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.
To be honest, It felt like a PR advertisement more than an interview, but they made several interesting points in the article.
I found this part of the article to be very interesting, and for the first time gives me some hope:
“The game is 5th Edition rules, so we’ve been integrating those,” Vincke says of developing BG3’s gameplay. “While there will be a few tweaks here and there, gameplay will feel very true to 5th Edition. The challenge is how we bring that feeling of a Dungeon Master into a virtual space and make a world that feels reactive with stuff that’s not necessarily in the 5th Edition book because it’s relying on the DM to interpret player action." That challenge is being met by both teams, as they "explore what it means to bring 5th Edition into the virtual space."
If in Vincke's own words "gameplay will feel very true to 5th Edition," then by definition it CANNOT feel true to D:OS2, since D:OS2 gameplay is night-and-day different from 5e gameplay. YAY!
If in Vincke's own words "gameplay will feel very true to 5th Edition," then by definition it CANNOT feel true to D:OS2, since D:OS2 gameplay is night-and-day different from 5e gameplay. YAY!
I never understood the concern several have expressed on here that the game would strongly resemble the OS series. It always seemed like a short-sighted understanding of how game developers work. Obviously there will be some similarities. But if they wanted to make OS3, they'd make OS3. They already have a fan base and some guaranteed sales from making such a product.
But just as none of us want to play the same type of game over and over again, nor do the same kinds of tasks at our jobs over and over again, so too, game developers don't want to make the same exact products over and over again. Nor is it even a good business model to only churn out one kind of niche title. Not to mention that the team at Larian is significantly larger than it was pre-OS2, meaning there's sizable input in BG3 from folks who never worked on an OS title. There was never a legit reason to be concerned that it would be a OS clone.
It looks like the emphasis is going to be on trying to successfully simulate the role of the DM... And if the AI is good enough overall, then also to have NPCs behave relatively independently. The key here is whether Larian can do this with truly revolutionary AI for a CRPG.
If they can pull that off then I don't think most players at large will be as concerned about RTwP vs TB as some are indicating here on this forum. Because a gaming experience like that would be great for most.
I'm actually reassured now that TB will fine if that's what we get, as much as I love RTwP in the IE games.
The experience of RTwP simulates the heat of battle which adds a sense of realism and a lot of tension psychologically. But I do agree with Swen that with RTwP the game engine is actually automatically deciding most mechanics for me if I'm controlling a party of six especially. I pause frequently (for me compulsively, a lot) and direct the party's spells and which party member attacks which enemy, etc. But with TB I will actually be thinking through the strategy of each round more from a D&D perspective. I'll actually learn more about how 5e tabletop D&D works, hopefully. I think I will enjoy that.
And honestly if I do that with just my character alone and the AI controls NPCS... whch means that maybe they get unresurrectably killed sometimes... which is what tabletop play would be like...
Then I am actually a ready for a D&D CRPG game of that type, set in Baldur's Gate that moves forward from the history of the BG games. That's cool with me. I'm ready for something new mechanically that meaningfully connects to the old story-wise.
In this interview, in 7.40 the interviewer asked Swen Vinke about the origins stories in DoS2 and if they will make a comeback in bg3. ( In Larian´s Divinity OS2 you can choose between 6 origin stories or a custom one. You can play as one of your companions and shape his/her story).
[Ed: More accurate translation, but if you are fluent in french and english please be free to help and add your own]
Swen answered (loosely translated) " It´s a system that will evolve. One of the things that we focus on is the party and personal stories. It was explored [in DoS2] but it was not really explored as I would have wanted. Gather your party will be one of the pillars of the game. The party will be important. Party will be important but also the Hero [singular]. Each Hero has the story of their origin if you choose that but you can also obviously make your story anyway".
He also repeats that will be based in D&D 5e, and it would be faithful to the tabletop but since it is a videogame some adaptation would be needed. No further details on combat.
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.
"The Mindflayers are actually the victims". Wow. Just wow.
"The Mindflayers are actually the victims". Wow. Just wow.
Yeeeaah, I'm not particularly thrilled by that interview. >.> Then again, they could still play both sides of the coin here. For instance, if they are indeed planning to use the Thoon storyline as I predicted, then the Mind Flayers are being manipulated by Thoon (perhaps in return for kicking off their grand climb to their worlds-spanning empire that they enjoy at the end of time). We could then wind up with a Mind Flayer companion who's just as evil and wretched as his fellows, but he despises the fact that the illithids are merely used as pawns in the scheme of a greater power, rather than being the masters of their own destiny. "A knight and his warhorse stand together triumphant atop a battlefield of the dead," he might intone to you telepathically, "But does the victory belong to the knight? Or to his horse who merely rode where his master demanded?"
