Baldur's Gate 3 II: The Urge for a Second Playthrough

[Keltest]

Personally I feel the biggest thing that determines my party comp is gear. I don't want everyone trying to draw from the same gear pool, especially when it comes to melee weapons.

[Psyren]

Astarion is just about passable, but his turns devolve into endless hiding rather than raining arrows of the heads of our foes. And Will is a blaster (or possibly controller).

I mean, that's the point - rogues don't "rain arrows," they snipe.
Honestly I view "Cunning Action Hide" in BG3 as just being Steady Aim with positioning requirements.

You already have eight party members camping in the streets of Baldur's Gate (didn't the guards tell me off for that in the first game?), I'm not asking for a Pathfinder style 20 companions. More the ability to have the entire core crew and slot some into less basic roles.

I wouldn't mind a "passive mode" mechanic like Jade Empire had for party members that aren't actively participating in battle, to explain what they're doing while the main squad is fighting. Alternatively, this game could simply have had a "telepathic bond" mechanic, whereby the Emperor can only actively shield 4 of you at a time, but the remaining party members can stay connected with your senses via tadpole phone
and thus be able to provide banter and commentary even while they're not present.

I get the feeling that both Original Sin 2 and BG3 were designed with the idea that every Origin character was part of the group and then had the four person limit applied because of tradition. OS2 is actually a bit worse about it, you get to pick every party member's starting skillset if you don't want the balanced spread the game gives you.

Note that while I don't really feel like playing any of the BG3 origins Lose is exactly the kind of character I'd play at the table, is awesome, is best girl, and who I always pick in OS2 (which really shouldn't have given you custom characters).

Custom Characters are the best way to introduce people to a new setting imo. I'm convinced that's the main reason we got both Tav and Durge in this game.

Now that I'm experiencing it myself, Good Durge's story is utterly stellar - but if Durge had been my only option for a custom protagonist back when I first stated playing, I probably would have quit the game entirely right around Alfira and never given it a chance. Even if "Tav" doesn't have much connection to the world in either BG3 or DOS2, they made the right call.

---

What I find most appealing about Durge is the depth of expression it offers. You can roleplay as a confident hero who'll stop not at nothing to redeem themselves, an unsure atoner who is terrified of their own mind, an eager aspirant who wants to seize their birthright no matter the cost, a loner who just wants to be left alone, or even a gleeful amnesiac who just goes along with whatever other people want them to do. I didn't think Durge would overtake Tav as my canon playthrough but I don't see myself ever going back after this.

[Cikomyr2]

The Dark Urge is an interesting playthrough, especially if you experience the game for the first time and dont know the story beats that will drop ahead.

You are both amnesiac/vulnerable, but have these fundamental urges that you can't control, only temporarily suppress.. sometimes. It was genuinely anguishing for me and i felt i made a lot of RP choices based on that fear and how people seemed eager to help me through that experience. It informed many choices i took early on.

The amnesiac main character is always a goodie since it gives you a great reason to ask people to explain the plot to you.

Next time, i feel I'll play one of my main 3 companion (Wyll, Lae'zel or Shadowheart) since i know their personality best, and get to know Gale, Astarion and Karlach since i killed the later two and pretty much ignored Gale all game except when Mister Red Robe appeared.

[Jophiel]

The party size never bothered me. Probably a combination of (a) that's the game setting so I assume it's balanced around that, (b) I've played a ton of 4-man co-op games so it's a natural group size for me, and (c) in my experience, four is the sweet spot for a 5e game where each person brings important and non-redundant skills and less assertive characters aren't getting pushed into the background (and before combat turns into an hour-long slog). Obviously individual preference and experiences may vary. While some of this isn't a problem when you're in control of all the characters, a four player group sits right with me.

