Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Please Larian, Rewrite or Delete [ACT 3 SPOILERS] (very long with spoilers)

Thank you fylimar, I appreciate your attitude.


I agree with you on this, gods would fuck up their followers' minds, big time. Actually, that's one of the main reasons why Drow are what they are, huge jerks. But do you know how long have Viconia served Lolth? Over 100 years. And she still remained the spirit to rebel, to curse Lolth's name. As far as I know Lolth was no better than Shar, so I doubt Shar would completely mess up a stronger and more experienced Viccy's mind in far less time. And I don't know about you, but I need more believable explanations if they gonna do characters dirty this way, "a lot of things could happen" is not the excuse. It's like saying Raphael was eaten by Boo in BG4 because "a lot of things happened".

And I see characters' romance this way, romance may not be canon, but it can reveal important information and a character's real self. Whether you choose to romance the character or not is irrelevant, the information and character's original self will always still be there. Some qualities may change, but some won't.

I guess in the end we have to agree to disagree, but still, it's nice to talk to you

Thank you! It's totally okay. I didn't even know there's a discord lol.

Believe me, I tried, but the game didn't age well, at all. And I tried watching a let's play, but they are all dated or in 360p, which is just pixel art at this point. Watching it is painful.

True, Demons exist in DND 5e, they are basically chaos incarnate. They exist to fight, destroy, slaughter, etc. There is no higher cause, that's just how they are. A bunch of monsters with no reedeming qualities, unlike devils, who at least keep their part of the deal.

Fanatics can be found everywhere and for DND that's especially common, with the gods, blessings, etc. However, slaughtering a bunch of 'FOR THE ABSOLUTE/Any other god' villains, who only exist for the player to kill, loot and get magic items is hardly an exciting prospect. There is plenty of combat in BG 3, as it is.

And if you don't pursue these characters, it's easy to label them as you did, while if you pursue them, you get to know why the act the way they do.

This is the problem. We are working under assumption that we know how these characters can grow and act, leaving aside novels and whatever WOTC says (which is often dumb, as evidenced by the whole OGL fiasco). And after playing BG 2 having characters do a 180 for no explanation and treating them like mooks to be slaughtered leaves a sour taste in anyone's mouth. While, Larian can choose the canon events of the first 2 games and make references to them, bringing characters back and showing them into the game with bad writing is not the way to do it justice.


You sound like someone who never played the game and just judges it based on a single line. These were just examples, which you completely misunderstood.

a) -Turning on solar space laser for your own power or distributing the energy to a whole region. --> instead of indirectly doomed a community, you can actively participate in their slaughter. -> OR MAYBE GEE I DON'T KNOW, you are tasked with bringing the solar array online, because a faction tells you to do so. You can: Overload the grid (making sure nobody gets any electricity, not even weapon, which is considered the worst choice); send to chosen community from a list, basically giving them electricity for free; weaponize the solar energy into a weapon (Selfish choice); Distribute it evenly (Brownouts will happen, but it's most humane option and nets you good rewards). No space laser, but you get compensated, so there is a valid choice.

b) -Making a grieving woman pay to get her husband's out of a warzone. --> how many times you can ask for money to help people in BG3? -> All the time. Astarion disapproves, if you are goody to shoes and not shelfish all the time. This kind of quest, would easily fit into BG3 anyway.

c) -Extorting a community for cash with blackmail --> How many times you extort someone/community for an item you posses? -> I am trying to remember how many times in BG3 and the closest I remember is: getting Auntie Ethel to leave Marianna alone and +1 ASI, maybe getting money back from a goblin after Chicken Chase. It's not like you can promise to lead refuges out of the grove, make a deal with Minthara and others after searching them, betray them when they are on the road, etc. The choice are 3, help tieflings, help goblins, do not get involved. 2 of which you are just worse off in general.

d) -Killing 100 NCR troops and getting their dog tags to the Legion, who give the best rewards in the whole damn game. --> Picking dog tags to gain 'good boy' point for an evil faction? Why not commit mass genocide to please evil god? -> Fair, you could do that. Which comes back to fanatics, being fanatics. But really, why would anyone worship an evil god and commit something diabolical for no reward? It's one thing to worship Shar and get some neat magic items, powers, etc. It's the other thing if all you meet are deranged fanatics, who worship evil goods and are treated as mooks to be slaughtered.

