First let me say I still adore BG3, as a crpg fan I’m really, really glad to see a studio is still making crpg with 3A standards in 2023. I think BG3’s art style, soundtrack, voice acting, cutscenes, and gameplay are all phenomenal, it’s absolutely my GOTY before Act III.
However, Viconia and Sarevok’s parts (and some other parts in Act III) totally killed my desire to keep playing and do another playthrough, because I no longer want to treat this world and the characters in it seriously. I also lost the ability to empathize with Shadowheart, for I think her story is totally impossible from the very start. Every time I heard her talking about the “Mother Superior” I felt like there was a huge fly in my mouth, and judging by the players’ feedback, I’m not the only one.
Comparing BG3’s Viconia and Sarevok to their old selves in BG1&2, is like comparing Jaime Lannister in GOT season 8 to him in season 3—from a complex character who’s willing to sacrifice his honor to save all the people in King’s Landing, an oathbreaker full of conflict and tragedy in season 3, to a clown, who would say “I never cared much for them innocent or otherwise”, then was killed meaninglessly by rocks in season 8. It’s not only a huge writing downgrade, it’s character assassination, the characters are completely opposite from their former selves. (If you ever played Divinity Original Sin 2, it’s like you meet Sebille in DOS3, except now she’s a slave master who loves to control others’ minds, and you’re going to kill her with a Walmart discount version of new Sebille.)
For those who haven't played BG1&2, please, let me provide some context. (Spoilers alert)
Let’s talk about Viccy first. Who is Viconia DeVir? She’s a recruitable Drow and a Shar cleric in BG1&2. Her story, especially her romance, is one of the best-written stories in all crpgs, and is still loved and discussed by many till today.
Viconia DeVir, art by Ted Arfken
Though, players probably wouldn’t have a good first impression of Viconia. When you first met her, she was chased by a Flaming Fist, who accused her of committing murder. Despite being an exile from the Underdark, Viconia still had some worst qualities of Lolth Drow. She was Neutral Evil, and could be mean, arrogant, and full of superiority. Viconia liked to judge everyone by Drow standards, and would argue with other companions often.
(Sounds familiar? Yes, Lae’zel. She, Minthara, even Shadowheart and Astarion, all have some qualities of old Viconia in my eyes.)
“Men better than you have walked across lava to kiss a dog who's licked my hand” —BG2 Viconia
“I have been thinking, a little. I have been thinking of the time I have spent with rivvil...the humans...and I have found nothing redeeming or worthwhile in them.” “Hmph. We are meant to find this a revelation, coming from you? It might surprise you to find that most would consider you without redeeming qualities either, drow.” “If I required commentary from you, mongrel, I would tug on your collar or blow a dog whistle to gain your attention. My words were for and alone.” —BG2 Viconia and Jaheira
However, during your adventure with Viconia, you could slowly understand why she choose to be cold and hostile, keeping herself away from everyone. Besides the fact Lolth Drow were born jerks, the world in BG1&2 had treated Viconia very harshly. A Drow outside the Underdark would not only be discriminated against, but be treated as an animal that could be hunted and killed. It’s very normal for humans to loose dogs and arrows when they see a Drow, other Elves would even execute one on sight without questioning. (Recruiting Viconia reduced the party's reputation by 2, some npcs you met would confront you because of Viconia’s identity.) When Viconia left the Underdark, she had to sell her body to a human merchant, for protection and the opportunity to learn common language.
(BG3 has softened the tone a lot in this aspect, most npcs are welcoming and forgiving. It’s now uncommon to see racists and exclusionists, which is good and all, but it’s kinda strange considering the dnd background. I was surprised to know choosing Drow as player’s race would bring the player almost no debuff.)
“The land was strange, and each day I huddled under the terrible open sky, sure that I would be pulled into the vastness of it if I but closed my eyes for an instant......I was sure I would perish, never to see the Underdark again.” —BG2 Viconia
Viconia had lived a very long, very awful homeless life, every time she had the opportunity to settle down, she would be harassed and chased again. After BG1, she purchased a small land on the outskirts, finally enjoyed some normal days, and became a friend with a neighbor farmer.
“......we formed an awkward friendship. He did not ask why I wore my hood, and I slowly began to trust him. He wondered, though...that was obvious. The time to reveal myself as Drow came one late afternoon. A warm day; the sun was dappling along the south quarter of his farmland, and I pulled down my hood. Then he smiled a warm inviting smile.” —BG2 Viconia
The result was predictable. The farmer pretended to invite Viconia into his house, only to knock her out from her back. He then tortured and abused Viconia like an animal with two sons of his, put her into a coffin and buried her alive after they finished. But what they didn’t think of was, Viconia was a Lolth Drow.
“......I could see nothing except for the lid of a coffin. They had buried me alive... a mistake not to kill me outright. The fools knew the name 'Drow', but were ignorant of my true spirit.” —BG2 Viconia
In madness and hatred, Viconia clawed through the coffin and dirt (Astarion: wow), then had her revenge, but was wanted again afterward. This incident also caused her PTSD over trusting others, and she retracted herself back into the thick shell she built.
“I am drow. And I let myself be lulled, foolishly. The vengeance was bitter, because my own stupidity had made it necessary.” ——BG2 Viconina
But if the player dug hard enough, you could open Viconia’s shell a bit, and see the conscience and soft part inside. Slowly, Viconia would change herself because of you, she would soften her attitude towards the surface world and people in it, little by little, and start to care for other companions, although it’s by a Drow’s standard.
“I have acted...poorly towards you. I...I wish to apologize. Make fun if you wish, but you...did not deserve my insults. You are the only surfacer who has treated me fairly, and not demanded something in return. You...you are not too bad to travel with. For a lowly male, that is.” ——BG2 Viconia
“I have not been on the surface for all that long. Sometimes I forget that things here are different from the world I once knew. I have toyed with your feelings unfairly, placing you down with the other males I have known...and you have not been like them. It was...wrong of me.” ——BG2 Viconia
Over time, Viconia became open to you and shared the story behind her exile from the Underdark. Her family served Lolth, but during a sacrifice, Viconia refused to kill a child, which angered Lolth and sparked a war between House DeVir and other small families. Viconia’s mother attempted to sacrifice her daughter to win back Lolth’s favor, it was Viconia’s brother who saved her, he killed their mother and released Viconia.
“......I was overwhelmed, dragged to the temple, and splayed across the altar in preparation for the priestesses to take my life. I was frightened...terrified, in fact. I would have died, in fact, were it not for...if it were not for my brother. My poor, foolish brother. Valas...” —BG2 Viconia
Lolth Drow lived in a total matriarchal society, males had no other use beyond being slaves, breeding tools, and oblations. And killing a female master was the ultimate act of rebellion for a male Drow. For that, Lolth turned Valas into a “Drider”, a half-spider half-Drow creature (remember the spider bro with lamp in Act II? Yeah just like that, except Larian made him too handsome), with no mind nor memory left, only pure malice and base instinct. Viconia always had guilt for her brother because of this, plus deep fear for Lolth.
“......I have seen her power, what she does to those who fall from grace......She will...will leave me to think I am safe or free and then she will come for me. I...I dream of Valas, sometimes, and I try to speak to him in my dreams. But he is only a monster, now, and I scream when his horrid spider legs caress me... I think...what can Lolth do to me if she has done this to Valas? What worse torments await me when she finally decides to come?” —BG2 Viconia
“If you would...if you would please sit with me for a moment, I would be thankful. I find myself uncharacteristically overcome with anxiety and I am not...eager...to be alone for the evening.” —BG2 Viconia
Viconia was the most difficult one to romance in BG1&2, her romance was long and detailed, but had very little room for mistakes. After a certain scene, she would start to throw temper tantrums and find all the excuses she could to break up with you. This is due to her clumsy avoidant personality, trust and intimate relationship were all foreign concepts to her, in Viconia’s mind, they were associated with danger, betrayal, and death. She also feared that the violence over Drow in the surface world and Lolth’s punishment would eventually impact you as well. After the player’s party encountered Lolth’s gated assassin, Viconia would even lie to you, reducing herself to the lowest Drow in your heart, to push you away from her, from danger.
“You wish to know of me? You wish to learn what I am like? I shall tell you the truth of it, then. I have lied to you, lies upon lies. My tale of the farmer in Beregost? A lie. I laid with him many times, seducing him to get the things I needed. It was his wife and townsfolk that drove me out. Like a succubus I have whored my way to Amn, taking what favors I could gather through sweat and passion. I earned passage with tongue and moans, with more males than you can count. And you are nothing compared to them. Any of them. So, then. What do you think of that, ? What do you think of me now?” —BG2 Viconia
“I am telling you that I have had rivvil by the dozens, that I allowed their saliva to cover me, allowed them to use me for their pleasures! And I enjoyed it!! I am a creature of dark lusts, you fool! Why are you not disgusted by this?! Turn away from me, spit on me and curse my name, I command you!!” —BG2 Viconia
If you choose to believe her lies, or couldn’t stand her unreasonable behaviors, she would end the relationship with you, in tears but in relief. The player needed to use many tricks, such as pretending to be angry and acting ignorant, to persuade her to stay by your side. In the end, Viconia would drop her facade and embrace her true feelings, then accompany you to the Throne of Bhaal.
“(sigh) I...I cast my white flag before you. I can struggle no more. You have...you have defeated me.....I do not know what it is about you, but I opened up to you...I let you inside with honesty and candor. I am not used to such. Trust is death. I have been betrayed again and again, and yet I began to trust in you. I...I could not allow it to happen. I was confused, I tried to drive you away. But you saw through my deception...I owe you...so much. You are safe harbor in a storm of terrifying power. I begin to feel that I need you...and this enthralls me and enrages me all at once... If you will have me, I shall not push you away again.” —BG2 Viconia
What are the cornerstones of Viconia? I can illuminate three: the longing and guilt for her brother, the compassion for outcasts/hatred for oppressors, and the tough spirit that keeps her defying her god even when she’s in fear. Her story was a story of escaping from persecution and fate, she was defined by her rebellious action against her born identity and the lifetime suffering it brought her. Viconia served Shar as the Dark Lady offered shelter for outcasts like her who were abandoned by the world, but she’s the Shadowheart who saves her parents in the end without hesitation, willing to bear the pain for the rest of her life.
Viconia had two endings in the original games. In the default ending, she would find a small Shar cult in Waterdeep, only to wipe all members out when they schemed to betray and kill her, shrugging off the chastisement of her goddess. Viconia then began her own adventures, she once assisted Drizzt in saving the elven city of Suldanessalar from a Zhentarim plot, for which she received the highest honor of the Seldarine from Queen Ellesime. She took her leave after that and was lost to history. Her romance ending has more tragedy in it, in which she had a family and a son with the player after they decided to settle down, she also became True Neutral. However fate caught up to her, Viconia was killed by Lolth’s assassin one day, but in her final years, she finally lived the life she always wanted, peaceful and without fear.
“Tell me...has there ever been anyone special to you? Never a special one who awaited her hero's return? The idea has value. I myself hope to retire to a home that doesn't change by the day.” —BG2 Viconia
Now, let’s take a look at BG3’s Viconia.
“You became my mission. To take a child of Selune's, and turn her over to Lady Shar. To show all light fades, and darkness will prevail in the end.” —BG3 Viconia
Turns out Viconia was the sole reason for Shadowheart’s broken family and decades of suffering. Such wow. Remember how she refused to sacrifice a child to Lolth, bearing the exile and the pain her action caused? Forget it, now she’s a professional child kidnapper, she abducted many children, abused and brainwashed them, she even had a 24/7 torture room, full of bones, blood, and gore. Remember how she resented Lolth for what she did to her brother, how she couldn’t help but missed and felt guilty for him? Great, now she also imprisoned children’s parents and relatives, tortured them, made them suffer the eternal torment her brother suffered, she would even let kids do her job sometimes. Why did she do all these, you ask? Remember even when she was dragged to the sacrifice altar, in fear and about to be killed, she still chose to defy and curse Lolth’s name?
“Lady Shar commanded me. And I obeyed. I do not question - I merely act as she wills me to.” —BG3 Viconia
The writer even had the audacity to retcon one of Viconia’s endings, saying how she wiped out the Shar cult was not a rebellious act, but a super smart big brain move to prove she’s the bestest cruelest Shar cultist of all time. I can’t even describe the disgusted feeling after I completed Shadowheart’s storyline. This “Viconia” shares no common point with any version of true Viconia, I even suspected she was one of Orin’s changelings when I met her. A once complex character, who was flawed but had many heroine’s, even motherly qualities, now was reduced to an almost laughable villain of the week, with a vile mustache and no depth.
The writer who wrote this part, were you on drugs? Were you fucking high? I was even impressed because even if you threw your ink bottle on your drafts, the character won’t be this completely 180.
Someone may say, oh but she was indeed Evil, so it’s natural for her to take this path, right? Stop, just stop. Not all evil characters are the same character, and not all evil characters are fanatic villains of the week. Except for those who have real brain damage, every evil character still has their inner logic, their malice needs a direction, and the direction is decided by their motives and life stories. Even an evil version of Viconia would never be a brainless fanatic who abused children, her experiences decide her malice will always be towards gods/oppressors. An evil version of her could be a woman who’s drawn to blood and vengeance, who’s eager to slaughter all the abusers, not to join the oppressors, become a braindead tool of them, and make more outcasts. (And I don’t understand, why the writer had to make her evil?)
Some others may say, oh maybe she’s brainwashed too, you see, her memory was in Mirror of Loss. Stop again. That explanation is not nearly enough. Imagine all your past adventures and memories were thrown into the garbage can by one line. No, we need a longer, more detailed, and more believable explanation. If it was Viconia who chose to look into Mirror of Loss, why? If she was forced to, by whom? Most importantly, players need a way to change her back. Using Mirror of Loss as an excuse is like saying Karlach becomes a demon boss in BG4, who slaughters and tortures people for fun, and the reason is simply her head was hit by a wagon after BG3.
And no, old characters’ words—Jaheira will talk about Viconia is not as bad as she appears (Minsc’s comments on her though, is just like how the writer wrote her in BG3, full of unreasonable spite, make no sense)—can’t save the narrative, either. Actually, they make things worse, because they imply that players’ past adventures and memories with Viconia do exist, but none of them count now, and Viconia was murdered by players’ own hands. And you’re telling me, Jaheira and Minsc, these two who have accompanied Viconia to the Throne of Bhaal, experienced countless things with her, good or bad, have that little to say when they met?
There’s a rumor that it was WotC’s decision to write the characters this way, despite I didn’t find any evidence (all writers of BG3 on imdb are not from WotC), I think it’s possible. WotC has the copyrights, after all, and they’re well-known clowns (their official Baldur’s Gate novels were so bad that they were mocked by everyone for years). But what I don’t understand is, as far as I know, Jaheira and Minsc in BG3 all differ significantly from themselves in WotC canon (Minsc even poked fun at his hair in WotC canon in his dialogue), so why do Viconia and Sarevok have to be this out of character? Maybe the writer thought letting them be evil could make players from old games easier to kill them, no, this is pure delusion, what becomes easier to kill is the desire to continue playing the game.
So, how to improve Viconia in BG3? Here are some suggestions from an amateur: Delete Shadowheart’s parents, replace them with Viconia. I think Shadowheart’s parents are currently in an awkward position, they don’t have good character arcs or interesting characteristics, and don’t even provide new information or context. Players don’t know them, and to be honest, Shadowheart doesn’t know them either, not really. They’re just tools the writer uses to give players an illusion of weight. I found it difficult to care for two strangers that suddenly appeared in front of me. I could only try to comprehend the writer’s intentions rationally, but couldn’t really empathize with Shadowheart. Why not use Viconia then?
Hear this: Shadowheart and her parents were still former Selune followers, except Shadowheart was a real orphan this time, who was adopted by Viconia after her parents’ passing. Viconia saw her past self in Shadowheart, she raised her with strict but loving guidance, teaching her everything she knew. Slowly, a bond was formed between them. Shar was pleased as well, she saw huge potential in this Selune’s child and wanted to make her a Dark Justiciar. However Viconia, because of her own experiences and bias, disagreed, she didn’t want Shadowheart to lose herself and all the memories, only to become a tool of goddess.
Wouldn’t this be more intriguing? Now there are two conflicts the writer can explore, one is the dynamic between Shadowheart and Viconia, how would Shadowheart see her dear mother, when she believed in the goddess that killed her parents? The second is the growing tension between Viconia and Shar.
One day, Shar decided to skip Viconia and “adjust” Shadowheart by herself, which of course, was defied by Viccy. The beauty of this is she now became just like Valas, her brother, who defended his family from another goddess. And just like her brother, Viconia was captured and tortured by Shar, and Shadowheart was forced to look into Mirror of Loss, then was given the mission to find the artefact. When the player meets her, she only has faith in Shar, besides some vague memories for Mother Superior, which sometimes leaves her sad and confused during the adventure.
At the end, the choice Shadowheart needs to make is: 1. Defy Shar, endure the pain for the rest of her life, but save her mother. 2. Embrace darkness, kill her mother, become a true Dark Justiciar and the new Mother Superior. 3. Allow the hate and anger—that her parents were killed by Shar followers—to consume her. Defy Shar and also kill her mother, cut ties with darkness and “return to the light”, but become a worse person. (This moment should not happen in Act II, in front of Nightsong, an npc she knew nothing about, it’s too soon and lacks weight.)
Okay, enough fanfiction. But isn’t this better than what we got? By doing this, the writer pays respect to the old character, in the meantime they make players from old games care about Shadowheart more. It’s the daughter of Viconia for god sake, who could leave her in the camp?
I also want to talk a bit about Shadowheart. Her quest is called “Daughter of Darkness”, but she is not dark, not at all, I think “Daughter of Darkness except the writer kinda forgot about the Dark part” suits her better. The writer took almost every opportunity to move Shadowheart away from dark, even in Act I, there were too many hints that she was misled, brainwashed, deceived...she was the victim who always wanted light. Which is related to how gods are portrayed in BG3. I think BG3’s gods, or in fact, goddesses, are all poorly written. For example, Selune and Shar, Shar is the big baddie, she cursed people and lands, her followers are all lunatics who like murder, torture, and brainwashing, she’s also very petty, oh boy you better hope you never meet her; Selune is the big goodie, she protects people and has a gentle heart, her followers are all cool, pretty and handsome, she is the walking epitome of blessing.
This oversimplified black-and-white writing in my opinion is not only boring, but also hurts the narrative. It makes Shadowheart’s choice about whether to turn to darkness actually become no choice at all, she has no reason to, and the player can’t find any believable motives for her either. The choice becomes nothing more than an option only for players’ curiosity: oh I want to see what an evil Shadowheart looks like.
But Shar and Selune are two sides of the same coin. Yes, Shar is indeed the goddess of darkness and loss, but darkness has a gentle side as well. For the outcasts who are abandoned by the world, darkness is the only place that allows them to stay (this is the reason why Viconia served Shar in the first place). Why not make Shar a stubborn but honest goddess, who truly believes that darkness and loss are blessings she could give to humans, instead of the petty cartoon villain we got. And Selune has a ruthless, unforgiving side (like how Aylin beat the old man into a pulp) . Won’t this be more interesting? Do you know for how many people in dnd background, the ability to forget is a real blessing? Put some important npcs like that in the game, show us how they’re truly helped by Shar, won’t that make Shadowheart’s choice at the end have more weight? Don’t just place some hollows in front of the house and call it a day, where am I, Northern Undead Asylum?
What I want to see at the end of Shadowheart's storyline is a conversation about faith between her and Viconia, two real "Daughters of Darkness," with the player or even with Shar. Viconia can tell Shadowheart the disagreements between her and Shar, what kind of a jerk Shar is, but she did accept her when no one else would, saved her and brought her peace in the past. Shar can explain to Shadowheart what love and acceptance mean in her eyes. Not the “light is good, dark is bad, I spit on your face, goodbye” we got right now. The philosophical discussions about Dark and Light Shadowheart could offer would also be very interesting because of her identity. But we got none of those in the game. So many missed opportunities, even Divinity Original Sin 2 did a much better job in this aspect.
(Although to be honest, this is not all Larian’s fault. At this point, badly written evil gods is already a kind of tradition of dnd.)
Last but no least, make Viconia recruitable. Please, many players have waited for this for 20 years.
Okay, enough Viccy. Let’s talk about good old Sarevok. Same as Viconia, BG3’s Sarevok is nothing like his old self.
Sarevok Anchev, art by CG-Zander
Sarevok Anchev, the main antagonist of BG1 and the player's brother, was a Bhaalspawn. He was ruthless, once orchestrated a war that could kill thousands, but make no mistake, he was the most unlikely candidate of a Bhaal follower. What he wanted was to replace Bhaal and become the new Lord of Murder, like Bhaal once did. Actually he didn’t give a shit about Bhaal, Bhaal was just the stepping stone for him to achieve his ambitions, one could even say Sarevok was hostile towards Bhaal.
“I orchestrated a war to slaughter thousands. I have felt the cold embrace of death. I have witnessed the horrors of the Abyss.” —BG2 Sarevok
“When Bhaal held sway over my soul, I reveled in the bloody carnage I wrought. But my will was not my own......I will not surrender my being to the whims of another again...be they god or other.” —BG2 Sarevok
The player could resurrect Sarevok in BG2. As your brother and reverse side, Sarevok offered many memorable dialogues about morality, fate, and death. The quality of his story made him one of the most popular companions in BG2, despite his rather brief appearance.
Now, what did this experienced conspirator, who came back from death do in BG3? He became a puppy dog, sorry, “judge” for Bhaal, repeating “All I did was for Bhaal”. Not only that, he taught his daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, to also worship Bhaal. (I don’t understand, since when Bhaal became this top-grade god that everyone wants a piece of him?) The ultimate judgment Sarevok—the man who once waged war—gave the player is to let you kill a flying elephant. You got me there writer, I chuckled, this is one of the best jokes in 2023. Sometimes I wonder if the writer has a kink, a fetish for fanatics who have brain damage, that they had to write characters like these to get high.
