OK, I may pick up BG3 during November sales however...

Remove all ads!

I am trying to word things to reflect an 'older and wiser'.... well, ME.

I've watched a few playthroughs' of act I and II. I'm not a fan 'at all'. BG3 comes across to me as a pure 'EVIL' playthrough no matter what. Designed for the EVIL 'gamer'.

So, questions:

1. Has anyone heard of MODS to this game that give 6 party members (all customized)?
2. Any MODS to the game that override the main quest? No tadpole non..(ahem)... stuff.
3. Any guides coming to Sorcerer's Place for a 'Good' playthrough?


Just stopping by for any assist. I can't be the only one who views what Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast and their partner Larian Studios as an extreme betrayal of IWD1&2, and BG1&2. Then again, maybe I am.

Thanks for any feedback or criticism.

 

Hello Tal! Yeah it's been a bit. The last time I stopped by was to start following Beren's/SuperDave(17?)'s playthrough of POE1 and POE2(Godlike Kind Wayfarer Paladin and some sort of Monk/Barbarian/IIRC correspondingly) some time back.

Thanks for the feedback as always Tal, I'll keep an eye out for the guide when Sorc's.net puts one out. I also suspected even with NWN1&2, that what was 'captured' by the IWD's and BG's decades ago was not going to have the loyalty they deserved. My opinion that is.

Real-Time with Pause, wouldn't be a deal breaker for me as Tabletop D&D is Turn-Based. Also, multiplayer D&D games via a Lan or over the internet work well with (edit)Turn-Based, it would be a very difficult otherwise.

Again, thanks as always for the feedback. I may put off this purchase of BG3, even permanently. It would depend on what MODS come out, and if it is even possible to play a 'truly' good playthrough without doing the bidding of any devils/demons/tieflings/vampires or fiends...

Take care Tal and Team Sorc's.net!!

 

BG3 does have a lot of ways to steer towards "evil", but almost all of them are entirely unrewarding. Unfortunately, the game also falls into the standard trap of having most of the evil decisions be stupid, relying on senseless murder and destruction to showcase the alignment, without a shred of subtlety.

A good playthrough is actually the easiest one because the good path is usually the "right" path in that it's the most rewarding and progresses the story in the most favorable way (i.e. without blocking off other quests or access to NPCs).

There are some alignment-neutral choices, such as whether or not you want to use your mind flayer powers, but just because most elder-brain-controlled illithid are evil, doesn't make this an evil decision. The whole point is that your tadpoles cannot fall under the control of an elder brain.

The companions also have a full range of alignments, though none of them are particularly extreme in expressing them, so you can either ignore their complaints while you do your goody-goody stuff or not take the more evil-leaning ones with you in the first place. You can change any of their classes at any point anyway, so it's not like you're locked into a specific set of companions.

Although a 6-man party used to be the golden standard, 4-man parties have ended up being the ideal number as the games advanced. The entire game is balanced around you having 4 members and it's super easy as it is (as long as you know how to play D&D). That said, there is a mod that removes the party limit, allowing you to have up to 16 party members.

I don't think there are any mods that change the main quest line in a significant manner, nor do I expect there to be one any time soon. Trying to get rid of your tadpole is a major part of the game and it's a "taint", much like your Bhaalspawn blood in BG1/2, that you do not have to rely on at all.

Overall, I would say BG3 is very much faithful to the old games but also brings the game into the current decade, which is why it was so eagerly welcomed by both old and new players.

 

I agree for the most part. I also agree with most BG2 players that Larian really dropped the ball with their implementation of the two redeemable BG2 NPCs, but Larian is still making changes so there might yet be hope for an improvement there.

The thing though is that (at least in my case) I never play a straight "good" character the same way I think evil for the sake of evil is stupid. And the game actually rewards me for that - there are unique items and weapons in the game you will never get unless you steal or murder NPCs for them, for example. IMO the game best rewards Neutral/gray area people and people who are willing to take matters into their own hands.
For example, I tend to work closely with evil factions and do a lot of their dirty work for them (to a point). This makes it easier to increase my reputation with them so that when I inevitably go murder-hobo (again, to point) they tend to let a lot of things slide. Usually I'll have whittled them down to their last 3 or so non-psychotic members before I decide that I have enough loot/XP and move on. The goblin/duergar/gith camps are looking mighty empty these days...
I also attack non-evil NPCs for loot all the time (sorry, but I need your item "for the greater good" and your continued breathing is in the way). I expect I'd have developed quite a reputation among merchants and would-be heroes carrying unique magical items.

I can appreciate that being "good" does open up a lot more story opportunities, though. Which is understandable especially if your definition of "evil" is attacking everything that moves. People tend to not cooperate with you when they're hurt or dead, and story hooks generally don't happen without people to drive them.

 

Hi Keneth, thanks for the feedback.