The BG3 creative lead recommends a custom character for your first play through, an Origin as a second choice (but thinks they're better suited for subsequent plays) and doesn't recommend Dark Urge for your initial play at all. I can see that; I think that if I started Dark Urge I would have bounced off pretty quick. Not because I'm terribly squeamish about pixel murder but, without context, the bloodbloodblood aspect would have felt entirely nonsensical and tryhard.

On the other hand, the dev said that playing a resisting Dark Urge could be the "most heroic" play through. I'd have to see that in action all the way through since deciding NOT to set orphans on fire feels more like normal non-psychopath behavior than 'heroic' but maybe it shows more depth later in the story than I am.

Spoiler: Dark Urge Stuff

Show

I cheesed the Alfira murder by throwing a Sleep on her in the Grove and bonking her unconscious and getting the silver Dragonborn rando bard instead. Mainly because I want Alfira's robe later and since every online mention of the poor girl gets people saying "She joined MY party as a Dark Urge, EH? WINK? WINK?" there wasn't exactly any mystery there. I'll politely ignore the "This person was stabbed a million times and placed in an elaborately drawn blood circle... pretty sure a wild pig did it" part.

I did think that getting a magic item as my reward was interesting and the incentive to murder people for more magical items. But then the game throws so much gear at you that it's no struggle to turn your back on it anyway. Astarion got the cloak anyway to assist in his stabbin'. Maybe my weird Bhaal butler guy should go talk to Astarion instead.

[Cikomyr2]

I mean, if "wrestling with the instincts of a serial killer and that being the only thing you know about yourself" is a turnoff for you, DO NOT PLAY THE DARK URGE.

I personally dislike the Good Dark Urge ending since it literally requires a Deus Ex Machina to resolve. Literally.

[Jophiel]

I mean, if "wrestling with the instincts of a serial killer and that being the only thing you know about yourself" is a turnoff for you, DO NOT PLAY THE DARK URGE.

In of itself, it's not. This particular implementation may be. A number of people have said it's great or "the REAL story" or whatever so I'm trying it. It'll either add to the game or not based on its own merits. Plus, since it's just another layer on top of the game, I can still enjoy the 'main' game even if I'm not yet jazzed up about how the Urge parts are inserted.

[Cikomyr2]

In of itself, it's not. This particular implementation may be. A number of people have said it's great or "the REAL story" or whatever so I'm trying it. It'll either add to the game or not based on its own merits. Plus, since it's just another layer on top of the game, I can still enjoy the 'main' game even if I'm not yet jazzed up about how the Urge parts are inserted.

Oh, definetly. As i said, the Dark Urge is salt on the playthrough. It is not necessary, and it doesnt stand in its own.

The only argument about "Dark Urge is the real playthrough" that have standing is that Dark Urge is the only origins that have a direct link to the main plot rather than the main plot's gravity drawing them in.

And its the only Origins with a fully customizable appearance, race and class.

But.. yhea, i agree to call BS about it being "the TRUE" playthrough. There isnt a playthrough that is inherently more worthwhile than others. Everyone of the Origins have their own grandiose stories that allow them to show their true colors, highlighting how the Tadpoles transitioned them from being victims of their fate to in control of it.

Tav is just bland, but hey sometimes you want a bland character to allow self insert. This is why "least objectionable silent protagonist that facilitates self-insert" is a well known video game trope. Tav being by far the blandest playthrough does not in any way make it less inherently worthwhile than any other Origins.

[Psyren]

I personally dislike the Good Dark Urge ending since it literally requires a Deus Ex Machina to resolve. Literally.

Disagree; a DEM is an unearned resolution that the story didn't take time to set up beforehand. That doesn't apply here because

Spoiler

Show

The story established that the kinds of people who are capable of becoming Chosen are attractive to multiple gods, even competing ones; it also established that such people being abandoned by one leaves them available to recruitment by another. The biggest example we see in the story is Ketheric, but it applies to Shadowheart too, and you get to see both examples firsthand on a Good Durge playthrough. So when it happens to you, it's both earned and consistent with what has been established prior, and therefore not a DEM.

