Baldur's Gate III (2)

[xroads]

It's a game that strongly encourages out of the box thinking and, let's be frank, flat out dirty play to get ahead. I mean, what's the point of fair play when the opponent is actively trying to kill you?

This game is one of the few times I've decided to try out team evil.

In part it's because the devs actually encourage players to try out the darker paths. According to the devs, players usually play hero characters. So they want to make sure the evil paths get a fair share of testing during early access.

But also, the party make-up just seems to lean into the shadier direction. After all, your companions consist of...

Spoiler: Companion Details

Show

• a cleric of an evil god
• a vampire spawn
• a member of a species usually considered evil and tends to only tolerate other species because they aren't mind flayers
• and a warlock who bargained his soul with a fiend

[huttj509]

This game is one of the few times I've decided to try out team evil.

In part it's because the devs actually encourage players to try out the darker paths. According to the devs, players usually play hero characters. So they want to make sure the evil paths get a fair share of testing during early access.

But also, the party make-up just seems to lean into the shadier direction. After all, your companions consist of...

Spoiler: Companion Details

Show

• a cleric of an evil god
• a vampire spawn
• a member of a species usually considered evil and tends to only tolerate other species because they aren't mind flayers
• and a warlock who bargained his soul with a fiend

Note, those aren't 2 disconnected things. Those are among the current companions in EA *because* the devs wanted to focus on the evil characters at present. NPC distribution in game will vary.

[Narkis]

According to the devs, players usually play hero characters.

Yeah, it is consistent with what others have said as well. Owlcat revealed some data from the Wrath of the Righteous alpha and iirc the split between the people who picked the Good mythic paths and those who preferred Evil was 65/35.

[Kish]

I suspect when the game's actually live, the split among players will be more like 80%/20%, or even more skewed toward good. More people want to be edgy in online surveys than actually play evil in CRPGs.

[Dienekes]

I suspect when the game's actually live, the split among players will be more like 80%/20%, or even more skewed toward good. More people want to be edgy in online surveys than actually play evil in CRPGs.

In my experience I like playing morally ambiguous leaning toward evil characters. But a lot of games with a good/evil dichotomy system has the options divided between: “do something that benefits everyone,” and “eat this baby.”

There’s really not much a choice there.

[KillianHawkeye]

According to the devs, players usually play hero characters.

Despite always being curious about playing a villainous character in these kinds of games, I do usually fall into playing at least semi-good.

But the reason is that most games, even in the era of "choices matter", are not written well for playing a villain. Other than having a few key moments where you can choose between good and bad, a lot of times I see it come down to having the option to help some people or just don't do their side-quest. But I want to do the side-quests! I want to experience as much of the content as I can.

So far my experience in BG3 isn't any different. I saw a lot of the interactions with NPCs in the druid grove come down to a choice between 1) "Yes, I'll help you", 2) "Okay, but pay me a lot", or 3) "I don't have time for this." I don't always want being a greedy ass to be my main path to the Dark Side like it always is in these games. I want more options for evil characters to be able to subvert a quest, not just ignore it. I want the variance between the evil and good outcomes of a quest to be more than using threats and lies instead of diplomacy to achieve the same resolution.

More than that, I want games to be more explicit that both good and evil options exist. Not just "Yes, I can help you" but also "(Lie) Pretend to help but really betray them by doing XYZ" or "(Manipulate) Plant false evidence to implicate their ally" or whatever makes sense under the circumstances.

[Corvus]

I almost never play evil characters or anything that can be evil - mostly I go with the good option. Sometimes I will go a little grey. (Well, except in 4x games - occasionally I will genocide races if they have nice real estate. Even then I generally try and play nice and build up alliances/etc.)

As to the crashing problem - I upgraded the drivers, reduced some of the settings and that did seem to fix things a bit. Managed to complete the nautiloid without another crash. But then it did crash when it tried to load up the beach afterwards. Still, that is progress.

[Morty]

That does remind me. I wonder how this game approaches D&D alignment. Hopefully it doesn't do the "track by numbers" method like NWN or Planescape: Torment. My preferred approach to alignment in tabletop D&D was to write down some flavor of neutral and ignore it henceforth.

