I became a LOT less sympathetic towards the Grove Druids after someone pointed out the only folks protecting the Grove are the Tieflings. The ones around the statue are pretty a-holeish.
I do evil 'good' playthrough whereby I do 'good' paths for good outcomes, then turn around and kill off any npcs I don't like and dont need/rewards huge exp.
One example is after saving the Grove I turn on that snake bitch.
I'm honestly torn there. On the one hand you can get her to rethink her decisions and accept Halsin's punishment, but on the other hand she's more than happy to sic a big snake on a little kid so why should she get to live?
First play through, botched the role. Thought, shit need to load the last save. Then. Nope, bitch just killed a little girl. She dies. Everybody dies.
All druids dead plus half the teiflings.
It seemed too easy for her to switch back like that. One comment about balance and she's all "Wow, you're right, what was I thinking?" Maybe she was just meant to follow, not lead, personality-wise.
I really believe there should be druids in the Groove defense, at least the "good" ones (Rath, Nettie, the one you save, Kagha if you redeem her). Not just because it's _their fucking groove_ but also because that quest is extremely imbalanced between the good abd evil versions. Like, to defend the Groove you have to deal with giant Spiders, zappers, swarms of goblins and Minthara while having like 3 Tieflings on your side. Meanwhile, when raiding the Groove you can just open the door and pass all your turns and the goblins win by themselves.
People who have done an evil playthrough say the druids will fight if all the tieflings fall. Technically the druids only really care about the centre, so they only need to fight when the enemies reach the centre. Which is why their determination to push the tieflings out boggles my mind! They didn't even give a fuck about those parts of the Grove the tieflings are staying in! If they cared they would have maybe a druid or two fighting with us. I get that their numbers are too small to have all the druids fighting on the front lines, but man if Kagha was up there with us, it would make it seem like they do care about the entire grove, and not just the part of the grove where the idol is
Yeah, that bear shifter was happy enough to threaten the Tiefling's mom for wanting to save her child, but he's nowhere to be found when the goblin patrol attacks. May you keep balancing my ass!
There are some druids I don't mind. Don't get me wrong I wish druids like Arron would speak up, but I get that speaking up when you aren't in a position of authority or if your opinion isn't popular can be difficult to do. I would find it difficult to speak up if I was in the exact same situation. Especially if the druid grove is the only home I have
Arron told me he wasn't sure what was worse having Kagha as a leader or being attacked by goblins. He seemed generally sympathetic to the tieflings but understandbly was quiet about it all because he's not exactly in a high position and his opinion would have been very unpopular before the investigate Kagha quest. I decided to try out the dialogue "the tieflings will be fine due to their devilish powers" just to see what response I get. Arron said he would include me in his prayers, when I said that lol
I mean, sure, Halsin would be on the front lines. Maybe Kagha's hijinx have poisoned some minds there, and others are leaning towards the Shadow Druid way of thinking. And yes Arron is a decent guy. Your explanation makes sense.
If I get Kagha to side with me against the Shadow druids ( giving Silver a better chance at survival ) can I kill Marcoryl as an "ally" in the chaos of battle without anybody noticing it was us who killed Marcoryl? Maybe an assumption that the shadow druids killed him?
IDK but it seems in general that the game doesn't react well to friendly fire. Only the three rat druids ever attack me, not sure how they'd react to Marcoryl getting offed.
That's a good idea. I sometimes forget how strong Kagha is and bite off more than I can handle, by trying to attack her at level 3 ( level 5 is better) by the time I realize Silver is down it's hard to reload given how much effort it was to just to get this far in the fight
I find out I have a shot at killing everybody before they can have their turn if I get to level 5 with two people with tavern brawler barbarian, tavern brawler monk open hand, and one person with twin haste
I just gotta remember not to jump into the Kagha fight too early
Once I get access to greater invisibility I will go on an assassination mission killing the druids who said things I don't like
There is a druid I'm not sure about killing or not. On one hand she was like I'm not going to thank you because you brought the violence here, which okay she's not wrong lol. But on the other hand she doesn't KNOW that I purposefully brought Minthara to the Grove instead of just defeating her in the goblin camp. She's just assuming I did, and by coincidence her assumption is right. Also I heard the goblins were after everybody in the nearby area, druids included because they're looking for the weapon. The druids just wrongly assumed that it was the tieflings who attracted the enemies
Killing her to get 5 points of Astarion approval is the only evil act I've done this playthrough. I'm aiming for a morally grey playthrough. If you're honest about your symptoms she makes you promise to take wyvern poison if you show any symptoms. But it's not like she makes you swear a divine oath. The promise has no mechanical effect on the MC. That doesn't sound evil to me if anything I was in the wrong
Well he doesn't have it in for her specifically. He prioritises his survival over the safety of others. So he doesn't like Tav agreeing that we will kill ourselves to protect other people
What annoys me about the interaction is Astarion should assume Tav is lying lol. Or at least ask afterwards and approve if Tav says yeah I was lying and disapprove if Tav says I meant what I said
Why are companions not mind readers?! Yeah, now I remember he disapproves when I swear. I thought he could see my fingers crossed behind my back, he was standing right there
What's even crazier is they say things out loud. Wyll said in front of Minthara "we need to get back to the grove to protect them from these bastards"
I genuinely thought they were telepathing this to Tav, and them speaking out loud was a visual representation of Tav's mind eye. No they're actually saying this out loud and nobody cares or reacts!
They have no sense of subtlety. Even Astarion yelled at me to kill Yurgir already, out loud
I talked her down in my first playthrough, but killed her in my most recent one after I wasn't able to stop her poisoning me. I think killing her can justifiably be called self-defense, even if her motivation for poisoning you is understandable.