That's what Viconia and Sarevok are, mooks to be slaughtered. You kill them, you get their gear and that's about it, unless you do evil run, which adds a bit more. Either way, these 2 could be replaced with Greater Doppelgangers and least their memory wouldn't be tarnished by newer games.

I was someone whose first BG game was BG3, and it seemed weird for these two characters to have been reduced to such lowly roles despite having significant history in previous BG games - that much even I took away from it. It wasn't until I later read into it that these characters got gutted quite a bit, and it's always a shame. It feels like both current Viconia and Sarevok are there for the member-berries - they could easily be replaced by any literal Who-s. They either need to be removed and replaced, or have their writing significantly improved on.

Even if you only played BG3, Sarevok being the Judge for the Bhaalists is quite the significant plot hole as Jaheira confirms several time that Sarevok simply sought power and that Bhaal was a simple stepping stone, yet in BG3 he's genuinely supportive of the Bhaalists with no reasonable explanation.

Worse than that. IIRC BG3 claims Sarevok was revived by Bhaal, which is a direct contradiction to Throne of Bhaal, no ifs ands or buts.

If you throw a stone, you expect it to keep traveling in the same direction until an external force alters its course. 'A lot of things could have happened to explain this out of character thing' is a very poor excuse. Because none of those 'could have happened' are shown to HAVE happened, so it's just mental gymnastics to avoid conceding the point.

As someone who used to play through BG1 and BG2 twice a year for about a decade, I completely agree with OP about these characters and how BG3 does not get them right. Now, it's been a while since I did a playthrough, but I do know these characters are much more nuanced than being Shar/Bhaal's evil puppets for the shiny new characters to defeat.


This is flat out inaccurate. BG1 Sarevok wanted to steal Bhaal's position as god of murder, not resurrect or impress Bhaal. One of Sarevok's main issues is also that he hates all father figures---Reiltar abused him and killed his adoptive mother in front of him, Gorion abandoned him in favor of Charname, and Bhaal just wants to use his children as sacrifices to bring himself back to power. Sarevok is intelligent (even by his stats; he has like 17 Int), and knows this about Bhaal. He isn't a brainwashed idiot like in BG3. Sarevok uses Bhaal's imagery to gain followers and embody what Sarevok considers to be his birthright, but he does not follow Bhaal as a religious ideal. Sarevok is also a proud person. The closest he gets to begging is toward Charname in ToB to join the party---after Charname has twice defeated him and earned his grudging respect---and even then, he can betray Charname if Charname doesn't gain even more of his respect.

Being anyone's lapdog is not in Sarevok's character. Bhaal isn't an exception to this.

Also,
Similarly, Viconia, while "evil" unless romanced, is pragmatic, proud, and has an innate tendency toward *not* being evil despite all the horrible things she's gone through (not killing a baby, agreeing to undergo a geas to help Charname against Irenicus). In her non-romanced epilogue, she helps the elves of Suldanesselar---who treated her like utter crap in BG2 btw---and gets on Shar's bad side. But in BG3, she's suddenly super into Shar and spends her time torturing children? Right, totally in line with her old self.

What's clear to me is the people who are ok with/justify BG3's portrayal of these characters is that they either never played the originals, never liked these characters, or forgot about the dialogue or story surrounding them. But some of us do remember and do love these characters, and BG3 loses a lot of its appeal based on its treatment of them. I haven't even had the motivation to finish Act 3 because of this. I'm starting a new BG1 run instead.

Indeed, and there are many cases where the player is expected to write the story for the writer - and the more this happens, the more the player's immersion is going to be hurt. I, along with fellow members of the community have built a complete timeline of the events of BG3. In a post that contains almost exclusively nothing but plot () you can point out insane continuity errors and plot holes at almost every point.

A friend of mine recently compared Sarevok to The similarities in how poorly both those guys got their characters assassinated is astounding. Notice how I used the word "similarities" when two characters are being discussed who are polar opposites, even across universes.

Yes, thank you for that thread.