[Narkis]

That dos remind me. I wonder how this game approaches D&D alignment. Hopefully it doesn't do the "track by numbers" method like NWN or Planescape: Torment. My preferred approach to alignment in tabletop D&D was to write down some flavor of neutral and ignore it henceforth.

There is no alignment in the game. Larian wanted to do something with it (I assume temptation to evil, like with the Bhaal powers in the original) but Wizards insisted.

[Morty]

This is excellent news, thank you.

[Babale]

There is no alignment in the game. Larian wanted to do something with it (I assume temptation to evil, like with the Bhaal powers in the original) but Wizards insisted.

I'm out of the loop -- why would Wizards block Alignment?

Though from the sound of it, the temptation comes from your mindflayer tadpole and has a practical cost rather than a moral one, so it sounds like we won't miss much

[Keltest]

I'm out of the loop -- why would Wizards block Alignment?

Though from the sound of it, the temptation comes from your mindflayer tadpole and has a practical cost rather than a moral one, so it sounds like we won't miss much

5e has been moving away from alignment being in the pen and paper game for a while now. It still exists on a character sheet, but there are no effects that interact with it, and its strictly a roleplaying tool and a convenient shorthand for describing your character. Classes such as the Devotion Paladin (the quintessential paladin from older editions) that previously relied on having an alignment now specifically call out the behaviors they must conform to.

[Babale]

Gotcha. Well, that makes a lot more sense to me -- Paladins devoted to any cause, not just LG; that a Paladin's smite will affect any enemies of his diety, not just ones who disagree on a philosophical as well as practical level.... etc

[Dragonus45]

I'm out of the loop -- why would Wizards block Alignment?

Though from the sound of it, the temptation comes from your mindflayer tadpole and has a practical cost rather than a moral one, so it sounds like we won't miss much

WotC's design philosophy since 5e has had a lot of "let us tell you the correct way to play the game" stuff in it like trying to remove alignment almost wholesale so I'm not surprised they would actually demand Larian not use it even if they did have some cool idea to use.

[LaZodiac]

More than that, I want games to be more explicit that both good and evil options exist. Not just "Yes, I can help you" but also "(Lie) Pretend to help but really betray them by doing XYZ" or "(Manipulate) Plant false evidence to implicate their ally" or whatever makes sense under the circumstances.

For what it is worth, this is somewhat in the game as it stands. You can say you'll say, help them, then abandon them to their fate. One I heard recently is that

Spoiler

Show

if you betray the grove to the goblins, but rush back to the grove before they get there, you can absolutely spring a trap to get them.

Ultimately, I think having more explicit OPTIONS to be more nuanced on some of these things will happen once the game is officially released.

[Morty]

WotC's design philosophy since 5e has had a lot of "let us tell you the correct way to play the game" stuff in it like trying to remove alignment almost wholesale so I'm not surprised they would actually demand Larian not use it even if they did have some cool idea to use.

I don't normally trust WotC to do anything right, but if they insisted on removing alignment from BG3 in spite of Larian wanting to keep it, I'm going to give them full credit just this once. Whatever "cool idea" Larian might have had for alignment is better off not seeing the light of day.

[KillianHawkeye]

For what it is worth, this is somewhat in the game as it stands. You can say you'll say, help them, then abandon them to their fate. One I heard recently is that

Spoiler

Show

if you betray the grove to the goblins, but rush back to the grove before they get there, you can absolutely spring a trap to get them.

Ultimately, I think having more explicit OPTIONS to be more nuanced on some of these things will happen once the game is officially released.

I'm glad stuff like this is already in the game. But I wonder how easy the game tells you about it, or if it's something you'd have to know or figure out on your own? (I haven't gotten to the goblins fort yet.)



Here's a different question (accompanied by amusing story) from my game thus far:

Why is it so hard to find ordinary clothing items?

So having watched a bit of a let's play before buying the game, and seeing recruitable Cleric, Wizard, and Fighter characters, I made my first character a Warlock. At level 2, I took the invocation that gives you at-will all day Mage Armor, because that's better than any of the light armors you can find.