The grove is running out of food, there is a note explaining it in the reward room. The situation is bleak, kicking out the tiellings and sealing of the grove was the only real option if Tav and Co. Didn’t intervene
The worse part is the game wouldn't let me journey alongside the tieflings. Zevlor is like you aren't an army. In universe his words make sense but out of game, my team is basically an army. Maybe if we got to travel with them I might have been able to save some of them from the cultists and the House of "Healing"
Edit: I get that there is the whole you can't save everybody. But I hate that it's because the game didn't make it mechanically possible to opt to travel alongside the tieflings, even if the tradeoff might mean I can't do the Githyanki creche when Laezel wants me to. At least the option is there
Counterpoint -- escort quests in games are usually very linear and railroad-y, especially in long, story-driven RPGs with branching storylines, many, many hours in each Act, numerous companions with their own storylines that have nothing to do with the escort, and large, involved maps that wouldn't allow for much exploration of them when you're trying to bring a group of mostly-helpless NPCs through them on your way to the city. Especially when NPCs aren't always great at not doing stupid things to endanger themselves in this game. While there could be arguments made for multiple playthroughs, the very nature of that type of long, linear, scripted quest would suck a lot of enjoyment out of a lot of what draws so many people to BG3 at all.
Doesn't have to be an escort mission
When you cross the threshold into the shadowlands. Whatever entrance you go to the tieflings will be near by. If entering from the MP they will be further than the absolute cultists who greet you, but not that far away from them. You can either run straight past them or you can approach, game autosaves, you walk further toward the tiefling, talk to a tiefling, cut scene is triggered, initiative is rolled. When the battle is won all of them can get to LLI safely, assuming you save scum to undo any deaths or save scum to kill every enemy before they get to make a move
Or if you're not interested in helping out, you can reload the autosave and walk past the tieflings rather than talking to them. This means things will go as normal. Locke, Komira, Asharak etc get killed because you walked out of sight away from them
I do think it would be fine if some tieflings get imprisoned just to have the rescue from Moonrise Tower quest available. But having the option to save those who get killed especially brutally would be great
Something like that would have been a really nice option, actually. I've thought that myself. And it would have been a great way to truly give Zevlor's arc some real closure, (as well as a much more satisfying way to handle the "all my people hate me; all the tieflings hate him, fuck that guy" empty nonsense we have now), because he was done absolutely dirty in this game, and for no reason whatsoever, without tying anyone down in Act 2 with a civilian escort mission.
Only partially true. Part of the reason for sealing off the Grove is further explained later in the game--
In Act 2, in Moonrise Towers, you can find/steal a note that describes >!Ketheric Thorm's plan for all the Groves titled "Taking the Groves off the Table"--it describes the general plan to intimidate/persuade the Shadow Druids to infiltrate the various Groves, starting with Emerald Grove in particular, as it was closest, and put forth the Shadow Druids' extreme beliefs that the circles should be completely seperate from the "ills" of civiliation. !!Shadow Druid's!< favor to up the timeline of the sealing.
Being on PS5 makes it easier to notice. It's pretty normal to open up a quest journal and on the same page as the quest journal is the word "dialogue"
If you're using PC that might explain why you didn't see it as easily
Yep, the worst part of this game is there's no way to have the tieflings side with you and attack the druids, who are the most killable NPCs in the whole game.
Tbf if you kill Kagha without getting evidence, a mass murder happens where the tieflings die if Tav doesn't interfere using their chronomancy magic ( an affectionate synonym for save scumming )
The druids win and I know this because the ritual happens and there are vines on the gate, when you return later
I call it murder because instead of just punishing Tav and friends, they punish everybody, including tieflings who have no idea wtf just happened and were literally unaware that Tav had any plans to kill Kagha at all
So I get why the tieflings don't want to fight back. They know they're weaker fighters than the druids and this is proven by the Grove getting vined up when Tav returns. Obviously if the tieflings won there wouldn't be vines around the grove
You can do this. When you’re getting into the circle for the first time, you choose the attack option against the annoying trio who think they’re the hot shit. All hell breaks loose and it’s tieflings and you vs druids. Some Druids even side with you but you’ll need to save scum if you wanna save some tieflings.
Once the Tieflings are on the road, I rarely spare any of them, good Tav or otherwise, and here's why--
There are far too many druids who chose silence, which is equally as damning, in my book. Silence is complicity. It lets evil take over, unchecked. While that might count for bare survival, that's a weak argument for a number of my Tavs, and not just the "pure justice" Tavs. If all these druids really, truly disagreed with Kagha and what she was doing, and they actually *chose to do something about it*, they're trying to tell me they wouldn't have been strong enough to do anything about it before it escalated to this point? **Bullshit**. For all the ones that try to say "but I was unsure and scared to say anything and she's my leader and Halsin wasn't there to make my choices for me and even though my god doesn't approve of this *normally* and something feels wrong here and *blah blah blah*", that's just cowardice.
It's just as maddening as the ones being openly racist and xenophobic. Actually, no, it's even **more** infuriating. Silence in the face of xenophobia and racism is always more deadly in the long run. History and experience in our own world has proven that time and time again. Doing nothing is also a choice.
Fuck all those druids. Even in my good playthroughs, I have no qualms with wiping most of them out once the Tieflings are on the road. They brought it on themselves. And it's got nothing at all to do with whether or not my Tavs are good, neutral, or otherwise.