In general: a god doing a thing is not automatically a Deus Ex Machina, even if that thing helps solve a narrative problem.

---

As for Tav - to reiterate, I find the origin very valuable in a metagame sense. I just think they could have given that origin more of a tie to the world, especially since if you pick Tav

Spoiler

Show

you find Dark Urge dead in Orin's room, so all that the stuff they did prior to the game still happened.

When you get down to it, Tav's origin is not all that dissimilar from Astarion's - i.e. snatched up from Baldur's Gate purely by chance. I think Tav could even have been in the process of getting seduced/abducted by Astarion without impacting the openness/freedom of their origin. It'd quite literally be "you meet in a tavern."

[Cikomyr2]

Disagree; a DEM is an unearned resolution that the story didn't take time to set up beforehand. That doesn't apply here because

Spoiler

Show

The story established that the kinds of people who are capable of becoming Chosen are attractive to multiple gods, even competing ones; it also established that such people being abandoned by one leaves them available to recruitment by another. The biggest example we see in the story is Ketheric, but it applies to Shadowheart too, and you get to see both examples firsthand on a Good Durge playthrough. So when it happens to you, it's both earned and consistent with what has been established prior, and therefore not a DEM.

In general: a god doing a thing is not automatically a Deus Ex Machina, even if that thing helps solve a narrative problem.

It is if the God intervening is literally out of character for him, has shown no inkling that he would violate the cosmology he has articulated he is bound to uphold.

The entire game reinforces the stories about certains souls already belonging to certain Gods.

Spoiler

Show

the fact that Shadowheart's soul was originally meant to be a Selunean devotee is what makes her such a delicious spite for Shar. But Shar was intent on desecrating Selunean's faith. Jergal does not care for the mewling of the Dead Three as long as the wheel keeps turning.

Jergal only saves you out of necessity to continue the plot. Literally. He is not rewarding your act of courage because this is not His domain. He sees you as a necessity to stop the Netherbrain.

I.e. he intervenes and saves the Post Urge (Purge?) because the plot demands it. Thats a deus ex machina to me.

The Dark Urge is of Bhaal. Denying Bhaal is willingly nailing one's self to the wall of the Faithless. When i met the souls of the Tribunal, i was sad for them for a moment, until i realized it was the best possible fate for these people once Bhaal had claim on their soul.

The cosmology of the Realms is ****ed up and evil, and i feel the Purge ending just breaks these fundamental rules in a way that was never foreshadowed.

[Psyren]

It is if the God intervening is literally out of character for him, has shown no inkling that he would violate the cosmology he has articulated he is bound to uphold.

There was no violation.

Spoiler

Show

Bhaal's power - all of it - literally came from Jergal originally. There is no reason narratively or mechanically that he wouldn't be able to pick up one of his discarded Chosen.

In addition, Bhaal is the one who broke the cosmic rules first - he took a more direct hand with Durge than with any other Bhaalspawn he's ever had, by literally sending his avatar to try and keep you in line through threats and gifts. And then he intervened directly again by trying to murder you himself when you rebelled. Jaheira theorizes that his behavior this time is out of fear, due to having previously lost control of another heroic Bhaalspawn (Gorion's Ward.)

In short, Bhaal done goofed. Jergal being able to act is entirely his fault.

The entire game reinforces the stories about certains souls already belonging to certain Gods.

I notice you didn't comment on Ketheric, who patently disproves this assertion.

[Cikomyr2]

I notice you didn't comment on Ketheric, who patently disproves this assertion.

Ketheric will still be on the Wall of the Faithless. He knew that when he forsaken his original God, it's just that he expected to never die.

[Psyren]

Ketheric will still be on the Wall of the Faithless. He knew that when he forsaken his original God, it's just that he expected to never die.

1) He's not Faithless, he had a faith. At worst he would be a False.

