Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General New players and the problem with Shar

Neutral Evil, not Lawful Evil...unless the game changed her Alignment?

This is a big part of the issue:

Larian love their mary-sues, and wants to let them break the rules wherever it suites them. They don't WANT the player to make the sorts of rolls or checks they normally would in any situation involving one of their Origin characters, because they're desperate for their origin characters to always have the upper hand and the last word against our PC. Nearly every situation involving an exchange between the PC and an Origin character, the PC is forced either to be incredibly dumb and say incredibly dumb things, or to be ignorant of what the Origin wants to talk about (without any knowledge checks offered), or else they have to say directly conflicting lines without any tact or sense, just for the express purpose of allowing the Origin character to springboard of the line into something more condescending. The vast majority of all PC-Origin dialogues are written this way, with it only starting to wind that in a little bit on SOME of the advanced relationship dialogues later on.

==

While Shadow's in game armour doesn't have the same Shar regalia that her splash art does, her circlet is another matter. It's a simple diadem with a flat, perfectly circular black onyx as its sole decoration, and in terms of the forgotten realms, it is very obviously a symbol of dedication, not mere ornamentation - and can only be a symbol of Shar; anyone should be given a check to recognise this upon seeing her wearing it. You can add her hair piece to that - it has a bordered black disc
icon as its central focus, as a clear symbol that matches her circlet. Between those two alone, it isn't feasible that anyone would fail to understand it as deliberate symbology, and only someone in *extenuatingly* ignorant (which our characters are not) circumstances should be denied a check to know what it is.

==

Part of a narrator's job is to fill in the gap between what the character would know, and what the player might not - theirs is a tool to inform the player without implying ignorance or stupidity on the character. A not insignificant part of DMing is doing exactly this, in fact... and it should be done here.

lol

"My dear Watson, did you not see her jewelry? She favors onyx. Clearly, she is a priestess of the most foul!"

I mean right?

What's interesting to me, is that Gygax, Arneson, Greenwood etc, those guys were all pretty well read, and I'm sure they could have come up with a different way to represent religion and divine influence in their game system/world had they wanted to. Perhaps one that mirrored more the real-world or the historical reality more accurately, but they didn't. They chose a rather particular way to do it, and one that was clever too, because it simultaneously has appeal for both players who are believers and non-believers alike, but probably for completely different reasons. I'll let you guess which camp I fall into hehe, but the point is that it works for all comers (whether as a send up, or a confirmation of their real world views, or someone else's). It has that charm either way, by being built-in and taken as a given here, in D&D FR.

Not sure if you ever watched the show Rome on HBO, but I'm reminded of that scene where Titus Pullo kills a bunch of dudes in single combat to save Octavian and recover the legionary eagle... You know, where after going berserk and dispatching the enemy, he hold his blood stained gladius to his heart and recites the gift to Mars, like so...


You get the quick read, like 'damn, ok I see what's going on here.' Mars is just metaphor for bloodlust and warfare. Or similarly in that same show when Servilia is trying to curse Atia, and she cover's her face in ash calling down Hecate and the Furies for revenge, again its like "wow, damn, got it! metaphor! Human emotion." So it sets up a really nice presentation there, where the viewer understands what's going on. It's all in the family, everyone still 'worships' Jupiter and Magna Mater, and we understand what it is. We can see how the Capitoline Trinity morphs into a Catholic Trinity in the later Empire, how various gods become various saints or whatever, while still retaining their same basic function, and it's all pretty consistent. All familiar. But then compare that to what the Romans did with Baal.

I only bring it up because Baal features in the FR pantheon and in the BG games pretty prominently. From a Roman point of view, pre-Empire, Baal isn't part of the family. Baal has to be destroyed and supplanted by Juno, cause Carthage needs to get put in it's place.

Baal is just a Phoenician Patronymic. That's why we have a Hannibal and an Ithiba'al (Jezebel/Isabella), and all the various baals, that feature among the Carthaginian and Canaanite names we still remember (usually cause they were destroyed by famous Romans). Baal is exactly like Jupiter in the Carthaginian Pantheon. A sky god, master of the thunderbolt, an all-father etc, but they're in competition. Nationalistic tribal competition. Pre-Imperial competition basically, because (in this case) Carthage hasn't been conquered yet. Hence all the stigma and derision directed at Baal. Later he even gets to become a demon and a prince of Hell, when Rome becomes Christian, but "Rome" nevertheless still remains pretty Roman lol, and so have we have that whole interplay and build up over time, with the knock-on after effects.