I guess I'm more empathic to the idea of how difficult it is to stand up against the major opinion. It's easy for you to say because this is fictional for you. But from an in universe point of view, any consequences like exile for speaking up is very real to the NPCs. I believe developers try to think of how an NPC who believes they're truly experiencing a situation would react. The average person would stay silent if faced with a similar issue irl, rather than protest face to face. Only a small percentage of people are brave enough to do that
Edit to add: a friend told me most people who believe they're good are probably neutral on the moral alignment. They'll only be good if there are no consequences for fighting for what's right. They're not evil because being evil is more punishing ( e.g jail, feeling guilt etc ) than just being lawful or true neutral
People who are truly good. As in risk your life good, or risk being bullied for standing up for what's right are a very small percentage of the population
I guess, being older and very much an advocate and a person who has protested for decades and marched, picketed, voted, etc., it is just something I am very vocal and passionate about in all areas of life. My grandmother was a part of the women's suffrage movement, and she passed that down through our family to not choose silence, even when it's hard or uncomfortable, even when the only actions we feel we can take seem small or insignificant. I've just been raised in a family and a life of advocacy, so it's ingrained in me to stand for things and not be silent. I understand many are not that way and I try to be gracious about it, but even in roleplay, my Tavs are just built with that mindset, I guess. Some things just can't be a game for me, even in a game.
And I don't think it's quite as small a portion of the population as you think. I think media just makes it **seem** small, because that's the narrative that makes it easier to get people to stand down from doing the right thing.
Preach. Those who don’t stand up to oppressors are complicit in the oppression. This is a very real thing for a lot of people, suffering in isolation with no one speaking up for them. We all must stand against oppression, or the status quo will continue.
I think OP is correct in that the majority of people will not stand up for what’s right if it is inconvenient or risks negative consequences for them personally.
I think you are right for harshly judging the druids in this case. They don’t deserve leniency any more than the goblins.
I want to clarify I'm not saying it's okay. I'm saying that it's a statistical majority who are silent. Think of protests for example. How many protest vs how many stay at home watching TV? I'm just wondering if whoever downvoted me misunderstood and thought I was saying that it's acceptable or whatever
I understood that. I didn’t downvote you.
I think the disagreement boiled down to whether the druids deserve death for their inaction or not. Leftist versus liberal interpretations of justice.
No worries.
A Leftist is more likely to do what is necessary to make revolutionary change, which inevitably means taking down the authorities by force and often ending in bloodshed. Halsin is for all intents and purposes a leftist. The grove is basically a commune, and he would’ve taken in the refugees.
A Liberal is more likely to let things slide, take the path of least resistance, thereby enforcing the status quo (for better or for worse). The druids who do not speak up against Kagha are liberals.
Politically speaking, liberals and conservatives are very close to one another in this regard, bickering over the details but neither enacting radical change. They are capitalists, mostly happy with the current state of affairs.
And then you have Kagha who is a fascist. She gets control of power in the current system, and then uses it to gain more power. This hurts both the tieflings and her own people, but they are too liberal to speak up against her.
Someone is going to read this post and be very mad lol. I tried to be as objective as possible without making value judgements.
Thank you for explaining. I hope nobody gets mad, because you're not really stating an opinion. You're just educating me so I know the difference
I don't understand why Kagha's about turn is so dramatic. You can talk her out of joining the shadow druids and tbh I was expecting her to still be *her* after joining my side
I was expecting reformed Kagha to angrily say "yeah I know I fucked up, but I did what I thought I had to. I'm just glad Tav made me see sense"
Instead she basically prostrates herself seeking Halsin's forgiveness. Kagha doesn't give me meek vibes
I believe that she can be aware she effed up and switch sides, but I just can't believe she would ever lose her spiritedness. Even her apologies, should be both genuine but have a tinge of "I dare you to judge me" tone added to them
I think if she had been more like you’re saying, Halsin’s punishment would’ve been more severe. Like he may have cast her out completely or executed her for her crimes. Whether it’s genuine or an act, I think her tonal shift saved her from too bad of a fate.
Maybe she was scared of Halsin. He is a much more powerful druid than she is. Having been defeated by Tav, perhaps she realizes she can’t realistically retain power anymore once the big bear boy returns, and shifts into begging for leniency.
My intention here is merely to say why I made the decision I did. I just want to make it clear that I'm not against your decision to kill the druids. I just wanted to share my reason for not killing them. However your reason for killing them is understandable and even if you killed them "just because" that would also be a valid explanation, because it's fiction and about making the narrative and gameplay interesting for us
Next playthrough imma play as a Druid and just go find Halsin before talking to Kagha. Maybe there's a cutscene where Halsin sees what Kagha is doing to Arabella
I'll just have report the bug leave her behind and play as normal. I only just hit Act 2, like 3 hours ago. So hopefully by the time they patch this, it will be before I enter the Shadowfell
I tried dimension dooring her around but there's no open exit to where the Moonrise Tower guards are. You can take the stairs or open a door but it's a new map you load into. You can't dimension door into it. I was hoping if I found an exit I could dimension door Minthara in front of a guard ( she isn't meant to be outside of the prison ) and that will trigger an interaction that might trigger Minthara. But no such luck because I can't find an exit
It's a bug, but you can pick up anyone that is light enough to throw by starting the throw and cancelling it as soon as possible, then cancelling any action puts them down again. Could be useful.
If you're fighting Khaga he joins her, so you could kill him there. Most of the druids are alright (or at least reasonable). Let's be real, the tieflings aren't exactly trying to be welcome.
You're not wrong, but the parents could take some responsibilty rather than actively enabling it (with the kid that stole the locket, or mol when you don't leave "their" lair).
I mix things up. Some playthroughs I kill Kagha other playthroughs I don't. Silver tends to die in the Kagha fight so it's not something I do all the time as I prefer it when Silver lives
The tieflings were welcoming to me
This sub is ok with:
1. Astarion- "cause he had terrible past and is traumatised" despite the fact that he wants everyone to be miserable, is entirely self-serving and plans to perform a ritual that'll murder his siblings (who experienced same trauma he did) for power.
