight the good fight for the cause of Evil, then it suggests to me more that there is an issue in the presentation of Evil and its choices in game.

I am also willing to accept that having only played 35hrs or so and not actively TRYING to be evil (or to be good per say) that I might simply have not paid enough attention to the Evil route, but to me that highlights that again, Evil isn't an attractive option vs the so called good side.

RagnarokCzD
I wrote it the way you like. I suspect you like it because it allows you to drown us in pointless examples that don't prove anything but have it your way.

you didn't really refute anything I wrote here so I don't understand why you wrote it at all. Perhaps to highlight the option to ignore the grove even after the cutscene and battle and go straight to the goblin camp, an option that although possible, right now sort of breaks the game since clearly, you are not supposed to do it. I wrote about it before. here is a quote:



I'm not sure whether you are just clueless or playing clueless. When I wrote "goblin camp" I meant it in the most extensive way possible, temple included.


This something I'll probably come back to, but "like they all are selfish? Ofc they are, they are goblins" is utterly and completely head cannon. and again, I'm not sure whether you deliberately take something I say and use it to say something else completely, but you did here as well. I wrote, "Each goblin "leader" has a totally different side quest for you, each of them feels as though it exists in a vacuum, and most of them don't really progress the main story." this is not an argument about characterization, it's an argument about story structure and character interaction. Vacuum means that every goblin leader quest exists completely on its own, with no regard to the others. the fact that the goblin leaders don't act like there are other goblin leaders doesn't make them look selfish, it makes them look like they are not aware they exist.

this is a head cannon. nothing in the game directly points to what you say here.


another great head cannon. I only wish she would say it. and even if it's true, how does it make the evil path well written?

not sure what you're talking about here sorry.

It's a stupid reason. "go kill one leader" isn't so different than "go kill three". If you don't have a reason for a character to exist, don't create it.

This is not a topic about the "good path". there are problems there as well, sure, it doesn't prove anything about the evil path.

nice speculation. no proof whatsoever and doesn't help your claim at all. I judge what's in the game.

all of these reasons (other than 8-9, which are just, sorry, kind of lame excuses, and 7, which has nothing to do with the story) are head cannon, speculations, or irrelevant. . nothing in the game. you basically confirmed the main point which is - evil path is for murder hobos who don't care about story (but apparently have quite the imagination).

I enjoyed it as a lolth drow who finds pleasure in betrayal, violence, and carnage. He learns that the goblins are being lead by a female Drow, which peaks his curiosity, He then finds out goblins show him respect because he is a Drow and a " true soul", and he takes advantage of that fully. He meets the female Drow who he instantly feels a bond with for her beauty and cruelty. then the two lead an army of Goblins that kill everything in their path, then they have sex on a sacrificial altar while the corpses of the ones they killed are laying all around.

With that said, I don't think I could enjoy being evil as any other race in the EA. It feels out of place, and the times I have tried, my immersion broke.

Gale might be but i don't really use him as hes a magic item vacuum cleaner.. Wyll is still painful and Zevlor hardly has a role.. but you are right Zevlor was nice. Three or so characters in a whole game isn't great.

To be honest from what i've seen and read of others doing evil playthroughs half the evil outcomes don't even work or fizzle out to nothing.. You kill the druids and the tieflings then what? become master mindflayer or boss goblin leader.. nope.. nothing most totally evil endings seems to bug the game out..

Again, it's a video game. You shouldn't expect the player to make explanations in their heads as to why the story is the way it is

I think the problem of the evil path could be summed up with the Underdark Mushroom things vs the dwarves vs the exiled mushroom king.

In this one zone if I enter as "good"/peaceful I will meet the Society of Brilliance or whatever they are called.
Really cool interactions there! Even with a peaceful mindflayer.
They send me off on a quest and the reward is more illithid power.

There is also a deepgnome who is hurt who will give me a quest to save some slaves.
If I cure her poison I can have her pay me to free her brethren or I could just help her from the goodness of my heart.
Regardless as a player I just had a fun interaction.

There is also a dwarf lady looking for an employee, she works at Baldur's gate and needs me to find her man... which has some back story too that I felt were left unsaid. She promptly prepares leaves to Baldur's gate if I help her.

Then there is the Duegar threat and a very mad mushroom king wants me to help him get revenge.

So Evil Option 1) I side with the duegar and kill all these characters. I have to kill insane amounts of enemies equipped with poisons. Lose all these potential storylines for.... what? Some level 3-4 loot?

In that moment. Without knowing anything besides those as a player it seems such a destructive act to side with the duegar.
Its similar to killing my Origin characters. Like... I can do it but why?
So siding with the Duegar is a no go.
Not as a player because I am making the narrative of the game worse by killing all these little storylines.
Not as a pragmatic morally challenged character because all these dumb dwarves are looking for is an escaped slave and treat me like a wayward employee. And I have to help them... because absolute is bae?
Um... no? Why should I? Besides... she escaped you buddy, your slave, your problem.

Evil Option 2) kill the Duegar and side with the exiled king.
Kill all the storylines happening just like the Duegar option but this time its even harder! I am already getting rewards.
This guy has literally nothing.
He is a refugee.
What could he possibly give me? Why should I waste my time?