I'm fine with adding a deeper layer to understanding what made the illithid evil to begin with, a factor that perhaps has remained hidden or has not be well understood even by the learned. And what if one of them is able to actually break free of the hive mind? That hive mind lies to them that they will retain their individualism when they are eventually subsumed by it. I like the idea of perhaps one, or even a faction of them, being able to break free of the hive mind and rebelling against it.
Eh, don't overestimate the "victim" stuff.
There are plenty ways an evil group can become the victim and still be evil.
Also, the mindflayers are proud, being enslaved by anything is unbearable for them.
I also wonder why anyone would be interested in the Illithids attacking Baldurs Gate..
Its BG so it is possible that Bhaal just wants a massacre full of murder.
That pisses the Mindflayers off, forced by the Lord of Murder to kill and there is nothing they could do that would not strengthening him. On top of that it will reduce their numbers without any gain for them, especially if they slaughter the humans instead of enslaving them for food. A great waste for them.
Gives them motivation to stop Bhaal, because they are in a lose-lose relationship with him, without making them good, since they hate him for wasting food and *their* lives.
I assume that he did not mean tragic in the sense "they where once innocent and pure"..
I also assume that their writer come up with better ideas than me
They require sentient brains to survive. If they were a good species they would have gone extinct a few weeks after creation. Being evil to them is a matter of survival.
They require sentient brains to survive. If they were a good species they would have gone extinct a few weeks after creation. Being evil to them is a matter of survival.
Well - if you subscribe to the idea that good and evil are relative (as I do) - mindflayers wouldn't view themselves as evil anymore than you might if you decide to eat a hamburger.
About the "victim" thing - it doesn't concern me. I think the plot will be something like "The Githyanki are driving us out of the underdark, and if we don't go somewhere, we'll die" kind of thing. The Mindflayers are still badguys in that scenario, but are given a more interesting motive to attack Baldur's Gate. I prefer that outcome to something like "We are evil! And Baldur's gate is supposed to have some tastey brains..." motive.
Eh, don't overestimate the "victim" stuff.
There are plenty ways an evil group can become the victim and still be evil.
Also, the mindflayers are proud, being enslaved by anything is unbearable for them.
I also wonder why anyone would be interested in the Illithids attacking Baldurs Gate..
Its BG so it is possible that Bhaal just wants a massacre full of murder.
That pisses the Mindflayers off, forced by the Lord of Murder to kill and there is nothing they could do that would not strengthening him. On top of that it will reduce their numbers without any gain for them, especially if they slaughter the humans instead of enslaving them for food. A great waste for them.
Gives them motivation to stop Bhaal, because they are in a lose-lose relationship with him, without making them good, since they hate him for wasting food and *their* lives.
I assume that he did not mean tragic in the sense "they where once innocent and pure"..
I also assume that their writer come up with better ideas than me
I think he might it was tragic from the Mindflayers perpective, from their angle it was the lose of the most advance, wonderous civilization to ever exist, filled with wonders amd secrets.
They require sentient brains to survive. If they were a good species they would have gone extinct a few weeks after creation. Being evil to them is a matter of survival.
Well - if you subscribe to the idea that good and evil are relative (as I do)
DnD doesn't, however. And that's all that's relevant in this question.
DnD doesn't, however. And that's all that's relevant in this question.
Mind sourcing that for me? Page number in the PHB, 5th edition if you don't mind - Where they say that there is no room for moral relativism in the alignment system.
In the forgotten realms, the setting in which Baldurs Gate takes place, there is no moral relativism.
There are gods whose sphere is literally evil. The Drow see themselve as evil, as do the Zhent and many Red Mages.
The stories, the setting books (especially the books about the deities) have esteblished that good and evil are objective forces.
Can I show you a specific paragraph that spells it out? No.
But the the way the gods and alignment work imply it. The stories have people who see themselve as evil.
In the forgotten realms, the setting in which Baldurs Gate takes place, there is no moral relativism.
There are gods whose sphere is literally evil. The Drow see themselve as evil, as do the Zhent and many Red Mages.
The stories, the setting books (especially the books about the deities) have esteblished that good and evil are objective forces.
