But D&D always had silly stuff like that. Essentially the prequal to BG3, Descent into Avernus has scenes where you talk to a brain damaged Bearded Devil and his pet hellchicken or a Night Hag named Mad Maggie who can sell you cars to have mad max fights in against a talking pigman with a big hammer, or a cute talking flying elephant who shoots sparkles out of her trunk. Sorry but D&D is kinda silly and it has been like that most of its existence, Baldurs Gate 3 is true to what the Forgotten Realms actually is. The interpretation of FR being dark and gritty was made up for the story of the first 2 games. and its also why alot of NWN is far less serious by comparison.
can you in all honestly say that if the classic games had full animal speaking that they wouldn't have animals properly talk? Why do people keep warping the perception fo BG1 and 2 as super serious gritty games when they had tones of funny moments and down right campy stuff and that was one of the many things that made it great. It had a sense of humor and was silly at times. Is BG3's tone different from the past games? ABSOLUTELY but thats because they aren't the same people who made those games and Larian was smart and made sure to distance its story from the originals.
If you played any recent module from 5E then you'll know for sure that BG3 is as in line with Forgotten Realms tone as you can get.
Can't argue with that. I said something similar a few months back. Look at recent FR lore. Second Sundering. Gods and goddesses and their Chosen. Devils and demons, hags, Shar and Selune, all Drow cities becoming nothing except Menzo... Shoot, the Cults of the Three play a prevalent role in Descent which is like a prelude to BG3.
You may not like it, but Larian is staying pretty true to more recent FR lore. And it's true, Minsc and Boo, Jaheira's comments, they'd even break the fourth wall a lot with things like, "What is your command," and "oh omnipresent authority figure.". Pretty silly stuff.
