New BGIII Interviews with LarianCEO Swen Vincke in media:Advantage,Combat,Spells & main antagonists.
PsicoVic
Member Posts: 868
New Baldur's Gate III Interview at E3 2019: We chat with Larian CEO Swen Vincke and D&D Dungeons & Dragons Creative Director Mike Mearls about Baldur's Gate
https://www.rpgsite.net/interview/8677-baldur-s-gate-iii-interview-at-e3-2019-we-chat-with-larian-ceo-swen-vincke-about-baldur-s-gate-and-partnership-with-wizards-of-the-coast
Among other things and despite the infamous vagueness of Sven Vincke, in this interview, they said that the 5e mechanics of "advantage" and "inspiration" could be part of the BGIII game.
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_SRD:Advantage_and_Disadvantage
https://dnd5e.info/beyond-1st-level/inspiration/
Two statements that make me shiver:
MM: "Our idea is that you can change things, even lore, as long as you show and don't tell why it might be changing"
Swen Vincke: "Well...we're going to show the combat rather than talk about it. The decision has been made and we're obviously in production, but we want to show the entirety of the game including what it looks like and what it plays like all in one go.
...But also good things:
"We're evolving from Original Sin II. We're basing ourselves with a bigger focus on the party. You need to gather your party, right? At the relationship level, we probably could have done more in Original Sin II, and relationship between players and the actual party was a very big focus in Baldur's Gate".
Edit: Another bomb Swen Vincke throw at us is that the Mindflayers are not the main adversaries in BGIII: they hinted that the mindflayers are somehow victims, have complex motivations, a tragic story and are slaves of a greater power. Interesting perspective.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/01/baldurs-gate-iii-larian-studios-interview-we-want-to-create-the-state-of-the-art-in-rpgs-10094263/
SV: you don’t have to know anything about it to appreciate what it [Mindflayers] is, right? It’s got tentacles, it’s got psychonic powers. And it also has a tragic story. It used to have an empire that spanned the astral plane and it lost everything. And now it’s hiding in the Underdark and being hunted by this race called the Githyanki, who actually make it their life’s initiation rite to go kill one of these mind slayers, take the head and bring it to their queen.
[...]
SV:what I told you about the mind flayers, they have a very good reasons for doing what they do, right? It’s not just doing it to be evil. And that makes for better storytelling. MM: Yeah, understanding the motivations makes a big difference. They might be alien monstrosities but you can understand them as characters. Why do they inflict these awful things on humans? Well, to them humans are just these barely sentient apes. They don’t think of them as anything else. SV: And then to realise that they’re slaves themselves…
MM: And that’s the sort of thing that’s buried in the lore, that they’re actually a puppet of something else. GC: Are the mind flayers the main bad guys in the game?
SV: They’re not the main bad guys, they’re… part of the overall plot. But they’re not the main plot. We showed the trailer to show the tonality of the game, to show the production values, and also for showing that we were going to go further than what you would expect. Because we did put the Nautolids in on purpose because that’s actually a component from a campaign called Spelljammer, which hasn’t got an equivalent in fifth edition yet.
[...]
SV:what I told you about the mind flayers, they have a very good reasons for doing what they do, right? It’s not just doing it to be evil. And that makes for better storytelling. MM: Yeah, understanding the motivations makes a big difference. They might be alien monstrosities but you can understand them as characters. Why do they inflict these awful things on humans? Well, to them humans are just these barely sentient apes. They don’t think of them as anything else. SV: And then to realise that they’re slaves themselves…
MM: And that’s the sort of thing that’s buried in the lore, that they’re actually a puppet of something else. GC: Are the mind flayers the main bad guys in the game?
SV: They’re not the main bad guys, they’re… part of the overall plot. But they’re not the main plot. We showed the trailer to show the tonality of the game, to show the production values, and also for showing that we were going to go further than what you would expect. Because we did put the Nautolids in on purpose because that’s actually a component from a campaign called Spelljammer, which hasn’t got an equivalent in fifth edition yet.
Edit 02.07.19: Also about how do we play the game itself, it seems that right now there is only versions planned for PC and Stadia.
RPG Site: Does Stadia mean Baldur's Gate III will be able to be played via both touch and a controller?
Swen Vincke: We are going to have controller support, just like we had for Original Sin I and II. The Stadia has a controller and if you plug in a controller for you PC version, be it GOG or Steam, it will automatically switch over to it.