You may not (or just incidentally passed over) recall modern games with 6 party members like Pillars of Eternity I and Pathfinder Kingmaker. Those are advanced. Modern. Not that I play Jagged Alliance 3(a modern title) but, more than 4 party members as well. I just scanned good ol' games and found dozens of titles within the last 5 years that were more than 4 party members.

So, the thinking that only 4 party members is balanced would be one's own perspective, and yes obviously it is one I disagree with as I am someone who can recall playing table-top D&D, Traveller/Mega-Traveller, Champions and the like with as many as 8 to 10 people. And a mod up to 16 party members? Yikes... that would be a bit much for me.

Yes, I agree that there wouldn't be a mod that 'overruled' the tadpole main quest any time soon or...ever. However, for me it was a 'nice thought' as the tadpole stuff is an extreme 'put off' for me. As far as your response to BG3 being faithful to the (ahem) 'old games'... I could not disagree more (politely so...). In old games you could 'role-play'. You could have in BG1 Edwin or Dynaheir. Coran or Kivan. Kagain or Minsc. Yeslick or Viconia. You could 'role-play' as you personally like. Whatever way your Moral Bearing/Compass would allow.

Moral Bearing
def. "Of or relating to principles/beliefs/teachings/convictions that guide or govern one to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil.

So, current decade, eh? Doing the 'bidding' of Devils, Demons, Tieflings, Vampires and Fiends?...'Oh my!'

That's not for me. I do realize it very much is for others. Keneth, thanks again for the feedback! Please don't take my response in a 'salty' way, just keep in mind I am a 'mean old man'... well, some of the times.

Take care and enjoy!​

 

Thanks for your feedback as well Paracelsi!

I have done somethings similar but only when I can 'righteously' justify it. For instance, Drizzt. Yep. I put him down in numerous of my BG1 runs. I justified it with 'My team needs your items to put evil to the sword!'. In the Nashkell Mines, Durlags Tower, The Gnoll Fortress, Cloakwood, Bandit Camp, Werewolf Isle, Firewine Bridge and maze and up and down the Sword Coast. Let's not forget that 'nightmare' Sarevok either!!! Drizzt's items were very useful. However, killing an NPC for their items is not my 'norm'.




....and Tal, shame on you!!!!

 

Games like Pillars, Kingmaker, or Wasteland 2 were intentionally created "oldschool style" and made to appeal predominantly to the old guard. They feature very few modern takes and that's okay. I'm not saying there are no new games that feature more than 4 party members, just that modern games tend to gravitate toward 4 party members because 1) that tends to cover all major party roles and 2) it doesn't bog down the gameplay too much. Even D&D and Pathfinder state that the games are designed with a party size of 3-5 in mind and, if you look at officially released adventures, most will state they are made with 4-player parties in mind. Again, I'm not saying that you can't balance things for 6 party members, just that most adventures are not. Adding two more characters to a 4-player adventure will usually trivialize things.

What's different here? You can role-play any way you want. You also have companions that don't like each other and some that are exclusive. BG3 doesn't do any role-playing aspects differently than BG2 did.

You don't have to do any of that. Who or what you work for is entirely up to you. Also, tieflings aren't evil, and racism toward them is one of the early plot points.

 

Keneth, even if you or others call (or smear) something "oldschool style" doesen't make it so. There were games in the 90's,2000's,2010's and now 2020's that had (or have) 2 players, 4 players, 6 players even games that had (or have) 1 player. The 'number' of players isn't tied to a time period in any way, shape or form, except in the minds of those who have 'agenda's and believe everyone 'must' agree to 'their thinking'. I obviously will not share the -ahem- 'thinking' of those with such agendas.

Again, wholeheartedly disagree. In BG2 you could have Edwin or Nahlia, Korgan or Minsc, Viconia or Anomen, and other 'choices' as to how one wants to role-play, not how others with agenda's claim one must role-play. Thus, certain views may be for you but not for Ecuadorians, Columbians, Algerians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesians, French, Somali, Algerians, South Africans or even up to 99% of the entire human race. It doesn't mean their views are wrong. Keneth, you have strong views, that is fine. Actually, that is great, but your strong views are yours. Mine are mine (as I have strong views as well). Also, anything you state as racism carries no weight, at least not to me. Even if Hasbro/WoTC adjust lore to satiate the taste of a consumer group who is 'ok' with diabolic and demonic ties (Tieflings), I never will be. In a role-playing sense such diabolic/demonic ties would bring the Eternal Blood War to all inhabitants of Faerun eventually. Wiping out nearly all life in Faerun except the 'mightiest'.