2) Are you saying that in FR nobody can ever change patrons? Because he clearly did exactly that.

[Zevox]

1) He's not Faithless, he had a faith. At worst he would be a False.

2) Are you saying that in FR nobody can ever change patrons? Because he clearly did exactly that.

Not touching the spoilers since I'm still only halfway through Act 2 in my own Dark Urge run, but on this point, Ketheric would most likely be judged a Faithful of Myrkul upon his death. Yes he abandoned Selune and Shar, but what matters is that he had a patron he was faithful to when he died. Conversions are not punished in the Realms, only those who died without a patron they could be considered faithful to.

Though whether being faithful to Myrkul would get him an even half-decent afterlife is another matter, considering Myrkul gets to decide what to do with his soul once Kelemvor hands it over, and Ketheric just failed him pretty badly.

Also, apparently they quietly edited out mention of the Wall of the Faithless in later printings of the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, so its status may be up in the air at this point.

[Psyren]

Not touching the spoilers since I'm still only halfway through Act 2 in my own Dark Urge run, but on this point, Ketheric would most likely be judged a Faithful of Myrkul upon his death. Yes he abandoned Selune and Shar, but what matters is that he had a patron he was faithful to when he died. Conversions are not punished in the Realms, only those who died without a patron they could be considered faithful to.

Though whether being faithful to Myrkul would get him an even half-decent afterlife is another matter, considering Myrkul gets to decide what to do with his soul once Kelemvor hands it over, and Ketheric just failed him pretty badly.

Exactly - at absolute worst he would be False, and even that would only be if his "conversion paperwork" didn't go through - highly unlikely since he was able to call upon Myrkul's Avatar. He is a cleric/Chosen of Myrkul in good standing by the time we encounter him in game.

Also, apparently they quietly edited out mention of the Wall of the Faithless in later printings of the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, so its status may be up in the air at this point.

Yeah I think the Wall's status is up in the air. There are books mentioning it in-game, but even those few references seem softer than in 3.5 IIRC.

[Cikomyr2]

I am still not convinced.

Spoiler: Dark Urge Act 3 Finale

Show

Bhaal can just extinguish the Dark Urge. Not "send assassins", not "summon demons". We ain't talking about the classic way gods normally enact their will on the material plane.

The Dark Urge is of Bhaal. Bhaal can wave his hand and you die. No saving throws, no battle. It takes Withers to walk up and solve literally this situation because he feels you are essential for stopping the Netherbrain and prevent the wheels of soul to stop turning.

He outright says it. The Dark Urge is trapped by the cosmology of the world to be Bhaal's servant, created by Bhaal directly.

Edit: actually, thinking about it. Isnt that a thing in the FR that gods sometime can just.. claim a mortal/soul? A mix of empowerment but also damnation?

[Psyren]

We ain't talking about the classic way gods normally enact their will on the material plane.

That's literally the point. This is one of the key reasons they don't/shouldn't do that. If you decide to up and play in the sandbox, so can somebody else. It's the best kind of justice - poetic.

[Errorname]

When you get down to it, Tav's origin is not all that dissimilar from Astarion's - i.e. snatched up from Baldur's Gate purely by chance. I think Tav could even have been in the process of getting seduced/abducted by Astarion without impacting the openness/freedom of their origin. It'd quite literally be "you meet in a tavern."

Tav is not always from Baldur's Gate though. Notably, Tav can be Githyanki or Drow with dialogue that implies you are from a Creche or the Underdark.

Exactly - at absolute worst he would be False, and even that would only be if his "conversion paperwork" didn't go through. He is a cleric/Chosen of Myrkul in good standing by the time we encounter him in game.

That said I don't know if being sworn to Myrkul and then failing him is the best way to avoid getting stuck in the wall.

Yeah I think the Wall's status is up in the air. There are books mentioning it in-game, but even those few references seem softer than in 3.5 IIRC.

