Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 RELEASE THREAD

[Dishonoredbr]

It's barely a step above KOTOR in it's decision making system

Come on , it isn't not that bad. KOTOR1 is literaly stealing women and elderlies of their money or killing them..

BG3 least you double cross or even triple cross everyone in some interesting ways other than just picking [Dark Side] option..

 

[Ibn Sina]

You forgot the best part. You can ignore the grove completely and move on to act 2. Ignore the goblins, druids and tieflings - just move on. True neutrality. The quests involved aren't even mandatory.

I would say that is pretty damn good.

True neutrality should be a viable path with quests and rewards, not simply skipping content and xp. That is not neutrality that is skipping content and saying it's neutrality.

If you want a game with true neutrality path between factions look at the Witcher 1 .

 

[Barbarian]

It is 5e. There isn't even an alignment system anymore.

*decline*

 

[Barbarian]

You forgot the best part. You can ignore the grove completely and move on to act 2. Ignore the goblins, druids and tieflings - just move on. True neutrality. The quests involved aren't even mandatory.

I would say that is pretty damn good.

True neutrality should be a viable path with quests and rewards, not simply skipping content and xp. That is not neutrality that is skipping content and saying it's neutrality.

If you want a game with true neutrality path between factions look at the Witcher 1 .

You want xp for not getting involved? That is pushing it.

As pointed out, there are several ways to "solve" the issue. You guys are being pedantic - you can barely name one single game with so many ways to solve a chapter one main quest. Most games(or all of them) don't allow you to ignore the issue and move on with your business too.

 

[Old Hans]

You forgot the best part. You can ignore the grove completely and move on to act 2. Ignore the goblins, druids and tieflings - just move on. True neutrality. The quests involved aren't even mandatory.

I would say that is pretty damn good.

It feels so anemic though. Usually if im feeling especially lazy, ill have Shovel the imp steal the druid idol in front of all the druids, to trigger the grove massacre.

 

[Lemming42]

What would a neutral path through that quest look like? No matter what happens, either the druids are reclaiming the grove, the Tieflings are taking it over, the two are reaching an agreement under Halsin, or the goblins are occupying it. I guess the neutral option - other than to just leave, which obviously is the best neutral option - would be to defend the grove if you happen to be there while the goblins attack?

Maybe the quest could have been on a timer or something, rather than relying on the player to instigate the attack, but then again we're back to criticising BG3 for not having a degree of reactivity and freedom of choice that no other game has ever accomplished, and disregarding the fact that it already displays more than perhaps any other existing cRPG.

 

[Old Hans]

What would a neutral path through that quest look like?

Here is my idea: you tell everyone at the grove you are not getting involved, and as you leave, you get a cut scene of Zevlor standing on the wall, crying, as a horde of goblins march across the bridge. Also if you havent met Karlach yet, she still blames you for massacring all the Tieflings, even though the game should know better!

oh yea, and the narrator could say something like "you could have probably helped the tieflings OR goblins, but whatever, it was an opinional quest anyways"

 

[Barbarian]

What would a neutral path through that quest look like?

Here is my idea: you tell everyone at the grove you are not getting involved, and as you leave, you get a cut scene of Zevlor standing on the wall, crying, as a horde of goblins march across the bridge. Also if you havent met Karlach yet, she still blames you for massacring all the Tieflings, even though the game should know better!

oh yea, and the narrator could say something like "you could have probably helped the tieflings OR goblins, but whatever, it was an opinional quest anyways"

If you ignore the quest it is implied that the tieflings died. I mean you don't find them in Last Light or Baldur's gate. They simply don't "make it" without your involvement.

 

[Old Hans]

What would a neutral path through that quest look like?

Here is my idea: you tell everyone at the grove you are not getting involved, and as you leave, you get a cut scene of Zevlor standing on the wall, crying, as a horde of goblins march across the bridge. Also if you havent met Karlach yet, she still blames you for massacring all the Tieflings, even though the game should know better!

oh yea, and the narrator could say something like "you could have probably helped the tieflings OR goblins, but whatever, it was an opinional quest anyways"

If you ignore the quest it is implied that the tieflings died. I mean you don't find them in Last Light or Baldur's gate. They simply don't "make it" without your involvement.