Do you like demons? Devils? Would I state it to be 'racism' if you despised them? How about 'vampires'? How about 'Feinds'? I would never state what you did with the label of 'racism' if you had such views. You did towards my view, that's you. The BG3 early plot points (to present Tieflings as an 'accepted' population, bringing back Bane, Bhaal and Mrykul) by Hasbro/WoTC and Larian Studios is easily accepted by many. But not all, particularly realizing the past and present decisions (no doubt future as well) of Hasbro/WoTC are for marketing reasons/value -aka 'money grab' decisions. Skillfully changing the D&D lore to placate a consumer base that keeps demanding... well, 'Devils, Demons, Tieflings, Vampires and Fiends'.

Keneth, again I need not share your views nor your views reflect mine. I am more than 'ok' with that. Please don't think you can change my views ever at all, nor should you find offense if(edit) someone doesn't acquiesce to your views. I've come to accept very few ever would share my views. I'm 'adult' with that knowledge.

Peace be unto you?
Take care Kenneth!

 

Again, I'm not saying there are no modern games with more than 4 playable characters, just that games eventually gravitated toward that number (with solid reasoning behind it), which is why it's so common these days. The fact that the games you mentioned have more than 4 is just a tiny part of why they are considered "old-school". And that's not a bad thing, I myself am the target audience for those games, but they cannot be considered "modern" games, except in the sense that they are recent.

I'm also not trying to change your views, I am simply struggling to understand what those views are. BG3 doesn't limit your role-playing choices in any way. In fact, you probably have far more freedom to role-play your desired alignment or convictions than you did in the old IE games. The game doesn't force you into any particular point of view, nor does it push any specific agendas. Unless you call companions expressing their sexualities an agenda, but that's a whole other can of worms. You're free to ignore or rebuff any of the companions, with no downside, anyway.

And tieflings were never evil. Even when they were introduced, all the way back in the last century, they were portrayed as common victims of persecution by humans and others due to their heritage. But although their heritage was tied to the Lower Planes, they generally had no ties to actual demons or devils, nor were they evil by default. This is not something WotC introduced recently to make more money off of modern liberals, although it's as good of an allegory now as it was back then.

 

Keneth... hello again. Please, please, you may wish to revisit any thinking that 4 party members is somehow solid reasoning. A software game developer can make a modern game with 50 players, or 100, or even a 1,000! Or even 1 player. If games that appeal to you have 4 party members, so be it. I role-play with a 'team'. Somewhat like a team such as found in sports...not 4 players, but many more. Or found in the Millitary...not generally ever just 4 soldiers, but considerably more. Even a family 'team' has Dad, Mom, Sons, Daughters, Grandparents, etc.

Above all else, some arbitrary number does not qualify what is modern and what is not. Nor could it ever.

Wha?... Sexuality?... Liberals?... Hunh?... You are the first one to bring that up, no doubt for 'reasons'. Skillful 'reasons'? No, I think not. Not at least in my opinion. So perhaps we should get back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Devils, Demons, Tieflings, Vampires and Fiends. It would be irrelevant to me if a software game developer (or Hasbro\WoTC) craftily, cleverly portrays them as victims of persecution. The ol' 'sympathy for the Devil' routine is, well, older than you or I. It will continue on after our final day has come and gone. Again, in my role-playing view massive destruction and death would ensue upon Faerun if there were even a sizable Drow population. Lloth would insist upon it. Any sizable Tiefling population would directly as well as indirectly bring the Eternal Blood War to the inhabitants of Faerun. Devils and Demons would see to that, rather quickly. The destruction and death toll would be massive. It would be like 'Hell' on... well, Faerun.

Regardless Keneth, we need not continue the 'back and forth'. If you would like the 'last word', so be it. I already know BG3 is not for me at all. There is not a Kivan, nor Keldorn. Not a Yeslick nor Mazzy. Not an Imoen nor Valygar. There are zero party members to be found for my style of role-playing. Which is as always 'putting evil to the sword' with a 'team' that has the same goal!

Keneth, again enjoy your day.

 

It is solid reasoning though. Whether we like it or not, the simplest and most complete party composition in D&D-like games always boils down to 4 party roles: the tank, the damage, the support, and the utility. In D&D, these can be the standard fighter, mage, cleric, thief, but most classes can fill multiple roles these days. There's no rule that says you can't have more members with more specific roles, but decades of experience have shown that, in games where each character must be tactically managed individually, anything beyond 4 quickly starts to bog down the gameplay. In P&P games, coordinating sessions for more than 4-5 people, especially adults, also becomes increasingly more difficult, which is also part of the reason why most RP groups tend to have that number of players, but that doesn't really mean much for video games unless you're playing multiplayer.

There's no basis for that statement. Where did you read such a thing? Tieflings are not direct offspring of fiends, so there's no direct correlation between their number in Faerun and the fiends' influence on the land.

That's fair, there are very few self-righteous well-meaning types in the ensemble. You have Wyll and Karlach, but I can understand why you wouldn't like them, since they're a devil pact warlock and a tiefling barbarian, even though they're good to the core. You also get Minsc and Jaheira in late-game, but it's hard to count them as proper companions.