Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General [SPOILER]Theory about Shadowheart origin

In the real world, sure you can have horrible thoughts and be a good person. I'm sure there are people who write scripts for horror movies and volunteer at animal shelters on the weekend.

In the realms it would depend on whom you offer your thoughts to -- do you offer these thoughts as prayers to Bhaal or do you ask Tyr to give you strength to never act upon them. Unlike our world prayers are answered and thoughts are read so there are additional elements in the realms to contend with.

I would never consider a person's private thoughts to be fair game for judging a person's nature. Thoughts cannot harm anyone other than possibly yourself.

As for actions, it's always a judgment call where one might draw the line, but I think it is possible to generate a consensus about what would be wrong versus bad versus evil.

I think that thoughts can be plenty harmful. The only reason we don't punish people for their thoughts is that we have no way of reading people's thoughts. Realistically, if everyone's thoughts were on full display, a lot of people would be getting castigated, watched, and/or detained.

Does a consensus define evil? Is evil only something that is culturally relative? A city of drow would reach a very different consensus about what is evil than a village of halflings, would they not? I feel like D&D, at least, has a sort of idea of cosmological evil, which goes beyond what any particular people think of as evil, or even beyond a creature's actual observed behavior. A demon could be on his best behavior and not actually running amok murdering people, but still be fundamentally evil.

Thoughts can be evil and are, but they are just thoughts. Fighting our own thoughts is the good fight, since they will lead to evil actions if we allow them. Intentions alone won't make someone evil or good; actions do.

Words can and will do good or bad, and using words is an action already. Being affiliated with an organization alone isn't evil or good, depends how and why you joined: maybe just to destroy them from inside or you were forced. But then things are getting muddy, and most times isn't about choosing between good or evil, but a lesser over a worse evil. If this happens, evil actions were made already, but still matters what were the reasons and the circumstances. Somebody may struggle and wants to get away, but there's no way out. There can still be hoping that such a day will come. Not everyone does evil things because enjoys them; these can still change.

A good question but fear it's kinda irreverent here with the FR lore looming over everything

In the D&D universe being good/evil/chaotic/lawful is a tangible fact that can be measured with the correct tools (spells). It's tied to the governing forces of the universe. So yes, in the D&D universe if one is so deeply consumed by hatred, anger and evil thoughts one might result as evil.

Not since 5e it isn't. Text of Detect Evil spell in 5e:

For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.

Know Alignment spell has been removed from the game all together.

The only time alignment was really cool was in the Planescape setting.

Take all the fun out of stuff.

The eternal battle between "Shadowheat is evil because she is a Sharran" or "she isn't evil because she doesn't disapprove of the outcomes of a goody-two-shoes PT"

By being a Sharran, she has committed crimes in the name of her goddess. There is no "we haven't seen it, so it didn't happen" here. You aren't a member of Shar clergy, like Shadowheart, without committing atrocities. Refusing to do them would get you killed or worst.

Did it happen a few times that her heart wasn't into it? Maybe, it's not like evil characters are all robots. In the case of Shadowheart, she feels bad about the Tielfings, yet she doesn't seems to care about the Druids. Wouldn't a good person feels bad about both?

Was she evil before joining the clergy? Probably not. The people who join Shar willingly usually suffered a great loss (major depression just want to see the world burn type). Otherwise they were forced into it via destruction of their previous self (using torture, gaslighting, abusive manipulation, etc). I did say that what she needed was therapy and not a redemption arc. It wasn't a joke.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. There is a reason why I believe this may be true based on something from the Enhanced Edition of Baldur's Gate.

I agree with you. She's evil. But she might not always be.

I said it before about Baldur's Gate 1-2 and I say it about Baldur's Gate 3 as well - if it's not in the game I don't care. Not because I want to spite anyone or because I don't think FR lore is important. I just don't think a game should force me to research outside sources to understand its story or characters. It was kind of a problem in Baldur's Gate 1-2, but not in any other good Rpg I ever played (Dos 2 maybe, but Larian is known to have its lore all over the place). If this bit about Shar initiation ceremonies is important enough that it affects what kind of character Shadowheart is, it should be in the game. It's not a criticism against you, but against Larian. Either they decided to ignore it, or they missed it, or, as you say, she is a really evil lady with a strange fondness for dogs and tiefflings. the only reason to know for sure is to wait for the final release, but if you are right, her character is not only bad but also kinda badly written.

I mean, it's not like she's gonna tell someone she just met, "Hey, wanna hear the stories of how I had to sacrifice some children when I joined my church?"

There are many many ways to put exposition in a fiction creation whether it's a book, a film, or a game, and they have a hierarchy of quality (for example, putting it in visual form is better than in dialogue, dialogue is better than a random book), it all depends on how good a writer you are

Leaving the point of whether it's unfair to include lore from books aside for the moment, there is one book in the game that alludes to this but I can't remember where I found it. It's the story of young woman who hears Shars voice and follows her instructions to throw a vial down a well and in doing so earns Shar's love. The moral of the story is that people come to see her not because she is attractive but because she is high priest of Shar.

Now I am with you @abits in saying this could be better supported. I would like the books to be longer and for there to be more of them. You could learn everything you needed to know about FR lore in BG1 by raiding the shelves of Candlekeep and Durlag's tower.

But returning to the outside lore issue D&D has always been this way -- there is salty bit at the end of the 1st edition DM guide where it tells you can't understand D&D unless you read fantasy books and then gives you a reading list.

She's none of those things in EA. Projecting much?

Well after playing Skyrim, dragon age, and the Witcher games mostly without reading any lore bit and still have a very good idea of what's going on in the world, I would say it's a rather weak excuse. The same is true for the lord of the rings for example. You can read the lord of the rings without delving into the appendices or the silmarillion and not feel like you missed anything.

Now the Forgotten Realms lore is vast, really vast. But it's the game's writers job to figure out what is important to the story they tell and what isn't. And then they should figure out the best way to explain this bits to the player.

Considering you are ignoring the:
- the post-Raphael conversation where she brings up her knowledge of torture and manipulation
- the Priest of Pain scene where she gives him tips to torture people
- the goblin party narration bringing up how she enjoyed killing before
- the post tadpole dream #2 conversation about "wanting it all"

I'm not sure the problem is with the game not providing you with the information you want, and more that you are avoiding situations where the information is brought up and/or you fail to get the hints when it does.

She has more backstory explored in Act 1, it's just not in the part we have access to in the EA right now. I'm not sure if Larian is planning to include all of Act 1 into the EA either, but it should be there at release at least. Datamining is a wonderous evil gift.

Agreed with the last bit. I am liking that every book has a purpose, it's a bit of a puzzle but there should be more books and they could be longer.

Again, outside of this thread I tend to agree with you. Our differences boil down to you wanting this to be a really great RPG like the Witcher and I'm in that group of people who have been wanting a sequel to BG2 for an eternity. I don't think the standard is just "is this an really great game" but it is a successor to the Baldur's Gate series and is it the face of 5th edition?

It's like star wars or even the Matrix. Matrix 3 was a good action flick but it wasn't a successor to Matrix 1. You can be one and not the other.