So again SEEMINGLY I am killing off very interesting characters for virtually nothing besides I want to badthings because I am just so darn evil.
Thats not interesting to me.
I am being inconveniences, my loot is the same, i dont need more gold. I already have like 9000 gold.
And I am killing important characters that apparently have some storylines to offer me.

Playing evil seems to give me a poorer experience as a player.
And before someone tells me "well you don't know if the evil gameplay wont become interesting later" yes... well it might idk but I have to make my decisions based on Act 1 and the things I see in it.
And so far its very barebones.

Exactly.. This is pretty much my opinion in nearly every game that has good and evil paths, why would i bother when the story goes to nothing, the murdering everything gives no added benefits and 99% of the time it screws my game story over and sometimes literally bugs the game out...

Its why most customers don't play evil routes in games at all, its pointless and takes you no where..

+1 to both of these. Sums up the discussion so far and the problems with the evil route nicely.

Bcs you are unable to thik outside one single character archetype ... i bet you are choosing everything by "what would I do". -_-


That is what i try to explain here since paige 2 (i think) ...
NO faction is "just good" or "just evil" ...

And if you try to search "true neutral" on Wikipedia, you find out that Druids are archetype of this behaviour ... Druid is that kind of character that is able to save people from Gnolls, and then turn against them if they wish to exterminate them ... bcs they just maintain ballance, not good, nor evil.
Also their leader, Kagha i think, is not even druid, but something called Dark Druid (didnt searched yet what that mean, but i gues it means that she is not exactly model druid).
Also i think most people here forgeting how they are threated ... i allready writed that down in more details, but just sumarize: Groove is their place to live, they offered shelter to refugees, and refugees repay them by stealing, refusing to obey their laws, or way of living, and allready are inhabiting much more than half Groove, also you met tieflings at gate, but not single druid ... coincidence?


I would say being anything except pure good ... but yeah, sort of.


I would not recommend including this fact in my decision-making process. Firstly, you don't know at the moment, secondly, it's not certain.
It's true that given their nature, you can assume it, but that's a different song.


And here is where you are as wrong as everyone else (except maybe one person so far).
So sad ...
If you wrote that being evil doesn't necessarily mean killing everyone, I would sign it for you with a smile.

But when it is presented like this, it is simply wrong. You completely rule out one possibility of a bad character just because you don't fit the pattern of a completely different bad character. And that's the problem here.


Personally, I just don't feel like she has to ... she probably considers her army more than enough.

Sure, if the success of the whole event depended solely on your help, it would be appropriate for her to persuade you, but they don't really need you. It was even mentioned here that no one took part in the attack at all, and the Qlog just updated to "Goblins destroyed the groove before you could do anything."

So your character is not a major breakthrough in plans for Minthara, just a usable tool, and he treats you as such.


That is once aggain omething your character dont know ...
So, i dare to ignore this fact since its not roleplay.


And that's exactly the bad archetype I was talking about here. Yes, it is true that many people do not decide on the basis of what is moral and what is not, but on what will bring them the greatest benefits or profits.
But what is not true and what a lot, I would even say almost everyone holds, is the claim that everyone has it that way.
So just so we understand, I'm not saying this approach is wrong ... even though it sounds like that, but I can't say otherwise.
I argue that the claim that this is the only possible right approach is wrong.

In the past, the question has arisen as to why someone would throw stones at a bear if no one would pay for it. The answer is simple: Because it's just a sadistic bitch who likes to hurt others because she just enjoys it.
There is no seduction, no reward, no promise of greater power, or the strengthening of bonds with other characters. Just a chatotic evil character.


It's one way to look at it.
At the moment we have 8 pages here and about 4-15 people are generally arguing about them ... so I would rather say that this forum and the participants of this "discussion" are completely irrelevant for the creation of any statistical sample.
In addition, keep in mind that this is just one topic and only the gods know how many more are hidden under other names in this forum.
In addition, keep in mind that the mere fact that there are so many sites discourages a lot of people from getting involved.


Abits

Its bcs its simplier for me to focus on that part i am reacting, without need to search it in tons of sauce.
But, w/e ...


Are you honestly sugesting that i made up in my mind that Sazza requested from Minthara this:
"I thought we stick a few holes in her, show her how greatful we are."
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DJ5dfCPBdE&ab_channel=Kazuliski 4:53


I want you to do something and i dont care if there is anyone else who want something from you that may even contradict this ... ? That sound pretty selfish to me.

Also i dint do yet any goblin "leader" quest, so honestly i dunno.


This seems like you either didnt talk to them, or didnt even read your own questlog ...
Probably both.

Are you just trolling me now with quoting segments of my post and saying "not true" "not true" "not true" "not true" "not true" ... or is there any point in this? O_o


I have honestly no idea how this shortcut was made ... but IMHO means "by mine opinion" ...
What else you expect than my opinion, when sentence starts with information that i give you mine opinion. o_O

And how does it make "evil path" well written? Since characters are acting by their personality.