However, Mage Armor requires you to not wear armor for some reason. This would be fine if you started out as a wizard with robes on, but my warlock suddenly had to spend several hours fighting and talking to townsfolk in a bikini. (I finally got some clothes after I was forced into a fight with a druid, but there was a long gap where I could neither loot nor purchase clothing.) This made the initial meeting with the Rogue character particularly awkward, and added some amusement to a few other conversations as I met all the people in the druid's grove.

There's something to be said from hands-on-hips blank facial expression confidence while wearing nothing but a bikini, but it still seems like something of an oversight. I know, I know, generic clothing items are probably just not in the game yet. I just found it really funny after the initial awkwardness wore off.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[MoiMagnus]

WotC's design philosophy since 5e has had a lot of "let us tell you the correct way to play the game" stuff in it like trying to remove alignment almost wholesale so I'm not surprised they would actually demand Larian not use it even if they did have some cool idea to use.

To be fair, I prefer them removing alignment from the rules than them trying to give me some objective notion of good and evil.
If anything, they are giving us more freedom on how to play than what we had with alignment rules.

[By the way, in one of the interview of the creators of 5e, they explained that during playtesting, the number one complaint they had in early playtesting than "please remove all the alignment restrictions to classes", and it really surprised them how much some peoples wanted to have those removed. They followed a very vocal part of the community by removing the effects of alignment, so I don't think that's fair to say that's them trying to tell you the correct way to play.]

[Dienekes]

To be fair, I prefer them removing alignment from the rules than them trying to giving me some objective notion of good and evil.
If anything, they are giving us more freedom on how to play than what we had with alignment rules.

[By the way, in one of the interview of the creators of 5e, they explained that during playtesting, the number one complaint they had in early playtesting than "please remove all the alignment restrictions to classes", and it really surprised them how much some peoples wanted to have those removed. They followed a very vocal part of the community by removing the effects of alignment, so I don't think that's fair to say that's them trying to tell you the correct way to play.]

That makes sense. A lot of alignment restrictions were pretty dumb. You can’t have the chaotic monk despite the “powerful chaotic student” being a foundational part of martial arts media that monks drew from. No lawful Bards despite the class also being used for military tempo keepers and signallers which was a very lawful job. Hell even Barbarians are based on the concept of a Norse ber-sekr who appear to essentially be elite warriors that swore allegiance to kings and Oden. Which is about as lawful as Norse society got.

I’ll be honest I’ve never seen much point for the alignment system outside giving new players a rough starting place to roleplay their character. And I think it makes roleplay more interesting without spells like Detect Alignment able to answer a lot of questions that would be better served having adventures around discovering them.

[xroads]

Note, those aren't 2 disconnected things. Those are among the current companions in EA *because* the devs wanted to focus on the evil characters at present. NPC distribution in game will vary.

Will they be adding more companions? I ask because in Divinity: Original Sin 2, Larian only provided a handful of companions. At least at the start in any case.

Spoiler: Divinity: Original Sin 2

Show

To be fair I've never made it much further than the starting prison's walls in that game.

So maybe you do pick up more companions?

But the reason is that most games, even in the era of "choices matter", are not written well for playing a villain. Other than having a few key moments where you can choose between good and bad, a lot of times I see it come down to having the option to help some people or just don't do their side-quest. But I want to do the side-quests! I want to experience as much of the content as I can.

So far my experience in BG3 isn't any different.[...]

Yeah, basically my experience too. My first play through was playing an evil drow. So I ended up not taking a lot of missions because I viewed my character as seeing them as pointless when there are bigger issues at stake.

Of course, that may just be an issue with how I play evil characters. But somehow, being greedy and grabbing every coin while a tadpole cores my brains just seems like a waste of time for an evil character.

For what it is worth, this is somewhat in the game as it stands. You can say you'll say, help them, then abandon them to their fate. One I heard recently is that

Spoiler

Show

Oh yeah. That option is available. And let me tell you, druids are tough and goblins are relatively squishy.

I haven't defended the grove yet, but I wonder if playing on team good is easier.

[Narkis]

Will they be adding more companions? I ask because in Divinity: Original Sin 2, Larian only provided a handful of companions. At least at the start in any case.

They have said they will, and they have already added one compared to earlier previews. They used to show only the Githyanki, the Cleric of Shar, the Vampire and the Wizard. They haven't revealed a number, but I expect about 10 in total.