RPG Site: Are there any plans for Baldur's Gate III to come to other consoles at some point?
Swen Vincke: PC and Stadia are the only things we're focusing on right now.
GC: All right, so just to clarify, you haven’t said anything whatsoever about the game? Is that right? SV: It’s single-player and co-operative multiplayer…
Swen Vincke: We are going to have controller support, just like we had for Original Sin I and II. The Stadia has a controller and if you plug in a controller for you PC version, be it GOG or Steam, it will automatically switch over to it.
RPG Site: Are there any plans for Baldur's Gate III to come to other consoles at some point?
Swen Vincke: PC and Stadia are the only things we're focusing on right now.
GC: All right, so just to clarify, you haven’t said anything whatsoever about the game? Is that right? SV: It’s single-player and co-operative multiplayer…
Mike and Swen strike back in a Podcast for Kotaku https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585 Swen said they "picked the canon WOTC ending of bg2 " in 24.05 . The canon ending is that the baalspawn was a mercenary called Abdel Adrian that chose to forfeit divinity.
https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Abdel_Adrian
In this podcast, they also semi-confirmed the wish spell but also stated that some spells were banned. They use a three-color-coded list of spells. Green is good to go! like magic missile. Red is "never gonna happen". He didn´t enter into specifics but they said that is High-level stuff. Wish is accepted because it has a role in storytelling. 38.15
Edit 06/07/19 : https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-erstes-gameplay-video-gamescom-kampfsystem,3345782.html
https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-preview-early-access-kamera,3345543.html
In the interview, Swen stated combat is not up for debate. Also said BG3 will only have 1 combat system but he didn't say which system. He also stated that it could be neither TB or RTWP.
Gameplay will not be shown at Gamescom either.
BG3 will have Early Access like DOS 1+2!
Edit 07.07.19 In this interview, Swen is still very vague about details, but he also stood by his position about that they are going to do something innovative in combat, but you will have a recognizable setting and classes; about the multiplayer and that the future is in cloud-only platforms like Google stadia. Just remember that right now there are no bg3 port planned for consoles.
https://wccftech.com/larian-studios-interview-innovating-baldurs-gate-3/
The BG3 game will use Larian´s Divinity engine 4.0 (DoS EE was 3.5) and that you will have 5e classes and subclasses. The game will be longer than DoS2, approximately 100 hours.
https://fextralife.com/baldurs-gate-3-interview-with-larian-and-wizards-of-the-coast/
Ed: 09.07.19 Another interview with Sven Vincke, CEO of Larian and Mike Mearls of WoTC. This time they fall on how they view D&D and their future implementation on BG3, without going into detail.
https://www.denofgeek.com/us/games/pc-gaming/282096/baldurs-gate-3-dungeons-and-dragons
In this interview they confirmed something that we already know: Baldur´s gate III will be the sequel of the PA of WoTC "Baldur´s gate: Desdent into avernus" and possibly "Murder in Baldur´s gate", events that happened more than 100 years ago from the first game https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/4/20677851/dungeons-dragons-baldurs-gate-3-timeline-universe
Post edited by PsicoVic on
6
Comments
But hey if this game is a smashing success that will be what defines D&D from that point on...
I think Owlcat with Kingmaker will carry the torch from now on..Eventhough i just bought it.
That quote is from a WotC representative, though.
I don't see any reason to think that this would be an faithful D&D experience. Everything that he said about D&D/BG is critique. Leveling, missing, saves, resting, spell slots, what from D&D/BG he liked and think that worked on video games????
The last time that D&D tried to become much "video game like", taking heavy inspiration from WoW, resulted on 4e and the rise of pathfinder pnp rpg. So, if Larien and Wotc make ""6e"" more dos2 like, it will have an similar result.
The problem is, that both our expectations change our perception of the informations.
My main problem with a lot of what you say about BG3 is that I honestly don't see where you base your opinion on - and I assume that you also can't see why I don't see much of a reason to worry.
Take the following for example:
Mike Mearls: No actually, in some cases it's been the opposite. We sometimes get a pitch where [Larian] will suggest avoiding a change and we have to state that we're cool with them changing things. Our idea is that you can change things, even lore, as long as you show and don't tell why it might be changing. Especially if you can tie it back to the agency Swen talked about. We want to think of it as the player having a role in shaping the story and the lore, not that it's been violated or something like that.