And how should i know ... do my nick seem to be "Swen Vincke"?
Maybe you should ask him why did they create some NPC ...


I probably dont know either what you were asking, nor what are you telling now.
You asked why leaders are there ... i give you answer, that the reason will be simmilar to leaders of other faction ... and you tell me that we are not talking about that faction here.

Neither did i ... this starts to feel like really poor trolling man, you could at last try a little bit.


Again ... not Swen. -_-


asdasdasdWell 8 and 9 was just me making fun of you ... w/e.
7 is exact use of game mechanics for purpose of story ... you kill it, you rob it ... this is how loot works.
The rest is of course from my head ... and you will know that even before you asked if you read at last one sentence i ever writed here whole. -_-

I try to simplify it for you:
Larian job = make options.
Player job = choose.

You know this debate is remind me one of (few i admit that) DnD session i was in ...
GM had enough of one player who still demanded better motivations ... and then he just decide that we all goes on adventure, except this asshole who live rest of his miserable life in his dirty, muddy house, bcs he was "not motivated enough" to move his lazy ass and go out.

Its quite simple rule: If you cant find reason why your character should do something ... you probably should choose different option. But if you really need me to tell you this, there is something horribly wrong. :-/

Larian's options suck
Hence this thread and EA.

Larian has asked for feedback, especially for Evil story path.
Hence why this thread exists.

Also that little story of yours just goes to show you had a bad GM and dare I say it?
You were a bad player that I have no interest playing with

I played the EA not necessarily from an evil or good perspective-- more of a 'what is best for my character in this instance' -- and it worked out great, have 0 complaints.

I think such rpgs are not designed for evil gameplay, because being simply evil does not make sense in 99% of cases anyway.

You would need a completely different plot designed for interesting evil gameplay, especially when it's not only "killing good guys" but interesting interacting, plotting and intrigues.
Almost every game trying to enable a designated good and evil walkthrough would fail. Good to some sort of greyish is the best someone could expect (I'm okay with that), but interesting evil walkthrough which does not break the actual campaign is very hard to implement.

The problem is there is only an incentive -in the game- to take the evil path with the goblins if you're chaotic evil, evil for evil's sake aka chaotic stupid. There is no incentive to play a smart lawful evil -in the game-.You seem quite happy with the way things are and when things don't fit story wise you're fine with thinking of convoluted ways and bending over backwards in your mind about how to motivate yourself to continue to play evil. Might I suggest it's because you're playing chaotic evil? I can't see how else you are the only one in this thread thinking the evil path is fine the way it is.

The only good way to do it now would be to make it run parallel to the good path and that seems to have been the intent Larian had by introducing Minthara, however she can betray you and then you end up with nothing at all. If she was guaranteed to be a recurring character it would be a little better, but Act 1's evil path also seems to be a closed narrative with failsafes (such as the goblins being out of the picture in a "by the way, the entire camp is aggro now lol bye" way).

Are you aware that you are evaluating the "end result" after the first third of the story?


This is just perfect example of dementation.
(Its not an insult, i just cant find more fitting word in this language ... In my language, this word means to set the initial attributes so that any observer of the phenomenon cannot in any case have a different result than desired one.)

You say you don't take into account anything that's not in the game yet ...

On the other hand, you are talking about:
- Society of Brilliance, where do you get what ... one vendor and one side quest that can be done and get all his rewards anyway?
- About the deepgnome lady who gives you the task of rescuing slaves ... which is not in the game yet.
And as for interacting with her, as in the previous case, there is nothing stoping you from doing so too.
- You're talking about a dwarf lady who, like the two previous cases, offers no job now, since its not implemented yet, only gives you the task of finding her husband. And she won't offer you (and I don't think she's going to give you, if I'm not mistaken) any reward.
Everything else falls into the category "not yet in play".

So no, your rewards are not "just 3-4 loot".


The same ... you only loose anything if you are stupid enough to engage fight before you get your rewards ...
That is not misstake of game, its yours. :-/

Exiled mushroom will promise you some reward ... i dont quite remember wich, but i know there was some option like "whats in it for me" and he did have some response, i just dont remember what.

This is also quite good example of dementing something ...
First you ask what is reward ... and then, with the same breath you declare that you dont even care about reward, since you allready have enough anyway.
What exactly is your point here? That you dont wanna do it no matter everything? Then just dont! Nobody need you to do "evil things", its your session ... play it however you like ffs.

Just to summarize.

Its obvious being that being "good" has received the bulk of the development.
With voiced characters, storylines, games, songs and etc.

Being "evil" is just a gimick to fight NPC's you would have otherwise interacted with.

Just think about it this way.
Where is the Alfira of the goblin path?
Volo? Whether I am good or not I can always get him but the only way to interact with Alfira is help the Tieflings.

I guess you could argue that I could join the Tieflings and see all these things only to betray and kill them. I mean Alfira says she is going to this famous Bard's Inn in Baldur's Gate. But if I kill her then her storyline is over...

If I was evil I wouldn't murder her for the lolz.
I would just enslave her and have her sing for me for free... seems more practical to do that imo.

It's worse than that.