Can I show you a specific paragraph that spells it out? No.
But the the way the gods and alignment work imply it. The stories have people who see themselve as evil.
Contextual evidence cuts in both directions. In a 3 point alignment system (Good, Neutral, Evil) - it is implicitly suggested that there is a sliding scale between good and evil.
A simple microcosm: Does Korgan consider himself evil? I think you'll find conflicting evidence on the subject. Does Viconia? - she can even change her alignment in ToB. Was she as evil as the day she was born up until that second she shifted to Neutral?
This is why I began my original statement by saying "if you subscribe", - because the system doesn't tie you down to one point of view or the other, and there is evidence to support each. I think it's nigh impossible to defend an absolute stance in either direction.
DnD moral system is just broken by design, plain and simple. It can't offer relativism for one simple reason - Protection from Evil wouldn't work anymore.
Or would Protection from Evil work on any mob that the character using it perceived as evil? Would there be a real difference between the divine and arcane spells? Would the divine spell only work on enemies of a character's god, for instance?
In the forgotten realms, the setting in which Baldurs Gate takes place, there is no moral relativism.
There are gods whose sphere is literally evil. The Drow see themselve as evil, as do the Zhent and many Red Mages.
The stories, the setting books (especially the books about the deities) have esteblished that good and evil are objective forces.
Can I show you a specific paragraph that spells it out? No.
But the the way the gods and alignment work imply it. The stories have people who see themselve as evil.
As others have noted, this might be true per the rulebooks. But it's rarely true regarding recent modules or CRPG's set there. The whole BG series is chock full of challenging the canonical good-evil divide.
@BallpointMan If D&D's good/evil was relative, then why do alignments exist? Why are deities literally denoted as "good", "evil", etc? Why are Paladins only good? Why are Blackguards only evil? Entire planes of existence are labelled as inherently good or evil. Good and evil is a quantifiable force in D&D. Any argument that its relative is quite frankly, ridiculous in the extreme.
As others have noted, this might be true per the rulebooks. But it's rarely true regarding recent modules or CRPG's set there. The whole BG series is chock full of challenging the canonical good-evil divide.
The interesting thing is - it's not even in the rulebooks as one or the other. It's both. There are some facets within the lore (Such a god being the god of evil, for example) that point to boundaries but unless we are allowed to look into their minds, even that isnt necessarily black and white.
I'm happy to concede that D&D tries to have it both ways. When I DM it, I typically do so with moral relativism as it allows the stories to be more agile and resemble real life in some ways.
@BallpointMan If D&D's good/evil was relative, then why do alignments exist? Why are deities literally denoted as "good", "evil", etc? Why are Paladins only good? Why are Blackguards only evil? Entire planes of existence are labelled as inherently good or evil. Good and evil is a quantifiable force in D&D. Any argument that its relative is quite frankly, ridiculous in the extreme.
Well - I'll address this piece by piece: Now that I'm home from work, I'll cite the PHB (5th edition, per the fact that the game is going to be in 5th edition, and the conversation was originally brought up with respect to BG3's potential story hooks).
First - Alignments exist as an easy way to ascribe motivations to a complex character. It's a nebulous in-game concept with no specific mechanic attached. I dont think it has to be more than this.
Second - Deities are denoted as good and evil, but unless I can get into their heads, I dont know what that concept means to them. Is Lawful Good deity A "more good" than lawful Good deity B? They can even share the same cleric domains.
Third - Paladins are no longer restricted to any alignment. They dont "need" to be lawful good. Upon reaching level 3, the paladin will take one of three oaths (there's a 4th in unearthed Arcana, but I dont think it's official yet):
Oath of Devotion - which is your prototypical lawful good style Paladin (doesnt have to have an alignment, but the archetype fits). The oath is to "Honesty, Courage, Compassion, Honor and Duty.
Oath of the Ancients - This is kind of your nature-like Paladin. Still pretty good, Probably Neural Good. Oath is to "Kindle the light, Sheathe the light, Preserve your own light, Be the Light".
Here's where it gets interesting:
Oath of Vengeance - This character is askew on the traditional absolutist moral scale. He is a "The ends justify the means" kind of guy. He's the kind of guy who will leave someone in a position of certain death if it makes it more likely he'll get his sworn enemy. His oath: "Fight the Greater Evil, No Mercy for the Wicked, By Any Means Necessary, Restitution".