So, how to improve Sarevok? I think it’s rather simple: Make him a powerful secret boss, but also recruitable. Bring him to see Orin. Let him use his own experience to scold his granddaughter that Bhaal is actually a clown god, and she’ll become a bigger clown if she gives all herself to him. And that’s one interesting conflict, how Orin would react to this grandfather that she admired deeply? I think Sarevok might be even a bit proud if Orin has the ambition to replace Bhaal, like he once did. But “all I did was for Bhaal”? What a disappointing GenZ child.
Last, if it’s really WotC’s idea to write these two characters this way and Larian has no other choice (I highly doubt that though), I have one more cheap idea: make these two characters fake ones. Viconia is actually a changeling, who once heard about real Viconia’s story and wanted to use her name to control a Shar cult, you know, like the Redcap in Underdark? And the “Sarevok” was put together by Bhaal cultists using some cheap soul pieces and weird rituals, but since they’re not very smart nor did they meet the real Sarevok, they could only make this clown, this pretender, who would only repeat “All hail Bhaal”. You can call him “the shadow of Sarevok” or something like that.
You know what’s better? Delete these two characters if you’re not going to rewrite them. Trust me Larian, the absence of old popular characters causes far less damage than ruining them. Not to mention even if these two characters are not called “Viconia” and “Sarevok”, as Act III villains they’re still very lackluster. I can understand you want to connect new characters with old ones, but this is not passing the torch, this is torching the past.
Rant over. I don’t know how many people are going to read this article, so this is more like self-therapy. I want to love Baldur’s Gate 3 more, I really do, even at its current state, that whole Act III feels like another Early Access, I still think it’s worthwhile to do multiple playthroughs. Sadly Larian didn’t give me the chance, but I hope they do in the future. And to those who have read this far, sincerely, thank you.
Last edited by Zerubbabel; 27/09/2312:48 PM. Reason: Spoilers in the title.
Viconia has always been this way, so does Sarevok.
I think there is dissonance/difference perception of the world depending on how each individual think of what should or shouldn't be.
I think Sarevok reverting from being relatively Neutral to being Evil back is a possibility, which this game realized.
I think it's natural, unromanced, and not-dead Viconia is still relatively evil and stubborn and the way she is in the game.
I think, you should consider Baldur's Gate 3 as continuation but of different timelines. Whatever idealized fate you think they should've ended up with, it's still exist, in some other universe, but not in this one.
In this one, Sarevok reverted back like an old drug addict. Viconia doesn't bore Abdel Adrian's child, nor He ever romanced.
This is not anybody's ideal world nor it can ever be. And yet, We have to live within it.
At least that's how I look at it. It bring me peace.
Allow me to say no, these two characters were not always this way, actually they were never this way. I have listed my points about why even their original "evil" selfs were not like what we got in BG3.
Maybe you didn't understand my points so I repeat, what I'm arguing was not they must be good (though I think they definitely could be), what I'm arguing was the writer didn't understand these two characters and have made them do things even evil versions of them won't do. Viconia and Sarevok in BG3 are not only evil, they are dumb, almost brain dead. For example, Sarevok, he was a man full of ambition who never treated Bhaal seriously since BG1, I'm not saying he can't kill people, I'm saying he won't become a puppy dog of Bhaal.
And Viconia, the things that would stop her kidnap and abuse children all happened long before she met the player (the sacrifice, Lolth, and her brother), they're her cornerstones and have nothing to do with her romance. Like I said, evil characters are differenct, there're good ones and there're villains of the week with mustaches. Let me ask you this, even if the devs had to do these two characters dirty and make them evil, do you really think these two villains are the best we can get? These two fanatics with no brain?
But hey, I'm not here to tell you how to think about things. Thanks again for replying, and I'm glad to know you've found your peace, I wish I have the luck too lol.
Tbh Viconia and Sarevok are together with Anomen the characters I could care the least in BG2. I'm more mad that they made a canon Gorions Ward and that that is not my Gorions Ward, of course human male fighter. Imo the NPCs are up for the grab, do with them, what you want, but leave the player characters alone.
And Viconia wasn't exactly nice in BG. She came from an evil goddess to another evil goddess and was brought up in an evil society. And yeah, romance. I never romanced her because I prefer to play my own gender , so she stayed evil until I kicked her out for attacking my paladin, Keldorn. The Viconia I see in BG3 is therefore exactly the Viconia I expect to see, so for me, everything is ok And even if she was neutral because she was romanced ( which is not canon, look again on the Abdel Abomination timeline), she had a very evil upbringing, so left to her own device, chances are high, she will go back to it. Unlike Shadowheart, she never knew another life . You don't know, what will happen to Jaime Lannister, since the books aren't finished and probably never will be, he could go back to his selfish self for reasons, who knows.
And Sarevok - well he doesn't have the luxury of having lost his memory and connection to Bhaal,
like our Durge, so chances are, Bhaal has reclaimed him. Durge can be able to severe this connection permanently and get purged of the Bhaal elements with the help of Jergal, if they go down that route. If you do a Durge, who claims the Bhaalspawn power and then reject them in the end, as it is my understanding, Sarevok did, you will have a very unpleasant ending.
I put the last part into spoiler, since it has endspoilers for a certain background in BG3. And please correct me, if I'm wrong about Sarevok, it's been a while, since I played Throne of Bhaal, since I'm not a fan of that add-on .
I really don't want to be mean, I just wanted to point out, that depending on how you play in BG 1&2, this is exactly, how those two can turn out.
According to the cursed canon, Jaheira is dead and I'd rather deal with an evil Viconia and Sarevok, than have that happen.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Let me ask you this, even if the devs had to do these two characters dirty and make them evil, do you really think these two villains are the best we can get? These two fanatics with no brain?
Sarevok is/was Fanatics with no brain, I am surprise that he ended up as a priest of Bhaal because I think, if he's half as smart as he think he is he would seek a cabin by the lake and seek death alone.
As for Viconia, the only problem I have with her appearance is not her depiction, but her (seemingly) abrupt involvement in the game He and the Sharran enclave, because in a good playthrough you probaly slaughter the entire compound population.
Are they both "Fanatics with no-brain"? Probably. I'd argue all the villains in this game (or any other game really) can be argued as "Brainless Fanatics".
After watching Viconia's romance on YouTube, I disagree with you dext. Paladin.
There is a difference between making character evil and stupid evil and it's not the first time being evil is just straight out worse than good / neutral in BG3. It’s like the writers cant write a competent evil, where real life is choke full of that.
You gain nothing by being evil, in fact, you lose stuff and get locked out of quests and rewards with basically nothing to make up for that. You want smart evil? Here are examples from Fallout New Vegas:
-Turning on solar space laser for your own power or distributing the energy to a whole region. -Making a grieving woman pay to get her husband's out of a warzone. -Extorting a community for cash with blackmail -Killing 100 NCR troops and getting their dog tags to the Legion, who give the best rewards in the whole damn game.
In Baldur's Gate 3 evil is stupid, evil characters tend to be brainwashed, stupid or Lunatic and this is coming from someone who never played BG 1 or 2. I hold no attachement to either Viconia or Sarevok, but what they did to those characters is a slap in the face of previous Baldur's Gate games fans and just Terrible writing in general.
Ps: SerTomato, I posted a link to your thread on Larian Discord, giving you full credit. Just a heads up.
Let me ask you this, even if the devs had to do these two characters dirty and make them evil, do you really think these two villains are the best we can get? These two fanatics with no brain?
Sarevok is/was Fanatics with no brain, I am surprise that he ended up as a priest of Bhaal because I think, if he's half as smart as he think he is he would seek a cabin by the lake and seek death alone.
As for Viconia, the only problem I have with her appearance is not her depiction, but her (seemingly) abrupt involvement in the game He and the Sharran enclave, because in a good playthrough you probaly slaughter the entire compound population.
Are they both "Fanatics with no-brain"? Probably. I'd argue all the villains in this game (or any other game really) can be argued as "Brainless Fanatics".
I would counter with Raphael, Auntie, Gortash, Ketheric, Mizora , Emperor ( if you go against him), who are not brainless and , apart from Gortash and Ketheric, no fanatics. So I would even argue, that both Gortash and Ketheric are in it for practical reason not out of a zealous believe.
Last edited by fylimar; 27/09/2307:01 AM.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
After watching Viconia's romance on YouTube, I disagree with you dext. Paladin.
There is a difference between making character evil and stupid evil and it's not the first time being evil is just straight out worse than good / neutral in BG3. It’s like the writers cant write a competent evil, where real life is choke full of that.
You gain nothing by being evil, in fact, you lose stuff and get locked out of quests and rewards with basically nothing to make up for that. You want smart evil? Here are examples from Fallout New Vegas:
-Turning on solar space laser for your own power or distributing the energy to a whole region. -Making a grieving woman pay to get her husband's out of a warzone. -Extorting a community for cash with blackmail -Killing 100 NCR troops and getting their dog tags to the Legion, who give the best rewards in the whole damn game.
In Baldur's Gate 3 evil is stupid, evil characters tend to be brainwashed, stupid or Lunatic and this is coming from someone who never played BG 1 or 2. I hold no attachement to either Viconia or Sarevok, but what they did to those characters is a slap in the face of previous Baldur's Gate games fans and just Terrible writing in general.
Ps: SerTomato, I posted a link to your thread on Larian Discord, giving you full credit. Just a heads up.
You should play the game instead of watching the Romance video.
The romance is good and it make the character more nuanced. Non-romance character feels less nuanced.
If you play the game:
1. Aerie is either a childish whinny girl who couldn't stop mourning her lost wing or someone who coming to term with his new found flaws. 2. Jaheira is either self-righteous harper or a genuine righteous individual. 3. Viconia is either class A A-hole and a problematic racist or an exciting lover / fish out of the water lover.
Questioning whether you must gain something for being "Evil" in this world is moot. If Shar told Viconia to be a jester, she probably will be a jester, and for what? Nothing. They do it to please their God.
Do you ever ask why Dolor did what he did to his victim? Disrupting the economy? Possibly making Baldur's Gate vulnerable to Absolute influence? And for what? In macro-perspective? Nothing. He did so he can please Bhaal.
It doesn't need to be "Make sense".
In the Real World, God (if He indeed exist) never speak to you directly. God never appear to you directly.
In Faerun, God actively communicate with their follower. Their power apparent from the power shown by their priest and followers.
In Faerun, afterlife is a thing that nobody cannot dispute, especially when Jergal and Kelemvor known to all.
In Faerun, Demon exist, aspect of chaos and evil in material form, not just abstract ideas.
I am sorry, but I'm ignoring your "smart evil" example because... I don't think those are example of smart of anykind. It's not special, because something similar available to you in BG3, of course with more reactivity.
-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. -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? -Extorting a community for cash with blackmail --> How many times you extort someone/community for an item you posses? -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?
Instead of comparing Baldur's Gate 3 to an "RPG" made for mainstream audience/RPG tourist/"I play an RPG" game certification for Warzone player - let's not insult BG3 and compare it to Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire.
I think Narrtive and RPG is in opposite direction of game design. The more narrative heavy developer control of game, the less player autonomy they can give, meaning less roleplaying.
Deadfire tried to strike "balance" of sort. Narratively it's a fantastic game, nuanced, and nobody are clearly evil nor good (it's still a debate to this day).
Tight narrative making the game feels less RPG. The dialogue rarely mention what class you are. The dialogue rarely acknowledges your race. The dialogue rarely acknowledges your identity/background. --- it's still a fantastic cRPG, but it sacrifices a lot of RPG aspect within the dialogue to achieve much coherent narrative.
BG3 pulling the string closer to RPG, sacrificing coherent narrative but giving player more options to do. So I am not defending BG3 if somebody say they think BG3 hasn't got the best writing.
TLDR:
in BG3 evil is stupid. Okay, so if irl God, say Jesus comes down today, and you as believer commanded to stand with your hand upside down while drinking grimace drink, would you question His intention or not? (I, as an Unbeliever think that is stupid, the point being: perspective, the materialize form of God in Faerun actively conspiring against one another etc.)
I would counter with Raphael, Auntie, Gortash, Ketheric, Mizora , Emperor ( if you go against him), who are not brainless and , apart from Gortash and Ketheric, no fanatics. So I would even argue, that both Gortash and Ketheric are in it for practical reason not out of a zealous believe.
I agree.
I just making the point that for someboy else somewhere they can be seen as stupid evil.
1. Auntie Ethel may "complain" that "everyody is just ask something of her" that "Humanity is greedy" as an excuse to why she is the way she is. But She doesn't have deeper motive that make it 'seemingly' smart as the reason why she is evil. For me it's simple, She's a Hag. She doesn't need a reason to be "smart" evil. Same thing about her fanaticism to prey upon helpless.
2. Raphael is nigh-omnipotent Devil who instead of making deals with the Chosen (after Ketheric dies, if he is smart), instead he conspire against them directly, via Tav. Why?
3. The Emperor literally just "you don't want to side with me? k then bye I'll back to being Elder Brain drone".
All the people you mentions is not Zealot, as in religious fanatics, but zealot as in believe in their own self/egoistic/maniacal.
Last edited by Dext. Paladin; 27/09/2307:25 AM. Reason: typo
And even if she was neutral because she was romanced ( which is not canon, look again on the Abdel Abomination timeline), she had a very evil upbringing, so left to her own device, chances are high, she will go back to it. Unlike Shadowheart, she never knew another life . You don't know, what will happen to Jaime Lannister, since the books aren't finished and probably never will be, he could go back to his selfish self for reasons, who knows.
Thanks for replying, but I have to disagree again. You seem to not understand my points, I was not arguing Viccy has to be good (even though I think she totally could be). What I was saying is even if she's evil, she won't be this certain kind of evil, she could kill people, yes, but she would never be a fanatic because she never was one, nor would she hurt children.
You mentioned "she will go back to it", go back to where? The original Viconia in the Underdark? Won't you know it, that's the one who refused to sacrifice a child to Lolth, that's also the one who had guilt for her brother. Those were the very fundamental qualities of her and have nothing to do with her journey or romance with the player. Interestingly, you said Jaime "could go back to his selfish self", but just like Viconia, the Jaime who saved King's Landing was his original self, the foolish lad even wanted to stop the Mad King when he abused the Queen, he only became cynical afterward, so again, go back to where?
I understand everyone's taste and playthroughs are different, maybe the real Viconia and Jaime are not what you remembered, you just didn't know them, but hey, it's okay.
And even if she was neutral because she was romanced ( which is not canon, look again on the Abdel Abomination timeline), she had a very evil upbringing, so left to her own device, chances are high, she will go back to it. Unlike Shadowheart, she never knew another life . You don't know, what will happen to Jaime Lannister, since the books aren't finished and probably never will be, he could go back to his selfish self for reasons, who knows.
Thanks for replying, but I have to disagree again. You seem to not understand my point, I was not arguing Viccy has to be good (even I think she totally could be). What I was saying is even if she's bad, she won't be this kind of bad, she could kill people, yes, but she would never be a fanatic because she never was one, nor would she hurt children.
You mentioned "she will go back to it", go back to where? The original Viconia in the Underdark? Won't you know it, that's the one who refused to sacrifice a child to Lolth, that's also the one who had guilt for her brother. Those are the very fundamental qualities of her and have nothing to do with her journey or romance with the player. Interestingly, you said Jaime "could go back to his selfish self", but just like Viconia, the Jaime who saved King's Landing was his original self, the foolish lad even wanted to stop Mad King when he abused the Queen, he only became cynical afterward, so again, go back to where?
I understand everyone's taste and playthroughs are different, maybe the real Viconia and Jaime are not what you remembered, you just didn't know them, but hey, it's okay.
Believe me, I know them, I've played the game enough times and read the books often. Just because I don't agree with your sentiments doesn't mean, I don't know what I'm talking about. It's a bit insulting tbh Viconia was a priest of Lolth and is a priest of Shar - she did atrocious things. Even Shadow confesses to have killed and tortured, that is the stick of Sharrans, they are evil, their initiation into higher ranks is killing a Selunite. So please don't tell me, Viconia is that repenent. Yes, she might have turn her back to Lolth, because she doesn't want to kill a child - but ran over to a goddess, who is as bad as Lolth or worse. I don't see that as a particulary good action. Even evil characters can have some morals about them.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Thanks for replying Paladin, but I disagree with you a lot, let's start from small things.
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
If Shar told Viconia to be a jester, she probably will be a jester, and for what? Nothing. They do it to please their God.
When did this happen? Can you explain? Because I don't remember. What I remember is 1. Viconia once served Lolth, but she refused to sacrifice a child to her, even when the punishment was death. And 2. Viconia once wiped out a Shar cult, ignoring Shar's anger and punishment. I don't know where this "probably" comes from.
And your comments on other companions make me start to think we played a different game, but let's move to Sarevok
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
Sarevok is/was Fanatics with no brain.
What? Can a fanatic with no brain orchestrated a war? Sure you can disagree with his strategy, but that requires the ability to scheme. And even if you insist he was stupid, do you really think BG1's him and BG3's him is the same character? Let's say there're two characters, one believed in god and died in starvation, one believed in himself and died in a hopeless war, one was a fanatic, one was a mad man, both are stupid, but are they the same?
Let's not wander too far away from the topic, what I was arguing is the out of character writing, not whether characters have to be good. What, was Sarevok also a puppy dog of Bhaal in BG1? Who "did all the things for Bhaal"?
Rehashing any of the characters from the original games was a big mistake.
For the BG1&2 players who this rehashing is for, there is no canon with these characters. None of the characters brought back for BG3 match any of my versions of them. My Minsc was killed by an Ogre Berserker trying to rescue Dynaheir. I romanced Viconia and she was not the evil kidnapper from BG3. She doesn't look or sound anything like her. De-leveling them doesn't feel right either.
Sarevok being demoted to a mini-boss did not do him justice. What were they thinking? It feels more like some arrogant statement, taking the main antagonist of BG1 and turning him into some minor encounter for your own sequel.
New players who are not familiar with these characters don't care. They have no frame of reference. So who was the rehashing for, really? The idea was doomed from the start. Really poor decisions from Larian. They ruined several old characters when they could have introduced fresh new faces. And respected the old cast in another way. Tavern tales. Books. Legends lore. Quick cameos with proper wow-factor.
Thanks for replying Paladin, but I disagree with you a lot, let's start from small things.
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
If Shar told Viconia to be a jester, she probably will be a jester, and for what? Nothing. They do it to please their God.
When did this happen? Can you explain? Because I don't remember. What I remember is 1. Viconia once served Lolth, but she refused to sacrifice a child to her, even when the punishment was death. And 2. Viconia once wiped out a Shar cult, ignoring Shar's anger and punishment. I don't know where this "probably" comes from.
That answer was not intended for you.
I was trying to explain to the other guy, why the villain do what they do.
Originally Posted by SerTomato
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
Sarevok is/was Fanatics with no brain.
What? Can a fanatic with no brain orchestrated a war? Sure you can disagree with his strategy, but that requires the ability to scheme. And even if you insist he is stupid, do you really think BG1's him and BG3's him is the same character? Let's say there're two characters, one believed in god and died in starvation, one believed in himself and died in a hopeless war, one was a fanatic, one was a mad man, both are stupid, but are they the same?
Let's not wander too far away from the topic, what I was arguing is about the out of character writing, evil characters are different. What, was Sarevok also a puppy dog of Bhaal in BG1? Who "did all the things for Bhaal"?
I think *because* they're brainless fanatics they orchestrated a war. Pleasing their God.
If Sarevok was just brainless evil but not a Bhaalspawn/Bhaalworshipper would the first thing he think about in his evil plain is: Mass Murder?
And Yes, I would argue Sarevok was always been Sarevok's puppy. I'd argue BG1 wouldn't happen if Sarevok wasn't trying to be a good daddy's puppy.
I mean why else is He trying to generate chaos?
Sarevok in BG1 is daddy's little pet dog who did what he did in the name of Daddy.
Sarevok in BG3 is also daddy's little pet dog, but no longer his favorite, because he has proven to be failure.
Same logic applies to Sendai, Amelyssan etc.
They all cannot fathom all the chaos and murders, regardless of the states intention of each Bhaalspawn only feed Bhaal not them.
They have not got half the brain of the CHARNAME to resist Bhaal and not to become his pet.
Believe me, I know them, I've played the game enough times and read the books often.
Sorry if I offended you, but what you said about those two characters were indeed, inaccurate. And you mentioned you never romanced Viccy, but a lot of her origin stories were explained in her romance. Also
Originally Posted by fylimar
So please don't tell me, Viconia is that repenent.
I feel like we're talking in circles, and you still didn't get me. I never claimed Viconia was repentant, nor did I claim she was innocent. Like I said in my article, she could do bad things, but wouldn't do certain bad things. Of course she could kill people, hell, I literally said she murdered her farmer neighbors and all the members of a Shar cult in my article, but she made those choices by herself, she was rebellious, and she refused to hurt children even when she faced death, therefore what she did to Shadowheart in BG3 and "Shar commands and I obey" are out of character. "Being evil" is not the keyword, "being out of character" is. Will you accept this logic?
Rehashing any of the characters from the original games was a big mistake.
For the BG1&2 players who this rehashing is for, there is no canon with these characters. None of the characters brought back for BG3 match any of my versions of them. My Minsc was killed by an Ogre Berserker trying to rescue Dynaheir. I romanced Viconia and she was not the evil kidnapper from BG3. She doesn't look or sound anything like her. De-leveling them doesn't feel right either.
Sarevok being demoted to a mini-boss did not do him justice. What were they thinking? It feels more like some arrogant statement, taking the main antagonist of BG1 and turning him into some minor encounter for your own sequel.
New players who are not familiar with these characters don't care. They have no frame of reference. So who was the rehashing for, really? The idea was doomed from the start. Really poor decisions from Larian. They ruined several old characters when they could have introduced fresh new faces. And respected the old cast in another way. Tavern tales. Books. Legends lore. Quick cameos with proper wow-factor.
I have strong belief that WoTC probably made them integrate old character to the game.
Boost the sales a bit.
I agree, they shouldn't bring back old characters. I even prefer the old character only mentioned in passing.
Believe me, I know them, I've played the game enough times and read the books often.