I know, but it would feel a little more fulfilling if there was cutscene or something. Also another part of my idea is if you take the neutral path you are awarded a +5 vorpal sword

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

What would a neutral path through that quest look like? No matter what happens, either the druids are reclaiming the grove, the Tieflings are taking it over, the two are reaching an agreement under Halsin, or the goblins are occupying it. I guess the neutral option - other than to just leave, which obviously is the best neutral option - would be to defend the grove if you happen to be there while the goblins attack?

Maybe the quest could have been on a timer or something, rather than relying on the player to instigate the attack, but then again we're back to criticising BG3 for not having a degree of reactivity and freedom of choice that no other game has ever accomplished, and disregarding the fact that it already displays more than perhaps any other existing cRPG.

Some kind of neutral path could have been the druids need your help with something to complete their ritual. So that way you protect the druids and the tieflings are on their own. I really liked Kagha and her reasoning was completely logical. But faggy Larian had to make it that ackshually she was being controlled by evil shadow druids! Because only an evil person would place the needs and safety of their own group over muh refugees!

No negative consequences for picking the good path and just pure rewards. Other games have done better than that.

 

[Barbarian]

They ask for your help kicking the tieflings out... you can accept, kill them, they perform the ritual and lock the grove.

I mean this is in the game.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

They ask for your help kicking the tieflings out... you can accept, kill them, they perform the ritual and lock the grove.

I mean this is in the game.

Not exactly. Because the goblins will still arrive and you're either siding with the goblins or saving as many tieflings as you can. It always boils down to goblins vs tieflings. The druid stuff is basically completely inconsequential

 

[Barbarian]

I will also level with you guys honestly - I'm not one to ask for evil choices because frankly I won't use them. Outside of some meme and decency clauses - like in WOTR I would have chosen an "evil" choice to behead the lesbian orc paladin if it was given to me(instead you are forced to have her compromising the entire campaign every single chapter, with barely the option to complain about her frequent failures).

I did found the good/neutral choices in BG3 to be diverse enough to warrant replays. Because that is how rich this game is in this regard, even excluding "evil" options there are many ways to solve quests and encounters.

Also despite the memes and ample use of the term "refugees" I didn't find this game preachy at all, at least not in chapter 1. I didn't get the "Look, these tiefling refugees are just like the allahu akbar rapefugees in the real world and you should help them!" vibe at all. Zevlor is a paladin and Mol and Arabella describe themselves as "heroic thieves" when talking about stealing the idol and blocking the ritual. They are also literally just "passing through" and not asking to stay in the grove indefinitely - to the point I'm not sure the word "refugee" was well used.

In chapter 3 things take a turn to the turd bin though. Specially that "help the squatters" encounter. The whole argument changes though(the people encountered in Baldur's Gate are actual "refugees" fleeing the army of the absolute, not tieflings who had their home city literally dropped into hell.

They ask for your help kicking the tieflings out... you can accept, kill them, they perform the ritual and lock the grove.

I mean this is in the game.

Not exactly. Because the goblins will still arrive and you're either siding with the goblins or saving as many tieflings as you can. It always boils down to goblins vs tieflings. The druid stuff is basically completely inconsequential

Erm, no. If they lock the grove the goblins can't get in. Neither can you actually. Like I said, it is in the game. The grove is literally locked down if the ritual is performed.

 

[Barbarian]

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Barbarian]

ITT, that is the reason they placed the fast travel sigil so far away from the grove. You literally cannot get back in once the ritual is performed.