Of particular note, under the section for "Fight the Greater Evil", the book says this (verbatim)( "Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I chose the greater evil."
That's literally moral relativism. Not all evils are created equally. Two Neural Evil characters may be varying degrees of evil.
Fourth - Blackguards arent officially in 5th edition yet - but assuming they stay consistent, they probably wont be pure evil.
Fifth - I'm not familiar with any planes that are really pure good or evil. Maybe the Abyss or 9 levels of hell? Even those, in Mordenkaiden's Tome of Foes are nuanced. I wouldnt say any of them are "good" per se, but they arent all vicious murders. Some are just greedy, others are bureaucratic. I see that as shades of evil and not uniform.
Lastly - How do you quantify good and evil? If it's quantifiable, then it must have a metric. What unit do we use? I dont think good and evil are quantifiable at all. They're nebulous, and exist on a spectrum.
As a final thought - the section on alignment in the PHB essentially addresses the issue. The answer is a combination of both (Some things are bound by an absolute morality, and some are not).
A half-orc (or regular orc) was created by their god. Their god created them as a reflection of themselves, and they are therefore evil - however an orc can still choose not to be evil. They have free-will. it will be challenging, but not impossible. This is moral relativism.
A devil does not choose to be lawful evil. A devil does not have free will over its nature. The PHB even goes so far as to say that if a devil stopped being lawful evil, then it would stop being a devil.
Which is basically what I was saying. D&D is not fundamentally absolutist or fundamentally relativist. It's a mashup, that allows a DM to play into either scenario as they see fit.
This is why I began my original statement by saying "if you subscribe", - because the system doesn't tie you down to one point of view or the other, and there is evidence to support each. I think it's nigh impossible to defend an absolute stance in either direction.
No. I do not subscribe to good or evil being moral absolutes. That is irrelevant. The system and the majority of it's official settings are built around there being Good and Evil absolutes. It's literally part of the elemental structure of the universe alongside Chaos and Law.
Contextual evidence cuts in both directions. In a 3 point alignment system (Good, Neutral, Evil) - it is implicitly suggested that there is a sliding scale between good and evil.
A simple microcosm: Does Korgan consider himself evil? I think you'll find conflicting evidence on the subject. Does Viconia? - she can even change her alignment in ToB. Was she as evil as the day she was born up until that second she shifted to Neutral?
Of particular note, under the section for "Fight the Greater Evil", the book says this (verbatim)( "Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I chose the greater evil."
That's literally moral relativism. Not all evils are created equally. Two Neural Evil characters may be varying degrees of evil.
You keep incisting things like these, but they're based on a flawed premise: A sliding scale of good and evil does not preclude a moral absolute. In fact, the premises of moral absolutes, endpoints opposing each other, and the idea of a sliding scale of good and evil reinforce each other. You cannot have moral endpoints opposing each other unless you also have the area in between them upon which the people and creatures slide up an down like a ball on a moralographic abacus.
Such a sliding scale is also not "literally moral relativism". It's not moral relativism at all. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal, absolute morality. That morality is a subjective value of each and every person's own creation. A morality stemming from moral absolutism may have just as much a sliding scale of good and evil (or virtue and vice) as one stemming from a believer of moral relativism, because whether or not there is a sliding scale does not enter into the question that moral relativism seeks to answer. For example, a believer of God as an absolute moral judge and guide will likely still think that shoplifting is a far lesser evil than murder. The versus of moral relativism visavi absolutism only concerns where morality stems from (in the traditional western world sense; whether from God or from people, in the context of DnD; whether from the structure of the universe or from people), not what shape or form it takes. You are throwing around concepts you don't seem to have a very good understanding of.
As a final thought - the section on alignment in the PHB essentially addresses the issue. The answer is a combination of both (Some things are bound by an absolute morality, and some are not).
A half-orc (or regular orc) was created by their god. Their god created them as a reflection of themselves, and they are therefore evil - however an orc can still choose not to be evil. They have free-will. it will be challenging, but not impossible. This is moral relativism.
A devil does not choose to be lawful evil. A devil does not have free will over its nature. The PHB even goes so far as to say that if a devil stopped being lawful evil, then it would stop being a devil.
Like above, here you are conflating two unrelated concepts. This is a matter of moral determinism versus consequencialism. Moral absolutes does not presuppose that people do not have free will and/or can change. That is subject to whether morality is determinalistic (ie people are Good or Evil, therefore they do good or evil) or consequencialistic (ie People do good or evil, therefore they are Good of Evil). This is a debate that remains regardless of what or who decides what is good or evil, whether it is a subjective opinion or objective actuality.