More people should understand that if you need to handwave/assume/headcanon something to make it make sense, then you are saying it is poorly written, full stop. A good story explains itself. I've graduated to just viewing BG3 as a modern day reboot of the franchise instead of a sequel, because yikes and oof. It managed to 'reimagine' the plot of BG1 and fill it with more holes than swiss cheese at the same time. Which is typical of modern reboots, really.

I disagree in the strongest terms with the premise of the opening post/thread title. Others have already more or less said what I would so I won't just keep arguing the same points, but I will say it comes off as very entitled to think reappearances MUST be a certain way because of how certain players played a past game in which what you want is only one of multiple possible outcomes. I fully acknowledge there are a couple small plot holes but as mentioned 100 years is a lot of time for things to change, especially in Faerun. I see no problem with their current characterizations and in Viconia's case in particular I actually like her better in BG3.

The funny thing is, they do not need to rewrite much. One way is to change the names and remove lines about those characters being Viconia and Sarevok. Another - they can be indeed imposters, or, better yet, assume the names in commemoration of the old characters (in a manner of "I take your name and every follower will think that you serve me").
I am sure there are dozens of other ways to do it without spending much money.

I agree with you about bringing back old characters but they did it for marketing reasons. Name-dropping all these 'brand names' from the past - Jahiera, Minsc, Volo, Elminster, Saravok, Viconia and even Balthazar helps to generate the buzz and sustain the (over-)hype.

One thing that BG3 has over modern reboots is that BG3, whether by design or not has a strong foundation for a potentionally breathtaking story.

Echoing the criticisms already aired about Vic and Sarevok. But I'd like to point out that in some points Larian went out of their way to change the trajectory of the characters from their endings to make them...worse. I think it's already been pointed out how BG 3's backstory for vic twists her ending to make her more evil and fanatical than she originally was, recontextualizing the events to be less hopeful/tragic (viconia doesn't fit in with the evil wierdos that comprise the proper clergy of the church of Shar, they turned on her and so did Shar) and more 'jesus, this cultist is a real piece of work' (she murdered all of them, with emphasis that they were loyal and trusted her, because she's a blind fanatic who lives only to serve Shar)

Sarevok's background doesn't really line up with his endings at all, but seems to have been rewritten with the intention of just making him as one-dimensional and messed-up as possible. Complete with incest. Apparently that's a thing. It even overshadows the left-field nonsense of the other Throne of Bhaal characters returning as fanatical servants. (Sendai was eyebrow-raising, Amelyssan was full WTF)

You also have to look at how they are used in the game-what their purpose is. In Vic's case, she exist pretty much to serve the dual-purpose of cathartic release (by beating Shadowheart's abuser, much like Cazador with Asterion) and also of validating Shadowheart's 'specialness' Vic's new story is basically that her life's work basically been to raise Shadowheart to be Shar's chosen. Then disposed of (on the faithful Shadowheart route) or to otherwise be rendered insignificant by her defeat and Shadowheart sparing her as part of her 'healing' process (basically says she's nothing to her and to do what you want)

Sarevok serves a similar role, but to validate the specialness of Dark Urge and Orin. There's a lot of dialogue that pretty much spells out that he's a failure or otherwise in the shadow of his granddaughter and/or Durge. Durge is pretty much explicitly singled out as better than him, even in his own words. Basically a gatekeeper of sorts to exposit about how great Orin and Durge are compared to himself.

Of note, the only characters who know either of them personally have absolutely nothing good to say about either of them and are very happy if you kill them. Comparing them to SH and Durge in terms, again-to reinforce that the latter are special and the former are failures or otherwise 'fallen'. Even Minthara has nothing good to say about Vic despite being in almost the exact same boat.

Combined with how unpleasantly they are characterized in the game via their words and actions it seems clear to me that these aren't characters we are intended to *like*, or work with, but rather characters who we are supposed to feel disgust/anger/dislike towards and want to beat/kill/surpass and feel good about doing so. They are not character written with fanservice or their general popularity in mind, like with Minsc and Jaheria. Makes me really happy that the pre-release rumors of Lorroakan being Edwin turned out to be false (in the final release, at least) Having half of the evil party members from BG II+ToB being treated as such was bad enough.