Now they easily could have set the up the divinities and religions in the Forgotten Realms more like that if they wanted to. They could have set it up like these were nationalistic deities vying in competition, each with factions where they are the supreme deity in their corner like proto monism, and where the whole thing is just a proxy for human competition and predation and internecine warfare. But that's not what they did.

Instead they set it up like an actual reality of the game Universe. It's not as if we're gullible Romans or Roman children who didn't actually understand the metaphorical or etiological implications, and instead were just taking it all at face value and unquestioning. Its more like, "oh wow, guess it's the real deal" cause I just saw a giant colossus descend from the clouds speak to me in plain language and then transform from a person into a bird or whatever right before my eyes. Basically a Ray Harryhausen special effects movie presentation, as if the metaphorical was the real. That's how D&D kicked it off, and that's how it should work here.

Everyone should pick a god at the outset, and the player should be introduced to what sort of fantasy is being set up here. Leave the questioning and such to the lesser deities, but not for the biggies. They need to be established right away, as real movers and shakers in-universe, not as proxies for how this stuff all works in the real-world where the player is coming from lol. This is high fantasy. The new player needs a crash course, (and not just from some dusty tome of lore!) so they can get really get into it and see what's going on for all it's worth.

I agree completely about the check rolls and such, but I think it needs something more narrative and forceful in the initial set up so it actually carries, and doesn't just feel like a watered down version of FR cultural anthropology or whatever heheh. Instead, if we're rolling around with a Cleric of Shar, and dealing with the fallout of a big Shar vs conflict, then we should be probably be meeting Shar pretty early on so we have some set up there. Just so we know who Shar is.

BG1 didn't exactly do a stellar job of this either, granted. I mean "Shar" was basically just a bark for Viconia. But it nevertheless went there with all the "Lord of Murder" and "Child of Bhaal" stuff. That stuff hit hard before we even left Candelekeep and was reinforced constantly through dreams at each chapter break along the way. This game needs to do more of that stuff. It needs to give us Shar, more as a character as opposed to an abstract belief system. A real Shar!


Sorry I typed a bunch and then forgot to close with my main point, which was about the Absolute. The Absolute is presented to us as a foil for actual divinity. A kind of false deity, who is weirdly more real for us (in gameplay terms) than any of the actual deities from the FR lore. From a game narrative point of view, every character is by default like a priest of the Absolute whether they wanted to be or not. The Absolute, not Shar or Selune, or Lathandar, or Clangeddin, is the one demonstrating true power and influence over us. We also know it's tadpole, and probably not a divinity, so this all compounds to give a weird sense that Faerun is bereft of the gods, and religion has been torn down and replaced by mind flayer trickery. Is that what they want? I guess maybe, but it's a bit of an odd fit for the Forgotten Realms.

please, don't make level one priests summon her deity (one which is just the dark half of the goddess that created this world) on a fit of rage just because another level one asked her not too insult the other half of the goddess that created the world... even for an origin character, this is way too much edge, there is a reason why astarion is a charred corpse next to the nautiloid carcass and it is not entirely that his job interview was to dodge this sacred flame...

on a lighter note, don't hold it too much against 5e characters, since intelligence doesn't govern proficiencies anymore, it became the dump stat as could be seen at launch with astarion and shadowheart proudly at 8 intelligence...
I don't care about edgelord Mc dustpile but it seems like larian realized that their girl was not exactly credible as a jackass with those abysmal mental scores and bumped her all the way to average...

in a way, this is pretty much close to the real deal when you arrive at the table and the second most intelligent character after yours is the fighter towering at 11... ok, there might be gale too but he's cheating, he is a wizard...

DM: After a long and hazardous journey, you finally relax, settling into the inn for a well-earned evening of good food and wine. The serving lady, Dahlia, comes to your table. You notice that she seems to be in an especially good mood tonight with her hair done nicely and a new pair of onyx earrings...

PLAYER: I kill her.

DM: Wh--?

PLAYER: I kill her.

DM: You... uh... kill her?

PLAYER: Dude, she's wearing onyx earrings. It's very obviously a symbol of dedication. I'm not going to suffer a priestess of Shar to live.

DM: Uhm. Okay, I... uh... roll to hit, I guess?