Fifth - I'm not familiar with any planes that are really pure good or evil. Maybe the Abyss or 9 levels of hell? Even those, in Mordenkaiden's Tome of Foes are nuanced. I wouldnt say any of them are "good" per se, but they arent all vicious murders. Some are just greedy, others are bureaucratic. I see that as shades of evil and not uniform.
A case of pushed forward release, perhaps? It felt a lot like this marketing spurt had been planned for something closer to launch.
Could also explain why so much of it felt like just pr talk. It could be that by the original schedule they was supposed to show more and tell less, and maybe they're keeping their cards close for a later release.
No. I do not subscribe to good or evil being moral absolutes. That is irrelevant. The system and the majority of it's official settings are built around there being Good and Evil absolutes. It's literally part of the elemental structure of the universe alongside Chaos and Law
Major edit. I'm going to restate my opinion because this has become a rabbit hole.
We are having two arguments right now. The first was over my supposition that Mindflayers are capable of seeing themselves as not being evil. You replied (at some point) that D&D is absolutist. I took this as an argument against my position. In your last post, you have said (as far as I can see) that moral relativism exists within an absolute framework. To me, even if I potentially disagree with the framework, seems to support that mindflayers *could* see themselves as not being evil. Most of my arguments (is Viconia evil, etc) relate to this argument.
Second argument is over the nature of an absolute good or evil in D&D (using FR to talk lore). My position is that it's unclear. Suggesting gods are an argument in favor of absolute anything seems flawed to me because the goda in FR aside from Ao (potentially) are not omnipotent. If a god is the god of evil, but they aren't omnipotent, that suggests to me that there could be a more evil god one day. That means I cannot logically say there is a definitive absolute end point of evil.
Lastly - based on the above, the only way I can see a conclusive argument to prove absolutism is if it's written in the rules. As far as I can see it's not. So I won't support that the realms should or must be viewed to have an absolute morality.
@BallpointMan
The exisitence of Gods of Evil is independent of their omnipotence.
The fact that someone prays to a god of literal evil there is a high chance this person sees themselves as evil.
The FR, since their conception, a world of absolut morality.
That doesn't mean that persons can't change their alignment, it just means that certain actions are defined as good and others as evil.
Or, in other words, there is no action that is not defined on a scale of Good - Neutral - Evil.
There are inconsitencies there, but that is mostly because more and more writers subverse this element, because it stifles creativity and ..is not really a good idea imho. ^^
Slightly off note:
AO is not omnipotent. The deities are as good as omnipotent to mortals and in the same sense AO is as good as omnipotent to the gods. But at the end of the day he is just the branch manager of the FR.
A while ago, the design leader of D&D talked about D&Ds multiverse and basicly, every world (aside from Eberron) has a branch manager who created and maintaines the world.
(Eberron was made by a bunch of -I think- Gods who shielded the world from the greater multiverse.)
Comments
I found this part of the article to be very interesting, and for the first time gives me some hope:
“The game is 5th Edition rules, so we’ve been integrating those,” Vincke says of developing BG3’s gameplay. “While there will be a few tweaks here and there, gameplay will feel very true to 5th Edition. The challenge is how we bring that feeling of a Dungeon Master into a virtual space and make a world that feels reactive with stuff that’s not necessarily in the 5th Edition book because it’s relying on the DM to interpret player action." That challenge is being met by both teams, as they "explore what it means to bring 5th Edition into the virtual space."
If in Vincke's own words "gameplay will feel very true to 5th Edition," then by definition it CANNOT feel true to D:OS2, since D:OS2 gameplay is night-and-day different from 5e gameplay. YAY!
I never understood the concern several have expressed on here that the game would strongly resemble the OS series. It always seemed like a short-sighted understanding of how game developers work. Obviously there will be some similarities. But if they wanted to make OS3, they'd make OS3. They already have a fan base and some guaranteed sales from making such a product.
But just as none of us want to play the same type of game over and over again, nor do the same kinds of tasks at our jobs over and over again, so too, game developers don't want to make the same exact products over and over again. Nor is it even a good business model to only churn out one kind of niche title. Not to mention that the team at Larian is significantly larger than it was pre-OS2, meaning there's sizable input in BG3 from folks who never worked on an OS title. There was never a legit reason to be concerned that it would be a OS clone.