 

[Old Hans]

In chapter 3 things take a turn to the turd bin though. Specially that "help the squatters" encounter.

this one is the worst, and it's even doubly bad because it potentially leads into the completely pointless illegal fireworks quest. Act 3 really gets off on the wrong foot

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

I will also level with you guys honestly - I'm not one to ask for evil choices because frankly I won't use them. Outside of some meme and decency clauses - like in WOTR I would have chosen an "evil" choice to behead the lesbian orc paladin if it was given to me(instead you are forced to have her compromising the entire campaign every single chapter, with barely the option to complain about her frequent failures).

I did found the good/neutral choices in BG3 to be diverse enough to warrant replays. Because that is how rich this game is in this regard, even excluding "evil" options there are many ways to solve quests and encounters.

Also despite the memes and ample use of the term "refugees" I didn't find this game preachy at all, at least not in chapter 1. I didn't get the "Look, these tiefling refugees are just like the allahu akbar rapefugees in the real world and you should help them!" vibe at all. Zevlor is a paladin and Mol and Arabella describe themselves as "heroic thieves" when talking about stealing the idol and blocking the ritual. They are also literally just "passing through" and not asking to stay in the grove indefinitely - to the point I'm not sure the word "refugee" was well used.

In chapter 3 things take a turn to the turd bin though. Specially that "help the squatters" encounter. The whole argument changes though(the people encountered in Baldur's Gate are actual "refugees" fleeing the army of the absolute, not tieflings who had their home city literally dropped into hell.

They ask for your help kicking the tieflings out... you can accept, kill them, they perform the ritual and lock the grove.

I mean this is in the game.

Not exactly. Because the goblins will still arrive and you're either siding with the goblins or saving as many tieflings as you can. It always boils down to goblins vs tieflings. The druid stuff is basically completely inconsequential

Erm, no. If they lock the grove the goblins can't get in. Neither can you actually. Like I said, it is in the game. The grove is literally locked down if the ritual is performed.

That's just letting the quest time out. You can actually resolve it in a neutral way. Beyond that there should be consequences for taking the good option of going the extra mile to help the refugees but there aren't.

 

[ropetight]

Are there any total conversion mods for BG3?

 

[Larianshill]

No, and there will be never be, because the modding kit Larian is releasing won't allow you to make your own quests.

 

[The Bishop]

Late game evil choices are actually quite reasonable and seemingly very rewarding... I mean you can literally ally yourself with a green Hag, a Sharran cult and a Bhaal cult. You can also call upon as allies Ethel, Sarevok and Dark Justiciars in your final fight. Doesn't it make sense to ally yourself with such powers if you are evil and self-serving?

If you're moustache twirling kind of evil, sure. But self-serving? In order to get Dark Justiciars help you need to kill a whole bunch of valuable allies, and siding with Sarevok goes squarely into maniacal mass murder for no reason bin. It's a maniacal mass murder for no reason cult after all! Yes, with metagaming knowledge you can weigh strengths of one side over the other in the final fight. But this isn't how the choice is presented to you in the moment. Instead you're offered to do crazy mass murderous things, which, if nothing else, are incredibly risky for your character right then and there. All for a hope (not even promise) of help much later on.

And even with metagaming knowledge, the choice of evil side isn't quite so self beneficial. For example, the main attraction of killing Nightsong is the Shar's spear that can cast darkness every turn and lets you see through it. But you can't really use it, since enemy AI immediately shits the pants whenever you try using darkness defensively. On the other hand you lose Dammon and some of the best items in the game. You also lose Nightsong that can help in a couple of boss fights other than the final one.

I'd say the only clearly evil choice that doesn't feel crazy to take is the one with Astarion. At least you can see the benefits immediately.

 

[Larianshill]

One of the most insane "choices" is Nightsong vs Lorroarkan.
If you do the evil choice, you get Lorroarkan's help in the final battle.
However, if you do the good choice, you get Isobel, Nighsong AND Rolan, who despite being a novice wizard who couldn't handle some shadows in act 2, is just as good as Lorroarkan. Their powers are completely identical. Like, why? Why would this wizard progress this much in a few days? Did he also fight the Chosen? Did he level grind offscreen? Larian is allergic to not letting the "good path" have even one thing, it has to have everything.

