Originally Posted by Etruscan
I prefer my horror elements a little more understated, what the imagination conjures can be far more scary than having all the gory details shoved in your face.
Yeah, but I mean... BG3 has graphics, and has committed to taking advantage of using a cinematic camera perspective during interactions. They didn't do this with DOS2, and I really think DOS2 suffered for it. It was a lot harder to relate to characters because you couldn't see them emote from a top-down perspective.

Of course, this doesn't mean it'll be Metal Gear Solid tier professional cinematography, so there will be scenes that would be better if the camera were used more creatively. I'm just not expecting that kind of sophistication so I'm not going to complain about the cinematography being a bit clumsy.

I will again contradict everyone's disgust about the intellect devourer by saying I found other things more disturbing. For example, the original trailer showed a character transforming into a mindflayer. Additionally, there was the sequence with the tadpole entering an eyeball portrayed both from first-person and third-person perspective. I personally found these more horrifying, though less squicky.

Originally Posted by Niara
To the spoilered question,

Unusual exceptions to standard norms are just that - unusual exceptions. There's nothing wrong with having something that is distinctly not the norm, and indeed, if we never encountered such things, the world would be a much more boring, drab and mundane place. As such, an individual example of something that stands starkly against the normative established lore, and is clearly noted out and lamp-shaded as being so, is perfectly fine; it is its unusual nature that is interesting.

In the case of the Ormellum, he is an illithid arcanist; illithids have a strong distaste, almost disgust, for those with arcane abilities that occur with their own; one of the less stated reasons for this, however, is that these unusual individuals usually have a more pronounced sense of self and are far more likely to find themselves at odds with the will of the elder brain. Those that do find themselves at odds with the will of the elder brain, or craving more free will of their own are either executed, or else they escape and break free, going to ground and trying to make sure they don't come back into the influence of their, or any other, elder brain ever again. they become rogue, independent illithids. This is very rare, but not unprecedented.

As such, finding this rogue illithid down here, hiding and doing research as he looks for a 'better way' to be and to live, is extremely unusual and a very unlikely thing, but it is also entirely believable within the realm space.
I think that having one explicitly good Illithid leaves open the question as to whether the other Illithid who captured you may have some kind of "good" motive. End justifies the means kind of thing. It could lead to some interesting moral dilemmas.
I really like the nuance that Larian has brought to all the "evilness" stuff in BG3. The introduction of Viconia in BG2 (and the drow in general) was very poorly written.
From my perspective, I rock up to this group of people about to burn her at the stake literally just for being a drow. My only option is to let her be murdered or kill the crowd of bloodthirsty peasants. I rescue her and then immediately she makes it clear that no, she really is a remorseless murderer.

Anyway, I shouldn't dwell on this too much in this thread. I'm just very happy about Larian going all-in on the idea of having characters who have agency as individuals and are able to act counter to their default alignment. (Evil druids, rebellious goblins, good mindflayers, etc.)