If they can pull that off then I don't think most players at large will be as concerned about RTwP vs TB as some are indicating here on this forum. Because a gaming experience like that would be great for most.
I'm actually reassured now that TB will fine if that's what we get, as much as I love RTwP in the IE games.
The experience of RTwP simulates the heat of battle which adds a sense of realism and a lot of tension psychologically. But I do agree with Swen that with RTwP the game engine is actually automatically deciding most mechanics for me if I'm controlling a party of six especially. I pause frequently (for me compulsively, a lot) and direct the party's spells and which party member attacks which enemy, etc. But with TB I will actually be thinking through the strategy of each round more from a D&D perspective. I'll actually learn more about how 5e tabletop D&D works, hopefully. I think I will enjoy that.
And honestly if I do that with just my character alone and the AI controls NPCS... whch means that maybe they get unresurrectably killed sometimes... which is what tabletop play would be like...
Then I am actually a ready for a D&D CRPG game of that type, set in Baldur's Gate that moves forward from the history of the BG games. That's cool with me. I'm ready for something new mechanically that meaningfully connects to the old story-wise.
[Ed: More accurate translation, but if you are fluent in french and english please be free to help and add your own]
Swen answered (loosely translated) " It´s a system that will evolve. One of the things that we focus on is the party and personal stories. It was explored [in DoS2] but it was not really explored as I would have wanted. Gather your party will be one of the pillars of the game. The party will be important. Party will be important but also the Hero [singular]. Each Hero has the story of their origin if you choose that but you can also obviously make your story anyway".
He also repeats that will be based in D&D 5e, and it would be faithful to the tabletop but since it is a videogame some adaptation would be needed. No further details on combat.
"The Mindflayers are actually the victims". Wow. Just wow.
Yeeeaah, I'm not particularly thrilled by that interview. >.> Then again, they could still play both sides of the coin here. For instance, if they are indeed planning to use the Thoon storyline as I predicted, then the Mind Flayers are being manipulated by Thoon (perhaps in return for kicking off their grand climb to their worlds-spanning empire that they enjoy at the end of time). We could then wind up with a Mind Flayer companion who's just as evil and wretched as his fellows, but he despises the fact that the illithids are merely used as pawns in the scheme of a greater power, rather than being the masters of their own destiny. "A knight and his warhorse stand together triumphant atop a battlefield of the dead," he might intone to you telepathically, "But does the victory belong to the knight? Or to his horse who merely rode where his master demanded?"
There are plenty ways an evil group can become the victim and still be evil.
Also, the mindflayers are proud, being enslaved by anything is unbearable for them.
I also wonder why anyone would be interested in the Illithids attacking Baldurs Gate..
Its BG so it is possible that Bhaal just wants a massacre full of murder.
That pisses the Mindflayers off, forced by the Lord of Murder to kill and there is nothing they could do that would not strengthening him. On top of that it will reduce their numbers without any gain for them, especially if they slaughter the humans instead of enslaving them for food. A great waste for them.
Gives them motivation to stop Bhaal, because they are in a lose-lose relationship with him, without making them good, since they hate him for wasting food and *their* lives.
I assume that he did not mean tragic in the sense "they where once innocent and pure"..
I also assume that their writer come up with better ideas than me
Well - if you subscribe to the idea that good and evil are relative (as I do) - mindflayers wouldn't view themselves as evil anymore than you might if you decide to eat a hamburger.
About the "victim" thing - it doesn't concern me. I think the plot will be something like "The Githyanki are driving us out of the underdark, and if we don't go somewhere, we'll die" kind of thing. The Mindflayers are still badguys in that scenario, but are given a more interesting motive to attack Baldur's Gate. I prefer that outcome to something like "We are evil! And Baldur's gate is supposed to have some tastey brains..." motive.
I think he might it was tragic from the Mindflayers perpective, from their angle it was the lose of the most advance, wonderous civilization to ever exist, filled with wonders amd secrets.
DnD doesn't, however. And that's all that's relevant in this question.
Mind sourcing that for me? Page number in the PHB, 5th edition if you don't mind - Where they say that there is no room for moral relativism in the alignment system.
There are gods whose sphere is literally evil. The Drow see themselve as evil, as do the Zhent and many Red Mages.
The stories, the setting books (especially the books about the deities) have esteblished that good and evil are objective forces.
Can I show you a specific paragraph that spells it out? No.