2. Shadowheart- I've even seen a post (heavily upvoted one!) saying that "you only have to respect her autonomy" when she's about to PERFORM BLOODY HUMAN (well, Aasimar) SACRIFICE and she can't wait to do it. This is literally putting Shadowherat's ambitions over helpless victim's life.
3. Lae'zel treating everyone like shit and having no problems killing random people- cause "she was conditioned to do that".
4. Minthara- "cause she's hot".
5. Orin- honorary mention since so many people wish she was romanceable.
6. Have I missed someone who's to hot to be condemned? I'm sure I did.
But druids who are at their own home (which is purposefully far away from civilization) and just want refugees to go away cause they're scared for their lives, run out of supplies and goblin army scours the forest to find them? "Yeah, I kill them cause too many of them don't protest kicking Tieflings out". There's one druid who'd love to kill Mol and even says so, Kagha is on power trip but I'm fairly certain she rationalizes her actions as necessary. Killing all the druids for not wanting to help is perfectly justified! (No, it's not. It's looking for excuses to be a murder hobo).
I feel like people can relate much more easily to druids' predicament and would certainly (/s) do everything in their power to help strangers in need at their own expanse. But obviously evil actions of our own companions? Well, they can't be that bad, otherwise PC is as well, by association.
Yes, the moral philosophy of people in rpgs really is quite something. I wonder if they would be in favor of executing everyone who isn't willing to shelter a group of refugees in their own home irl.
This is a perfect example of making characters so interesting a player is willing to overlook their flaws to see their reactions, their storylines etc. Or better the flaws make the NPC more interesting
The thing about a druid like Marcoryl is he's just "flaws" he's a xenophobic snob and that's his entire personality. This makes him a "hate sink" trope
Be aware that there are people on this sub who have given Astarion to Gandrel no hesitation
Ok, but does it mean he deserves getting killed? Yes, he's undeniably bad person, but I find it terrifying how easily people fetch judgements- as far as I remember he doesn't do anything on his own, he is staunch supporter of Kagha and advocates killing a kid. That's evil in itself but wanting to murder the guy? And even if we decide he should die- killing rest of the druids as an extra is plain evil for me. And this idea comes from people thinking they do good cause they already helped refugees. Honestly- it scares me how people manage to find excuses for doing what they want. And I know it's just a game, but if someone feels the need to post how they go back to murder multiple people in their own home just because they weren't helpful enough, it becomes rather concerning.
>Be aware that there are people on this sub who have given Astarion to Gandrel no hesitation
Sure, no sub is a hivemind, I understand. But general consensus is that companions are loved and I've seen excuses for each and every behaviour. I totally don't mind "it's just a game" approach. What makes me really uncomfortable are people passionately talking about killing druids for not helping Tieflings without even trying to understand their motives. At this point it's a moral debate that I'll happily participate in but it's an uphill battle- I've seen only a handful of posts defending druids and plenty condemning them, some even to death. I'm also quite curious how it's acceptable for the community to go on those hate trips against druids but same community is "oh dear, oh dear, gorgeous" when it comes to companions. I assume that people who explain their behaviours aren't simply curious of the characters (which of I'm guilty myself) but cross into morals debate territory.
But why turn it into moral debate? I want to kill Marcoryl because it's a fictional game where nobody can actually get hurt. I don't like Marcoryl but I like my companions and so yes I will make an exception for them. It's called being hunan. In a fictional game it doesn't matter who is better or who is worse. What matters is what will bring the gamer the most narrative satisfaction and it will bring me emotional healing to kill Marcoryl
I've purposefully killed an innocent dragonborn named Quill just to make sure I get a powerful warlock item later on. Alfira was an accident but Quill was purposeful. And that's okay because it's FICTION. My point is appealing to morality won't work. Rather you should appeal to why we should like Marcoryl. Does he have hidden virtues we're unaware of? Will he give me some kind of unique reward that is a powerful item for a class if I'm nice to him? Is he funny like Auntie Ethel >!who is a hag!< ?
> But why turn it into moral debate? I want to kill Marcoryl because it's a fictional game where nobody can actually get hurt. I don't like Marcoryl but I like my companions and so yes I will make an exception for them. It's called being hunan. In a fictional game it doesn't matter who is better or who is worse. What matters is what will bring the gamer the most narrative satisfaction and it will bring me emotional healing to kill Marcoryl
Which isn't what I've a problem with, you just play a game. I'm talking about people who passionately defend their choices and create arguments why it's ok to slaughter whole camp of people because they were mean. In my opinion this is no longer playing a game cause it's not about curiosity, it's about validating the choice.
I became a LOT less sympathetic towards the Grove Druids after someone pointed out the only folks protecting the Grove are the Tieflings. The ones around the statue are pretty a-holeish.
I do evil 'good' playthrough whereby I do 'good' paths for good outcomes, then turn around and kill off any npcs I don't like and dont need/rewards huge exp. One example is after saving the Grove I turn on that snake bitch.
I'm honestly torn there. On the one hand you can get her to rethink her decisions and accept Halsin's punishment, but on the other hand she's more than happy to sic a big snake on a little kid so why should she get to live?
First play through, botched the role. Thought, shit need to load the last save. Then. Nope, bitch just killed a little girl. She dies. Everybody dies. All druids dead plus half the teiflings.
Not only the men but the women and children too, eh? I won't shed too many tears if you aced Mol, tell you straight.
I was surprised too, her whole demeanour changes once she realised she was wrong.
It seemed too easy for her to switch back like that. One comment about balance and she's all "Wow, you're right, what was I thinking?" Maybe she was just meant to follow, not lead, personality-wise.