Sorry if I offended you, but what you said about those two characters were indeed, inaccurate. And you mentioned you never romanced Viccy, but a lot of her origin stories were explained in her romance. Also
Originally Posted by fylimar
So please don't tell me, Viconia is that repenent.
I feel like we're talking in circles, and you still didn't get me. I never claimed Viconia was repentant, nor did I claim she was innocent. Like I said in my article, she could do bad things, but wouldn't do certain bad things. Of course she could kill people, hell, I literally said she murdered her farmer neighbors and all the members of a Shar cult in my article, but she made those choices by herself, she was rebellious, and she refused to hurt children even when she faced death, therefore what she did to Shadowheart in BG3 and "Shar commands and I obey" are out of character. "Being evil" is not the keyword, "being out of character" is. Will you accept this logic?
Let's just agree to disagree. Romanced Viconia is something, not everyone did and if you are experienced with the lore of DnD, which I guess,you are, you also know, that getting involved with a god too much might change you for the worse. We see it in this game with characters like Gale, Shadowheart, if made a Dark Justiciar at the end of act 2 and even Lae'zel to some degree, if staying true to Vlaakith. And most of all with Dark Urge. The gods mess with you and use you. Imo Viconia and Sarevok are two examples with the premises, that they stayed true to their gods. The events of the first two games are a hundred years in the past, a lot can happen then. And I already said, that I get, if a company reuse a character you liked in a way, you don't appreciate and yes, maybe it would have been better to use different characters altogether, but at the end of the day Viconia and Sarevok are ok in my book, because you see, how much the gods intervene in personal lifes. As I said, I was fuming when the brought Revan' back in SWTOR as this totally lunatic white guy, that had nothing to do with my character. I'm not even sure, if bringing back old characters was entirely Larians idea like Paladin said. So I guess, they did the best they could with the old characters, who btw can also be dead. Viconia died in one of my playthroughs, because she thought it a great idea to attack Keldorn with her whoppi g 8 or so Con. He did hit her once and that was it. I think, we all can agree though, that they did a terrific job with Jaheira, Mins and Boo.
Last edited by fylimar; 27/09/2308:58 AM.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
I think *because* they're brainless fanatics they orchestrated a war. Pleasing their God.
Except...that was not his goal? Btw I was talking about his ability, not his motive.
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
And Yes, I would argue Sarevok was always been Sarevok's puppy. I'd argue BG1 wouldn't happen if Sarevok wasn't trying to be a good daddy's puppy.
I mean why else is He trying to generate chaos?
In BG1, he literally said: "Fool! I do not wish to RESTORE his power, merely to RAISE it! With the divine blood that flows through these veins, I shall assume control over that which he so foolishly lost! I shall BECOME Bhaal. THAT... is the only acceptable outcome. All that is left is for us to end this in a manner... befitting our heritage. Face me! Face the new LORD OF MURDER! Angelo! Tazok! Reveal yourselves and let's finish this now!"
His goal was clear, he wanted to replace Bhaal. I don't know about you, but to me this doesn't sound like a puppy talking.
Sure you can say the ultimate beneficiary was still Bhaal, and I would agree, but that's massively different from willingly serving Bhaal, like Orin did. Sarevok might be used, but he was not a puppy.
you also know, that getting involved with a god too much might change you for the worse.
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
You should play the game instead of watching the Romance video.
The romance is good and it make the character more nuanced. Non-romance character feels less nuanced.
If you play the game:
1. Aerie is either a childish whinny girl who couldn't stop mourning her lost wing or someone who coming to term with his new found flaws. 2. Jaheira is either self-righteous harper or a genuine righteous individual. 3. Viconia is either class A A-hole and a problematic racist or an exciting lover / fish out of the water lover.
Questioning whether you must gain something for being "Evil" in this world is moot. If Shar told Viconia to be a jester, she probably will be a jester, and for what? Nothing. They do it to please their God.
Do you ever ask why Dolor did what he did to his victim? Disrupting the economy? Possibly making Baldur's Gate vulnerable to Absolute influence? And for what? In macro-perspective? Nothing. He did so he can please Bhaal.
It doesn't need to be "Make sense".
In the Real World, God (if He indeed exist) never speak to you directly. God never appear to you directly.
In Faerun, God actively communicate with their follower. Their power apparent from the power shown by their priest and followers.
In Faerun, afterlife is a thing that nobody cannot dispute, especially when Jergal and Kelemvor known to all.
In Faerun, Demon exist, aspect of chaos and evil in material form, not just abstract ideas.
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.
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
I am sorry, but I'm ignoring your "smart evil" example because... I don't think those are example of smart of anykind. It's not special, because something similar available to you in BG3, of course with more reactivity.
-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. -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? -Extorting a community for cash with blackmail --> How many times you extort someone/community for an item you posses? -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?
Instead of comparing Baldur's Gate 3 to an "RPG" made for mainstream audience/RPG tourist/"I play an RPG" game certification for Warzone player - let's not insult BG3 and compare it to Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire.
I think Narrtive and RPG is in opposite direction of game design. The more narrative heavy developer control of game, the less player autonomy they can give, meaning less roleplaying.
Deadfire tried to strike "balance" of sort. Narratively it's a fantastic game, nuanced, and nobody are clearly evil nor good (it's still a debate to this day).
Tight narrative making the game feels less RPG. The dialogue rarely mention what class you are. The dialogue rarely acknowledges your race. The dialogue rarely acknowledges your identity/background. --- it's still a fantastic cRPG, but it sacrifices a lot of RPG aspect within the dialogue to achieve much coherent narrative.
BG3 pulling the string closer to RPG, sacrificing coherent narrative but giving player more options to do. So I am not defending BG3 if somebody say they think BG3 hasn't got the best writing.
TLDR:
in BG3 evil is stupid. Okay, so if irl God, say Jesus comes down today, and you as believer commanded to stand with your hand upside down while drinking grimace drink, would you question His intention or not? (I, as an Unbeliever think that is stupid, the point being: perspective, the materialize form of God in Faerun actively conspiring against one another etc.)
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.
Last edited by ghettojesusxx; 27/09/2301:58 PM. Reason: typo fixes
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.
Quote
Sarevok in BG1 is daddy's little pet dog who did what he did in the name of Daddy.
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,
I'm livid over Sarevok being portrayed as an incestuous rapist of his own daughter. There's literally nothing about his BG1 or BG2 character that hints toward that. It's like the BG3 writers wanted to give a big F-you to anyone who redeemed Sarevok in ToB.
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.
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.
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
Luke Skywalker from Star Wars.
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.
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.
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
Luke Skywalker from Star Wars.
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.
Rehashing any of the characters from the original games was a big mistake.
For the BG1&2 players who this rehashing is for, there is no canon with these characters. None of the characters brought back for BG3 match any of my versions of them. My Minsc was killed by an Ogre Berserker trying to rescue Dynaheir. I romanced Viconia and she was not the evil kidnapper from BG3. She doesn't look or sound anything like her. De-leveling them doesn't feel right either.
Sarevok being demoted to a mini-boss did not do him justice. What were they thinking? It feels more like some arrogant statement, taking the main antagonist of BG1 and turning him into some minor encounter for your own sequel.
New players who are not familiar with these characters don't care. They have no frame of reference. So who was the rehashing for, really? The idea was doomed from the start. Really poor decisions from Larian. They ruined several old characters when they could have introduced fresh new faces. And respected the old cast in another way. Tavern tales. Books. Legends lore. Quick cameos with proper wow-factor.
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.
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.
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.
I'll bring up Star Wars again as an example, and the more recent Ashoka series at that. Whatever plot they were going to delve into, it was never going to work, as they had already told those stories much better in previous shows - it's just a cheap case of plagiarism. BG3 on the other hand, while significantly messing up continuity could have told a great story, even if some bits are repeated from previous titles. As I outlined in my post that I linked before, you could have had Durge defined as the main antagonist/protagonist, you could have had a significant power play between the Brain, Bhaal and Emperor/Balduran (even Jergal on the side, masquerading as Withers) as they try to convince an amnesiac monster to be on their side... There is significant potential in there. You could have had each origin's playthrough alter the outcome of the main story, you could have had proper friction amongst the player and the many NPC-s around them, you could have hand many different endings, you could have had an epilogue...
Unfortunately, it's a case of could have been, in a plot that was set up in one way but then completely taken a way that should have been impossible to travel down on, according to the very script itself. And I have hope that it might still be, in the form of a definitive edition for this game, because it desperately needs one.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I think *because* they're brainless fanatics they orchestrated a war. Pleasing their God.
Except...that was not his goal? Btw I was talking about his ability, not his motive.
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
And Yes, I would argue Sarevok was always been Sarevok's puppy. I'd argue BG1 wouldn't happen if Sarevok wasn't trying to be a good daddy's puppy.
I mean why else is He trying to generate chaos?
In BG1, he literally said: "Fool! I do not wish to RESTORE his power, merely to RAISE it! With the divine blood that flows through these veins, I shall assume control over that which he so foolishly lost! I shall BECOME Bhaal. THAT... is the only acceptable outcome. All that is left is for us to end this in a manner... befitting our heritage. Face me! Face the new LORD OF MURDER! Angelo! Tazok! Reveal yourselves and let's finish this now!"
His goal was clear, he wanted to replace Bhaal. I don't know about you, but to me this doesn't sound like a puppy talking.
Sure you can say the ultimate beneficiary was still Bhaal, and I would agree, but that's massively different from willingly serving Bhaal, like Orin did. Sarevok might be used, but he was not a puppy.
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.
I think *because* they're brainless fanatics they orchestrated a war. Pleasing their God.
Except...that was not his goal? Btw I was talking about his ability, not his motive.
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
And Yes, I would argue Sarevok was always been Sarevok's puppy. I'd argue BG1 wouldn't happen if Sarevok wasn't trying to be a good daddy's puppy.
I mean why else is He trying to generate chaos?
In BG1, he literally said: "Fool! I do not wish to RESTORE his power, merely to RAISE it! With the divine blood that flows through these veins, I shall assume control over that which he so foolishly lost! I shall BECOME Bhaal. THAT... is the only acceptable outcome. All that is left is for us to end this in a manner... befitting our heritage. Face me! Face the new LORD OF MURDER! Angelo! Tazok! Reveal yourselves and let's finish this now!"
His goal was clear, he wanted to replace Bhaal. I don't know about you, but to me this doesn't sound like a puppy talking.
Sure you can say the ultimate beneficiary was still Bhaal, and I would agree, but that's massively different from willingly serving Bhaal, like Orin did. Sarevok might be used, but he was not a puppy.
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.
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?
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?
Actualy, Sarevok was *unknowlingly* trying to be good daddy's puppy (I know it wasn't originally written like that, but I say on the same post, that all bhaalspawn, except charname, inevitably serve Bhaal's purpose). As Most if not all Bhaalspawn was. Notable exception is the charname, because you control them, not Bhaal.
I agree with the re-write, we may or may not agree with what would be written.
I think it's Okay Viconia depicted as "evil" and Sarevok as "Mindless fanatics", OP think character development in BG2 happened, I disagree (which is the problem with Canon in this type of storytelling).
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.
But what?
I think you totally missed my points. Canonizing a character's state in sequals is neccessary, I was not opposed to that, what I was opposed to is how they did it. I never claimed these two characters MUST be a certain way or what they were in my playthroughs, what I was arguing is even consider all the possible outcomes, BG3's them are still totally out of character, and I listed my points. Of course, you can disagree with my points, but can you explain to me in which outcome of BG1&2 that Viconia would become a fanatic who loves to torture children and Sarevok would become Bhaal's puppy dog, that they would throw their origin stories out of window? The plotholes in BG3 are not small, they're huge fucking gaps.
And you said "100 years is a lot of time for things to change", but is that really an excuse? That because time passes, characters can be whatever the writer wants them to be? Is this really good character writing that you can accept? Okay, let's use an example in my article, in BG4, 100 years has passed, now Karlach becomes a demon lord who loves to slaughter and torture people, and the game gives no explanation except "because 100 years is a lot of time for things to change" and "well that's actually one of her possible outcomes", will you be okay with it?
It's okay you like BG3's Viconia, but whether you or me like it or not is besides the point, isn't it? The point is those two characters are in fact not their original selves in BG3. And one can like anything, I like The Room, but I will be crazy to say The Room is a good movie, won't I?
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.
Thanks for replying and I agree, I was thinking about those solutions as well.
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.
Thanks for replying. I agree with what you said, the players do need cathartic release. What confused me is why they have to use old characters to be the punching bag? And they even went out of their way to do it, like you said. Do they hate players of the old games? (Is ths Last of Us Part II?) The villains we got were not well-written at all and literally could be replaced by anyone, any small clown characters. So why have to be them? I really don't understand.
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.
Thank you, really, I hope you get better now ;D because I'm not lol
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.
But we are literally talking about different things at this point. You're talking about Sarevok's actual influences and what other characters let or didn't let him do, I'm talking about his character and what a man he truly was. You're talking about what he did, I'm talking about what he wanted. Our topics become totally unrelated now so I guess we should end the discussion. But hey, thanks again for replying.
OP think character development in BG2 happened, I disagree (which is the problem with Canon in this type of storytelling).
I didn't, that was never my point. Sure I think it will be far better if they canonize the developments in BG2, but my point was always even consider all the possible outcomes, including that those two characters' developments in BG2 never happened, they are still totally out of character in BG3, because BG3 directly contradicts their character cornerstones, which happened far before BG1&2 and have nothing to do with their journey/romance with the player.
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.
Thanks for replying. I agree with what you said, the players do need cathartic release. What confused me is why they have to use old characters to be the punching bag? And they even went out of their way to do it, like you said. Do they hate players of the old games? (Is ths Last of Us Part II?) The villains we got were not well-written at all and literally could be replaced by anyone, any small clown characters. So why have to be them? I really don't understand.
Honestly? I don't know what happened. There's no way that Larian wasn't aware of the popularity of Viconia in particular, and I don't buy the theory the gets floated around in threads like this that it was a dictate from WoTC-the controversial stuff in regards to them seems to serve a specific purpose within BG III itself, which points to it being a choice that Larian themselves came up with. No, I think Larian can shoulder the blame for this one.
What really bugs me though is that this came about despite the characters being popular, *despite* Jaheria and Minsc getting comparatively the royal treatment. I can only speculate that this was allowed to happen because of some combination of the characters not having an advocate/fan on the writing staff or their immediate boss(es) This is not the sort of thing that would have been written by fans...if I'm being perfectly honest this is the sort of writing I'd expect from someone who *disliked* the character being involved. Which is bizarre, because Larian loves their complex victimized evil character party members-you'd think Viconia would be the sort of character they'd fall in love with, or at the very least if they were going in the direction they ended up going with, they'd go for a more nuanced and sympathetic villain than what we got in either case.
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.
Thank you, really, I hope you get better now ;D because I'm not lol
I am not. Even if they fix Viconia's story, they still ruin Mystra through Gale. Now I find myself adopting an ostrich-like approach, dwelling in the year 13XX DR and refusing to acknowledge the events afterward. _(:?)?)_
I’ve never really played the first two games so I'm coming at this without particular reverence for the characters. I'm someone who thinks that having returning characters like this is one of the fun parts of a sequel like this, but I'm also against those particular party members being companions. I think it would have been better if Jaheira had just remained the experienced advisor/support the way she was in act 2. They could have said Jaheira was too well known to be going around with your party so she and her harpers had to stay in the background and provide you support, until the end where she joins the final battle in all her high level glory. I say this as someone who adores Jaheira as a companion in this game and took her everywhere once she became available. And in a better version of this game, one where the shar stuff was actually integrated into the main plot and mattered to it, Viconia would have been the evil alternate version of that. Minsc I could accept as a companion since canonically (Canon established a whole ago by wotc and not Larian) he was a statue until somewhat recently and I think that justifies him being lower level.
But as it stands now, regardless of writing or characterization, there is no reason for the subjects of this thread to be in the game. Jaheira has a substantial role in act 2 and while sure, someone else could have filled that role, having it be Jaheira does actually improve the story in terms of impact and feel. Meanwhile Sarevok and Viconia? They're bit players that don't matter to the story at all. If they were replaced, nothing would change and no emotional impact would be lost. I also don't buy the excuse that WOTC wanted them in. People seem too quick to lay the blame for this games flaws on them when there's no evidence they had any real input. This is just Larian not caring the way they cared about Jaheira and Minsc.
I think, you should consider Baldur's Gate 3 as continuation but of different timelines. Whatever idealized fate you think they should've ended up with, it's still exist, in some other universe, but not in this one.
This. Every universe built by a DM / writer / game developer / film director is unrelated to the others made by other people. Just stop trying to bring them together. BG1 and 2 had different writers and teams, basically different DMs. BG3 has its own universe and it has a lot in common with BG1 and 2 but it. is. not. the. same. universe. There are many choices to make in BG1 and 2 and all of them are canon in different universes.
What's next honestly, bringing in D&D Honor Among Thieves and saying that Bards should hit people with their lutes and can't cast spells?
I think, you should consider Baldur's Gate 3 as continuation but of different timelines. Whatever idealized fate you think they should've ended up with, it's still exist, in some other universe, but not in this one.
This. Every universe built by a DM / writer / game developer / film director is unrelated to the others made by other people. Just stop trying to bring them together. BG1 and 2 had different writers and teams, basically different DMs. BG3 has its own universe and it has a lot in common with BG1 and 2 but it. is. not. the. same. universe. There are many choices to make in BG1 and 2 and all of them are canon in different universes.
What's next honestly, bringing in D&D Honor Among Thieves and saying that Bards should hit people with their lutes and can't cast spells?
The point is not this. Whatever playthrough you do in BG and BG2, there is no correlation with Viconia and Sarevok in BG3. The OP has clearly demonstrated with concrete data how the characters are completely different. The fact that they are characters we are fond of and used to seeing in a certain way only serves to make us more attentive to how they have been written by Larian.
I also believe that anyone who does not have a deep knowledge of the characters from BG and BG2 contributes little to the discussion. In fact, taken stand-alone, Viconia and Sarevok in BG3 are decently written characters, and it is perfectly understandable that those who do not know them may have liked them. But the point of the OP is not that they are poorly written, but that they clash poorly with the old ones and completely neglect an important narrative arc, making them caricatures.
In light of all this, it is perfectly understandable to wonder if those who wrote these characters or this part of the plot really have the necessary knowledge to do them justice?
I think, you should consider Baldur's Gate 3 as continuation but of different timelines. Whatever idealized fate you think they should've ended up with, it's still exist, in some other universe, but not in this one.
This. Every universe built by a DM / writer / game developer / film director is unrelated to the others made by other people. Just stop trying to bring them together. BG1 and 2 had different writers and teams, basically different DMs. BG3 has its own universe and it has a lot in common with BG1 and 2 but it. is. not. the. same. universe. There are many choices to make in BG1 and 2 and all of them are canon in different universes.
What's next honestly, bringing in D&D Honor Among Thieves and saying that Bards should hit people with their lutes and can't cast spells?
The point is not this. Whatever playthrough you do in BG and BG2, there is no correlation with Viconia and Sarevok in BG3. The OP has clearly demonstrated with concrete data how the characters are completely different. The fact that they are characters we are fond of and used to seeing in a certain way only serves to make us more attentive to how they have been written by Larian.
I also believe that anyone who does not have a deep knowledge of the characters from BG and BG2 contributes little to the discussion. In fact, taken stand-alone, Viconia and Sarevok in BG3 are decently written characters, and it is perfectly understandable that those who do not know them may have liked them. But the point of the OP is not that they are poorly written, but that they clash poorly with the old ones and completely neglect an important narrative arc, making them caricatures.
In light of all this, it is perfectly understandable to wonder if those who wrote these characters or this part of the plot really have the necessary knowledge to do them justice?
My two cents as someone who didn’t play bg1 or 2, for me they were incredibly boring and forgettable characters in this game so honestly I think the rewrite was a negative for both old fans and new ones
Meanwhile Sarevok and Viconia? They're bit players that don't matter to the story at all. If they were replaced, nothing would change and no emotional impact would be lost. I also don't buy the excuse that WOTC wanted them in. People seem too quick to lay the blame for this games flaws on them when there's no evidence they had any real input. This is just Larian not caring the way they cared about Jaheira and Minsc.
I think I disagree with that they don't matter at all, think about it, Shadowheart's whole story is based on Viconia's out of character actions, and if Sarevok's out of character actions didn't exist, Orin won't be the way she was. But I get what you mean, as villains these two characters are totally replacable, which means they're lackluster and poorly written. Replacing them is one of my points, if you're not going to pay respect to old characters, or don't have the patience to even understand them, don't add them into the game at all.
This. Every universe built by a DM / writer / game developer / film director is unrelated to the others made by other people. Just stop trying to bring them together. BG1 and 2 had different writers and teams, basically different DMs. BG3 has its own universe and it has a lot in common with BG1 and 2 but it. is. not. the. same. universe. There are many choices to make in BG1 and 2 and all of them are canon in different universes.
What's next honestly, bringing in D&D Honor Among Thieves and saying that Bards should hit people with their lutes and can't cast spells?
Allow me to disagree again. This game is called "Baldur's Gate 3", not "Baldur's Gate: Reboot" or "Baldur's Gate: WotC Edition". As a sequal, it is their job to make it make sense. The devs and the game never told players the story that "it. is. not. the. same. universe", players told themselves this story, in fact, think about how this game was publicized and how *some* of the old characters were handled, they tried very hard to reconnect with old games. Hell, the lead writer literally said "we want to pay respect to old games" in an interview. (But have they?)
I don't remember hitting people with lutes and the disability to cast spells being rules in D&D Honor Among Thieves, they're just poor executions of dnd rules. And I'm talking about characters, if they ever make a D&D Honor Among Thieves II, is it okay to say Doric becomes Sofina now? What's the limit of this logic? Let me use the example again, when BG4 comes out, is it okay for Karlach to become a demon lord who loves to torture and kill people, simply because "oh well BG3 was a different game and they're not related, not the same universe bro"? Is that really good writing that players should accept?