But the the way the gods and alignment work imply it. The stories have people who see themselve as evil.
Contextual evidence cuts in both directions. In a 3 point alignment system (Good, Neutral, Evil) - it is implicitly suggested that there is a sliding scale between good and evil.
A simple microcosm: Does Korgan consider himself evil? I think you'll find conflicting evidence on the subject. Does Viconia? - she can even change her alignment in ToB. Was she as evil as the day she was born up until that second she shifted to Neutral?
This is why I began my original statement by saying "if you subscribe", - because the system doesn't tie you down to one point of view or the other, and there is evidence to support each. I think it's nigh impossible to defend an absolute stance in either direction.
Larian Studios presents:
Baldur’s Kart
As others have noted, this might be true per the rulebooks. But it's rarely true regarding recent modules or CRPG's set there. The whole BG series is chock full of challenging the canonical good-evil divide.
Too complex... I think it will be rock, paper and scissors
The interesting thing is - it's not even in the rulebooks as one or the other. It's both. There are some facets within the lore (Such a god being the god of evil, for example) that point to boundaries but unless we are allowed to look into their minds, even that isnt necessarily black and white.
I'm happy to concede that D&D tries to have it both ways. When I DM it, I typically do so with moral relativism as it allows the stories to be more agile and resemble real life in some ways.
Well - I'll address this piece by piece: Now that I'm home from work, I'll cite the PHB (5th edition, per the fact that the game is going to be in 5th edition, and the conversation was originally brought up with respect to BG3's potential story hooks).
First - Alignments exist as an easy way to ascribe motivations to a complex character. It's a nebulous in-game concept with no specific mechanic attached. I dont think it has to be more than this.
Second - Deities are denoted as good and evil, but unless I can get into their heads, I dont know what that concept means to them. Is Lawful Good deity A "more good" than lawful Good deity B? They can even share the same cleric domains.
Third - Paladins are no longer restricted to any alignment. They dont "need" to be lawful good. Upon reaching level 3, the paladin will take one of three oaths (there's a 4th in unearthed Arcana, but I dont think it's official yet):
Oath of Devotion - which is your prototypical lawful good style Paladin (doesnt have to have an alignment, but the archetype fits). The oath is to "Honesty, Courage, Compassion, Honor and Duty.
Oath of the Ancients - This is kind of your nature-like Paladin. Still pretty good, Probably Neural Good. Oath is to "Kindle the light, Sheathe the light, Preserve your own light, Be the Light".
Here's where it gets interesting:
Oath of Vengeance - This character is askew on the traditional absolutist moral scale. He is a "The ends justify the means" kind of guy. He's the kind of guy who will leave someone in a position of certain death if it makes it more likely he'll get his sworn enemy. His oath: "Fight the Greater Evil, No Mercy for the Wicked, By Any Means Necessary, Restitution".
Of particular note, under the section for "Fight the Greater Evil", the book says this (verbatim)( "Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I chose the greater evil."
That's literally moral relativism. Not all evils are created equally. Two Neural Evil characters may be varying degrees of evil.
Fourth - Blackguards arent officially in 5th edition yet - but assuming they stay consistent, they probably wont be pure evil.
Fifth - I'm not familiar with any planes that are really pure good or evil. Maybe the Abyss or 9 levels of hell? Even those, in Mordenkaiden's Tome of Foes are nuanced. I wouldnt say any of them are "good" per se, but they arent all vicious murders. Some are just greedy, others are bureaucratic. I see that as shades of evil and not uniform.
Lastly - How do you quantify good and evil? If it's quantifiable, then it must have a metric. What unit do we use? I dont think good and evil are quantifiable at all. They're nebulous, and exist on a spectrum.
As a final thought - the section on alignment in the PHB essentially addresses the issue. The answer is a combination of both (Some things are bound by an absolute morality, and some are not).
A half-orc (or regular orc) was created by their god. Their god created them as a reflection of themselves, and they are therefore evil - however an orc can still choose not to be evil. They have free-will. it will be challenging, but not impossible. This is moral relativism.
A devil does not choose to be lawful evil. A devil does not have free will over its nature. The PHB even goes so far as to say that if a devil stopped being lawful evil, then it would stop being a devil.
Which is basically what I was saying. D&D is not fundamentally absolutist or fundamentally relativist. It's a mashup, that allows a DM to play into either scenario as they see fit.
