Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Potential HEAVY spoiler - Wyll and Karlach meeting.

Today, Wolfheart uploaded new video, that (among other thigs) showed bare new scene where Wyll first time meets with Karlach. (Time - 11:27)



And it just feels weird to me ...
Why would Wyll call her "Advocatus Diaboli" if he presumes she is "a Devil"? O_o

Is there any context im missing?

Bcs as far as i know, Advocatus Diaboli is usually a person, any person really, that acts in someone else (often foul) interest (often at their own expense).
Wich dont really fit to either Karlach, or to the scenario where Wyll thinks she is a Devil herself.

So ... what do you think?
Was this term used badly (maybe on purpose) ... am i reading it wrong?

What I found weird was that Wyll said that serving a devil means you deserve death...

And Advocatus Diaboli is a duty during the beatification process of the catholic church. That person throws every argument towards declaring someone a saint into doubt and basically argues against it.

From there it became a term for someone who basically takes the role of an opponent in a discussion. Basically disagreeing to test the arguments, not necc. because they really disagree. It means Devil's advocate.


Pretty sure this is just a misused word here. Because Latin sounds like the Hells or so.

Because Wyll is a Mizora simp and will believe any lies she tells him.

the context here is what Wyll should do for his end of the bargain with Mizora's pact. so basically Mizora only tells him a suitable "devilish target with Hellfire" is nearby Wyll.Wyll probably thinks she's just an evil minion of Zariel in the blood war. and if Wyll refused to kill her, Mizora still would punish him for failing the job as Karlach fitting the description of "heartless" in the pact (the other type is souless, which may mean the fake paladin who's after Karlach also suitable for the pact as they already sold their soul to Zariel).

Even tho you both quoted my whole post (not sure why btw) ...
I cant help but feel like you didnt bother to read even single word of it. :-/

The point im trying to make here is usage of term "advocatus diaboli" ... wich seems completely out of place here.

Wylls motivation for hunt seems absolutely irellevant for this case. :-/

-- Edit double post --

Ironically, I did try to answer your post.. but failed to quote you.

I think it is just badly used. I somehow do not see Karlach as the type to work as a Lawyer for Zariel.

I dont see any irony in that ...
I was only talking to ALexws and Sai the Elf.

Exactly for that reason you were reacting on topic ... there isnt much more to say aswell, we are just in agreement.

It comes across as Wyll calling her Zariel's disciple, an advocator for an archdevil.

Not being used in its usual Catholic context, but it's not wholly inappropriate. And BG3 is using Latin or some such in its spell incantations, so it's thematic.

wyll called her that because he thinks she's a devilish minion who works willingly for Zariel is what I meant in your question. Whether it's a good or bad word choice, I don't really know.

I assume it's being used literally, rather than metaphorically, here.

The issue is the use of Latin at all. In D&D it is usually a matter of if the character knows the language they here what is said in the first language of the player, and if they don't they understand nothing at all. Using Latin makes it a matter for the PLAYER, who may or may not understand what is said.

Latin is often associated with the Hells, so it could be an "infernal" term. I do not like that association, but it is rather common in games.

Even if ...
Shouldnt he say just Diaboli?

I dont speak latin ... but those words simply dont fit the scene.

You are assuming a modern translation: advocatus = advocate = lawyer. A more accurate translation of "advacatus" would be agent.

Wyll thinks she is Zariel's agent. He might even be right, given the misdirection and half-truths we have been told about the origin characters.

I was pretty sure that it always meant someone who gave you judical aid. Cicero would be called an advocatus, for example.
But looking at wiktionary, it says it has more meaning:

advocātus m (genitive advocātī, feminine advocāta); second declension

1. One called to aid.
2. (law) advocate, attendant (friend who supports in a trial)
3. witness, supporter
4. mediator

So, maybe it could be meaning one? Still a stretch, imho. Well, Advocatus Diaboli is a rather specific term which fits not at all.
So I still believe it is just bad latin.

It could be that, but it had a much broader meaning. "Advocate" has a very narrow meaning in modern English. Literally, it means "speaks for", but, by extension "acts for", hence "agent" is a valid translation. "Ajentis" had different connotations, as did "exploratorem".

Fascinating!
And i would never know.

Thank you.