Thank you very much friend. Allow me to agree with everything except one
Originally Posted by Undomiel
In fact, taken stand-alone, Viconia and Sarevok in BG3 are decently written characters.
Personally I don't think they are, in my opinion, even if these two characters are not called "Viccy" and "Sarevok", they're still lackluster and could be replaced by any clowns. Not good villains, at least not good enough for Act III. But still, thanks.
My two cents as someone who didn’t play bg1 or 2, for me they were incredibly boring and forgettable characters in this game so honestly I think the rewrite was a negative for both old fans and new ones
I come again to encourage you to play the classic and differentiate BG1/2 Sarevok/Viconia with this universe counter part.
On GOG you can have both the classic and enhanced version, I recommend playing the enchanced version of the first game but play the classic version of the second game.
Can't say I understand what you're feeling since I never played 1 or 2, but as a new player I'll just say this: their characterizations are too black-and-white for my taste. It saddens me to see they could have played more complicated roles.
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.
But we are literally talking about different things at this point. You're talking about Sarevok's actual influences and what other characters let or didn't let him do, I'm talking about his character and what a man he truly was. You're talking about what he did, I'm talking about what he wanted. Our topics become totally unrelated now so I guess we should end the discussion. But hey, thanks again for replying.
Good reply. You basically said everything I wanted to say, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience that you do.
Finally someone summarized my thoughts. Viconia and Sarevok's involvement in BG3 story is simply wrong. Retconning their backgrounds so heavily really feels bad and from part fictional.
Totally agree with OP in every line. And we are not alone in this. Sarevok and Viconia was my favourites from old games. My first playthrough of BG1-2 took place in 2014 and it was love in first sight. Poor graphics faded into the background very soon: the story was perfect.
I loved how strong Viconia was against odds of her life. She was hard, complicated, not like open book. And an outcast, not part of any cult of Shar. Even isolated from the story of Gorion’s Ward (mine was female) she was definitely not the woman we met in BG3. And Sarevok. Honestly he is one of my most loved characters ever, so I can be biased. But his portrayal in BG3 make me really quit game and go get some air. Still can’t come to my senses actually. See, even in Baldur’s Gate 1, game from the distant 1998, villains wasn’t so cartoon and full black. Yes, that maybe was not the time of gray morale, but some digging could give interesting results. BG3 Sarevok is quite the opposite of Sarevok from old games. He was fiery and desperate, but never a mindless brute (really! He tried, but even couldn’t start a slaughter without a plot! sweet chaotic evil). And Sarevok was never the follower of Bhaal. He. Was. Never. He wanted father’s power, he got under the influence of his blood, but never worshipped. I think Tamoko was the one who explains everything very accurately: she said Sarevok’s desire for power spring from hatred and resentment. Like our Bhaalspawn main character, he was torn apart between his divine heritage and humanity, but fate was more cruel to Sarevok, so he get what he get. After resurrection in ToB he loses any spark of Bhaal’s power. And started to think deeper. Redeeming is optional, but what was exactly - Sarevok asked for new life. He wanted to be revived very much, to get "flesh and blood and bones" again. Returning to life didn’t bring him peace, his ending tells about it, but to fall into worshipping dead god? The one he lost every tie with? It just makes no sense. Hate to say this, but he better be dead, really.
I don’t know how to speak about «respect for the past» cause it looks like… have you ever read fanfiction? The ones where author treats badly with characters they don’t like? This. BG3 has many detailed evil characters with motivation and personality, so we can’t say it’s about moralism and plain «bad is bad». Looks like these two is just very unloved by someone in Larian. It’s the only explanation I can think of.
And too sad to see liberation arcs of Astarion, Lae’zel, Shadowheart - they release from abuse, burden, control - but this right to be free was not given to Viconia and Sarevok.
Yeah. There is no necessary name for those two characters Viconia and Sarevok anymore, they are completely rewritten characters. So whyn't Larian rename those two with another new name? I am confused.
Totally agree with OP in every line. And we are not alone in this. Sarevok and Viconia was my favourites from old games. My first playthrough of BG1-2 took place in 2014 and it was love in first sight. Poor graphics faded into the background very soon: the story was perfect.
I loved how strong Viconia was against odds of her life. She was hard, complicated, not like open book. And an outcast, not part of any cult of Shar. Even isolated from the story of Gorion’s Ward (mine was female) she was definitely not the woman we met in BG3. And Sarevok. Honestly he is one of my most loved characters ever, so I can be biased. But his portrayal in BG3 make me really quit game and go get some air. Still can’t come to my senses actually. See, even in Baldur’s Gate 1, game from the distant 1998, villains wasn’t so cartoon and full black. Yes, that maybe was not the time of gray morale, but some digging could give interesting results. BG3 Sarevok is quite the opposite of Sarevok from old games. He was fiery and desperate, but never a mindless brute (really! He tried, but even couldn’t start a slaughter without a plot! sweet chaotic evil). And Sarevok was never the follower of Bhaal. He. Was. Never. He wanted father’s power, he got under the influence of his blood, but never worshipped. I think Tamoko was the one who explains everything very accurately: she said Sarevok’s desire for power spring from hatred and resentment. Like our Bhaalspawn main character, he was torn apart between his divine heritage and humanity, but fate was more cruel to Sarevok, so he get what he get. After resurrection in ToB he loses any spark of Bhaal’s power. And started to think deeper. Redeeming is optional, but what was exactly - Sarevok asked for new life. He wanted to be revived very much, to get "flesh and blood and bones" again. Returning to life didn’t bring him peace, his ending tells about it, but to fall into worshipping dead god? The one he lost every tie with? It just makes no sense. Hate to say this, but he better be dead, really.
I don’t know how to speak about «respect for the past» cause it looks like… have you ever read fanfiction? The ones where author treats badly with characters they don’t like? This. BG3 has many detailed evil characters with motivation and personality, so we can’t say it’s about moralism and plain «bad is bad». Looks like these two is just very unloved by someone in Larian. It’s the only explanation I can think of.
And too sad to see liberation arcs of Astarion, Lae’zel, Shadowheart - they release from abuse, burden, control - but this right to be free was not given to Viconia and Sarevok.
Sorry for my English.
Thank you friend, for your detailed and thoughtful input. I can understand your pain, that at some point in Act III, you just thought "what? wait...what?" then you wanted to skip certain parts, or simply couldn't continue playing. That happened to me too lol. And thanks for the insight about Sarevok, you have made me understand the characters better. I agree, he should remain dead if they gonna do him this way.
I can understand the frustration from BG1 & BG2 players, but I have to play devil's advocate here and say that as someone who's never played those, I'm genuinely sad that so much of act 3 has already been devoted to a returning cast over the origin companions and would be very disappointed if they added even more content for the returning cast over their own origin companions that we played with for over half of the game already.
If it were up to me, they'd never have been added. The game really didn't need to pull at nostalgia to be popular and instead it hurts fans of both scenarios, those who like the returning cast feeling they didn't get enough of a spotlight or simply the wrong type of content, and those who like the origin companions feeling like too much was already devoted to the returning cast.
I can understand the frustration from BG1 & BG2 players, but I have to play devil's advocate here and say that as someone who's never played those, I'm genuinely sad that so much of act 3 has already been devoted to a returning cast over the origin companions and would be very disappointed if they added even more content for the returning cast over their own origin companions that we played with for over half of the game already.
If it were up to me, they'd never have been added. The game really didn't need to pull at nostalgia to be popular and instead it hurts fans of both scenarios, those who like the returning cast feeling they didn't get enough of a spotlight or simply the wrong type of content, and those who like the origin companions feeling like too much was already devoted to the returning cast.
Hey, you're not playing devil's advocate at all, I agree with you totally. Considering the rewriting, animating, and voice acting devs need to do, the simplest solution would be deleting these two from the game. You're right, the game itself is good enough, it doesn't need nostalgia, it can stand on its own feet. So let it, instead of this "lose-lose" situation we got now, that new players don't care and old players feel insulted.
And I agree with new characters need more attention, that's actually one of the main complaints over Act III, that companions' content is not enough. Imagine how much fun we would have if we could spend more time with, say, Karlach, or Lae'zel.
I won't say much because I don't think there is anything I can say that hasn't already been said. After seeing both Viconia and Serevok in BG3 it pretty much cemented my opinion that Larian didn't care much for BG1/2.
They made a solid Baldur's Gate game (seeing how it has Bhaal and the city in it) but a horrible sequel. Will they change it? Ehh I doubt it, which is a shame.
If you play the Goblin path to recruit Minthara, then you're already down 2 other Origin companions and 1 non tadpoled companion.
If you follow the beats as presented during the second part of Act II there's a good chance you lose Jaheira and 2 camp followers as well, unless you're trying to thread the needle through meta or want to deny Shadowheart what seems to be her whole character arc up to that point. Also requires the Tav or Durge to ignore a direct command from a major god in the Pantheon of the Realms. This during a point in the story where Shar is breaking with Myrkul (normally an ally) and speaks directly to the player and to Shadowheart. All the other gods are communicating via their Chosen or lesser representatives, whereas Shar tells us point blank what she wants us to do. This puts the player in a pretty awkward position of ignoring a major god in the pantheon to trust... Aylin? Aylin who nobody has ever heard of before, who wasn't strong enough to avoid being imprisoned by Balthazar, who (for an Aasimar) doesn't even look all that trustworthy... like ok who's a smart villain going to pick on that one? heheh
I actually liked how they set things up with Shar a lot. If you're playing as a villain or even a Durge, killing the Nightsong gives you a clear motivation and puts you on a team in the divine conflict. Sure it's all wrapped up with Shadowheart, but it works for everyone. Minthara approves, so maybe she's now a Paladin of Shar too? You know "By my oath!" like her bark says hehe. The whole team can rock the dark Justiciar armor and then it gives that pathline more purhcase. This would have been great material for a final showdown with Lolth too, Viconia running interference there, in classic fashion. The Spider queen's vengeance! Maybe we're all together in that fight, and Viconia has to die so that Shadowheart can surive, but that would be fitting and much a more cathartic send off.
Anyway, point being, the payoff for all this 'darkness' in the early game should be that we get Viconia and Sarevok as options to recruit in Act III, to makeup for all the stuff we lost out on in Acts I and II. I don't really care if Viconia is normally Evil, since that was the majority of my playthroughs in BG1/2, but I want her in the party so that she can be part of the reward along that path. This would make more sense to me, that along one path we get Jaheira and Minsc along the other we get Viconia and Sarevok. And if there's a needle to thread maybe it's for a way to get Jaheira and Viconia both back together along a more neutral-ish path. Perhaps if Shadowheart is blond we get another angle on it, sure, but I think that would have been a nice treatment. Anything that stops short of Viconia's recruitment into the party is going to feel like a tease and a bummer for me.
Ps. Even though I suggested the doppelganger option in the other thread as a way for the player to telegraph their displeasure and sidestep the issue, I don't think Larian can really delete stuff at this point. The game is already out. It exists in the world now. At this point they can only add, not subtract or change. Keep the default path, but include more options if they player pushes back on it. All this could probably be handled with a dialogue branch that actually branched, once the big reveal happens. Let the player tell the game what they're after via initial dialogue prompts, and then have the subsequent character presentation key off that, so we can get a thumb on the scale there.
This is still my favorite visualization for Viconia...
But the BG3 default is pretty cool too... and I love the VA!
Just let us hold the reigns here, with a way to get her back into the fold again, and I'd be very happy. Then we can do our own mini-rewrites via gameplay and have the just deserts we're after. Let the player do the heavy lifting on that one, just add another branch or two.
I can understand the frustration from BG1 & BG2 players, but I have to play devil's advocate here and say that as someone who's never played those, I'm genuinely sad that so much of act 3 has already been devoted to a returning cast over the origin companions and would be very disappointed if they added even more content for the returning cast over their own origin companions that we played with for over half of the game already.
If it were up to me, they'd never have been added. The game really didn't need to pull at nostalgia to be popular and instead it hurts fans of both scenarios, those who like the returning cast feeling they didn't get enough of a spotlight or simply the wrong type of content, and those who like the origin companions feeling like too much was already devoted to the returning cast.
You realize that we also would prefer them to not have been added rather than butchered like this ? I am just disgusted by what Larian has made here. What's even the point of claiming you love a serie and wants to make the follow-up, if it's to just mangle the cameo and distort them into something that not only they never were, but which is even downright anathema to their original character ? Who could have actually played BG1+2 and thought this parody would fly ? This leaves a terrible taste in my mouth and the feeling that Larian was just throwing BS and didn't wanted to follow-up on a serie they liked, but rather to spit on a serie they wanted to one-up.
I won't say much because I don't think there is anything I can say that hasn't already been said. After seeing both Viconia and Serevok in BG3 it pretty much cemented my opinion that Larian didn't care much for BG1/2.
They made a solid Baldur's Gate game (seeing how it has Bhaal and the city in it) but a horrible sequel. Will they change it? Ehh I doubt it, which is a shame.
I want to believe Larian cares, I do, well, at least they claimed they do when publicizing the game. I don't know whether they would change anything either, but hey, one man can hope...
I haven't confirmed this for myself, but saw someone report that the mace you find if you kill Viconia in BG3 is the same one you can only get during her romance in BG2 . . . If true, way to rub salt in the wound I guess? I get the feeling one of the writers genuinely disliked Viconia and her fans, which uh . . . If you're going to bring a popular character back, might as well put someone in charge of that character who actually understands/enjoys her. I could be wrong and it could have been ignorance or WotC meddling, but the narrative malice towards Viconia in BG3 is jarring to me.
Edit: just confirmed it's the same mace (Handmaiden's Mace).
I haven't confirmed this for myself, but saw someone report that the mace you find if you kill Viconia in BG3 is the same one you can only get during her romance in BG2 . . . If true, way to rub salt in the wound I guess? I get the feeling one of the writers genuinely disliked Viconia and her fans, which uh . . . If you're going to bring a popular character back, might as well put someone in charge of that character who actually understands/enjoys her. I could be wrong and it could have been ignorance or WotC meddling, but the narrative malice towards Viconia in BG3 is jarring to me.
Edit: just confirmed it's the same mace (Handmaiden's Mace).
I can't confirm this right now but if that's true...wow. I mean that's no longer a genuine mistake like "oh we were not familiar with these two characters so we just believed whatever WotC told us tehe", no, they played the old games, they recorded the details, and yet they still chose to retcon characters this way, spitting on them and old players' faces. I mean what even...is that you Neil Druckmann? Did you infiltrate Larian using Disguise Self spell?
I need to take some time to grab the details myself. But Oof, another reason to not play Act III. Still, thank you for the input.
Hmm..reading all this...it may be an unpopular opinion here, but I think both characters are OK. That is, well within the range of plausibility for most players of the old games, who after all did not romance Viconia or turn Sarevok in BG2/TOB. And I have played the old games so often over the years that I feel somewhat competent to make a judgment.
If anything, Viconia's being a cleric of Shar, which she always was, played so small a role in BG2 that *that* part felt strange at times when I played the old games. Sure, she had an acerbic wit about her which is now missing, but only with her companions, which we are not in BG3. Her status and actions appear perfectly plausible to me, and any difference that remains can be accounted for by the passing of time.
Regarding Sarevok, assuming that you allowed him to return to life in TOB, it was always a possibility that he would return to his old ways. In TOB, he says that's in the past for him but only because you've won. And since in this timeline, Gorion's Ward did not survive, that no longer applied. I don't think they should've brought him back at all, because after all he was human, so his still being alive and being able to fight seems strange, but I am not seeing any character mismatch beyond anything that can't be accounted for by the passing of time.
It has been 130 years after all. And one specific timeline which may or may not match any of ours as created through the old games.
It would've been nice to have both available as companions for an evil playthrough but then, it has always been the case that the evil path, being generally less popular, gets less attention in development. BG3, for all the resources put into it, is no exception.
Now... you could argue that Viconia went back to her old ways or was brought back to life by Shar... Who knows.
I did tweak my head cannon of the D. Urge backstory to fit it with my story that he was the son of my main character (an elf) from BG3. I simply considered the version of the Butler to be pure manipulation to make him feel special. And maybe he was as his father was a very strong Bhaalspawn. Naturally, this Abdel Arian is just one more hero in my headcannon.
I personally found Viconia consistent with the Viconia I knew from BG1 and BG2. She is still one of my favourite character of the franchise and I let her go (my character let her go out of drow solidarity). I felt nothing for Sarevok in particular. I can't say I was very happy to see him back from the grave in BG2 but I could endure it
P.S. It would have been great if we got something for letting Viconia go.
Hmm..reading all this...it may be an unpopular opinion here, but I think both characters are OK. That is, well within the range of plausibility for most players of the old games, who after all did not romance Viconia or turn Sarevok in BG2/TOB. And I have played the old games so often over the years that I feel somewhat competent to make a judgment.
If anything, Viconia's being a cleric of Shar, which she always was, played so small a role in BG2 that *that* part felt strange at times when I played the old games. Sure, she had an acerbic wit about her which is now missing, but only with her companions, which we are not in BG3. Her status and actions appear perfectly plausible to me, and any difference that remains can be accounted for by the passing of time.
Regarding Sarevok, assuming that you allowed him to return to life in TOB, it was always a possibility that he would return to his old ways. In TOB, he says that's in the past for him but only because you've won. And since in this timeline, Gorion's Ward did not survive, that no longer applied. I don't think they should've brought him back at all, because after all he was human, so his still being alive and being able to fight seems strange, but I am not seeing any character mismatch beyond anything that can't be accounted for by the passing of time.
It has been 130 years after all. And one specific timeline which may or may not match any of ours as created through the old games.
It would've been nice to have both available as companions for an evil playthrough but then, it has always been the case that the evil path, being generally less popular, gets less attention in development. BG3, for all the resources put into it, is no exception.
Thanks. I feel like I might need to repeat my arguement here. The character assassination in BG3 has nothing to do with whether players do these two characters' romance/redemption or not. For example, you mentioned Sarevok, that "he would return to his old ways". What old ways? The way that he never treated Bhaal seriously? The way he called Bhaal a "fool"? Or the way he wanted to replace him? The same goes with Viconia. These two characters, even when they were in or before BG1, were still totally different from them in BG3. Plus, Shar clerics were different, even Bhaal fanatics were different, remember those?
And I don't think "it has been 130 years after all" is an excuse if you want to do characters 180, the basic logic of this line feels like "well I don't care about those characters so whatever". And judging from the feedback on other websites, many old players still care, sorry but I don't think you can represent most players of the old games. But still, I appreciate your opinion.
Now... you could argue that Viconia went back to her old ways or was brought back to life by Shar... Who knows.
I did tweak my head cannon of the D. Urge backstory to fit it with my story that he was the son of my main character (an elf) from BG3. I simply considered the version of the Butler to be pure manipulation to make him feel special. And maybe he was as his father was a very strong Bhaalspawn. Naturally, this Abdel Arian is just one more hero in my headcannon.
I personally found Viconia consistent with the Viconia I knew from BG1 and BG2. She is still one of my favourite character of the franchise and I let her go (my character let her go out of drow solidarity). I felt nothing for Sarevok in particular. I can't say I was very happy to see him back from the grave in BG2 but I could endure it
P.S. It would have been great if we got something for letting Viconia go.
Thank you. Now please imagine this:
In BG4, you meet the new demon lord Karlach in Nine Hells, a dear friend of Zariel. And the game tells you that her courage, pure heart, and kindness were all a facade in BG3, she is actually a very mean and evil person, who loves to kill and torture people, and always adores Zariel. The justification the game gives are "use your imagination" and "you could argue that Karlach went back to her old ways...who knows".
Allow me to ask again, what old ways?
Karlach being a golden retriever, Viconia refusing to hurt a child, and Sarevok treating Bhaal as simply a stepping stone, those were literally their origin stories, their very foundations. A bloodthirsty Karlach never existed, the writer made that shit up. And when a game needs you to use your headcanon to justify things, that means it was poorly written.
Of course one could say "well I never cared about Karlach so whatever", which is fair, though personally I won't call that person is really familiar with Karlach's character.
In BG4, you meet the new demon lord Karlach in Nine Hells, a dear friend of Zariel. And the game tells you that her courage, pure heart, and kindness were all a facade in BG3, she is actually a very mean and evil person, who loves to kill and torture people, and always adores Zariel. The justification the game gives are "use your imagination" and "you could argue that Karlach went back to her old ways...who knows".
Allow me to ask again, what old ways?
Karlach being a golden retriever, Viconia refusing to hurt a child, and Sarevok treating Bhaal as simply a stepping stone, those were literally their origin stories, their very foundations. A bloodthirsty Karlach never existed, the writer made that shit up. And when a game needs you to use your headcanon to justify things, that means it was poorly written.
Of course one could say "well I never cared about Karlach so whatever", which is fair, though personally I won't call that person is really familiar with Karlach's character.
I do understand, that you are mad about Viconia and Sarevok, but both are still different cases from Karlach. Kalrach was always good, Viconia and Sarevok not. You could maybe compare it with Astarion, who starts pretty evil, but can become better during the game depending on how you progress his story.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
[quote=SerTomato]I do understand, that you are mad about Viconia and Sarevok, but both are still different cases from Karlach. Kalrach was always good, Viconia and Sarevok not. You could maybe compare it with Astarion, who starts pretty evil, but can become better during the game depending on how you progress his story.
Thank you fylimar, I'm not mad at this point, just a bit tired...but your idea is fantastic. I used Karlach as an example because she's popular so I thought it would be easier for people to understand, but you're right, maybe Astarion will be a better example. Now, of course Astarion is not typically "good" in BG3, but I think nobody can deny that he is complex, and charming. Same goes with Viconia and Sarevok. Astarion may choose ascension in the end, or he may not, I can accept both as his canon ending in BG4.
However imagine this, in BG4 the game tells the player that Astarion never hated Cazador, actually, he never wanted freedom, it was all a facade. The writer retcons one of his ending, saying Astarion chose to ascend because Cazador ordered him to, and he failed, what a super smart mind game. Now Astarion becomes a mini-boss the player needs to defeat before facing the real Cazador 2.0. (Actually it's really similar now I think about it.) That's what they did to old characters like Viconia and Sarevok.