[Keltest]

Keep in mind for DOS, companions werent limited by class. Iran could be a wayfarer or a mage with equal aptitude. BG3 doesnt have that freedom, so if they want an all good party, they need enough classes to make it viable mechanically as well. It's why imoen was added to BG 1 in fact: they wanted a non-sociopathic rogue prior to the halfway point of the game.

[LaZodiac]

I'm guessing one party member for each class. Seems reasonable enough.

Speaking of reasonable-

Spoiler

Show

the phase spider area is not, but I found a solution! As it turns out, they only have poison moves... and Imps have poison immunity. So I've got myself and Wyll just sending out invisible imps on scouting missions, engaging entire encounters by themselves. This worked for basically the entire area (two of the Phase Spiders with the Momtriarch managed to find the party back at the start of the area and came up to me one at a time for easy murdering. I'm shocked this encounter gives so little actual experience given it is... absurd.

Also given how I abused the hell out of Pact of the Chain's Find Familiar here, I think it's safe to say that "having an invisible flying associate for the party" is legitimately a valid option.

[Morty]

It does still lead to a potential issue where you might need a companion of a particular class, but their personality doesn't suit you. At least no class is indispensable, except maybe cleric for healing.

[Clistenes]

I haven't bought the early release game, but I have been reading the reviews in order to decide about buying it or not.

About the character's appearance, I have read that, while there are many options for horns and tattoos and skin tones, the actual options for faces and bodies are pretty limited: A single height and body type for each race, and some very similar faces for each race.

I have been able to find the male half-elf faces only, and four of them are very similar, plus a fifth being uglier, and they seem to want to force you to have a fabulous hairdo rather than a practical one...

Is it really like that, or is my information incomplete?

Maybe people aren't building boring-looking characters like Larian claims, maybe they are just trying to build a normal-looking, non-ugly character and that's what they get...

This game is one of the few times I've decided to try out team evil.

In part it's because the devs actually encourage players to try out the darker paths. According to the devs, players usually play hero characters. So they want to make sure the evil paths get a fair share of testing during early access.

But also, the party make-up just seems to lean into the shadier direction. After all, your companions consist of...

Spoiler: Companion Details

Show

• a cleric of an evil god
• a vampire spawn
• a member of a species usually considered evil and tends to only tolerate other species because they aren't mind flayers
• and a warlock who bargained his soul with a fiend

But is it a good idea trying to push people to play their least favoured option? Not to mention forcing you to endure *******s who insult you and try to kill you... Larian is not my dad, he is a guy trying to sell me stuff; it's not his job to teach me to broaden my options and to be tolerant of unlikeable people's awful behaviours...

You know what a truly evil person would do? They would kill the nasty vampire who wants to drink their blood and the Gith who tries to kill them because they are nicer to Shadowheart...

[Narkis]

They would kill the nasty vampire who wants to drink their blood and the Gith who tries to kill them because they are nicer to Shadowheart...

I suspect nothing will stop you from doing just that when there are more companions to choose from.

[Keltest]

But is it a good idea trying to push people to play their least favoured option? Not to mention forcing you to endure *******s who insult you and try to kill you... Larian is not my dad, he is a guy trying to sell me stuff; it's not his job to teach me to broaden my options and to be tolerant of unlikeable people's awful behaviours...

You know what a truly evil person would do? They would kill the nasty vampire who wants to drink their blood and the Gith who tries to kill them because they are nicer to Shadowheart...

For the purposes of testing? Yes, absolutely. They need the options to still work for the people who want them.

[Clistenes]

For the purposes of testing? Yes, absolutely. They need the options to still work for the people who want them.

But you are still paying for early access. You should enjoy what you are paying for...

[Keltest]

But you are still paying for early access. You should enjoy what you are paying for...

Im not playing an EA game for a full and complete experience that allows me to explore the full range of options that are intended to be in the game. Im playing it because i want to assist in the development process and maybe give some informed feedback while things are still in a state of heavy change.

I mean come on, they put a warning label on it for exactly this reason.

[Dragonus45]

Just remember, at the end of the day you paid to be a beta tester here and what they need tested are the jerks.