PLAYER: Ha! A twenty! Take that you onyx wearing mistress of the night!

I'm not halfway into reading this thread, but I wanted to not forget to +1 this really, really well-made point

Right, and I suppose I should avoid being hyperbolic in a thread about how this stuff may be confusing to new players not particularly well versed in the lore. The point was not to have Shadowheart flatten the MC at first meeting like the ultimate edgequeen, but that the developers need to do something! Something in the narrative set up which makes this material more real and consequential as opposed to just random books on random shelves that probably never get opened.

Though honestly if the reason to avoid this stuff, is to make sure Astarion can avoid the smuldering as a pregen MC, I still think that's a big part of what's wrong with this game. If the protognist is Astarion then he should have some kind of setup where he's on the run from Kelemvor and sweating off that a lot more than the Shar vs Selune dual aspect dispute. Obviously! lol (or perhaps not? if you're new to the game and the setting) which is the point of this thread. I still dislike the origin idea eclipsing everything else, but at least that would be something.



Heheh JandK, that DM player exchange description just made me snort-chuckle my coffee out my nostrils. Nice!

+1 as well, this is a really great suggestion

There is a difference between "Wears this stone as part of their jewellery" and "Wears this stone, in this very specific cut, setting and style, and displays it in this very specific cutting, setting and style in several places on her person."

There is a difference between "Wears pretty onxy earrings" and "Wears a diadem bearing a perfectly circular flat black disc as its central and only ornamentation, and bears an identical flat, circular, black disc on other parts of her outfit."

One of them is clearly, and deliberately, symbolic of Something.

This is especially relevant when that particular symbol is, expressly, the symbolism of a particular divine entity, in a realm where these entities are present, known and active.

Are you struggling to understand the difference between these things? If so, I can attempt to explain for you further. As always, of course, you can be dismissive or disparaging of that all you like; that's your call... but I'd personally prefer it if you remained polite, rather than launching into snarky ridicule.

Essentially, Larian was handed the golden goose (i.e., The Forgotten Realms) and they decided to make...pork chops.

lol, I don't think I need you to explain anything to me. Let's just say we disagree about the meaning of jewelry and stuff. Thank you for sharing your interpretation.

+1

It seems that in the forgotten realms - the second you met, or recognized someone as a Cleric this would be the first thing you would ask them.

"Hey noticed you casting a divine spell, which God do you get your powers from?"

Hehe Pork chops! yeah but like even there they could at least dish up a side of applesauce or whatever.

The earrings and regalia are a nice touch, but that's not serviceable if the player isn't well versed. That's also why I was trying to bring up romans and such, cause they're familiar enough to explain the issue but not quite as on the nose as that dude in pontifical style robes sporting crosses and the belltop hat and vestments. That's familiar, a lot of this FR stuff isn't. But at the same time it draws heavily on real world mythologies and religions and uses symbols and such that might be easy to mix up. You know, where they change a letter or two around or add an aspirant, so they'd have an easy out if they ever got sued. Like hey! We can let these Satanist teach the kids about Baal! And they reply, sorry sir you must have misread, we're talking about Bhaal not Baal! lol. Whereas we know what they're doing there. There's just so much overlap though, and if the player doesn't know or have the DM to instruct them, then it's not surprising they find themselves confused.

There are plenty of opportunities, not just in the char creation menu, but in the game to kick into this stuff. But they aren't really using it that way. It's not explained at all really, just used as background. As décor

I think it needs something a lot more than that, it needs to somehow justify itself and what its doing, to make those choices in character creation or representation actually feel significant to the setting and the story.

I hope that someone makes a mod with Astarion asking if the player is a cleric or something when they first meet.


I think that all of these should be added.


If the player's character knows a lot about Shar because of the History Skill, they probably know as much as or more than the player would know from reading books about Shar.
The narrator would just abridge what the character knows for the player, and the player could read books to learn more.

"Show, don't tell" is good, but it should be for certain flashbacks, current events and future events.


A problem is that it can be difficult to find the books.
In Bethesda's games, I usually read every letter, note, book, log, etc. that I found.
Though I don't remember anything from them other than some of the titles and some lore, despite quite a few of them being interesting to read.
However, when I would go to the wiki sites after a few playthroughs for each game, it usually turned out that there were still books, logs, etc. that I hadn't read in the games.

Also, I usually have problems remembering things, but I don't feel like reading the books again after I send them to storage, so having a lore section in the menu, hover boxes with abridged information in the dialogue and narration would be helpful.