Astarion's hate for Cazador is just like Karlach's kindness, it's in character foundation and has nothing to do with player's journey, same goes with some qualities of Viconia and Sarevok. It's not about characters being good or bad, it's about what kinds of persons they truly were. I hope this would be a better example.
[quote=SerTomato][ I do understand, that you are mad about Viconia and Sarevok, but both are still different cases from Karlach. Kalrach was always good, Viconia and Sarevok not. You could maybe compare it with Astarion, who starts pretty evil, but can become better during the game depending on how you progress his story.
I believe Tomato is using hyperbole to show their point. They aren't directly comparable, but the gist is that a hypothetical BG4 could 'plausibly' rewrite the characters we love from BG3 into something like the unsympathetic characterization hit-pieces that Saraevok and Viconia got saddled with by Larian. And that would be wrong, just as Viconia and Saraevok's treatment was.
Like sure, we can imagine scenarios where Wyll turns out to be jaded and bitter after BG III, his morality is eroded, and we see him some 30 years later in a followup game as a corrupt politician lining his pockets with bribes from criminals. Then we find out that one of our companions was enslaved by his criminal underlings and we finally meet him in an emotional confrontation where all of his crimes against our companions, against the city, etc are laid out and we find him unrepentant. Cue boss battle.
IDK if you find that a 'plausible' scenario or not, but either I think you can probably imagine one where a party member from BG III is turned into an unsympathetic antagonist we get to fight in some followup.
But point of the matter, no matter how 'plausible' such a turn would be, it would be a huge disservice, a betrayal of the character and their fans to do so. For a game ostensibly focused on nostalgia and fanservice regarding the original games, such a portrayal is really, really awful.
I do understand, that you are mad about Viconia and Sarevok, but both are still different cases from Karlach. Kalrach was always good, Viconia and Sarevok not. You could maybe compare it with Astarion, who starts pretty evil, but can become better during the game depending on how you progress his story.
Do you understand what a "character" is or do you consider that there is only "this guy was good" and "this guy was evil" ? It's not about their alignement, it's about their CHARACTER. The problem with Viconia and Sarevok is not that "they are evil in BG3" (both COULD end evil in ToB so it's not a stretch). The problem is "they don't act at all and they don't have the same character than their entire definition in the BG saga, wether before their met the MC, during or after". What is so hard to understand ?
Alignment =/= personality. Characters of the same alignment can have different motivations, values and personality traits. Fiction would become boring pretty soon otherwise.
The greatest gift Shar has to give her followers is non-existence after death. This may not seem like a big deal, but given what can happen after death it actually is. After you defeat her Viconia begs you to send her to "Lady Shar's embrace" because Shar was/is all she had/has left and it's been that way for quite some time.
If you talk to Minsc he tells you that Viconia left the camp after she was caught trying to steal and dissect Boo. At least, that was his interpretation of what she was doing. This more or less fits with dialogue from Bg1/2 and Viconia's established personality traits. She is cruel. She is a loner. She is alone.
After this was when she likely founded the temple in Waterdeep, and yet she didn't form any strong bonds with any of her fellow Shar worshippers, or at least not enough to disobey Shar when she was asked to kill them. So she further isolated herself and then was given new orders. Again, she is alone.
And she has been that way for the last 100 years. She only has Shar. Whatever she might have been/or grown to become ended when her path diverged from the original Bhaalspawn. Shar likely orchestrated this - it's how she works.
Viconia wants to die. I killed her out of mercy having assessed what she has been through. She can now enjoy oblivion. I think the cruelest thing you can do is to let her live. I understand people "spare her" out of "nostalgia" which is a selfish thing to do.
Happiness was never in the cards for Viconia. In the established lore she failed to overcome her own cruelty, which tracks. The Bg2 writers were humoring you by making a narrow and almost impossible path to her redemption, but I don't see that actually happening. She had been too long under Lolth's shadow - if she had chosen Eliastree things would have been very different, but she chose a Goddess almost as cruel and manipulative as Lolth.
Sarevok
Sarevok is a shadow of what he once was. Nobody who dies comes back the same, and Sarevok spent a long time in his Father's realm - The Throne of Blood in Gehenna. He is brought back but without his Bhaalspawn blood driving him, but with the memory of what he was and can never be again.
He has become like a parent that lives vicariously through his offspring. He is Orin's father and Grandfather. Not even going to get into the level of degeneracy it takes to behave that way.
Not to mention he is basically overseeing the Murder Tribunal now - the Bhallist equivalent of a "desk job"
Sarevok is a middle manager, a has been. This is what losing looks like.
Yeah...calling people 'selfish' for not being on board with Viconia's railroad/character assassination is certainly...a take.
BG 2 writers were 'humoring' you with her character arc and Viconia 'wanted to die' . Just....really?
The knots some people will tie themselves into to excuse the terrible writing around Viconia is truly astonishing.
Her status in BG 3 directly contradicts her BG 2 epilogue in specific ways obviously intended to make her less sympathetic. It's frankly just baffling that anyone can look at an ending where she explicitly is rejected and betrayed by her fellow Sharrans and loses the favor of Shar and comes to the conclusion that 'Viconia was a fanatic and butchered her fellow Sharrans (loyalty and faithfulness emphasized) without a second thought because Shar demanded it, because she lives and breathes for Shar's favor-was a natural and fair interpretation and continuation of the former.
It's literally 'well actually the exact opposite happened'.
And yeah none of this crazy string justification for her portrayal (or Sarevok, for that matter) comes close to addressing that Larian had the option to interpret them in a manner where they were included in a manner like Minsc or Jaheria that was designed to actually be a treat for their fans to see, instead of ...this. They had a choice, and a degree of artistic flexibility available to them that they were willing to exercise, clearly. But *this* is what they chose to go with. The one where S & V are one note fanatics whose character development is thrown out the window, who are narratively set up to be second fiddle to the player and the Origins (I mean hell, according to Minsc, Viconia left the BG II party after being chased off by Boo, of all things, and SH's story basically flat out makes her Vic's replacement, while Durge's makes it very clear that Sarevok is a shadow and a failure of both Orin and Durge.) ...villains whose (strongly encouraged) killing is framed as a cathartic triumph that's celebrated by everyone in your party.
A degree of extrapolation might be expected to include old characters, but for heaven's sake, Vic's portrayal could not be more tailor-fitted to PO her fans if it was a literal hate fic. It's amazing something like this got green lit, IMO.
That's nicely written fanfic, but no, that was not the characterization in BG1 and 2. You obviously didn't like the characters in BG2, so I can hardly take your explanation in good faith.
Yeah...calling people 'selfish' for not being on board with Viconia's railroad/character assassination is certainly...a take.
BG 2 writers were 'humoring' you with her character arc and Viconia 'wanted to die' . Just....really?
The knots some people will tie themselves into to excuse the terrible writing around Viconia is truly astonishing.
Her status in BG 3 directly contradicts her BG 2 epilogue in specific ways obviously intended to make her less sympathetic. It's frankly just baffling that anyone can look at an ending where she explicitly is rejected and betrayed by her fellow Sharrans and loses the favor of Shar and comes to the conclusion that 'Viconia was a fanatic and butchered her fellow Sharrans (loyalty and faithfulness emphasized) without a second thought because Shar demanded it, because she lives and breathes for Shar's favor-was a natural and fair interpretation and continuation of the former.
It's literally 'well actually the exact opposite happened'.
And yeah none of this crazy string justification for her portrayal (or Sarevok, for that matter) comes close to addressing that Larian had the option to interpret them in a manner where they were included in a manner like Minsc or Jaheria that was designed to actually be a treat for their fans to see, instead of ...this. They had a choice, and a degree of artistic flexibility available to them that they were willing to exercise, clearly. But *this* is what they chose to go with. The one where S & V are one note fanatics whose character development is thrown out the window, who are narratively set up to be second fiddle to the player and the Origins (I mean hell, according to Minsc, Viconia left the BG II party after being chased off by Boo, of all things, and SH's story basically flat out makes her Vic's replacement, while Durge's makes it very clear that Sarevok is a shadow and a failure of both Orin and Durge.) ...villains whose (strongly encouraged) killing is framed as a cathartic triumph that's celebrated by everyone in your party.
A degree of extrapolation might be expected to include old characters, but for heaven's sake, Vic's portrayal could not be more tailor-fitted to PO her fans if it was a literal hate fic. It's amazing something like this got green lit, IMO.
My goodness, how dare they not consult you before writing Viconia into the story, what with all your published novels and your clear and deep understanding of writing. Truly a loss for all of us I am sure.
Personally I would have preferred that they had left Vicky out - I think she was too many young boys first sexual video game experience and they never got over it. Probably spent years writing steamy fanfiction about it all - ruining all those socks your dear mother bought you. Then she shows up and she is just some bitter old lady Shar fanatic with a lifetime of regret for her shitty behavior. That's got to be a kick in the ol' yarbles, just ruins all that fantasy.
You know what Viconia is? She is proof that boys (and some gals) will go crazy over a good pair of digital breasts and a sultry voice despite a mountain of red flags surrounding them. She is prepubescent male lust and the arrogance of "I can fix her" writ large.
In THIS story, letting Viconia live is not only cruel to her, but it showcases a lack of conviction on the players part to bring to justice a mass murderer. Doing anything for the sake of sentimentality is how psychopaths and sociopaths operate. Congrats on failing that "good" playthrough. Pft.
Yeah...calling people 'selfish' for not being on board with Viconia's railroad/character assassination is certainly...a take.
BG 2 writers were 'humoring' you with her character arc and Viconia 'wanted to die' . Just....really?
The knots some people will tie themselves into to excuse the terrible writing around Viconia is truly astonishing.
Her status in BG 3 directly contradicts her BG 2 epilogue in specific ways obviously intended to make her less sympathetic. It's frankly just baffling that anyone can look at an ending where she explicitly is rejected and betrayed by her fellow Sharrans and loses the favor of Shar and comes to the conclusion that 'Viconia was a fanatic and butchered her fellow Sharrans (loyalty and faithfulness emphasized) without a second thought because Shar demanded it, because she lives and breathes for Shar's favor-was a natural and fair interpretation and continuation of the former.
It's literally 'well actually the exact opposite happened'.
And yeah none of this crazy string justification for her portrayal (or Sarevok, for that matter) comes close to addressing that Larian had the option to interpret them in a manner where they were included in a manner like Minsc or Jaheria that was designed to actually be a treat for their fans to see, instead of ...this. They had a choice, and a degree of artistic flexibility available to them that they were willing to exercise, clearly. But *this* is what they chose to go with. The one where S & V are one note fanatics whose character development is thrown out the window, who are narratively set up to be second fiddle to the player and the Origins (I mean hell, according to Minsc, Viconia left the BG II party after being chased off by Boo, of all things, and SH's story basically flat out makes her Vic's replacement, while Durge's makes it very clear that Sarevok is a shadow and a failure of both Orin and Durge.) ...villains whose (strongly encouraged) killing is framed as a cathartic triumph that's celebrated by everyone in your party.
A degree of extrapolation might be expected to include old characters, but for heaven's sake, Vic's portrayal could not be more tailor-fitted to PO her fans if it was a literal hate fic. It's amazing something like this got green lit, IMO.
My goodness, how dare they not consult you before writing Viconia into the story, what with all your published novels and your clear and deep understanding of writing. Truly a loss for all of us I am sure.
Personally I would have preferred that they had left Vicky out - I think she was too many young boys first sexual video game experience and they never got over it. Probably spent years writing steamy fanfiction about it all - ruining all those socks your dear mother bought you. Then she shows up and she is just some bitter old lady Shar fanatic with a lifetime of regret for her shitty behavior. That's got to be a kick in the ol' yarbles, just ruins all that fantasy.
You know what Viconia is? She is proof that boys (and some gals) will go crazy over a good pair of digital breasts and a sultry voice despite a mountain of red flags surrounding them. She is prepubescent male lust and the arrogance of "I can fix her" writ large.
In THIS story, letting Viconia live is not only cruel to her, but it showcases a lack of conviction on the players part to bring to justice a mass murderer. Doing anything for the sake of sentimentality is how psychopaths and sociopaths operate. Congrats on failing that "good" playthrough. Pft.
Lmao, so now you're slut shaming Viconia? Well, that explains the venom.
Edit: Also, Viconia in BG2 has no digital breasts.
I'm also a woman who loves Viconia as my female Charname's bff, so weirdly, I can't claim to have been enraptured by her sex appeal.
Lmao, so now you're slut shaming Viconia? Well, that explains the venom.
Where do you see that? Show me the line.
Originally Posted by celestielf
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
snip
That's nicely written fanfic, but no, that was not the characterization in BG1 and 2. You obviously didn't like the characters in BG2, so I can hardly take your explanation in good faith.
Oh no, I loved the character in BG1, 2 and 3 - which is more Bg's than you did apparently. In a sense she is a test of a person's conviction and how far that (superficial) conviction goes.
Your just one of those people that thinks that critical analysis is the same as hate. So sad.
Lmao, so now you're slut shaming Viconia? Well, that explains the venom.
Where do you see that? Show me the line.
"You know what Viconia is? She is proof that boys (and some gals) will go crazy over a good pair of digital breasts and a sultry voice despite a mountain of red flags surrounding them. She is prepubescent male lust and the arrogance of "I can fix her" writ large."
Seems pretty slut shamey to be. Oh no, how dare this female character be written as sexy and morally dark? She must be punished by the narrative for her sins!
Quote
Oh no, I loved the character in BG1, 2 and 3 - which is more Bg's than you did apparently. In a sense she is a test of a person's conviction and how far that (superficial) conviction goes.
Your just one of those people that thinks that critical analysis is the same as hate. So sad.
You're the one complaining about a well written critical analysis that actually integrates writing from BG1 and BG2.
Lmao, so now you're slut shaming Viconia? Well, that explains the venom.
Where do you see that? Show me the line.
"You know what Viconia is? She is proof that boys (and some gals) will go crazy over a good pair of digital breasts and a sultry voice despite a mountain of red flags surrounding them. She is prepubescent male lust and the arrogance of "I can fix her" writ large."
Seems pretty slut shamey to be. Oh no, how dare this female character be written as sexy and morally dark? She must be punished by the narrative for her sins!
That isn't even close to slut shaming. I am criticising the superficial decision-making of prepubescent boys and girls and how they carry those conceptions into adulthood.
Look, this is some more complex stuff so if english isn't your first language I don't want to be overly harsh about your lack of comprehension.
Originally Posted by celestielf
Quote
Oh no, I loved the character in BG1, 2 and 3 - which is more Bg's than you did apparently. In a sense she is a test of a person's conviction and how far that (superficial) conviction goes.
Your just one of those people that thinks that critical analysis is the same as hate. So sad.
You're the one complaining about a well written critical analysis that actually integrates writing from BG1 and BG2.
I actually wasn't. I was providing my own. I didn't even quote the original analysis. Again, if english isn't your first language I want to make sure I am moderating how I respond to you. Let me know.
Oh wow, so now we're not only 'selfish', but we apparently must have never got over prepubescent fixations with her to not agree with you. And both psychopaths and sociopaths to boot, of course. Do go on Freud.
I'll be honest, that's some super uncomfortable fixation and speculation on the sex habits of Viconia's fanbase, btw. Really inappropriate to be going into detail about some strawman fantasy over detractors masturbating over Viconia, I think most people would agree. If you ever actually hoped to convince anyone to come around to your way of seeing things, It's probably fair to say you blew it right there.
You know, considering how vehement you seem to be that anyone who doesn't like the writing for this character must be some sort of obsessive, the fact that you immediately pivoted to insulting everyone who didn't agree with you in every way imaginable shows you might be more than a little fixated yourself. Clearly you don't have any great fondness for the character yourself, so maybe you should reflect on why exactly are you so invested in 'proving' that Larian's way of going about it was the right one I wonder. Like of all things, this is what gets you worked up?
No offense, Blackheifer, but both Viconia and Sarevok are just badly written, especially after previous Baldur's Gate games.
From what I have heard Baldur's Gate novels released by WOTC are just as bad and killed off Jaheira or something, for which they were rightfully mocked.
You come across as someone who only saw one part of the character and gave up on them. It’s the same shit with people killing Laezel or others, because they didn’t immediately like them.
If you replaced both V and S with greater doppelgangers, it would be better overall. Hell, S especially makes no sense, even endings aside. He wanted to take Bhaal's power for himself, when did he become a loyal attack dog for a father figure he hated???
As for Viconia wanting to die... did you even get a single dialogue with her? She rejected Loth, clawed her way out of the coffin and suddenly wants to die because she was turned into a carricature of her own? Just... no. Simply horrible, garbage interpretation of characters to excuse Larian's Terrible writing of these characters.
Oh wow, so now we're not only 'selfish', but we apparently must have never got over prepubescent fixations with her to not agree with you. And both psychopaths and sociopaths to boot, of course. Do go on Freud.
I'll be honest, that's some super uncomfortable fixation and speculation on the sex habits of Viconia's fanbase, btw. Really inappropriate to be going into detail about some strawman fantasy over detractors masturbating over Viconia, I think most people would agree. If you ever actually hoped to convince anyone to come around to your way of seeing things, It's probably fair to say you blew it right there.
You know, considering how vehement you seem to be that anyone who doesn't like the writing for this character must be some sort of obsessive, the fact that you immediately pivoted to insulting everyone who didn't agree with you in every way imaginable shows you might be more than a little fixated yourself. Clearly you don't have any great fondness for the character yourself, so maybe you should reflect on why exactly are you so invested in 'proving' that Larian's way of going about it was the right one I wonder. Like of all things, this is what gets you worked up?
It's a plausible interpretation of characters like Viconia that they are a test of maturity and equanimity. She is written to appeal to certain immature fantasies. But not to worry, people can learn from their mistakes - or so I am told - probably no one HERE but I am sure they exist somewhere.
I am not saying she is any feat of great writing, and I never made that argument. Viconia is a trap for the above stated. I happen to think it's a trap most people fell into and never gained the Wisdom to walk away from.
As for Viconia wanting to die... did you even get a single dialogue with her? She rejected Loth, clawed her way out of the coffin and suddenly wants to die because she was turned into a carricature of her own? Just... no. Simply horrible, garbage interpretation of characters to excuse Larian's Terrible writing of these characters.
Don't assume you understand anything about me. Stop projecting your nonsense onto me.
Viconia doesn't "suddenly" want to die. We are talking about a 100 year span of time here. In that time she just completely isolated herself, she LITERALLY has no one and a head full of garbage memories and no love except what she and Shar have.
She doesn't just want to die, she is too bitter and angry for that - she wants to be defeated.
Oh wow, so now we're not only 'selfish', but we apparently must have never got over prepubescent fixations with her to not agree with you. And both psychopaths and sociopaths to boot, of course. Do go on Freud.
I'll be honest, that's some super uncomfortable fixation and speculation on the sex habits of Viconia's fanbase, btw. Really inappropriate to be going into detail about some strawman fantasy over detractors masturbating over Viconia, I think most people would agree. If you ever actually hoped to convince anyone to come around to your way of seeing things, It's probably fair to say you blew it right there.
You know, considering how vehement you seem to be that anyone who doesn't like the writing for this character must be some sort of obsessive, the fact that you immediately pivoted to insulting everyone who didn't agree with you in every way imaginable shows you might be more than a little fixated yourself. Clearly you don't have any great fondness for the character yourself, so maybe you should reflect on why exactly are you so invested in 'proving' that Larian's way of going about it was the right one I wonder. Like of all things, this is what gets you worked up?
It's a plausible interpretation of characters like Viconia that they are a test of maturity and equanimity. She is written to appeal to certain immature fantasies. But not to worry, people can learn from their mistakes - or so I am told - probably no one HERE but I am sure they exist somewhere.
I am not saying she is any feat of great writing, and I never made that argument. Viconia is a trap for the above stated. I happen to think it's a trap most people fell into and never gained the Wisdom to walk away from.
Do you really not see the irony and hypocrisy of saying this and then right after...
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Don't assume you understand anything about me. Stop projecting your nonsense onto me.
To say this? If not then I would advice everyone else in this thread to just ignore him and continue having a potentially interesting and constructive conversation amongst themselves. I can't speak to any sort of characterization from the original games but the confidence to make that sort of sweeping statement ie not conducive to constructive, enriching conversation.
Oh wow, so now we're not only 'selfish', but we apparently must have never got over prepubescent fixations with her to not agree with you. And both psychopaths and sociopaths to boot, of course. Do go on Freud.
I'll be honest, that's some super uncomfortable fixation and speculation on the sex habits of Viconia's fanbase, btw. Really inappropriate to be going into detail about some strawman fantasy over detractors masturbating over Viconia, I think most people would agree. If you ever actually hoped to convince anyone to come around to your way of seeing things, It's probably fair to say you blew it right there.
You know, considering how vehement you seem to be that anyone who doesn't like the writing for this character must be some sort of obsessive, the fact that you immediately pivoted to insulting everyone who didn't agree with you in every way imaginable shows you might be more than a little fixated yourself. Clearly you don't have any great fondness for the character yourself, so maybe you should reflect on why exactly are you so invested in 'proving' that Larian's way of going about it was the right one I wonder. Like of all things, this is what gets you worked up?
It's a plausible interpretation of characters like Viconia that they are a test of maturity and equanimity. She is written to appeal to certain immature fantasies. But not to worry, people can learn from their mistakes - or so I am told - probably no one HERE but I am sure they exist somewhere.
I am not saying she is any feat of great writing, and I never made that argument. Viconia is a trap for the above stated. I happen to think it's a trap most people fell into and never gained the Wisdom to walk away from.
Do you really not see the irony and hypocrisy of saying this and then right after...
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Don't assume you understand anything about me. Stop projecting your nonsense onto me.
To say this? If not then I would advice everyone else in this thread to just ignore him and continue having a potentially interesting and constructive conversation amongst themselves. I can't speak to any sort of characterization from the original games but the confidence to make that sort of sweeping statement ie not conducive to constructive, enriching conversation.
Try going after the argument and not me. I know it's tempting but do lets at least give it the ol college try. Eh?