You see it as a proof that there will be heavy handed changes, while my perception is the opposite.
You focus on "Our idea is that you can change things, even lore, as long as you show and don't tell why it might be changing" and argue that this is proof that things will develop badly.
I focus on "We sometimes get a pitch where [Larian] will suggest avoiding a change and we have to state that we're cool with them changing things." and argue that Larian is not really interested that much in changing and that Wizards keeps telling them that taking liberties is not that bad.
The thing is, with what little information we have now, I doubt we will really find a way to agree on a specific reading.
I can not truly ask that you join the more optimistic site, but I can ask you to at least admit that it is *possible* that your interpretation can be wrong. In the end, neither of us truly knows until we have played the games ourselves, because I fear that even the product itself will be viewed differently depending on personal expectations and views.
He - who? The quote from the interview belongs to a WotC person.
My sense from the quote by Mearls is that you, the player, can make decisions that will drive the story away from the lore. I see it as something like ToB, where you can, in fact, become the god of murder (though, 'officially', the child of Bhaal did not).
In fact, I see it as something even stronger (taking a few bits from the earlier interview). Like in bg2, characters like Imoen or Edwin turn up where the story demands. But, I get the sense that they are saying that the Imoens can die--you can even kill them--and the story will continue on without them
The guy that said that "an thing that worked in all D&D games since 80s, on Kotor, on p:k and and even on modern aRPG's like Path of Exile doesn't work on video games", in other words, vincke.
The lore regarding the Bhaalspawn saga is a hot mess.
There's the ToB computer game in which the Solar tells Charname that (s)he is the only remaining Bhaalspawn, and the PC may assume divine status if (s)he wishes. Or not. But (s)he is the last.
Obviously for a shared objective universe millions of individual players' playthroughs cannot all be canon. As far as I know official cannon is not a multiverse. (Yet? Anyway...)
There is of course the series of novelizations of the computer games in which Gorion's Ward is a Fighter named Abdel Adrian.
In issue 288 of Dragon Magazine there's an article "Silicon Sorcery: The Legacy of Baldur's Gate: The Bhaalspawn" which allows the DM to either replay the BG games series OR revise it so that after the Bhaalspawn saga there are still Bhaalspawn remaining.
In the tabletop adventure "Murder in Baldur's Gate" Abdel Adrian appeared to be the last Bhaalspawn. But no! Another, Viekang, attacks him, one of them dies in the struggle, and Slayer emerges only to be killed by a band of adventurers in the city of Baldur's Gate. Please note that this already changed the canon from the end of ToB.
After the Spellplague and the Second Sundering the Dead Three, Bhaal, Bane, and Myrkul, give up their divine status and become demi-powers that join forces working together, walking the land. Bhaal is very much still alive. And he is mortal and can be killed.
I would like to think that WotC is simply trying to bring some order to this tale.
I highly doubt that the protagonist in BG3 will be a Bhaalspawn. But the PC will be probably be dealing with the Dead Three and whatever they are plotting. And I would imagine that the story will meaningfully tie-in to the Bhaalspawn saga. And that there may still be surviving Bhaalspan out there. And there may be something added to this grand tale to explain that.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/interview-baldurs-gate-3s-creators-talk-dd-turn-based-rpgs-and-dreams-coming-true/
We started by taking the ruleset that's in the Player's Handbook. We ported it as faithfully as we could, then there were some number of things that we saw that doesn't work that well, and so we started looking for solutions to do that. The hardest part—and this is the most interesting part also about it, because there's a lot of stuff from the rules that actually ports quite well, so—but the most interesting part is the role of the Dungeon Master...
Whatever is not in the book he'll say "Well, I'll do this," and the Dungeon Master says "Sure!" And then he'll think about what type of check he's going to make you do, and then that's going to be what you're going to roll with, and the entire party will work with that. In a video game, you don't have that, so in a video game you have to make systems that allow you to do this. And so, coming up with those systems has been a lot of fun, and making them link to the ruleset as it is has been the interesting bit about that.
[...]
Vincke said that's exactly what Larian was trying to do. He was irate when recalling that the genre hit a dead end in the late '90s:
I just never understood the idiocy of not continuing on everything else that was present. We had Fallout; we had Baldur's Gate. I was a big Ultima fan also, so I didn't understand why that just had to end there. Nobody wanted to invest anything more—it was just a dry—it was impossible to find investment for these type of games, right?
