I tend to disagree with Vlad about the Sharran character. Because
the Viconia mentioned in Vlad's text is only there in case she is the romance partner of the PC in BG2. And that Viconia dies afterwards. She was my favorite character in that game, and it was one of the few moments I really got emotional in a video game when I read the ending of that story. That's why I still remember it. The "official" Viconia though, the one which survives is evil. Her story afterwards is pretty much what happens in the game. I also don't think there is anything grey about Shar which needs a deeply philosophical debate. At least not how Shar is presented in the game. Nor in most of the officail DnD products. That does feel more like a headcanon.
I do agree though it would have been best to leave Viconia out of the game. It just annoys people who liked her in their playthrough in the previous games, and her being there doesn't really serve a purpose. It doesn't make what happened to Shadowheart any different. It felt like a really unnecessary cameo. But the original Viconia, the one which wasn't changed because of a relationship with a good/neutral PC was an evil character, and nothing what is shown in BG3 seems out of character to me at least.
Even a non-romanced Viconia stands by the PC's side and is willing to take a geas for them in Suldanesselar just to help them defeat Irenicus. Iirc, she also feels bad if you abandon Imoen when you meet her again at Spellhold. I just feel like Viconia and Sarevok were both boiled down to stupid!evil in BG3, whereas other characters like the Origins got to have nuance. Imagine if in a decade or so another game is made and Shadowheart is the new child-abusing Sharran villain for players to kill. At this point, it would be totally in line with what WotC does to redeemable characters. Viconia, Sarevok, Aribeth . . . always the same pattern
.
Also, to everyone, I greatly apologize for lacking a spoiler tag on my earlier post, that was quite stupid of me.