The Wall is such a colossal injustice on a cosmic scale that there's no real way to have it and still have the 'good' gods seem good, so I'm not too surprised they're de-emphasizing it.

Spoiler: Dark Urge Act 3 Finale

Show

He outright says it. The Dark Urge is trapped by the cosmology of the world to be Bhaal's servant, created by Bhaal directly.

Spoiler: Dark Urge

Show

The Dark Urge is kind of a unique example there, they're pure Bhaalspawn. Most mortals don't have that same direct inherent connection to an individual god

[Psyren]

Tav is not always from Baldur's Gate though. Notably, Tav can be Githyanki or Drow with dialogue that implies you are from a Creche or the Underdark.

Point, but those two are pretty easy to place too. Githyanki Tav = another survivor of Lae'zel's raiding party like Los'iir; Drow Tav = sent to check up on House Baenre's missing raid, or just visiting Baldur's Gate by chance for an unrelated reason. (Minthara mentions that her House has visited Baldur's Gate in the past, and tours the surface fairly routinely.)

That said I don't know if being sworn to Myrkul and then failing him is the best way to avoid getting stuck in the wall.

Once again - the Wall is only for souls with no Patron. Obviously whatever Myrkul has planned for his afterlife is very likely to suck, given that they're Team Evil and all, but by the time he gets sent to wherever that is (he resides in Hades in the tabletop canon), the Wall is no longer a concern.

With that said, I'm not defending the Wall's existence either. If they must keep it, to me it makes the most sense for it to simply be neutral oblivion rather than punitive torment.

[Jophiel]

The opening BG3 city attack cinematic takes place in Yartar, not Baldur's Gate, so you could totally have been a Drow hanging out in Yartar!

(Ok, although that was tongue-in-cheek, I should say that I GUESS you're already in a pod when that scene takes place before someone feels obligated to make a point of it. Though that opens some questions about why the Nautiloid was just cruising over Yartar sucking up people if it had already done so in Baldur's Gate. It's not acting like the Githyanki are pursuing it at that point but rather like it's invincibly grabbing people at its leisure. Why did it leave BG? If it left because it was being attacked, why is everyone so cavalier up until the Gith show up?)

[Psyren]

The opening BG3 city attack cinematic takes place in Yartar, not Baldur's Gate, so you could totally have been a Drow hanging out in Yartar!

I know, but the Nautiloid went through BG as well (which is how it grabbed Astarion.) But you're correct, Drow Tav could have been snatched from either.

[Jophiel]

I know, but the Nautiloid went through BG as well (which is how it grabbed Astarion.) But you're correct, Drow Tav could have been snatched from either.

Heh, you posted before my edit but I'd assume you're not from Yartar since you're already in a pod watching Lae'zel get wormified when that all happens.

[Psyren]

Given that the Nautiloid was in the process of being raided by at least three separate factions, they probably had bigger problems than precise navigation at the time

[Zevox]

That said I don't know if being sworn to Myrkul and then failing him is the best way to avoid getting stuck in the wall.

Myrkul doesn't get that choice. Kelemvor is still God of the Dead, and the City of the Dead and Wall of the Faithless (if they keep it in canon) are his to administer, not Myrkul's.

The Wall is such a colossal injustice on a cosmic scale that there's no real way to have it and still have the 'good' gods seem good, so I'm not too surprised they're de-emphasizing it.

With that said, I'm not defending the Wall's existence either. If they must keep it, to me it makes the most sense for it to simply be neutral oblivion rather than punitive torment.

I think the Wall makes sense as particularly cruel punishment devised by an evil God of the Dead like Myrkul (or Jergal before he stepped down, though I think it was said to have been Myrkul's creation). Where they went wrong, I think, is in not changing it after Kelemvor took over. Particularly given he was originally good-aligned...

[Keltest]

Myrkul doesn't get that choice. Kelemvor is still God of the Dead, and the City of the Dead and Wall of the Faithless (if they keep it in canon) are his to administer, not Myrkul's.