And simultaneously missed that completely excluding romances or anything else that can be influenced by the player character still doesn't help, because BG3 literally retconned things. Bhaal was never involved in ressurecting Sarevok, but suddenly he is and someone who wanted to replace him is now a lap dog. The context of Vic's involvement with Shar was completely rewritten.

It's not a case of 'times change' when you retcon things.

I registered just to thank the OP.
As a player of BG2 who chose Viconia as my romance option,
I lay in bed crying for a whole morning after finishing ShadowHeart storyline of ACT III.
While the arrogance of Wizards of the Coast towards the video game characters is evident, this time it's really too much.

I just wanted to return to the point I tried to make in the other thread ("on returning characters') that Vlad the Inhaler made a few weeks back

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=890609#Post890609

*Spoilers

If I could recruit Viconia into the party then I would care much less about her reveal/re-introduction. That was the big fail here in my view. That and not being able to put a thumb on the scale in any way to tell the DM what we remember so the game can key off that.

I don't mind her BG3 visualization or VA, but I want to be able to have her along for the final final somehow, ideally with Shadowheart in the same party along at least one path.

This is what makes it so much harder for me to meet her again than Jaheira. It would be like meeting Jaheira or Minsc with no way to have them tag along, and then they basically die at your hand while you watch. It's just a bummer. They shouldn't tease her without that option being in there. All she needs is that and I'd be pretty stoked for another chance to play around with Viconia in a BG game, and it would make Shadowheart's questline so much more satisfying for me, even if it wasn't the default standard path and I had to do some serious legwork in conversation to get that option.

Once she is in the party I can do most of the heavy lifting myself, in terms of what her motivations might have been for some of this stuff. Just try to make her barks/banter solid for that, and she'll be as popular as Jaheira was probably. Returning players would appreciate how they had Shadowheart along for the ride in the first 2 acts, because that is a huge payoff for her story arch and everything we do that touches on Sharran themes throughout the early portion of the game.

Ps. I think the title still shows with Viconia in the main forums directory, though it was edited to say (spoilers), or at least I saw 'delete Vico...' as the last word before the clip there.

Pps. Oh and I still think she should have a more unique NPC haircut! If they did want to change anything in the look there. But I'd be happy enough using the mirror for that if needs be hehe

You should try again.

The formula of quest design hasn't changed since Baldur's Gate 2. And Baldur's Gate 2 is still generally considered as Gold Standard/Minimum Standard on how to design a cRPG, before BioWare went to Mass Effect route.

If you want to know how Josh Sawyer made New Vegas, start with Icewind Dale 2. His writing barely changed since then.

About Sarevok and Viconia, I think you're more displeased that there aren't any follows up to their story, that they merely stand there as cameo unlike Minsc and Jaheira that almost nobody complains about. Had they were also part of the companion pool I think they wouldn't critique their appearance in this game.

So I think there is nothing wrong with motive or background of the character, but more about their less involvement in the game, I think this is the answer of short, to your discomfort of their involvement in the game.

Included in my argument was: Whatever they stated motive, they're *unknowingly* did Bhaal's bidding.

Sure Sarevok can say he did it to please her cats, or want to replace Bhaal - do you think Bhaal will let him? The more he kills, the more Bhaal becomes stronger.

Sarevok may talk big and say he want to replace Bhaal but do you think without Charname interference, other Bhaalspawn would just... let him? When the entire point of their existence is to ensure Bhaal resurrection one way or another?

I don't think so.

So again, it was never about what the goal he stated, regardless of what he says, his action inevitably puppet-ed by Bhaal's will.

I think most of the problem her lies to the fact that both Viconia and Sarevok "new" personality are barely explored.

They're reduced to mere Cameo.

If they were as involved as Jaheira and Minsc, I think that would "solve" the problem for all. I mean, who doesn't want all the old companion back together.


But I don't know, this world is queer and unique. The world we thought should have exist lies elsewhere.

This doesn't make sense as an argument?

You said Sarevok was trying to be a good daddy's puppy. That has nothing to do with whether or not his attempts to NOT do that work. EDIT: And if the conclusion is 'problem solved if the changes were actually explained'...doesn't that just agree with the OP asking for a rewrite?