From the beginning, Swen talked big game about doing the evil path "right". Well, he completely shat the bed.

 

[Ibn Sina]

What would a neutral path through that quest look like? No matter what happens, either the druids are reclaiming the grove, the Tieflings are taking it over, the two are reaching an agreement under Halsin, or the goblins are occupying it. I guess the neutral option - other than to just leave, which obviously is the best neutral option - would be to defend the grove if you happen to be there while the goblins attack?

Maybe the quest could have been on a timer or something, rather than relying on the player to instigate the attack, but then again we're back to criticising BG3 for not having a degree of reactivity and freedom of choice that no other game has ever accomplished, and disregarding the fact that it already displays more than perhaps any other existing cRPG.

A neutral path would have proper narrative content and same amount of quests as in Tiefling or gobling path. For a neutral path to exist the game would have had to be built around 3 paths. You need to either help the goblins or the tieflings so you can access Moonrise towers or cure ur tadpole with Halsin. A true neutral path would provide a third option with quests that is only available for those who do not side with any faction. I cannot brainstorm such quests but in a very rough sketch I can imagine there being a third character or someone who could guide you to the towers after you preform series of quests for them without siding with the tieflings or goblins.

 

[Ibn Sina]

You forgot the best part. You can ignore the grove completely and move on to act 2. Ignore the goblins, druids and tieflings - just move on. True neutrality. The quests involved aren't even mandatory.

I would say that is pretty damn good.

True neutrality should be a viable path with quests and rewards, not simply skipping content and xp. That is not neutrality that is skipping content and saying it's neutrality.

If you want a game with true neutrality path between factions look at the Witcher 1 .

You want xp for not getting involved? That is pushing it.

As pointed out, there are several ways to "solve" the issue. You guys are being pedantic - you can barely name one single game with so many ways to solve a chapter one main quest. Most games(or all of them) don't allow you to ignore the issue and move on with your business too.

Thats why I said there is no neutral path. Not getting invovled and skipping quests is not a neutral path.

To give an example of Witcher 1, there are two factions that oppose each other. The neutral path is not siding with anyone at late game. You get unique content and characters that only appear on that path as well get to traverse a unique map at the end of the game that is not available in either path.

There is narrative and quests built around neutrality. BG3 has no real neutrality. It is simply skipping content.

 

[Barbarian]

Late game evil choices are actually quite reasonable and seemingly very rewarding... I mean you can literally ally yourself with a green Hag, a Sharran cult and a Bhaal cult. You can also call upon as allies Ethel, Sarevok and Dark Justiciars in your final fight. Doesn't it make sense to ally yourself with such powers if you are evil and self-serving?

If you're moustache twirling kind of evil, sure. But self-serving? In order to get Dark Justiciars help you need to kill a whole bunch of valuable allies, and siding with Sarevok goes squarely into maniacal mass murder for no reason bin. It's a maniacal mass murder for no reason cult after all! Yes, with metagaming knowledge you can weigh strengths of one side over the other in the final fight. But this isn't how the choice is presented to you in the moment. Instead you're offered to do crazy mass murderous things, which, if nothing else, are incredibly risky for your character right then and there. All for a hope (not even promise) of help much later on.

And even with metagaming knowledge, the choice of evil side isn't quite so self beneficial. For example, the main attraction of killing Nightsong is the Shar's spear that can cast darkness every turn and lets you see through it. But you can't really use it, since enemy AI immediately shits the pants whenever you try using darkness defensively. On the other hand you lose Dammon and some of the best items in the game. You also lose Nightsong that can help in a couple of boss fights other than the final one.

I'd say the only clearly evil choice that doesn't feel crazy to take is the one with Astarion. At least you can see the benefits immediately.

To side with the Sharrans dont you need to simply deliver Shadowtits to Viconia?

I assume you are talking about having instead Shadowheart become chosen of Shar and take over as mother superior(which is indeed a whole lot of work).