Although there really isn't a counter, this entire discussion is predicated on a ridiculous falsehood - that Viconia is fucking King Leer or some shit when she is obviously just simpy male wank fantasy crap.
OH NO, you ruined garbage Larian, how dare you?! What doest thou have to say for thyself.
Don't assume you understand anything about me. Stop projecting your nonsense onto me.
To say this? If not then I would advice everyone else in this thread to just ignore him and continue having a potentially interesting and constructive conversation amongst themselves. I can't speak to any sort of characterization from the original games but the confidence to make that sort of sweeping statement ie not conducive to constructive, enriching conversation.
Yep, agreed, I was about to suggest something similar before mods step in and possibly lock this thread due to too much mud being flung around in all directions.
But on the topic on hand, I do agree with the OP, of all the cameos only Jaheira got any justice. Minsc is too hard to mess up but Viconia and Sarevok... especially Sarevok make no sense at all. Writing wise, especially considering the previous games.
Given Viconia's past she just dooesn't strike me as someone who'd kidnap and torture a child, especially after what she refused to do herself in Lolth's name. And Sarevok and the rampant incest he suddenly took a liking to? And becoming a Bhaal fanatic after wanting to usurp his fathers throne for himself? Ugh.
- a plausible interpretation of characters like Viconia that they are a test of maturity and equanimity. She is written to appeal to certain immature fantasies
- She isn't a feat of great writing to begin with. There is no need to get precious about how Larian decided to go with her.
- Viconia is cruel, selfish, racist, arrogant and a mass murderer.
- Despite this players are convinced (mostly men) that they "can fix her" - because hot.
- This interpretation lays bare the essential trap that Viconia represents.
- That falling for Viconia's manipulation represents a type of personal failure on the part of the player, especially in a "good" playthrough.
- This is especially true given that the nature of the reputation system means that to keep Viconia in the party you can't go above a certain reputation, nor can you associate with certain characters without meta-gaming.
- So association with the trap fantasy requires the player to compromise values.
- People who have fallen for the trap fantasy have displayed hostility to being confronted with it.
- Larian wrote a version of Viconia that takes into account how someone like her will end up, bitter, alone.
- Sarevok is obsessed with murder, power and control. Slaughters his own father, friends, and all his associates. Sends his girlfriend to die.
-Rapes his daughter to produce a granddaughter Bhaalspawn.
- Fans - "OMG, that's going too far for such an honorable person. How dare you Larian!"
Yes, please let’s take it down several notches and stop with the dismissive and patronising attitudes and insulting language. People can have different preferences and takes on the same story, and that’s fine. It’s okay to disagree.
I don’t have time right now to contact the individual posters in this thread to point out what went wrong here. But there are a few folk who perhaps could reflect on how they contributed to the escalation, and on how they can better have constructive discussions with folk with different views.
Blackheifer, I don’t generally like to single individual posters out when they’re not the only one responsible for things getting heated, but I will say that your recommendation to focus on the argument rather than the individual is a good one. But that being rude and dismissive about the quality of the argument, as opposed to engaging constructively with its content, is pretty much inseparable from attacking individuals, and perhaps you could therefore consider how better to follow your own advice?
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
So let's all follow my advice and carry on this discussion without Blackheifer. Its tempting to keep telling him he's wrong, but he won't listen or consider any arguments you present, clearly.
With regard to this topic, I think that Sarevok more than Viconia is an illuminating example. At least with Viconia you could say that she's a worshipper of Shar, it's not crazy she would be broken down and end up at this point eventually. But Sarevok? I know far less about him and his story beyond that he's the bad guy of the first game, but people have made good arguments that him being loyal to Bhaal is not at all a logical direction for him to have gone, since hating Bhaal seemed to have been a major character trait of his. Does he canonically always come back to life or does he only come back if you do certain things?
She is written to appeal to certain immature fantasies
This is sadly a common theme in BG3 and thus probably intended. So unless there is a big shakeup at Larian for whoever writes the story its unlikely to change.
First let me say I still adore BG3, as a crpg fan I’m really, really glad to see a studio is still making crpg with 3A standards in 2023. I think BG3’s art style, soundtrack, voice acting, cutscenes, and gameplay are all phenomenal, it’s absolutely my GOTY before Act III.
However, Viconia and Sarevok’s parts (and some other parts in Act III) totally killed my desire to keep playing and do another playthrough, because I no longer want to treat this world and the characters in it seriously. I also lost the ability to empathize with Shadowheart, for I think her story is totally impossible from the very start. Every time I heard her talking about the “Mother Superior” I felt like there was a huge fly in my mouth, and judging by the players’ feedback, I’m not the only one.
Comparing BG3’s Viconia and Sarevok to their old selves in BG1&2, is like comparing Jaime Lannister in GOT season 8 to him in season 3—from a complex character who’s willing to sacrifice his honor to save all the people in King’s Landing, an oathbreaker full of conflict and tragedy in season 3, to a clown, who would say “I never cared much for them innocent or otherwise”, then was killed meaninglessly by rocks in season 8. It’s not only a huge writing downgrade, it’s character assassination, the characters are completely opposite from their former selves. (If you ever played Divinity Original Sin 2, it’s like you meet Sebille in DOS3, except now she’s a slave master who loves to control others’ minds, and you’re going to kill her with a Walmart discount version of new Sebille.)
For those who haven't played BG1&2, please, let me provide some context. (Spoilers alert)
Let’s talk about Viccy first. Who is Viconia DeVir? She’s a recruitable Drow and a Shar cleric in BG1&2. Her story, especially her romance, is one of the best-written stories in all crpgs, and is still loved and discussed by many till today.
Viconia DeVir, art by Ted Arfken
Though, players probably wouldn’t have a good first impression of Viconia. When you first met her, she was chased by a Flaming Fist, who accused her of committing murder. Despite being an exile from the Underdark, Viconia still had some worst qualities of Lolth Drow. She was Neutral Evil, and could be mean, arrogant, and full of superiority. Viconia liked to judge everyone by Drow standards, and would argue with other companions often.
(Sounds familiar? Yes, Lae’zel. She, Minthara, even Shadowheart and Astarion, all have some qualities of old Viconia in my eyes.)
“Men better than you have walked across lava to kiss a dog who's licked my hand” —BG2 Viconia
“I have been thinking, a little. I have been thinking of the time I have spent with rivvil...the humans...and I have found nothing redeeming or worthwhile in them.” “Hmph. We are meant to find this a revelation, coming from you? It might surprise you to find that most would consider you without redeeming qualities either, drow.” “If I required commentary from you, mongrel, I would tug on your collar or blow a dog whistle to gain your attention. My words were for and alone.” —BG2 Viconia and Jaheira
However, during your adventure with Viconia, you could slowly understand why she choose to be cold and hostile, keeping herself away from everyone. Besides the fact Lolth Drow were born jerks, the world in BG1&2 had treated Viconia very harshly. A Drow outside the Underdark would not only be discriminated against, but be treated as an animal that could be hunted and killed. It’s very normal for humans to loose dogs and arrows when they see a Drow, other Elves would even execute one on sight without questioning. (Recruiting Viconia reduced the party's reputation by 2, some npcs you met would confront you because of Viconia’s identity.) When Viconia left the Underdark, she had to sell her body to a human merchant, for protection and the opportunity to learn common language.
(BG3 has softened the tone a lot in this aspect, most npcs are welcoming and forgiving. It’s now uncommon to see racists and exclusionists, which is good and all, but it’s kinda strange considering the dnd background. I was surprised to know choosing Drow as player’s race would bring the player almost no debuff.)
“The land was strange, and each day I huddled under the terrible open sky, sure that I would be pulled into the vastness of it if I but closed my eyes for an instant......I was sure I would perish, never to see the Underdark again.” —BG2 Viconia
Viconia had lived a very long, very awful homeless life, every time she had the opportunity to settle down, she would be harassed and chased again. After BG1, she purchased a small land on the outskirts, finally enjoyed some normal days, and became a friend with a neighbor farmer.
“......we formed an awkward friendship. He did not ask why I wore my hood, and I slowly began to trust him. He wondered, though...that was obvious. The time to reveal myself as Drow came one late afternoon. A warm day; the sun was dappling along the south quarter of his farmland, and I pulled down my hood. Then he smiled a warm inviting smile.” —BG2 Viconia
The result was predictable. The farmer pretended to invite Viconia into his house, only to knock her out from her back. He then tortured and abused Viconia like an animal with two sons of his, put her into a coffin and buried her alive after they finished. But what they didn’t think of was, Viconia was a Lolth Drow.
“......I could see nothing except for the lid of a coffin. They had buried me alive... a mistake not to kill me outright. The fools knew the name 'Drow', but were ignorant of my true spirit.” —BG2 Viconia
In madness and hatred, Viconia clawed through the coffin and dirt (Astarion: wow), then had her revenge, but was wanted again afterward. This incident also caused her PTSD over trusting others, and she retracted herself back into the thick shell she built.
“I am drow. And I let myself be lulled, foolishly. The vengeance was bitter, because my own stupidity had made it necessary.” ——BG2 Viconina
But if the player dug hard enough, you could open Viconia’s shell a bit, and see the conscience and soft part inside. Slowly, Viconia would change herself because of you, she would soften her attitude towards the surface world and people in it, little by little, and start to care for other companions, although it’s by a Drow’s standard.
“I have acted...poorly towards you. I...I wish to apologize. Make fun if you wish, but you...did not deserve my insults. You are the only surfacer who has treated me fairly, and not demanded something in return. You...you are not too bad to travel with. For a lowly male, that is.” ——BG2 Viconia
“I have not been on the surface for all that long. Sometimes I forget that things here are different from the world I once knew. I have toyed with your feelings unfairly, placing you down with the other males I have known...and you have not been like them. It was...wrong of me.” ——BG2 Viconia
Over time, Viconia became open to you and shared the story behind her exile from the Underdark. Her family served Lolth, but during a sacrifice, Viconia refused to kill a child, which angered Lolth and sparked a war between House DeVir and other small families. Viconia’s mother attempted to sacrifice her daughter to win back Lolth’s favor, it was Viconia’s brother who saved her, he killed their mother and released Viconia.
“......I was overwhelmed, dragged to the temple, and splayed across the altar in preparation for the priestesses to take my life. I was frightened...terrified, in fact. I would have died, in fact, were it not for...if it were not for my brother. My poor, foolish brother. Valas...” —BG2 Viconia
Lolth Drow lived in a total matriarchal society, males had no other use beyond being slaves, breeding tools, and oblations. And killing a female master was the ultimate act of rebellion for a male Drow. For that, Lolth turned Valas into a “Drider”, a half-spider half-Drow creature (remember the spider bro with lamp in Act II? Yeah just like that, except Larian made him too handsome), with no mind nor memory left, only pure malice and base instinct. Viconia always had guilt for her brother because of this, plus deep fear for Lolth.
“......I have seen her power, what she does to those who fall from grace......She will...will leave me to think I am safe or free and then she will come for me. I...I dream of Valas, sometimes, and I try to speak to him in my dreams. But he is only a monster, now, and I scream when his horrid spider legs caress me... I think...what can Lolth do to me if she has done this to Valas? What worse torments await me when she finally decides to come?” —BG2 Viconia
“If you would...if you would please sit with me for a moment, I would be thankful. I find myself uncharacteristically overcome with anxiety and I am not...eager...to be alone for the evening.” —BG2 Viconia
Viconia was the most difficult one to romance in BG1&2, her romance was long and detailed, but had very little room for mistakes. After a certain scene, she would start to throw temper tantrums and find all the excuses she could to break up with you. This is due to her clumsy avoidant personality, trust and intimate relationship were all foreign concepts to her, in Viconia’s mind, they were associated with danger, betrayal, and death. She also feared that the violence over Drow in the surface world and Lolth’s punishment would eventually impact you as well. After the player’s party encountered Lolth’s gated assassin, Viconia would even lie to you, reducing herself to the lowest Drow in your heart, to push you away from her, from danger.
“You wish to know of me? You wish to learn what I am like? I shall tell you the truth of it, then. I have lied to you, lies upon lies. My tale of the farmer in Beregost? A lie. I laid with him many times, seducing him to get the things I needed. It was his wife and townsfolk that drove me out. Like a succubus I have whored my way to Amn, taking what favors I could gather through sweat and passion. I earned passage with tongue and moans, with more males than you can count. And you are nothing compared to them. Any of them. So, then. What do you think of that, ? What do you think of me now?” —BG2 Viconia
“I am telling you that I have had rivvil by the dozens, that I allowed their saliva to cover me, allowed them to use me for their pleasures! And I enjoyed it!! I am a creature of dark lusts, you fool! Why are you not disgusted by this?! Turn away from me, spit on me and curse my name, I command you!!” —BG2 Viconia
If you choose to believe her lies, or couldn’t stand her unreasonable behaviors, she would end the relationship with you, in tears but in relief. The player needed to use many tricks, such as pretending to be angry and acting ignorant, to persuade her to stay by your side. In the end, Viconia would drop her facade and embrace her true feelings, then accompany you to the Throne of Bhaal.
“(sigh) I...I cast my white flag before you. I can struggle no more. You have...you have defeated me.....I do not know what it is about you, but I opened up to you...I let you inside with honesty and candor. I am not used to such. Trust is death. I have been betrayed again and again, and yet I began to trust in you. I...I could not allow it to happen. I was confused, I tried to drive you away. But you saw through my deception...I owe you...so much. You are safe harbor in a storm of terrifying power. I begin to feel that I need you...and this enthralls me and enrages me all at once... If you will have me, I shall not push you away again.” —BG2 Viconia
What are the cornerstones of Viconia? I can illuminate three: the longing and guilt for her brother, the compassion for outcasts/hatred for oppressors, and the tough spirit that keeps her defying her god even when she’s in fear. Her story was a story of escaping from persecution and fate, she was defined by her rebellious action against her born identity and the lifetime suffering it brought her. Viconia served Shar as the Dark Lady offered shelter for outcasts like her who were abandoned by the world, but she’s the Shadowheart who saves her parents in the end without hesitation, willing to bear the pain for the rest of her life.
Viconia had two endings in the original games. In the default ending, she would find a small Shar cult in Waterdeep, only to wipe all members out when they schemed to betray and kill her, shrugging off the chastisement of her goddess. Viconia then began her own adventures, she once assisted Drizzt in saving the elven city of Suldanessalar from a Zhentarim plot, for which she received the highest honor of the Seldarine from Queen Ellesime. She took her leave after that and was lost to history. Her romance ending has more tragedy in it, in which she had a family and a son with the player after they decided to settle down, she also became True Neutral. However fate caught up to her, Viconia was killed by Lolth’s assassin one day, but in her final years, she finally lived the life she always wanted, peaceful and without fear.
“Tell me...has there ever been anyone special to you? Never a special one who awaited her hero's return? The idea has value. I myself hope to retire to a home that doesn't change by the day.” —BG2 Viconia
Now, let’s take a look at BG3’s Viconia.
“You became my mission. To take a child of Selune's, and turn her over to Lady Shar. To show all light fades, and darkness will prevail in the end.” —BG3 Viconia
Turns out Viconia was the sole reason for Shadowheart’s broken family and decades of suffering. Such wow. Remember how she refused to sacrifice a child to Lolth, bearing the exile and the pain her action caused? Forget it, now she’s a professional child kidnapper, she abducted many children, abused and brainwashed them, she even had a 24/7 torture room, full of bones, blood, and gore. Remember how she resented Lolth for what she did to her brother, how she couldn’t help but missed and felt guilty for him? Great, now she also imprisoned children’s parents and relatives, tortured them, made them suffer the eternal torment her brother suffered, she would even let kids do her job sometimes. Why did she do all these, you ask? Remember even when she was dragged to the sacrifice altar, in fear and about to be killed, she still chose to defy and curse Lolth’s name?
“Lady Shar commanded me. And I obeyed. I do not question - I merely act as she wills me to.” —BG3 Viconia
The writer even had the audacity to retcon one of Viconia’s endings, saying how she wiped out the Shar cult was not a rebellious act, but a super smart big brain move to prove she’s the bestest cruelest Shar cultist of all time. I can’t even describe the disgusted feeling after I completed Shadowheart’s storyline. This “Viconia” shares no common point with any version of true Viconia, I even suspected she was one of Orin’s changelings when I met her. A once complex character, who was flawed but had many heroine’s, even motherly qualities, now was reduced to an almost laughable villain of the week, with a vile mustache and no depth.
The writer who wrote this part, were you on drugs? Were you fucking high? I was even impressed because even if you threw your ink bottle on your drafts, the character won’t be this completely 180.
Someone may say, oh but she was indeed Evil, so it’s natural for her to take this path, right? Stop, just stop. Not all evil characters are the same character, and not all evil characters are fanatic villains of the week. Except for those who have real brain damage, every evil character still has their inner logic, their malice needs a direction, and the direction is decided by their motives and life stories. Even an evil version of Viconia would never be a brainless fanatic who abused children, her experiences decide her malice will always be towards gods/oppressors. An evil version of her could be a woman who’s drawn to blood and vengeance, who’s eager to slaughter all the abusers, not to join the oppressors, become a braindead tool of them, and make more outcasts. (And I don’t understand, why the writer had to make her evil?)
Some others may say, oh maybe she’s brainwashed too, you see, her memory was in Mirror of Loss. Stop again. That explanation is not nearly enough. Imagine all your past adventures and memories were thrown into the garbage can by one line. No, we need a longer, more detailed, and more believable explanation. If it was Viconia who chose to look into Mirror of Loss, why? If she was forced to, by whom? Most importantly, players need a way to change her back. Using Mirror of Loss as an excuse is like saying Karlach becomes a demon boss in BG4, who slaughters and tortures people for fun, and the reason is simply her head was hit by a wagon after BG3.
And no, old characters’ words—Jaheira will talk about Viconia is not as bad as she appears (Minsc’s comments on her though, is just like how the writer wrote her in BG3, full of unreasonable spite, make no sense)—can’t save the narrative, either. Actually, they make things worse, because they imply that players’ past adventures and memories with Viconia do exist, but none of them count now, and Viconia was murdered by players’ own hands. And you’re telling me, Jaheira and Minsc, these two who have accompanied Viconia to the Throne of Bhaal, experienced countless things with her, good or bad, have that little to say when they met?
There’s a rumor that it was WotC’s decision to write the characters this way, despite I didn’t find any evidence (all writers of BG3 on imdb are not from WotC), I think it’s possible. WotC has the copyrights, after all, and they’re well-known clowns (their official Baldur’s Gate novels were so bad that they were mocked by everyone for years). But what I don’t understand is, as far as I know, Jaheira and Minsc in BG3 all differ significantly from themselves in WotC canon (Minsc even poked fun at his hair in WotC canon in his dialogue), so why do Viconia and Sarevok have to be this out of character? Maybe the writer thought letting them be evil could make players from old games easier to kill them, no, this is pure delusion, what becomes easier to kill is the desire to continue playing the game.
So, how to improve Viconia in BG3? Here are some suggestions from an amateur: Delete Shadowheart’s parents, replace them with Viconia. I think Shadowheart’s parents are currently in an awkward position, they don’t have good character arcs or interesting characteristics, and don’t even provide new information or context. Players don’t know them, and to be honest, Shadowheart doesn’t know them either, not really. They’re just tools the writer uses to give players an illusion of weight. I found it difficult to care for two strangers that suddenly appeared in front of me. I could only try to comprehend the writer’s intentions rationally, but couldn’t really empathize with Shadowheart. Why not use Viconia then?
Hear this: Shadowheart and her parents were still former Selune followers, except Shadowheart was a real orphan this time, who was adopted by Viconia after her parents’ passing. Viconia saw her past self in Shadowheart, she raised her with strict but loving guidance, teaching her everything she knew. Slowly, a bond was formed between them. Shar was pleased as well, she saw huge potential in this Selune’s child and wanted to make her a Dark Justiciar. However Viconia, because of her own experiences and bias, disagreed, she didn’t want Shadowheart to lose herself and all the memories, only to become a tool of goddess.
Wouldn’t this be more intriguing? Now there are two conflicts the writer can explore, one is the dynamic between Shadowheart and Viconia, how would Shadowheart see her dear mother, when she believed in the goddess that killed her parents? The second is the growing tension between Viconia and Shar.
One day, Shar decided to skip Viconia and “adjust” Shadowheart by herself, which of course, was defied by Viccy. The beauty of this is she now became just like Valas, her brother, who defended his family from another goddess. And just like her brother, Viconia was captured and tortured by Shar, and Shadowheart was forced to look into Mirror of Loss, then was given the mission to find the artefact. When the player meets her, she only has faith in Shar, besides some vague memories for Mother Superior, which sometimes leaves her sad and confused during the adventure.
At the end, the choice Shadowheart needs to make is: 1. Defy Shar, endure the pain for the rest of her life, but save her mother. 2. Embrace darkness, kill her mother, become a true Dark Justiciar and the new Mother Superior. 3. Allow the hate and anger—that her parents were killed by Shar followers—to consume her. Defy Shar and also kill her mother, cut ties with darkness and “return to the light”, but become a worse person. (This moment should not happen in Act II, in front of Nightsong, an npc she knew nothing about, it’s too soon and lacks weight.)
Okay, enough fanfiction. But isn’t this better than what we got? By doing this, the writer pays respect to the old character, in the meantime they make players from old games care about Shadowheart more. It’s the daughter of Viconia for god sake, who could leave her in the camp?
I also want to talk a bit about Shadowheart. Her quest is called “Daughter of Darkness”, but she is not dark, not at all, I think “Daughter of Darkness except the writer kinda forgot about the Dark part” suits her better. The writer took almost every opportunity to move Shadowheart away from dark, even in Act I, there were too many hints that she was misled, brainwashed, deceived...she was the victim who always wanted light. Which is related to how gods are portrayed in BG3. I think BG3’s gods, or in fact, goddesses, are all poorly written. For example, Selune and Shar, Shar is the big baddie, she cursed people and lands, her followers are all lunatics who like murder, torture, and brainwashing, she’s also very petty, oh boy you better hope you never meet her; Selune is the big goodie, she protects people and has a gentle heart, her followers are all cool, pretty and handsome, she is the walking epitome of blessing.