I think the Wall makes sense as particularly cruel punishment devised by an evil God of the Dead like Myrkul (or Jergal before he stepped down, though I think it was said to have been Myrkul's creation). Where they went wrong, I think, is in not changing it after Kelemvor took over. Particularly given he was originally good-aligned...

Theyve waffled a lot on the wall. Sometimes they can't get rid of it because Myrkul embedded it too deeply in the fabric of reality to safely remove, sometimes they can't remove it because its a last ditch loaded gun to make sure mortals worship A god, since a lot of them are just kind of awful, and sometimes he actually did just stop using it at all and gave everybody in it a second look.

[Psyren]

I don't actually mind the Wall existing, conceptually anyway. FR is D&D's most deity-centric setting, so including a mechanic that encourages not just PCs, but literally everyone in the setting to voluntarily want an explicit patron makes sense. My problem with it is that it's just a bit too punitive/dark and edgelordy in its original design.

I'm guessing Greenwood made it this way to explain why evil characters didn't simply forego choosing a deity at all, so they could avoid the Lower Planes; he landed on making the Wall its own kind of hell in order to keep it from being seen as a better alternative. But I think a bit of creativity could have made the Wall undesirable without making every good deity complicit in cosmic torture.

[Errorname]

[QUOTE=Psyren;25897883]Point, but those two are pretty easy to place too. Githyanki Tav = another survivor of Lae'zel's raiding party like Los'iir; Drow Tav = sent to check up on House Baenre's missing raid, or just visiting Baldur's Gate by chance for an unrelated reason. (Minthara mentions that her House has visited Baldur's Gate in the past, and tours the surface fairly routinely.)

I'm not actually sure they're the only ones? Even if they were, I think not locking the player into being from Baldur's Gate is fine. Part of the reason the Nautiloid is a great start is that conceivably a lot of characters from a lot of different places might have gotten stuck onboard.

I think the Wall makes sense as particularly cruel punishment devised by an evil God of the Dead like Myrkul (or Jergal before he stepped down, though I think it was said to have been Myrkul's creation). Where they went wrong, I think, is in not changing it after Kelemvor took over. Particularly given he was originally good-aligned...

The Wall makes complete sense as a thing to remain in place, namely it is a way for the gods to punish mortals for failing to worship them. That's absolutely a thing you could see a god doing if worship was a thing which mattered to their power, and 'good' gods harshly punishing mortals who fail to give them their due worship has a long cultural history that probably predates the written word.

It just, y'know, means that the gods in the setting are all okay with countless lives being cursed to eternal damnation because it benefits them, and means every PC has to pledge fealty or risk damnation. That's kind of a hard sell if you want your gods to actually be good and heroic, or if you want to appeal to secular players

I don't actually mind the Wall existing, conceptually anyway. FR is D&D's most deity-centric setting, so including a mechanic that encourages not just PCs, but literally everyone in the setting to voluntarily want an explicit patron makes sense. My problem with it is that it's just a bit too punitive/dark and edgelordy in its original design.

The thing that frustrates me about that is that pantheons tend to be worshipped as a set. If you want back to Ancient Greece and asked some average joe which god they worshipped they'd probably be very confused and say 'the gods'.

It's also pretty easy for me to imagine a version where the unpledged still get claimed after their deaths. Like if you lived as a brutal tyrant, Bane's probably going to take you even if you didn't specifically pledge him your soul in life.

[BRC]

I switched to Vulkan just to try it and wow I'm seeing a noticeable improvement in Act 3. The game hangs far less when switching maps or starting conversations.

Spoiler: Act 3 Gripes general

Show

I think I've found my big beef with Act 3, the city is very full, and so many of the questlines in Act 3 are "Go search the city for the next plot button for this quest" with fairly little guidance. The game is already not great about signposting next steps, or even telling you if a particular quest can be advanced at the moment, and Act 3 throws a lot at you.