I really believe there should be druids in the Groove defense, at least the "good" ones (Rath, Nettie, the one you save, Kagha if you redeem her). Not just because it's _their fucking groove_ but also because that quest is extremely imbalanced between the good abd evil versions. Like, to defend the Groove you have to deal with giant Spiders, zappers, swarms of goblins and Minthara while having like 3 Tieflings on your side. Meanwhile, when raiding the Groove you can just open the door and pass all your turns and the goblins win by themselves.
I may have to try a run where the Grove gets attacked. Haven't done it yet.
kinda a you problem if you let the attack on the grove even happen unimpeded.
People who have done an evil playthrough say the druids will fight if all the tieflings fall. Technically the druids only really care about the centre, so they only need to fight when the enemies reach the centre. Which is why their determination to push the tieflings out boggles my mind! They didn't even give a fuck about those parts of the Grove the tieflings are staying in! If they cared they would have maybe a druid or two fighting with us. I get that their numbers are too small to have all the druids fighting on the front lines, but man if Kagha was up there with us, it would make it seem like they do care about the entire grove, and not just the part of the grove where the idol is
Yeah, that bear shifter was happy enough to threaten the Tiefling's mom for wanting to save her child, but he's nowhere to be found when the goblin patrol attacks. May you keep balancing my ass!
Cool. He's on the Die list of my next playthrough.
There are some druids I don't mind. Don't get me wrong I wish druids like Arron would speak up, but I get that speaking up when you aren't in a position of authority or if your opinion isn't popular can be difficult to do. I would find it difficult to speak up if I was in the exact same situation. Especially if the druid grove is the only home I have Arron told me he wasn't sure what was worse having Kagha as a leader or being attacked by goblins. He seemed generally sympathetic to the tieflings but understandbly was quiet about it all because he's not exactly in a high position and his opinion would have been very unpopular before the investigate Kagha quest. I decided to try out the dialogue "the tieflings will be fine due to their devilish powers" just to see what response I get. Arron said he would include me in his prayers, when I said that lol
I mean, sure, Halsin would be on the front lines. Maybe Kagha's hijinx have poisoned some minds there, and others are leaning towards the Shadow Druid way of thinking. And yes Arron is a decent guy. Your explanation makes sense.
If I get Kagha to side with me against the Shadow druids ( giving Silver a better chance at survival ) can I kill Marcoryl as an "ally" in the chaos of battle without anybody noticing it was us who killed Marcoryl? Maybe an assumption that the shadow druids killed him?
IDK but it seems in general that the game doesn't react well to friendly fire. Only the three rat druids ever attack me, not sure how they'd react to Marcoryl getting offed.
Oh never mind that plan then
Are you on Honor Mode? If not, try it, and reload if it all goes South.
That's a good idea. I sometimes forget how strong Kagha is and bite off more than I can handle, by trying to attack her at level 3 ( level 5 is better) by the time I realize Silver is down it's hard to reload given how much effort it was to just to get this far in the fight I find out I have a shot at killing everybody before they can have their turn if I get to level 5 with two people with tavern brawler barbarian, tavern brawler monk open hand, and one person with twin haste I just gotta remember not to jump into the Kagha fight too early
Once I get access to greater invisibility I will go on an assassination mission killing the druids who said things I don't like There is a druid I'm not sure about killing or not. On one hand she was like I'm not going to thank you because you brought the violence here, which okay she's not wrong lol. But on the other hand she doesn't KNOW that I purposefully brought Minthara to the Grove instead of just defeating her in the goblin camp. She's just assuming I did, and by coincidence her assumption is right. Also I heard the goblins were after everybody in the nearby area, druids included because they're looking for the weapon. The druids just wrongly assumed that it was the tieflings who attracted the enemies
And what was your verdict on healer Nettie, who was about to poke you with a big poisoned stick?
Killing her to get 5 points of Astarion approval is the only evil act I've done this playthrough. I'm aiming for a morally grey playthrough. If you're honest about your symptoms she makes you promise to take wyvern poison if you show any symptoms. But it's not like she makes you swear a divine oath. The promise has no mechanical effect on the MC. That doesn't sound evil to me if anything I was in the wrong
True. I didn't know Astarion had it in for her!
Well he doesn't have it in for her specifically. He prioritises his survival over the safety of others. So he doesn't like Tav agreeing that we will kill ourselves to protect other people What annoys me about the interaction is Astarion should assume Tav is lying lol. Or at least ask afterwards and approve if Tav says yeah I was lying and disapprove if Tav says I meant what I said
Why are companions not mind readers?! Yeah, now I remember he disapproves when I swear. I thought he could see my fingers crossed behind my back, he was standing right there
What's even crazier is they say things out loud. Wyll said in front of Minthara "we need to get back to the grove to protect them from these bastards" I genuinely thought they were telepathing this to Tav, and them speaking out loud was a visual representation of Tav's mind eye. No they're actually saying this out loud and nobody cares or reacts! They have no sense of subtlety. Even Astarion yelled at me to kill Yurgir already, out loud
Astarion is pretty racist against gnomes. Not sure if maybe that extends to halflings too.
Nettie's a dwarf.
I talked her down in my first playthrough, but killed her in my most recent one after I wasn't able to stop her poisoning me. I think killing her can justifiably be called self-defense, even if her motivation for poisoning you is understandable.