I mean, like, Beyond Divinity for instance was a turn-based game back in the day, and I flatly got told here at this show, at E3, "You gotta make it real time!" Right? "You have to make it real time—nothing else sells any more! You're not going to get any single minimum guarantee!" Which is how you fund studios, back in the days at least, if you don't make it real time.
https://metro.co.uk/...-rpgs-10094263/
GC: Oh okay. Well, I was just going to say I never understood exactly how you adapt the rules of a tabletop game to a video game. I’d imagine that puts an awful lot of emphasis on virtual dice rolls.
SV: So we take the player handbook and we convert it into video game rules. We look at what worked, what didn’t work… and the stuff that didn’t work, we adapt it. One big thing that we had to fill in is the role of the game master of course, cause the computer game itself has to be the game master.
GC: There’s always a sort of rule of thumb for me, for a good RPG, and it’s whether you can resolve a conflict – a major story set piece, not necessarily fighting with grunts – outside of combat.
SV: Yes!
GC: Again, it’s resolving things in a much more interesting way than just throwing a dice. You can fight someone or you can talk to them, bribe them, use magic or whatever.
SV: So you have… there’s a lot of that. I mean, there’s really much more than in DOS2.
GC: But you’re not going to branch out and start making shooters or something?
SV: Like Cyberpunk?
GC: Oh, get you!
SV: [laughs] I like RPGs. I like strategy games. Those are the two things that I started making games for and from your questions you must like the same type of games. So I like XCOM. I like anything that makes me feel like I’m in the world and where I can make decisions that can affect it and where I have a lot freedom. So that is the type of game you can see us making in the future. Also, I think all games will converge eventually in that direction.
GC: All right, so just to clarify, you haven’t said anything whatsoever about the game? Is that right?
SV: It’s single-player and co-operative multiplayer…
About the lore and the "silly humor" of Larian games he also has some things to say:
SV: I’ve got a really good example for you on this one, that I can talk about. [laughs] Because we released the teaser trailer so I can tell you. In fact, I can write you a book about ceremorphosis and the process involved in humans becoming mind flayers and exactly how that works step by step. But really you don’t need to know any of that because you just see the end result in the game, right? There are many layers within the teaser trailer. If you know Dungeons & Dragons, if you know your lore, you will have seen multiple things in there. But if you’re don’t well okay, there’s a guy turning into an alien and then there’s aliens coming from a flying octopus, great!
[...]
GC: In terms of other cross media, Game Of Thrones is a good example where a lot of people saw the show and then, even if they didn’t read the novels, they started looking up the background lore on wikis and whatever and that did add to their experience.
SV: Exactly, yeah. It helps with much better world building also, because when you see a very detailed world you appreciate that it all seems to make sense and so the actions of the protagonist and the antagonist are much more believable. And because that world has been realised like…
[...]
GC: So what are some of the secrets that most people wouldn’t have noticed from watching the teaser?
SV: Well, I mean if you played the original Baldur’s Gate, you’ll have recognised that the crest of the guard is the Flaming Fist. They’re a mercenary band that are supposed to maintain law and order in the lower city. You would have seen The Blushing Mermaid in the background, that’s the name of the tavern which came from the original Baldur’s Gate. Um, we’re in the lower city, which is as it’s described. There’s a symbol you see in the beginning that actually indicates things, so you would recognise it from the lore. And the Nautiloid is out of proportion, which make fans wonder how that’s possible. The ceremorphosis goes much faster than it’s supposed to, it’s supposed to take seven days. So how’s it possible that it goes that fast? So the lore guys, they’ll find all of those extra layers. [...]
GC: Another thing I liked about DOS 2 was that it had a sense of humour, which is not common in RPGs. Is that something you can carry through to Baldur’s Gate? Because the originals did have funny characters… I’ve just forgotten his name, but the guy with the hamster.
SV: Minsc and Boo, yeah. So there’s a different tonality to DOS in Baldur’s Gate III, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no room for humour. I guarantee you that you’re going to smile. I’m just thinking of a scene I guarantee that you’re going to smile at for sure. It’s almost impossible not to in that scene.