This oversimplified black-and-white writing in my opinion is not only boring, but also hurts the narrative. It makes Shadowheart’s choice about whether to turn to darkness actually become no choice at all, she has no reason to, and the player can’t find any believable motives for her either. The choice becomes nothing more than an option only for players’ curiosity: oh I want to see what an evil Shadowheart looks like.
But Shar and Selune are two sides of the same coin. Yes, Shar is indeed the goddess of darkness and loss, but darkness has a gentle side as well. For the outcasts who are abandoned by the world, darkness is the only place that allows them to stay (this is the reason why Viconia served Shar in the first place). Why not make Shar a stubborn but honest goddess, who truly believes that darkness and loss are blessings she could give to humans, instead of the petty cartoon villain we got. And Selune has a ruthless, unforgiving side (like how Aylin beat the old man into a pulp) . Won’t this be more interesting? Do you know for how many people in dnd background, the ability to forget is a real blessing? Put some important npcs like that in the game, show us how they’re truly helped by Shar, won’t that make Shadowheart’s choice at the end have more weight? Don’t just place some hollows in front of the house and call it a day, where am I, Northern Undead Asylum?
What I want to see at the end of Shadowheart's storyline is a conversation about faith between her and Viconia, two real "Daughters of Darkness," with the player or even with Shar. Viconia can tell Shadowheart the disagreements between her and Shar, what kind of a jerk Shar is, but she did accept her when no one else would, saved her and brought her peace in the past. Shar can explain to Shadowheart what love and acceptance mean in her eyes. Not the “light is good, dark is bad, I spit on your face, goodbye” we got right now. The philosophical discussions about Dark and Light Shadowheart could offer would also be very interesting because of her identity. But we got none of those in the game. So many missed opportunities, even Divinity Original Sin 2 did a much better job in this aspect.
(Although to be honest, this is not all Larian’s fault. At this point, badly written evil gods is already a kind of tradition of dnd.)
Last but no least, make Viconia recruitable. Please, many players have waited for this for 20 years.
Okay, enough Viccy. Let’s talk about good old Sarevok. Same as Viconia, BG3’s Sarevok is nothing like his old self.
Sarevok Anchev, art by CG-Zander
Sarevok Anchev, the main antagonist of BG1 and the player's brother, was a Bhaalspawn. He was ruthless, once orchestrated a war that could kill thousands, but make no mistake, he was the most unlikely candidate of a Bhaal follower. What he wanted was to replace Bhaal and become the new Lord of Murder, like Bhaal once did. Actually he didn’t give a shit about Bhaal, Bhaal was just the stepping stone for him to achieve his ambitions, one could even say Sarevok was hostile towards Bhaal.
“I orchestrated a war to slaughter thousands. I have felt the cold embrace of death. I have witnessed the horrors of the Abyss.” —BG2 Sarevok
“When Bhaal held sway over my soul, I reveled in the bloody carnage I wrought. But my will was not my own......I will not surrender my being to the whims of another again...be they god or other.” —BG2 Sarevok
The player could resurrect Sarevok in BG2. As your brother and reverse side, Sarevok offered many memorable dialogues about morality, fate, and death. The quality of his story made him one of the most popular companions in BG2, despite his rather brief appearance.
Now, what did this experienced conspirator, who came back from death do in BG3? He became a puppy dog, sorry, “judge” for Bhaal, repeating “All I did was for Bhaal”. Not only that, he taught his daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, to also worship Bhaal. (I don’t understand, since when Bhaal became this top-grade god that everyone wants a piece of him?) The ultimate judgment Sarevok—the man who once waged war—gave the player is to let you kill a flying elephant. You got me there writer, I chuckled, this is one of the best jokes in 2023. Sometimes I wonder if the writer has a kink, a fetish for fanatics who have brain damage, that they had to write characters like these to get high.
So, how to improve Sarevok? I think it’s rather simple: Make him a powerful secret boss, but also recruitable. Bring him to see Orin. Let him use his own experience to scold his granddaughter that Bhaal is actually a clown god, and she’ll become a bigger clown if she gives all herself to him. And that’s one interesting conflict, how Orin would react to this grandfather that she admired deeply? I think Sarevok might be even a bit proud if Orin has the ambition to replace Bhaal, like he once did. But “all I did was for Bhaal”? What a disappointing GenZ child.
Last, if it’s really WotC’s idea to write these two characters this way and Larian has no other choice (I highly doubt that though), I have one more cheap idea: make these two characters fake ones. Viconia is actually a changeling, who once heard about real Viconia’s story and wanted to use her name to control a Shar cult, you know, like the Redcap in Underdark? And the “Sarevok” was put together by Bhaal cultists using some cheap soul pieces and weird rituals, but since they’re not very smart nor did they meet the real Sarevok, they could only make this clown, this pretender, who would only repeat “All hail Bhaal”. You can call him “the shadow of Sarevok” or something like that.
You know what’s better? Delete these two characters if you’re not going to rewrite them. Trust me Larian, the absence of old popular characters causes far less damage than ruining them. Not to mention even if these two characters are not called “Viconia” and “Sarevok”, as Act III villains they’re still very lackluster. I can understand you want to connect new characters with old ones, but this is not passing the torch, this is torching the past.
Rant over. I don’t know how many people are going to read this article, so this is more like self-therapy. I want to love Baldur’s Gate 3 more, I really do, even at its current state, that whole Act III feels like another Early Access, I still think it’s worthwhile to do multiple playthroughs. Sadly Larian didn’t give me the chance, but I hope they do in the future. And to those who have read this far, sincerely, thank you.
Personally, I have preferred not to think about this because it makes me angry. It seems to me that what they have done with Sarevok and Viconia in this game has been an insult, and a show of total contempt for the BG1 and BG2 players who follow the stories of both characters. but for me it was almost insulting the characters they added to the Enhanced edition and the interactions with the original characters in both games. It's sad but I wasn't surprised by what they did with Viconia and Sarevok.
[size:14pt]First let me say I still adore BG3, as a crpg fan I’m really, really glad to see a studio is still making crpg with 3A standards in 2023. I think BG3’s art style, soundtrack, voice acting, cutscenes, and gameplay are all phenomenal, it’s absolutely my GOTY before Act III.
“You became my mission. To take a child of Selune's, and turn her over to Lady Shar. To show all light fades, and darkness will prevail in the end.” —BG3 Viconia[/font]
Turns out Viconia was the sole reason for Shadowheart’s broken family and decades of suffering. Such wow. Remember how she refused to sacrifice a child to Lolth, bearing the exile and the pain her action caused? Forget it, now she’s a professional child kidnapper, she abducted many children, abused and brainwashed them, she even had a 24/7 torture room, full of bones, blood, and gore. Remember how she resented Lolth for what she did to her brother, how she couldn’t help but missed and felt guilty for him? Great, now she also imprisoned children’s parents and relatives, tortured them, made them suffer the eternal torment her brother suffered, she would even let kids do her job sometimes. Why did she do all these, you ask? Remember even when she was dragged to the sacrifice altar, in fear and about to be killed, she still chose to defy and curse Lolth’s name?
“Lady Shar commanded me. And I obeyed. I do not question - I merely act as she wills me to.” —BG3 Viconia
The writer even had the audacity to retcon one of Viconia’s endings, saying how she wiped out the Shar cult was not a rebellious act, but a super smart big brain move to prove she’s the bestest cruelest Shar cultist of all time. I can’t even describe the disgusted feeling after I completed Shadowheart’s storyline. This “Viconia” shares no common point with any version of true Viconia, I even suspected she was one of Orin’s changelings when I met her. A once complex character, who was flawed but had many heroine’s, even motherly qualities, now was reduced to an almost laughable villain of the week, with a vile mustache and no depth.
The writer who wrote this part, were you on drugs? Were you fucking high? I was even impressed because even if you threw your ink bottle on your drafts, the character won’t be this completely 180.
I mean, it's almost like Shar is the kind of Goddess that manipulates and isolates her followers until she is all they have and then takes perverse delight in getting them to compromise whatever values they might have still had.
Also Viconia would never assess her targets, then lie to manipulate them, right?
Tywin Lannister's most insightful line about Cersei Lannister is this "She makes honest feelings do dishonest work"
Viconia is a liar, don't believe anything she says. She sees you as lesser and has no compunction about lying to you. She gets you to compromise your values over and over again just to "be with her" - starting with the murder of a Flaming Fist officer.
I think by this point it is apparent that each of us has different ideas of what Viconia should or shouldn't be, which in turn means, there is no single solutions for all the problems that has been written here.
Larian made one solution: Viconia is evil, BG2 development seems like never happened (OP confirmed that including the development in previous game to this game would be good but it wasn't their point, yet seems to be troubled when the development isn't fitting to what "Viconia" means to them).
I think the problem is that Viconia is not treated like Minsc and Jaheira. And I think WOTC has something to do with it considered they are the one who enforced the "canon" version of the story of which Viconia never romanced (so she likely never become a TN character) thus making her "character development" (the character development, most of the players like, I assume) never happened.
If it up to me I will not remove Viconia, instead she should be able to join our camp or better yet, our party, in similar fashion of that Minsc and Jaheira. Only then the complain would be clear that it wasn't actually that Viconia is "badly written", it's "not written as I would like it".
I think by this point it is apparent that each of us has different ideas of what Viconia should or shouldn't be, which in turn means, there is no single solutions for all the problems that has been written here.
Larian made one solution: Viconia is evil, BG2 development seems like never happened (OP confirmed that including the development in previous game to this game would be good but it wasn't their point, yet seems to be troubled when the development isn't fitting to what "Viconia" means to them).
I think the problem is that Viconia is not treated like Minsc and Jaheira. And I think WOTC has something to do with it considered they are the one who enforced the "canon" version of the story of which Viconia never romanced (so she likely never become a TN character) thus making her "character development" (the character development, most of the players like, I assume) never happened.
If it up to me I will not remove Viconia, instead she should be able to join our camp or better yet, our party, in similar fashion of that Minsc and Jaheira. Only then the complain would be clear that it wasn't actually that Viconia is "badly written", it's "not written as I would like it".
This is probably correct. IF WOTC had an idea or notes on who Viconia was canonically then Larian was probably obliged to follow that contractually.
Although I don't think Viconia would work as a companion in an evil playthrough given that you already have a Dark Juicy cleric of Shar, AND a Drow Vengeance Paladin, it would be another Halsin situation - where he is just tacked on fan service with no real role to play in Act 3.
Viconia is and always was a side character - despite people attributing additional weight to her role. She just wasn't as important as Minsc or Jaheira. Although obviously if you play an evil path in Bg1 and 2 she is really one of the strongest companions to have, otherwise most people would have chosen Branwen.
And of course you can romance her, if you like that sort of thing. Keep in mind you can also romance Aerie, Jaheira, Dorn, Anomen, Hexxat, Rasaad and Neera - depending on gender. So technically Viconia is as important as Neera...who is noticeably absent from Bg3.
Does he canonically always come back to life or does he only come back if you do certain things?
Always, first 10minutes into Throne of Bhaal he is brought back and you can only do one thing: bring him back via sacrificing a miniscule part of your Bhaalspawn essence to do that, or have Imoen do it (she volunteers too). He is brought back as a some sort ghostly being (which is why his portrait in game has shining eyes and a glow around his whole person). Thing is, you canonically have no choice but to bring him back cause he holds vital information to you and he is basically sort of blackmailing you: "bring me back and I will tell you what you need to know, but if you refuse, I go na na na". Then the next choice is: do you keep him around (as a companion) or tell him to fuck off, so he literally just disappears from the game entirely.
And I think Larian went the 'fuck off' route with him. Abdel Adrian(the 'canon' Gorion's Ward from the books) had him stick around for a bit.
That Flaming Fist dude was going to die and get stripped of his half-plate regardless! hehe
Nobody had to be manipulated on that score. We'd have done it anyway for our own reasons. Didn't need Shar to back our play on that, though if that's what Viconia wants to think, sure.
Recruitment into the fold is the solution for Viconia, so we can get some hot takes and some call backs, and then ignore whatever isn't working for us in the setup by just taking over the reigns there. Her rework in BG2 with the knock-off portrait and the romance there is perhaps muddying the waters, but BG1 Viconia was still a fav. She could have just as easily been 'random female drow in Peldvale' whose name nobody remembers, but instead she becomes the most iconic Drow of the Forgotten Realms in cRPG. Literally knocking off Drizzt for the top spot lol. Of course his Mithril is going to Shar-Teel for the backstabber boost, since Viconia is already comfy in her Angkeg plate. Faldorn and Imoen can argue over who gets which Scimitar, doubtless, but there's no denying who stole his laurel for top Drow after that. BG2 Viconia was also great though! She was along for the ride in both games, from the Bandit Camp to the Throne, so if she's coming back for round 3, then lets see her back for real. In this case "for real" means in the party.
Also, I don't think we should speak of the characters from the Enhanced Editions or bring them into it. Those EEs are pretty much the BG equivalent of SW Special Editions, running roughshod over people's happy memories. Just that exact sort of thing, but carried over into a BG context, and probably what BG3 should be trying to avoid with their callbacks. There's nothing conspicuous about Neera's absence from BG3 lol. That character didn't even exist until 2012! She has nothing to do with any of my memories of these games. Not to grumble about Beamdog's efforts overmuch, but if that's the rationale for anything happening here, no thanks hehe. Just like the SW gold laser disc ports that you can't even buy for 200 bucks on ebay anymore, now I'm stuck with these EEs. Trading the OGs for the reduxes? Of course I bought those reboots too, like everybody, and they're fine for what they are, except that now on Steam I have to jump through a bunch of extra hoops to Un-Enhance, and get back to my 4K-98 vibe on that hehe. Massive digression, lets definitely not ramble on about Star Wars, or I'll never get to bed. I'll admit to caring somewhat less about Sarevok, cause he was not in the Party until ToB, but that said he sort of made that Expansion and was one of the main draws there.
ps. just to be clear, and not to ruffle any extra feathers, I actually enjoyed the EE characters. Neera and Dorn, or Hexxat in the BG2 EE, they're fun and they fill a niche. They also sorta ruin the pacing of the originals if you engage with them as presented, at the points when they come into the story. So this isn't a situation where I disliked the characters, cause I liked em as a form of bonus feature, or an excuse to replay the same game again for the 500th time lol. It really only becomes problematic over time, when the directors' editions replace the blockbuster that everyone fell in love with in the first place. The first time around. Just like Star Wars the Motion picture. In both cases, they could have easily avoided bitter feelings by simply ensuring that the original was preserved and still accessible in a modern format. BG3 is not going to have this problem, because it's not a redux. Even for as reboot-y as it is in some respects, it's its own thing with it's own moment in time. Part of the disconnect between EA and Full Release or patch to rehash from update to update once it's out there in the world, may be coming into BG3 as well now though, even just with reference to only itself and not the prior games. Here's another pithy Nietzsche quote - one that wasn't re-used in BG3, but which is always apt... hehe
Quote
"Some people throw a bit of their personality after their bad arguments, as if that might straighten their paths and turn them into right and good arguments-just as a man in a bowling alley, after he has let go of the ball, still tries to direct it with gestures."
He always has great insight on things like regret! I'm sure I do the same all the time hehe. Of course that's the version of that quote which lives on the internet now, in English translation. Maybe it sounds cooler in the German dub? lol It's probably from human all too human, or maybe a Kaufmann rip from the notebooks? I can't even remember anymore, cause that's sorta what happens. You go for the ready version, whatever's still in print. But it's one thing when the bad argument is "Lets remake it, Again!" and another once it's already remade and lives out here in the world. Trying to go back for the do-over is kinda ill advised sometimes, but they already went there. We already have Viconia and Sarevok. Like they're already in the game right.
So now it's more about how can they do the course correct and gesticulate in the right ways to avoid the gutter and knock down a couple more pins if they can, while also not removing what's available in the current. I think they can add, but it has to branch off what already exists in game, and preserve that probably along one of the default paths.
Does he canonically always come back to life or does he only come back if you do certain things?
Always, first 10minutes into Throne of Bhaal he is brought back and you can only do one thing: bring him back via sacrificing a miniscule part of your Bhaalspawn essence to do that, or have Imoen do it (she volunteers too). He is brought back as a some sort ghostly being (which is why his portrait in game has shining eyes and a glow around his whole person). Thing is, you canonically have no choice but to bring him back cause he holds vital information to you and he is basically sort of blackmailing you: "bring me back and I will tell you what you need to know, but if you refuse, I go na na na". Then the next choice is: do you keep him around (as a companion) or tell him to fuck off, so he literally just disappears from the game entirely.
And I think Larian went the 'fuck off' route with him. Abdel Adrian(the 'canon' Gorion's Ward from the books) had him stick around for a bit.
There are still some inconsistencies even if Sarevok doesn't join Charname or change alignment. In ToB he desperately wants to be resurrected ("You do not fear death? You should. I know what it is like. I had to scratch, claw, and plead my way back into the land of the living."), while in BG3 his diary says something along the lines of "I was cruelly resurrected against my will" (can't find the exact text right now but it's in the Temple of Bhaal).
When talking to Viconia in ToB he says "When Bhaal held sway over my soul, I reveled in the bloody carnage I wrought. But my will was not my own. As captivating as your dominance might be, Viconia, I will not surrender my being to the whims of another again... be they god or drow" and calls Bhaal a fool. Hardly a zealous follower.
There are explanations for how he would end up like that in BG3, I guess, but it's quite anticlimatic regardless of his potential alignment change. But then again I'm only taking BG1/BG2 into consideration, I'm trying to ignore whatever WotD canonized later. Like others already said it would have been easier if he was called "Echo of Sarevok" like the others, a ghost of only the parts of him that Bhaal knew and had control over.
Yeah Sarevok in ToB has almost all the clutch lines, and regardless of party comp coming out of SoA it made sense to free him, because he was a vehicle for the story delivery at that point. But importantly, it wasn't like he just had another Death scene for that, like the Kurgan part 2 and a half: the Quickening lol, he actually came along for the ride.
It's the main thing I think. Once the character is along for the ride all the other things come back into play. The bark quality, the banter, the sick burns - all that stuff. Even down to the mechanical stuff like like party comp/rep/itemization.
I'm of several minds for how they could do it with Viconia. I can see at least 3 paths on that just going off first branch prompts. Different options if Jaheira and MInsc are in the party to push a couple directions based on our inputs in convo. Maybe 1 sequence is the default current, another has us trading Shadowheart for Viconia in which case she becomes a foil and screws us over for that in the end, a third where we have both Shadowheart and Viconia and face Lolth where Viconia goes down swinging but on our team instead of against us. Something like that, just get her in there with like 3 or maybe 4 angles on the Why of it all.
Bringing that other franchise into it, I think we can make allowances for Cersei fans too right? hehe. I mean say what we will about the third book or the fourth book's POV, but Lena Headey still kinda inhabited the role and elevated it I think in the VA mocap version. Also, cause of course I was also a little disappointed that she didn't get to keep fighting terminators for endless seasons hehe. But like didn't Martin screenwrite for Beauty and the Beast with Linda Hamilton too way back when? So it kinda all makes sense in a weird way! lol
One can only imagine if he was just like the actual screenwriter for the screenplays, though I guess I can understand why he wouldn't really be all about that at that point. Still funny to think about. If the comparison with Viconia holds, probably would be like how much one enjoyed watching that sept get blow'd up in live action before it sorta goes off the rails. That montage was clutch though, and she carried it well. Games are curious cause even though they're not cinema, they are becoming ever more reliant on the cinemascope for story delivery. In that respect I think the analogy may still be fruitful. Usually the creator director is going to be way more irreverent than the fans. Like they'll do things that are probably funny in-house or which make sense to them, but then the fandoms have different feelings on whatever is near and dear. It's a hard thread to needle I'm sure lol. Still they pulled it off rather well with Jaheira, so I would like very much to see the same with Viconia.
Also, as an aside, I think it was a bit of a miss that Minsc recruitment would be tied only to Jaheira, when a Viconia option might also have been possible for that. Her angle would of course be more self serving, but it would get you another path towards party recruitment, which again, I think is the single most important thing.
Sarevok would also be fun, since by the time you meet him, along a certain path, there's a real good chance you might be down a couple companions.
I think bringing Viconia or Sarevok into the party in any respect would be the worst thing Larian xould do. Its already clear thag Larian included them in this game without any real point to their inclusion. Unlike Jaheira and to a lesser extent Minsc, they have no point in the story, not one that is worthy of their status and past in the series. We've already seen with Halsin what happens when they try and force in characters for fan demand. The best thing to do would be to remove them outright. Forcing characters who don't ha a purpose in a story to occupy even more space within that story is a recipe for disappointment.
Also I don't for a moment think wotc had anything to do with this. Clearly Larian was not meaningfully beholden to anything.
I'd have to concede, that though this is the story section, my primary reason for wanting to see the character recruited into the party has more to do with the gameplay of the game, than the story of the game, if that makes sense.
I think I will likely be disappointed, perhaps ultimately needing mods to give me what I wanted from this game in that particular, but still I can imagine many ways where I would just completely let it slide, because I think the game needs more companions. Since these characters are already here, and already part of the story, whether pointed or not. It just seems like the sort of thing that could be done better when Charname/Tav/Durge is at the helm on this score and where they get a proper send off. In the same way the other two characters got a nice treatment. Or the doppelganger thing I suppose, but then we'd get no extra companion that way, which I think would be a miss. Too few companions I think also plays into this wish.
ps. Just her whole outro story for her in BG2, that one had some after-the-fact bowling in it too hehe. She's been changed a slight bit time and again, but then she was also kinda the same tune, with the bark still on it. That was consistent at least. I think it all works, if they'd just branch it enough and keep the focus on that sort of stuff, which lends itself to the gameplay stuff. The story I can suss out for myself while playing. One of the cool promises, never quite delivered on in BG1, was that somehow all those choices would feed on into the next one. BG3 has the same challenges as BG2 did relative to BG1, but anyway, I still like the BG1 model for some of this stuff. Get em into the fold and let the player weigh in on it all heheh.