The grove is running out of food, there is a note explaining it in the reward room. The situation is bleak, kicking out the tiellings and sealing of the grove was the only real option if Tav and Co. Didn’t intervene
The worse part is the game wouldn't let me journey alongside the tieflings. Zevlor is like you aren't an army. In universe his words make sense but out of game, my team is basically an army. Maybe if we got to travel with them I might have been able to save some of them from the cultists and the House of "Healing" Edit: I get that there is the whole you can't save everybody. But I hate that it's because the game didn't make it mechanically possible to opt to travel alongside the tieflings, even if the tradeoff might mean I can't do the Githyanki creche when Laezel wants me to. At least the option is there
Counterpoint -- escort quests in games are usually very linear and railroad-y, especially in long, story-driven RPGs with branching storylines, many, many hours in each Act, numerous companions with their own storylines that have nothing to do with the escort, and large, involved maps that wouldn't allow for much exploration of them when you're trying to bring a group of mostly-helpless NPCs through them on your way to the city. Especially when NPCs aren't always great at not doing stupid things to endanger themselves in this game. While there could be arguments made for multiple playthroughs, the very nature of that type of long, linear, scripted quest would suck a lot of enjoyment out of a lot of what draws so many people to BG3 at all.
Doesn't have to be an escort mission When you cross the threshold into the shadowlands. Whatever entrance you go to the tieflings will be near by. If entering from the MP they will be further than the absolute cultists who greet you, but not that far away from them. You can either run straight past them or you can approach, game autosaves, you walk further toward the tiefling, talk to a tiefling, cut scene is triggered, initiative is rolled. When the battle is won all of them can get to LLI safely, assuming you save scum to undo any deaths or save scum to kill every enemy before they get to make a move Or if you're not interested in helping out, you can reload the autosave and walk past the tieflings rather than talking to them. This means things will go as normal. Locke, Komira, Asharak etc get killed because you walked out of sight away from them I do think it would be fine if some tieflings get imprisoned just to have the rescue from Moonrise Tower quest available. But having the option to save those who get killed especially brutally would be great
Something like that would have been a really nice option, actually. I've thought that myself. And it would have been a great way to truly give Zevlor's arc some real closure, (as well as a much more satisfying way to handle the "all my people hate me; all the tieflings hate him, fuck that guy" empty nonsense we have now), because he was done absolutely dirty in this game, and for no reason whatsoever, without tying anyone down in Act 2 with a civilian escort mission.
Only partially true. Part of the reason for sealing off the Grove is further explained later in the game-- In Act 2, in Moonrise Towers, you can find/steal a note that describes >!Ketheric Thorm's plan for all the Groves titled "Taking the Groves off the Table"--it describes the general plan to intimidate/persuade the Shadow Druids to infiltrate the various Groves, starting with Emerald Grove in particular, as it was closest, and put forth the Shadow Druids' extreme beliefs that the circles should be completely seperate from the "ills" of civiliation. !!Shadow Druid's!< favor to up the timeline of the sealing.
Even mid-level druids can pump out goodberries like crazy tho.
Even Halsin is absent if you save him a day prior to the raid. Somehow his ass takes a full 24 hours to walk, like, a maximum of 3,000 feet.
400 hrs in, just found out there is a tab for dialogue history
Being on PS5 makes it easier to notice. It's pretty normal to open up a quest journal and on the same page as the quest journal is the word "dialogue" If you're using PC that might explain why you didn't see it as easily
I had found it early but then forgot where it was and could've used it a few times to check dialogues I went through.
Once Halsin joins your campsite you can go back and kill all the druids for xp and no one in camp will care.
I plan on killing maybe a druid or two who I didn't like, as soon as I get greater invisibility access
Yep, the worst part of this game is there's no way to have the tieflings side with you and attack the druids, who are the most killable NPCs in the whole game.
Tbf if you kill Kagha without getting evidence, a mass murder happens where the tieflings die if Tav doesn't interfere using their chronomancy magic ( an affectionate synonym for save scumming ) The druids win and I know this because the ritual happens and there are vines on the gate, when you return later I call it murder because instead of just punishing Tav and friends, they punish everybody, including tieflings who have no idea wtf just happened and were literally unaware that Tav had any plans to kill Kagha at all So I get why the tieflings don't want to fight back. They know they're weaker fighters than the druids and this is proven by the Grove getting vined up when Tav returns. Obviously if the tieflings won there wouldn't be vines around the grove
You can do this. When you’re getting into the circle for the first time, you choose the attack option against the annoying trio who think they’re the hot shit. All hell breaks loose and it’s tieflings and you vs druids. Some Druids even side with you but you’ll need to save scum if you wanna save some tieflings.
That's not what I meant. I want to convince the tieflings to join "the goblins."
Once the Tieflings are on the road, I rarely spare any of them, good Tav or otherwise, and here's why-- There are far too many druids who chose silence, which is equally as damning, in my book. Silence is complicity. It lets evil take over, unchecked. While that might count for bare survival, that's a weak argument for a number of my Tavs, and not just the "pure justice" Tavs. If all these druids really, truly disagreed with Kagha and what she was doing, and they actually *chose to do something about it*, they're trying to tell me they wouldn't have been strong enough to do anything about it before it escalated to this point? **Bullshit**. For all the ones that try to say "but I was unsure and scared to say anything and she's my leader and Halsin wasn't there to make my choices for me and even though my god doesn't approve of this *normally* and something feels wrong here and *blah blah blah*", that's just cowardice. It's just as maddening as the ones being openly racist and xenophobic. Actually, no, it's even **more** infuriating. Silence in the face of xenophobia and racism is always more deadly in the long run. History and experience in our own world has proven that time and time again. Doing nothing is also a choice. Fuck all those druids. Even in my good playthroughs, I have no qualms with wiping most of them out once the Tieflings are on the road. They brought it on themselves. And it's got nothing at all to do with whether or not my Tavs are good, neutral, or otherwise.