Also I´ve never seen the Mindflayer society described as a product of a tragic story(Usually they show us a society of hideous and manipulative mind slavers and parasites)
SV: Well, actually its geeky name is an Illithid. But you don’t have to know anything about it to appreciate what it is, right? It’s got tentacles, it’s got psychonic powers. And it also has a tragic story. It used to have an empire that spanned the astral plane and it lost everything. And now it’s hiding in the Underdark and being hunted by this race called the Githyanki, who actually make it their life’s initiation rite to go kill one of these mind slayers, take the head and bring it to their queen.
[...]
SV: Exactly, yeah. It helps with much better world building also, because when you see a very detailed world you appreciate that it all seems to make sense and so the actions of the protagonist and the antagonist are much more believable. And because that world has been realised like… what I told you about the mind flayers, they have a very good reasons for doing what they do, right? It’s not just doing it to be evil. And that makes for better storytelling.
MM: Yeah, understanding the motivations makes a big difference. They might be alien monstrosities but you can understand them as characters. Why do they inflict these awful things on humans? Well, to them humans are just these barely sentient apes. They don’t think of them as anything else.
SV: And then to realise that they’re slaves themselves…
MM: And that’s the sort of thing that’s buried in the lore, that they’re actually a puppet of something else. GC: Are the mind flayers the main bad guys in the game? SV: They’re not the main bad guys, they’re… part of the overall plot. But they’re not the main plot
You can say that the Githyanki and Githzerai have very good reasons to hunt ilithids and seek vengeance, but this perspective in the game could be interesting.
The bit about changing lore doesn't sound as bad to me on the surface as it might to some others. CRPGs, adventure modules, and new editions change the lore of D&D all the time, sometimes for as banal a reason as "the rules work differently in this edition now, because the old system was clunky and players found it annoying". We know very little about HOW the Mind Flayers actually came to be as a race. Did they evolve normally on some distant and alien world, or were they created purposefully by some bizarre entity? (The existing lore we have about the original illithid form, the Neothelids, suggests that the evolution of the Mind Flayers may have arisen out of complete chance, perhaps when a tadpole just happened to find a sleeping humanoid, slipped into its ear, and hey presto, the first ever illithid was "born".) If Larian's "we're changing the lore" sheds more light on the origins of the illithids, that IS something I'd be interested to see.
Well, there is "add more lore" and there is "change existing lore". We´ll see.
You can rewrite the known facts to make an upstanding retelling like Dark Knight trilogy so no one cares about the lore or create a secondary character for your main villain in your animated series that became a major figurehead in movies and videogames years later like Harley Quinn.
You can also make Dragon ball evolution.
We´ll see.
Yeah, it could definitely go either way. We shall have to see, as you said. All the same, I think the line between "add more lore" and "change existing lore" is usually very fine indeed, because adding more lore almost always changes the existing lore in some way, through the revelation that common knowledge is incorrect, or that things are different to what we presumed, hence why I wasn't too worried about the choice of words.
I can see how they'd work Inspiration points into it pretty easily, that's for sure.
Yeah. Advantage/disadvantage is a pretty core rule in 5e, and it works really well in tabletop. I think it would work just fine in a cRPG (Pathfinder Kingmaker has a few rules that work this way, and they are seemlessly integrated).
Inspiration could mean two things to me: Bardic inspiration which should be pretty easy to implement (just extra dice roles in certain situations). The "inspiration" mechanic in which a DM can award inspiration dice for good role playing seems waaaaay harder to include. I'll be curious to see how it works.
Also Swen said himself in some article that WotC was more liberal than Larian's own rule nazis.
Instead of the GM the game itself awards you with "inspiration points"
Inspiration only affects the next roll you make, rather than being a reroll mechanic (Such as edge in Shadowrun).
https://arcanum.fandom.com/wiki/Fate_Points
Advantage and Disadvantage forces you roll two dices (and sometimes reroll). Along with Inspiration is central to the new rules of D&D 5E. They are integrated into the various class abilities (Barbarian Rage) and (Bard's giving Inspiration to others) That being said, reactions in 5E are vastly toned down from 4e. They went overboard in 4e @_@ (where they include things like automatic sneak attack for rogues on "initiative", shooting someone on their turn to decrease their chance of hitting an ally or literally giving an ally an off-turn move to reposition themselves which obviously makes no sense in RTWP)
My opinion is that it will suit more Turn-Based because of the various D&D 5E rules don't translate well to RTwP, but it can be done. You have a Move Action, Regular Action, and a Bonus action on your turn. The reaction only occurs after the action of another.