No. I do not subscribe to good or evil being moral absolutes. That is irrelevant. The system and the majority of it's official settings are built around there being Good and Evil absolutes. It's literally part of the elemental structure of the universe alongside Chaos and Law.
You keep incisting things like these, but they're based on a flawed premise: A sliding scale of good and evil does not preclude a moral absolute. In fact, the premises of moral absolutes, endpoints opposing each other, and the idea of a sliding scale of good and evil reinforce each other. You cannot have moral endpoints opposing each other unless you also have the area in between them upon which the people and creatures slide up an down like a ball on a moralographic abacus.
Such a sliding scale is also not "literally moral relativism". It's not moral relativism at all. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal, absolute morality. That morality is a subjective value of each and every person's own creation. A morality stemming from moral absolutism may have just as much a sliding scale of good and evil (or virtue and vice) as one stemming from a believer of moral relativism, because whether or not there is a sliding scale does not enter into the question that moral relativism seeks to answer. For example, a believer of God as an absolute moral judge and guide will likely still think that shoplifting is a far lesser evil than murder. The versus of moral relativism visavi absolutism only concerns where morality stems from (in the traditional western world sense; whether from God or from people, in the context of DnD; whether from the structure of the universe or from people), not what shape or form it takes. You are throwing around concepts you don't seem to have a very good understanding of.
Like above, here you are conflating two unrelated concepts. This is a matter of moral determinism versus consequencialism. Moral absolutes does not presuppose that people do not have free will and/or can change. That is subject to whether morality is determinalistic (ie people are Good or Evil, therefore they do good or evil) or consequencialistic (ie People do good or evil, therefore they are Good of Evil). This is a debate that remains regardless of what or who decides what is good or evil, whether it is a subjective opinion or objective actuality.
Then please familiarise yourself with the cosmology of the Great Wheel and specifically the Outer Planes.
https://fextralife.com/google-stadia-launch-revealed-for-november-along-with-games-and-pricing/
In this (promo) video BG3 is included in the list of games available at launch.
Sounds too early to me but tomorrow (As in Thursday July 18th, 2019 at 10am PDT) will be hosted an AMA in Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Stadia/comments/cdzo57/cats_out_of_the_bag_join_us_this_thursday_july_18/
BGIII has been confirmed by Larian not to release in 2019.
Could also explain why so much of it felt like just pr talk. It could be that by the original schedule they was supposed to show more and tell less, and maybe they're keeping their cards close for a later release.
Major edit. I'm going to restate my opinion because this has become a rabbit hole.
We are having two arguments right now. The first was over my supposition that Mindflayers are capable of seeing themselves as not being evil. You replied (at some point) that D&D is absolutist. I took this as an argument against my position. In your last post, you have said (as far as I can see) that moral relativism exists within an absolute framework. To me, even if I potentially disagree with the framework, seems to support that mindflayers *could* see themselves as not being evil. Most of my arguments (is Viconia evil, etc) relate to this argument.
Second argument is over the nature of an absolute good or evil in D&D (using FR to talk lore). My position is that it's unclear. Suggesting gods are an argument in favor of absolute anything seems flawed to me because the goda in FR aside from Ao (potentially) are not omnipotent. If a god is the god of evil, but they aren't omnipotent, that suggests to me that there could be a more evil god one day. That means I cannot logically say there is a definitive absolute end point of evil.
Lastly - based on the above, the only way I can see a conclusive argument to prove absolutism is if it's written in the rules. As far as I can see it's not. So I won't support that the realms should or must be viewed to have an absolute morality.
The exisitence of Gods of Evil is independent of their omnipotence.
The fact that someone prays to a god of literal evil there is a high chance this person sees themselves as evil.
The FR, since their conception, a world of absolut morality.
That doesn't mean that persons can't change their alignment, it just means that certain actions are defined as good and others as evil.
Or, in other words, there is no action that is not defined on a scale of Good - Neutral - Evil.
There are inconsitencies there, but that is mostly because more and more writers subverse this element, because it stifles creativity and ..is not really a good idea imho. ^^
Slightly off note:
AO is not omnipotent. The deities are as good as omnipotent to mortals and in the same sense AO is as good as omnipotent to the gods. But at the end of the day he is just the branch manager of the FR.
A while ago, the design leader of D&D talked about D&Ds multiverse and basicly, every world (aside from Eberron) has a branch manager who created and maintaines the world.
(Eberron was made by a bunch of -I think- Gods who shielded the world from the greater multiverse.)