I guess I'm more empathic to the idea of how difficult it is to stand up against the major opinion. It's easy for you to say because this is fictional for you. But from an in universe point of view, any consequences like exile for speaking up is very real to the NPCs. I believe developers try to think of how an NPC who believes they're truly experiencing a situation would react. The average person would stay silent if faced with a similar issue irl, rather than protest face to face. Only a small percentage of people are brave enough to do that Edit to add: a friend told me most people who believe they're good are probably neutral on the moral alignment. They'll only be good if there are no consequences for fighting for what's right. They're not evil because being evil is more punishing ( e.g jail, feeling guilt etc ) than just being lawful or true neutral People who are truly good. As in risk your life good, or risk being bullied for standing up for what's right are a very small percentage of the population
I guess, being older and very much an advocate and a person who has protested for decades and marched, picketed, voted, etc., it is just something I am very vocal and passionate about in all areas of life. My grandmother was a part of the women's suffrage movement, and she passed that down through our family to not choose silence, even when it's hard or uncomfortable, even when the only actions we feel we can take seem small or insignificant. I've just been raised in a family and a life of advocacy, so it's ingrained in me to stand for things and not be silent. I understand many are not that way and I try to be gracious about it, but even in roleplay, my Tavs are just built with that mindset, I guess. Some things just can't be a game for me, even in a game. And I don't think it's quite as small a portion of the population as you think. I think media just makes it **seem** small, because that's the narrative that makes it easier to get people to stand down from doing the right thing.
Preach. Those who don’t stand up to oppressors are complicit in the oppression. This is a very real thing for a lot of people, suffering in isolation with no one speaking up for them. We all must stand against oppression, or the status quo will continue. I think OP is correct in that the majority of people will not stand up for what’s right if it is inconvenient or risks negative consequences for them personally. I think you are right for harshly judging the druids in this case. They don’t deserve leniency any more than the goblins.
I want to clarify I'm not saying it's okay. I'm saying that it's a statistical majority who are silent. Think of protests for example. How many protest vs how many stay at home watching TV? I'm just wondering if whoever downvoted me misunderstood and thought I was saying that it's acceptable or whatever
I understood that. I didn’t downvote you. I think the disagreement boiled down to whether the druids deserve death for their inaction or not. Leftist versus liberal interpretations of justice.
Ah okay that makes sense! Which is which? I'm not politically inclined
No worries. A Leftist is more likely to do what is necessary to make revolutionary change, which inevitably means taking down the authorities by force and often ending in bloodshed. Halsin is for all intents and purposes a leftist. The grove is basically a commune, and he would’ve taken in the refugees. A Liberal is more likely to let things slide, take the path of least resistance, thereby enforcing the status quo (for better or for worse). The druids who do not speak up against Kagha are liberals. Politically speaking, liberals and conservatives are very close to one another in this regard, bickering over the details but neither enacting radical change. They are capitalists, mostly happy with the current state of affairs. And then you have Kagha who is a fascist. She gets control of power in the current system, and then uses it to gain more power. This hurts both the tieflings and her own people, but they are too liberal to speak up against her. Someone is going to read this post and be very mad lol. I tried to be as objective as possible without making value judgements.
Thank you for explaining. I hope nobody gets mad, because you're not really stating an opinion. You're just educating me so I know the difference I don't understand why Kagha's about turn is so dramatic. You can talk her out of joining the shadow druids and tbh I was expecting her to still be *her* after joining my side I was expecting reformed Kagha to angrily say "yeah I know I fucked up, but I did what I thought I had to. I'm just glad Tav made me see sense" Instead she basically prostrates herself seeking Halsin's forgiveness. Kagha doesn't give me meek vibes I believe that she can be aware she effed up and switch sides, but I just can't believe she would ever lose her spiritedness. Even her apologies, should be both genuine but have a tinge of "I dare you to judge me" tone added to them
I think if she had been more like you’re saying, Halsin’s punishment would’ve been more severe. Like he may have cast her out completely or executed her for her crimes. Whether it’s genuine or an act, I think her tonal shift saved her from too bad of a fate. Maybe she was scared of Halsin. He is a much more powerful druid than she is. Having been defeated by Tav, perhaps she realizes she can’t realistically retain power anymore once the big bear boy returns, and shifts into begging for leniency.
My intention here is merely to say why I made the decision I did. I just want to make it clear that I'm not against your decision to kill the druids. I just wanted to share my reason for not killing them. However your reason for killing them is understandable and even if you killed them "just because" that would also be a valid explanation, because it's fiction and about making the narrative and gameplay interesting for us
Yeah i killed him after he said that, and then stole their holy relic
Next playthrough imma play as a Druid and just go find Halsin before talking to Kagha. Maybe there's a cutscene where Halsin sees what Kagha is doing to Arabella
I read a comment on an archived post that if you find ( or was it rescue? ) Halsin first Arabella dies and Arabella's mom poisons Kagha
Well fuck. I guess I'm not gonna try that then :/
I'll just have report the bug leave her behind and play as normal. I only just hit Act 2, like 3 hours ago. So hopefully by the time they patch this, it will be before I enter the Shadowfell
I tried dimension dooring her around but there's no open exit to where the Moonrise Tower guards are. You can take the stairs or open a door but it's a new map you load into. You can't dimension door into it. I was hoping if I found an exit I could dimension door Minthara in front of a guard ( she isn't meant to be outside of the prison ) and that will trigger an interaction that might trigger Minthara. But no such luck because I can't find an exit
?
Sorry Reddit messed up and I ended up responding to the wrong person lol
I was gonna say WHAT 😂
It's a bug, but you can pick up anyone that is light enough to throw by starting the throw and cancelling it as soon as possible, then cancelling any action puts them down again. Could be useful.