As for the games not having a problem, I disagree.
Players should be able to know what their character knows about the world before dialogue options appear that don't make sense.
It's okay for players to not know what characters are talking about at the beginning of a game and to be brought up to speed as the story progresses, but only as long as they're not having to make decisions without knowledge.
If I was told on the ship at the beginning of the game, "Choose to follow Shar or Selune", I wouldn't know which to choose unless the game described them.
When you select the Cleric class, a summary is given of what each deity is like, and it wouldn't make sense for them to not do that.

Not only that, but there's a difference between reading about main information and reading about extra information.
Main information (e.g. Shar is an evil goddess, and her sister Selune and her are enemies) should be available quickly and ideally through dialogue and cutscenes since some decisions would be too difficult to make and would also lose impact without that information (what might have been a dilemma just turns into plain confusion), while extra information should be available through books, dialogue and cutscenes, since it's usually just details that might not greatly affect decisions.


It makes sense to have players learn about certain details through books rather than to have them sit through many hours of exposition, but I think that there's a middle ground that Baldur's Gate III doesn't quite reach.


Onyx is often associated with evil deities in the Forgotten Realms.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Onyx#Rumors_and_Legends

"Unenchanted onyx was believed to cause bad luck when worn or carried. Elminster has confirmed this suspicion."
"The lesser drow deity Vhaeraun was known to occasionally send onyx to show his favour or disfavour to his followers."
"Similarly, black onyx was sacred to the Chultan demigod Eshowdow, and he valued unholy items made of it."
"It was a common tale that when Shar stepped on Toril, she left onyx stones as her tracks."

If you had to hazard a guess, how many pieces of onyx would say have been in been in DnD modules over the years, including official treasure tables? How many of those pieces do you think have been mentioned as fashioned into jewelry?

IMO, in The Forgotten Realms, wearing a prominently displayed round piece of onyx should arouse a degree of suspicion. Best case scenario, you've got a symbol akin to a manji: not quite a swastika, but close enough to catch unwanted attention.


That's the point, isn't it? A skillful writer can not only - with a minimum amount of detail - draw you into a fictional world, but they can also make you want to delve in even deeper to discover those richer and more nuanced details. Right not, we're witnessing a distinct dearth of much needed literary skill.

Well another issue, which we see on full display all the time, is that once you're in the know, you tend to enjoy a more subdued presentation. One that indulges the player's well earned pedantry and extensive pre-reading. So a player coming into it who already knows who Shar is, they see all those little things like the Diadem and the stone in the lockbox and the name, and they maybe feel pretty satisfied that things are crystal clear here, perhaps even too obvious. New player comes in, misses it completely, doesn't even know what they were supposed to be looking for, and then feels like "wait what?"

Here's another analogy, one that probably fits the current moment for a few people here hehe. Say you expect that a large part of your movie-going audience has never read Herbert, and you're worried about what might happen if you try to make a Dune film. Maybe you overcompensate like DeLaurentis and demand voice over for everything or a pregame pamphlet that sort of tanks the first impression. (I still love that flick don't get me wrong! hehe) But then once it's out there, and out of the way then it becomes a lot simpler to do something more tactful like what just dropped yesterday. The same exposition, in a much more subdued way, and which carries a little better because it rewards the person in the know, but doesn't overburden the person not in the know, while still feeling like it delivered what it needs to do. Right now, Larian is sort of caught up in both places at once, since half their audience is probably coming in fresh and the other half (well let's be honest, maybe a quarter?) have already read up and know what's what. A middle ground I think would be to do a comparatively brief expository set up, but one that is forceful and cinematic (like all the rest of their forceful cinematic material), and then to let it retreat more into the background after that. More into the realm of décor basically, but only once we're certain everyone is on the same page.

I can field that one:

Not many, in fact. Very few instances are specifically identified as such, and the vast majority of those that are marked so are in the possession of dark characters, or characters with dark intentions or purposes. It is, indeed, a stone that can appear on random treasure tables for gemstones, certainly, but in terms of actually identified stones or jewellery in official modules? Very few that aren't in the keeping of evil or dark purposed characters.

Consider how every companion's secret is either immediately visible, on the box art, or unavoidable before the end of the first area, I just don't think that this is something we should expect the story to prioritize. The DM wants this part of each companions story out early so that they can play around with it as much as possible