Act 3 Specific

Spoiler

Show

Orin just showed up and told me that she's kidnapped Lae'Zel.

I took the deal to kill Gortash first, because I planned to kill both of them anyway, but I wasn't sure if I really had any other option. Like, from an RP perspective, I'll assume that the murder cult leader of the murdergod who loves to murder very much WILL murder my friend if I don't do what she says, and this game is not above giving you serious consequences for choices you make. But I don't like "SUDDENLY! Lose a party member until you kill 2 of the big end-game bosses".

Like, I specced Minsc as a fighter to replace Lae'Zel in my lineup, but I've still got a lot to do before going after Gortash.

[Keltest]

Act 3 Specific

Spoiler

Show

Orin just showed up and told me that she's kidnapped Lae'Zel.

I took the deal to kill Gortash first, because I planned to kill both of them anyway, but I wasn't sure if I really had any other option. Like, from an RP perspective, I'll assume that the murder cult leader of the murdergod who loves to murder very much WILL murder my friend if I don't do what she says, and this game is not above giving you serious consequences for choices you make. But I don't like "SUDDENLY! Lose a party member until you kill 2 of the big end-game bosses".

Like, I specced Minsc as a fighter to replace Lae'Zel in my lineup, but I've still got a lot to do before going after Gortash.

Spoiler: Oddity

Show

Thats strange, its not supposed to do that. It will prioritize someone you left in camp over your active roster, pretty significantly.

[The Patterner]

The thing that frustrates me about that is that pantheons tend to be worshipped as a set. If you want back to Ancient Greece and asked some average joe which god they worshipped they'd probably be very confused and say 'the gods'.

Fully agree.

The funny thing is that it would be super easy to make that work and in doing so make the Shar and Bhaal worship more understandable. If it's customary to give a small sacrifice/donation/prayer to Shar after having done so to Selune it would make sense for some people to secretly start to worship Shar.

And why would you give anything to Shar to begin with? Well because she gets jealous if you don't. You pray to Selune because you want to be noticed, and you pray to Shar for the opposite reason. It was quite common in old mythology to sacrifice to gods because you didn't want them to interfere.

There would of course be a clergy who has dedicated themselves to one specific god, and they would be under that gods protection in a more direct way than others.

[BRC]

Spoiler: Oddity

Show

Thats strange, its not supposed to do that. It will prioritize someone you left in camp over your active roster, pretty significantly.

Spoiler

Show

Oh she was at camp.

Like, I'm not at any mechanical disadvantage, I just like to rotate party members pretty regularly, and now I feel like I need to rush 2 plotlines (Sabotage the Steel Watch Then fight Gortash THEN fight Orin) to get my full crew back.

Fully agree.

The funny thing is that it would be super easy to make that work and in doing so make the Shar and Bhaal worship more understandable. If it's customary to give a small sacrifice/donation/prayer to Shar after having done so to Selune it would make sense for some people to secretly start to worship Shar.

And why would you give anything to Shar to begin with? Well because she gets jealous if you don't. You pray to Selune because you want to be noticed, and you pray to Shar for the opposite reason. It was quite common in old mythology to sacrifice to gods because you didn't want them to interfere.

There would of course be a clergy who has dedicated themselves to one specific god, and they would be under that gods protection in a more direct way than others.

So I started playing this game not really knowing the FR pantheon that well, so my first introduction to Shar was through Shadowheart, and it ended up being a bit of a revelation as I learned "Oh, she worships one of them Evil Gods".

Because, like, I could see Shar fitting into a pantheon as somebody people actually worshipped, or at least acknowledged. She's the lady of Loss, you give her some devotion when you are grieving and want some relief from that. You lose your job and feel lost and hopeless, pray to Shar for a little while. Yeah, she'll provide numbness instead of hope, but at least that's something. Her "Followers" are those who dedicate their lives to that rather than just dipping in for a little while.