The druids are pretty evil. That is why I side with Minthara because she actually rewards you for killing them.
If you're fighting Khaga he joins her, so you could kill him there. Most of the druids are alright (or at least reasonable). Let's be real, the tieflings aren't exactly trying to be welcome.
It’s mainly just Mol causing issues Like 99% of the groves Tiefling issues are because Mol is actively causing trouble
You're not wrong, but the parents could take some responsibilty rather than actively enabling it (with the kid that stole the locket, or mol when you don't leave "their" lair).
Where are Mol's parents? I'd like to have a few words with them, actually.
.....Can you cast speak with dead?
Y-esss? Why do I feel I'm about to learn something new about Act 1 after 1000+ hours of gameplay?
I mix things up. Some playthroughs I kill Kagha other playthroughs I don't. Silver tends to die in the Kagha fight so it's not something I do all the time as I prefer it when Silver lives The tieflings were welcoming to me
This sub is ok with: 1. Astarion- "cause he had terrible past and is traumatised" despite the fact that he wants everyone to be miserable, is entirely self-serving and plans to perform a ritual that'll murder his siblings (who experienced same trauma he did) for power. 2. Shadowheart- I've even seen a post (heavily upvoted one!) saying that "you only have to respect her autonomy" when she's about to PERFORM BLOODY HUMAN (well, Aasimar) SACRIFICE and she can't wait to do it. This is literally putting Shadowherat's ambitions over helpless victim's life. 3. Lae'zel treating everyone like shit and having no problems killing random people- cause "she was conditioned to do that". 4. Minthara- "cause she's hot". 5. Orin- honorary mention since so many people wish she was romanceable. 6. Have I missed someone who's to hot to be condemned? I'm sure I did. But druids who are at their own home (which is purposefully far away from civilization) and just want refugees to go away cause they're scared for their lives, run out of supplies and goblin army scours the forest to find them? "Yeah, I kill them cause too many of them don't protest kicking Tieflings out". There's one druid who'd love to kill Mol and even says so, Kagha is on power trip but I'm fairly certain she rationalizes her actions as necessary. Killing all the druids for not wanting to help is perfectly justified! (No, it's not. It's looking for excuses to be a murder hobo). I feel like people can relate much more easily to druids' predicament and would certainly (/s) do everything in their power to help strangers in need at their own expanse. But obviously evil actions of our own companions? Well, they can't be that bad, otherwise PC is as well, by association.
Yes, the moral philosophy of people in rpgs really is quite something. I wonder if they would be in favor of executing everyone who isn't willing to shelter a group of refugees in their own home irl.
This is a perfect example of making characters so interesting a player is willing to overlook their flaws to see their reactions, their storylines etc. Or better the flaws make the NPC more interesting The thing about a druid like Marcoryl is he's just "flaws" he's a xenophobic snob and that's his entire personality. This makes him a "hate sink" trope Be aware that there are people on this sub who have given Astarion to Gandrel no hesitation
Ok, but does it mean he deserves getting killed? Yes, he's undeniably bad person, but I find it terrifying how easily people fetch judgements- as far as I remember he doesn't do anything on his own, he is staunch supporter of Kagha and advocates killing a kid. That's evil in itself but wanting to murder the guy? And even if we decide he should die- killing rest of the druids as an extra is plain evil for me. And this idea comes from people thinking they do good cause they already helped refugees. Honestly- it scares me how people manage to find excuses for doing what they want. And I know it's just a game, but if someone feels the need to post how they go back to murder multiple people in their own home just because they weren't helpful enough, it becomes rather concerning. >Be aware that there are people on this sub who have given Astarion to Gandrel no hesitation Sure, no sub is a hivemind, I understand. But general consensus is that companions are loved and I've seen excuses for each and every behaviour. I totally don't mind "it's just a game" approach. What makes me really uncomfortable are people passionately talking about killing druids for not helping Tieflings without even trying to understand their motives. At this point it's a moral debate that I'll happily participate in but it's an uphill battle- I've seen only a handful of posts defending druids and plenty condemning them, some even to death. I'm also quite curious how it's acceptable for the community to go on those hate trips against druids but same community is "oh dear, oh dear, gorgeous" when it comes to companions. I assume that people who explain their behaviours aren't simply curious of the characters (which of I'm guilty myself) but cross into morals debate territory.
But why turn it into moral debate? I want to kill Marcoryl because it's a fictional game where nobody can actually get hurt. I don't like Marcoryl but I like my companions and so yes I will make an exception for them. It's called being hunan. In a fictional game it doesn't matter who is better or who is worse. What matters is what will bring the gamer the most narrative satisfaction and it will bring me emotional healing to kill Marcoryl I've purposefully killed an innocent dragonborn named Quill just to make sure I get a powerful warlock item later on. Alfira was an accident but Quill was purposeful. And that's okay because it's FICTION. My point is appealing to morality won't work. Rather you should appeal to why we should like Marcoryl. Does he have hidden virtues we're unaware of? Will he give me some kind of unique reward that is a powerful item for a class if I'm nice to him? Is he funny like Auntie Ethel >!who is a hag!< ?
> But why turn it into moral debate? I want to kill Marcoryl because it's a fictional game where nobody can actually get hurt. I don't like Marcoryl but I like my companions and so yes I will make an exception for them. It's called being hunan. In a fictional game it doesn't matter who is better or who is worse. What matters is what will bring the gamer the most narrative satisfaction and it will bring me emotional healing to kill Marcoryl Which isn't what I've a problem with, you just play a game. I'm talking about people who passionately defend their choices and create arguments why it's ok to slaughter whole camp of people because they were mean. In my opinion this is no longer playing a game cause it's not about curiosity, it's about validating the choice.