When there is a reaction you can actually choose to make one or not, as you only get one per turn and maybe don't wanna waste it (Because you have several attackers and you prefer to use your reaction in the strongest one, for example) In Realtime the computer controls the choices for you. If you want the computer to control your character why even play? (it would be like watching someone else play on twitch) I personally don't think the action economy of the move and standard actions "doesn't work" in RTWP, but movement works in a very different way.
If you played "Mordheim" "Last remnant", "Armello" and other TB strategy games with mechanics of "counter-actions" that you can use in the enemy´s turn you know what I am talking about.
Advantage or disadvantage gives you an edge or a penalty. Since the computer makes the rolls for you they will choose the highest (or lowest) roll automatically (unless you have some feat or you are a halfling: they can reroll the dice because "luck" ) maybe that mechanic can be used in RTwP. Would be like a critical or the "moral" buff in lots of games, they tell you about it and you have the increased/decreased effect but you do not get to choose.
That said, Some games with RTwP applied mechanics similar to reaction, like the rogues´riposte feat in PoE, the blocks in DAI, the counterspell stance in NWN or the "attacks of opportunity", but those are automatic response actions.
https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585
They talk briefly about the policy about translations. I sure hope they improve the spanish translation. (unforgettable the "hierba culera" thing in DoS2).
Also Bad news (IMHO): Swen said that right now they "picked the canon ending of bg2" in 24.05 ¿Abdel adrian again? not good, man, not good. Give us a choice.
The canon ending is that the baalspawn was a mercenary called Abdel Adrian that chose to forfeit divinity.
https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Abdel_Adrian , based on the character of a very bad trilogy of novels.
Ed: Also the tabletop mod "Murder in Baldur´s gate is considered a prequel to bg3"
They also found the spell nomenclature and spell slots mechanic "complicated" and they are using a color coded
spell list. green for "nicked!" (magic missile?) and red for "NoWay!"o.O 34.20
There are other interesting mechanics in 5e that I found interesting to use in a future BG game: The landscape-related ones. "Difficult terrain" and "Cover"
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_SRD:Cover
Since in DoS games you are able to use the terrain and weather as a weapon, it would be cool if they implement those.
Cover was also used in RT strategy games like Warhammer 40K so it would be no problem to use it in RTwP or TB. Larian does not have those features confirmed in any interview I know of. We have to wait until the next interview with Swen "Spoiler-free" Vincke
Ed: I do not think I agree with the opinion of MM about rangers. The first levels are critical for rangers: You chose your first racial enemy (that can level-up every 5 levels), your combat style (ranged, dual wield, etc) and your first favorite terrain (you have bonuses and you have "hide in plain sight" in it). Also your basic skillset o.O
I agree epic rangers suck very much (in comparison) unless you are facing your favorite enemy.
Maybe it will be different in 5e?
Thanks, sorry about that.
I demand that I be able to create an Illithid Paladin Charname!
No I have no idea how an Illithid could be a Paladin.... That's their problem, not mine!
https://as.com/meristation/2019/06/20/noticias/1561050087_177507.html
The article comments about the return of Misc and Boo, and also about a darker tone in the series, as we all saw in the trailer.
“De alguna manera, va a ser más oscuro, más serio”, ha dicho el director. “Pero los temas serios funcionan mucho mejor cuando hay algo de humor”. No en vano, recuerda que en los juegos de tablero de Dungeons & Dragons la diversión es un elemento crucial. “Eso significa que habrá aspectos que te harán sonreír”, promete.
“It’s going to be somewhat darker, more serious,” The director[Swen Vincke] says. “But serious topics work much better if there’s a little bit of humour in there, and Dungeons and Dragons is about having fun at the tabletop. So that means there is going to be stuff that will make you smile.”
Based on
https://www.vg247.com/2019/06/19/baldurs-gate-3-will-not-divinity-original-sin-3-another-name/
You will start somewhere else, but eventually you will arrive at BG.
Yeah, but illithid must feed on at least once sentient (sapient?) brain per month
Or maybe an illithid Blackguard instead of Paladin?
I wonder if eating the brain of evil sentient creatures wouldn't be a breach of the paladin code anyway.