I'd have to concede, that though this is the story section, my primary reason for wanting to see the character recruited into the party has more to do with the gameplay of the game, than the story of the game, if that makes sense.
I think I will likely be disappointed, perhaps ultimately needing mods to give me what I wanted from this game in that particular, but still I can imagine many ways where I would just completely let it slide, because I think the game needs more companions. Since these characters are already here, and already part of the story, whether pointed or not. It just seems like the sort of thing that could be done better when Charname/Tav/Durge is at the helm on this score and where they get a proper send off. In the same way the other two characters got a nice treatment. Or the doppelganger thing I suppose, but then we'd get no extra companion that way, which I think would be a miss. Too few companions I think also plays into this wish.
ps. Just her whole outro story for her in BG2, that one had some after-the-fact bowling in it too hehe. She's been changed a slight bit time and again, but then she was also kinda the same tune, with the bark still on it. That was consistent at least. I think it all works, if they'd just branch it enough and keep the focus on that sort of stuff, which lends itself to the gameplay stuff. The story I can suss out for myself while playing. One of the cool promises, never quite delivered on in BG1, was that somehow all those choices would feed on into the next one. BG3 has the same challenges as BG2 did relative to BG1, but anyway, I still like the BG1 model for some of this stuff. Get em into the fold and let the player weigh in on it all heheh.
My feeling in the matter is simply that there's no way Larian could do a good job including them into this game because they clearly aren't interested in doing so. As soon as the obviously planned content with Halsin was done in act 2, he turned into a terrible shambles of a character by act 3. I don't think you'd be at all happy with the writing for these two if they were made companions, since no matter how you get to weigh in, Larian still dictates what directions they can go, and what input could you have in half an act anyway? I understand wanting more companions, but people need to stop asking for current characters to be made companions because clearly Larian is only going to fail at the task.
As for Viconia wanting to die... did you even get a single dialogue with her? She rejected Loth, clawed her way out of the coffin and suddenly wants to die because she was turned into a carricature of her own? Just... no. Simply horrible, garbage interpretation of characters to excuse Larian's Terrible writing of these characters.
Don't assume you understand anything about me. Stop projecting your nonsense onto me.
Viconia doesn't "suddenly" want to die. We are talking about a 100 year span of time here. In that time she just completely isolated herself, she LITERALLY has no one and a head full of garbage memories and no love except what she and Shar have.
She doesn't just want to die, she is too bitter and angry for that - she wants to be defeated.
You're literally writing fanfic. Also, this is the last time I'll ever reply to you or read any of your posts because you obviously just like hearing yourself rant and insult people.
I've actually been considering writing some fan fic to explain how Viconia became Shadowheart's matron mother.
Like the OP I enjoyed Viconia's redemption story. One of the reasons I prefer the first draft of Shadowheart's character to the much more cuddly final version is that it reproduced what I liked about the Viconia romance - SH's words are at odds with her reactions. (*) Viconia was prickly and she often insulted the other party members. While she occasionally encouraged charname to embrace the Bhaal taint that encouragement was at odds with her reactions at key points in the story.
She didn't try to persuade us to side with Bodhi, unlike Korgan she didn't disagree when we refused rewards, she saved the beggar from the city watch and she was the only evil companion to remain once the party hit high reputation (in pre EE editons), she helped up destroy the drow city and, once you became her confidant, she told stories about her feelings of compassion for her brother and the for a baby.
It was a prickly pear romance - needles on the outside, sweet on the inside. The supportive charname saw the goodness behind the tough facade . . .
BUT Viconia had multiple endings and Larian had to choose one. And remember that Viconia remained a Shar worshiper even after her redemption. (Gaider wanted to make her a Elistraee worshiper but ran out of time)
If Charname refuses to become a god and Viconia is alive Lolth kills her. If she is redeemed she still answers to Shar.
Here begins the outline of my fanfic:
I would have liked to have found Viconia's diary where she reveals that the Shadowheart mission and Vicky's reduction in power was Shar's punishment for falling to corrupt Gorion's ward. After Charname's ascension Viconia is a difficult spot, if V abandons Shar, Lolth will kill her. If she becomes the high priest of Charname then Charname will have to protect her from both Shar and Lolth while protecting himself from Cyric; a battle that Charname is certain to lose (**) A fact that Viconia realizes even if Charname doesn't. So accepting Shar's rebuke and submitting to her divine will was Viconia's final act of love for Charname - she sacrificed herself so Charname could live.
Which is consistent with the story we have thus far: if you ask BG3 Viconia if she is acting on Shar's orders she evades the question; Shar is not happy with Viconia wants SH to replace her.
(*) btw Larian in the circus game I think "kindness to animals" should have been the better answer than "discretion" for white-haired Shadowheart. SH has rejected Shar and is discovering her true nature and should now value compassion above discretion.
Sorry guys for the upcoming long and maybe unrelated post, but I just find Blackheifer's posts utterly amusing, they brought me smile and I can't help myself. I think they could be used as examples for "how not to argue" and might give us some insights.
(Apologize to the moderators first, if you find this post inappropriate, you can remove it or suggest me to remove it, but please don't lock this thread for I want others to have a peaceful place to discuss.)
Let's start from their first post, shall we?
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
If you talk to Minsc he tells you that Viconia left the camp after she was caught trying to steal and dissect Boo. At least, that was his interpretation of what she was doing. This more or less fits with dialogue from Bg1/2 and Viconia's established personality traits. She is cruel. She is a loner. She is alone.
After this was when she likely founded the temple in Waterdeep, and yet she didn't form any strong bonds with any of her fellow Shar worshippers, or at least not enough to disobey Shar when she was asked to kill them. So she further isolated herself and then was given new orders. Again, she is alone.
And she has been that way for the last 100 years. She only has Shar. Whatever she might have been/or grown to become ended when her path diverged from the original Bhaalspawn. Shar likely orchestrated this - it's how she works.
Viconia wants to die. I killed her out of mercy having assessed what she has been through. She can now enjoy oblivion. I think the cruelest thing you can do is to let her live. I understand people "spare her" out of "nostalgia" which is a selfish thing to do.
Happiness was never in the cards for Viconia. In the established lore she failed to overcome her own cruelty, which tracks. The Bg2 writers were humoring you by making a narrow and almost impossible path to her redemption, but I don't see that actually happening. She had been too long under Lolth's shadow - if she had chosen Eliastree things would have been very different, but she chose a Goddess almost as cruel and manipulative as Lolth.
Sarevok is a shadow of what he once was. Nobody who dies comes back the same, and Sarevok spent a long time in his Father's realm - The Throne of Blood in Gehenna. He is brought back but without his Bhaalspawn blood driving him, but with the memory of what he was and can never be again.
He has become like a parent that lives vicariously through his offspring. He is Orin's father and Grandfather. Not even going to get into the level of degeneracy it takes to behave that way.
Not to mention he is basically overseeing the Murder Tribunal now - the Bhallist equivalent of a "desk job"
Sarevok is a middle manager, a has been. This is what losing looks like.
I think Rahaya's description for this one was quite fitting: "Thermian Paradox". For people who don't know what that is, "a ‘Thermian Argument' is one that replies to criticism of a text with an in-universe justification for why the thing happens in the text, ignoring the actual argument in order to defend the text." Sequel A invents element B to make plot C happen, except element B never existed and directly contradicts the lore, then one person tries to defend plot C by using element B. Basically, "sequel A makes sense, because sequel A says it makes sense."
Many writers have twisted previous characters to make their cheap new stories happen, some even have done many times, such as WotC. Though I'll give another, more specific and famous example: how Neil Druckmann portrayed Joel in TLOU2. We all know Joel was beaten to death by a golf club in TLOU2—the plot C. But why? Because he and Tommy, two most experienced survivalists, easily gave out their names and settlement location to a bunch of armed strangers, in a zombie post apocalypse world where people would kill for a bag of potatoes—the element B. Therefore, Joel and Tommy were now foolish and clumsy.
Now, imagine when fans of TLOU1 argue that Joel and Tommy were never like that, a person tries to defend TLOU2 by saying no, Joel and Tommy were always foolish and clumsy. Why? Because element B, they gave out their crucial informations to strangers. Why they gave out their crucial informations to strangers, then? Oh, because they were foolish and clumsy. You see the problem here? The arguement now becomes a loop, ignoring the fact that the real fool was Neil Druckmann. (Btw, arguements like this are most welcomed by WotC, the king of cheap retcons.)
So allow me to change some words, "in the established lore", no, "in retcons the writer made up, plus some of my own fanfic". Now that's more suitable.
But let's move on, it was Blackheifer's later posts that brought me most joy. When someone disagreed with their headcanons, they suddenly became ultra defensive
My goodness, how dare they not consult you before writing Viconia into the story, what with all your published novels and your clear and deep understanding of writing. Truly a loss for all of us I am sure.
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
I think she was too many young boys first sexual video game experience and they never got over it. Probably spent years writing steamy fanfiction about it all - ruining all those socks your dear mother bought you.
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Your just one of those people that thinks that critical analysis is the same as hate. So sad.
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Look, this is some more complex stuff so if english isn't your first language I don't want to be overly harsh about your lack of comprehension.
This is called "Ad hominem", a rhetorical fallacy "where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself", which is just one step away from literal name callings like "people who disagree with me are all arrogant and uneducated". Well, I have nothing else to say besides friends, don't be like Blackheifer, you will not only make yourself appear rude, but also invalid your own points.
But wild assumptions didn't stop there, here're some other gems
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
You know what Viconia is? She is proof that boys (and some gals) will go crazy over a good pair of digital breasts and a sultry voice despite a mountain of red flags surrounding them.
Well I must admit, they got me there, I chuckled. Like what were you talking about bro? Viconia was literally several pixel color blocks in BG1, and most character portraits in BG1&2 were ugly, they were not attractive at all. That's actually a common feature of many old games, due to limitations devs couldn't make characters physically appealing, so they put extra effort into world and character building to make players care. Blackheifer claimed themselves to be a veteran player who enjoyed the old games, yet personally I find it difficult to believe for reasons above, plus they said Viccy always wanted to be killed/defeated when her origin story was literally about surviving and living her own life.
And there's more
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
She is prepubescent male lust and the arrogance of "I can fix her" writ large.
I will not repeat all my arguments in my article and replies about why it's never about "fixing" or redemption, and why Viconia&Sarevok need neither of those to act in character. Let's just humor Blackheifer a bit. Homie, you realize your logic can also be applied to Laezel, Minthara, and Shadowheart, right? The "fixing" they could get in BG3 are more than Viconia could get in BG2, and the process is easier. So what now, are they all "prepubescent male lust" as well? The devs need to rewrite the whole story? Hey, I just disagree with the decisions devs made, but you're actually hating them.
I also love how players now may be diagnosed with mental issues
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
In THIS story, letting Viconia live is not only cruel to her, but it showcases a lack of conviction on the players part to bring to justice a mass murderer. Doing anything for the sake of sentimentality is how psychopaths and sociopaths operate. Congrats on failing that "good" playthrough. Pft.
Let's not mention that "whether Viconia should be spared in the end or not" is literally a nothing burger argument nobody asked for (many players simply want to skip that part), and let's also not mention how boring it is to judge players' moral during a crpg discussion, "conviction on the players part to bring to justice a mass murderer" huh? A mass murderer like who, Laezel? Minthara? Astarion? Or Shadowheart? (Two of those are also racists btw.) So should we have a public execution in BG4, to make all our old companions answer to their crimes?
What I found most hilarious is, the serious "mature me vs immature world" vibe Blackheifer gave, and the fact they're almost everything they thought everyone else to be. They claimed to be mature and others aren't, yet they seem to be the one who could only interpret characters in a very limited, one dimensional way—"evil is evil, bad is bad", unable to see the very different context behind different kinds of evil. They claimed to be thoughtful and others are arrogant, yet they announce one character to be "young boys' first sexual video game experience" and "simpy male wank fantasy crap", ignoring the fact there're plenty female players and new players from BG3 who also think how writer portrayed old characters is ridiculous. They claimed others went after themselves instead of their arguments, yet they categorized players, judged others' moral, questioned others' ability to comprehend, while providing wrong or no evidence to support their arguments. (My fanfic is mature and superior because I said so, am I right?) They claimed others to be "prepubescent male", yet they were the one who first mentioned "digital breasts", "sultry voice" and "ruining socks", which seemed to be a...well I don't want to say "virgin way of thinking", but if I have to pick one potential virgin in this thread, I know who I would pick.
OK, now it's time for my personal favourite ("OMG, win" is a close second)
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Viconia is a liar, don't believe anything she says. She sees you as lesser and has no compunction about lying to you. She gets you to compromise your values over and over again just to "be with her" - starting with the murder of a Flaming Fist officer.
It's over guys. I guess we just have to distrust every character after they lied to us once, it's literally beyond our comprehension to distinguish what are lies and what aren't. You know who else was a Shar follower and has lied to us? Shadowheart. Maybe she was a manipulator as well. So I can't trust Viconia, I can't trust her lines, I can't trust devs of the old games, I can't even trust the story, it's all a lie. What can I trust then? Blackheifer and their fanfic? Sounds great, except there's a tiny loophole. They claimed that Viconia lied to us so we can be with her and help her achieve her evil goals, so what happened when we chose to believe her lies? She...ended the romance? Then...she left the party? And then...she made zero attempt to rejoin till the end? So...her plan only worked when players carefully chose to not believe her lies? A super smart move if you ask me. Honestly, I won't be surprised if Blackheifer was the real writer behind Viconia&Sarevok's parts in BG3, maybe a senior in WotC as well.
All right. This post is just for fun because I was really amused, not a reply to Blackheifer nor do I have the desire to speak further with them, so please don't bother to reply me. I think we should all follow Gray Ghost and the moderator's suggestion, ignore this nonsence, but also thank Blackheifer for becoming the fresh air and amusement in this thread.
Sorry Paladin, but this will also be the last time I reply to you. It's common for people to have different opinions, however in this case, I don't think both sides' opinions are equally valid, which was just proved by Blackheifer unfortunately. One side wants original, more complex characters, the other wants "cruel, selfish, racist, arrogant and a mass murderer". Though judging from the nothing burger arguments you made earlier, maybe you agree with them? That "Aerie is a childish whinny girl, Jaheira is a self-righteous harper and Sarevok is always a puppy dog."
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
OP confirmed that including the development in previous game to this game would be good but it wasn't their point, yet seems to be troubled when the development isn't fitting to what "Viconia" means to them
You seem to deliberately miss my points, so let me humor you once. OK, Viconia's romance/development never happened, what then? The 2 choices we have are 1. BG1 original Viconia who refused to kill a child 2. BG2 evil ending Viconia who rebelled against Shar then saved a city with Drizzt. Which one is same with the one we got in BG3? And what exact development did we get? Can you tell the difference between development and sudden retcon?
Originally Posted by Dext. Paladin
If it up to me I will not remove Viconia, instead she should be able to join our camp or better yet, our party, in similar fashion of that Minsc and Jaheira. Only then the complain would be clear that it wasn't actually that Viconia is "badly written", it's "not written as I would like it".
I think we should be thankful that it's not up to you then. Imagine this, one day they make a GOT game but the campaign players get is from season 8. You think Daenerys fans will be happier if devs make the city burning lunatic a follower instead of a boss? Pure delusion, sorry to say. No thank you, we're good, get that woman out of our game please.
Alignment =/= personality. Characters of the same alignment can have different motivations, values and personality traits. Fiction would become boring pretty soon otherwise.
Thank you, well said. That's how they wrote Bhaalspawns in BG1&2, remember those? How they were different from each other but all interesting? WotC removed alignments from 5e, yet sadly the stories have become more black&white and childish than ever.
Did anyone read this by chance? It was one of those rare examples of pretty decent game Journalism, you know like probably cause it's an interview! Hehe...
I think the title might get missed unless you know who the dude is in BG terms, or have thoughts on SWTOR, or recognized the Irenicus art in the thumbnail. But he offers reflections on the challenges of writing story and it's kinda relevant/topical. Also again, just rare, in a sea of BG3 articles summarizing reddit threads to find a diamond in the rough there. Also ran that campaign where Minsc was introduced before being introduced, so seemed apropos there. Since he gave us the first Boo even, and then how Cam ran with it and then now it's a whole thing! Gotta love that stuff!
It took another article to summarize the first article with a tagline and spicy quote hehe...
"If open-world is the enemy of storytelling, multiplayer is the arch-villain"
But again the second article is just rehashing and summarizing the first, so better to read the actual than that one, though it reminded of how threads work sometimes with their titles and what catches eyes.
Not that I totally agree with some those takes, just thought it was curious. Current Bioware is one of the big bads these days by most reckonings, but hearing from the old timers is always insightful.
To the discussion ongoing, I find on these boards (and on most boards) that its easy to fall in the trap of being dismissive or to wolf pack it into factions. Like this is a place for the most ardent of BG and BG3 fans to come express and debate the finer details, so it can definitely get salty sometimes, but it's still better than steam so we kinda make do as best we can.
Black Elk, agree on your last sentence. I have to read that article later, but it sounds interesting.
I think, it is easier to do Jaheira and Minsc justice, since they basically have their defined morals from beginning of BG1 to the end of ToB. Viconia and Sarevok are harder,since they can change a lot during different playthroughs. In my playthroughs Viconia stayed the evil Shar priestess and Sarevok was seldom used by me, so I guess, he never had the alignment change. So for me, having those two appear in BG 3 like they are, was absolutely ok, I didn't even questioned it. But since they can have so many changes, maybe it would have been better to go with some of the other characters. Maybe have us meet Kivan in act 2, who is trying to help with the Shadowcurse ( maybe he could even have been an alternative, if Halsin for some reason is dead), maybe meet Korgan in one of the thief guilds, have Xzan tied to the Lorroakan plot. I don't know, but I doubt, it will be changed now
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Sorry Paladin, but this will also be the last time I reply to you. It's common for people to have different opinions, however in this case, I don't think both sides' opinions are equally valid, which was just proved by Blackheifer unfortunately. One side wants original, more complex characters, the other wants "cruel, selfish, racist, arrogant and a mass murderer". Though judging from the nothing burger arguments you made earlier, maybe you agree with them? That "Aerie is a childish whinny girl, Jaheira is a self-righteous harper and Sarevok is always a puppy dog."
I... don't read every single post here unfortunately. So I apologize that I couldn't care less.
That argument I was made is to state that people has different perception of what a character should be.
You think Aerie is not childish whinny girl and Jaheira is not self-righteous, that is valid - what I was saying is that Aerie being childish etc is *also* valid.
I hope this is not too complex to understand.
Originally Posted by SerTomato
You seem to deliberately miss my points, so let me humor you once. OK, Viconia's romance/development never happened, what then? The 2 choices we have are 1. BG1 original Viconia who refused to kill a child 2. BG2 evil ending Viconia who rebelled against Shar then saved a city with Drizzt. Which one is same with the one we got in BG3? And what exact development did we get? Can you tell the difference between development and sudden retcon?
You humor me 10th, you will humor me 11th and so on.
So, which one is the same with the one we got in BG3? None of them, also *all* of them.
You seems to be very disturbed by this changes, all I can offer is patting you in the back for this dark time you are having.
Originally Posted by SerTomato
I think we should be thankful that it's not up to you then. Imagine this, one day they make a GOT game but the campaign players get is from season 8. You think Daenerys fans will be happier if devs make the city burning lunatic a follower instead of a boss? Pure delusion, sorry to say. No thank you, we're good, get that woman out of our game please.
I take it that you agree that it's all comes down too "I don't like the writing"? (Since it actually is, regardless of the moot arguments you are having with other member of the forum, which opinions also moot, and yes, also mine is moot!).
I think the Season 8 GoT was fine. If it was up to me, I'd make Robert Baratheon sailing over the Island where Danny was in Season 1 and chop her head twice.
But you see, this is an ideal world, *my* ideal world. But I don't live in it. I live in a world where the series ends with Dany become a Hitleress.
I am beginning to think this thread will become self-help thread to help people cope with the adjustment syndrome they're having since the lore changes finally hit them hard with the new game..
Last edited by Dext. Paladin; 12/10/2303:47 AM. Reason: typo
Perhaps, though it's also likely the thread will be eclipsed by yet another thread on the same subject within a few weeks/months, perhaps one with Viconia or Sarevok in the title so peeps know what the conversation is really about before clicking into it? Lol
What also happens is that it becomes particularly hard to follow longer threads, since it's common for people to break into separate direct conversations or sorta talk past one another. The second person frame is tough on forums too when it's used in disagreements I mean. Someone types the word "You" and it instantly invites argumentation and puts peeps on their heels. That then becomes similar to watching an argument or a car crash unfold in public. Like it's interesting for a while and everyone rubbernecks, but it's also short lived, until the next car crash draws the attention.
These boards also lack passive engagement features, which many have grown accustomed too these days, so when those don't exist it also prompts more repetition and re-duplication. I think Larian could, for example, enable upvotes (while keeping downvotes disabled) and it would immediately smooth out their boards traffic into something much more manageable and more pleasant and insightful to read generally. Those are asides though, and have to do with the way this spot is structured.
The article I linked on the previous page will get lost in the shuffle I'm sure. It has already spawned a dozen other articles and as many reddit threads heheh.
The reason it's topical is because the Characters we ended up getting in BG3 are mostly Ohlen's renditions. Like that's almost certainly who Larian is defering to here, not some WotC canon committee hehe. Whether they succeeded in harmonizing, that's harder to say. These takes on the Characters are coming from his more recent supplementals and sourcebooks, and later TT campaigns, remembrances of earlier TT campaigns etc. more than the characters as they presented in BG1/BG2. Even though the author is definitely The Author, it's a bit like expanded universe/legends stuff in my view. I have great respect for Ohlen, for innovating these characters, but I still prefer my own sacred cows based on the games/characters we got in the actual cRPGs, when they actually first released, to spectacular acclaim and near universal love!
"Heroes of Baldur's Gate (5e)" is ok for what it is, sure. It's also a 55 dollar Table Top print-to-order tome in hardcover, or a 20 pdf, which is a little steep, though it does have nice artwork and some interesting character sketches. He surely has some Authority on this score, and for interpreting or re-interpreting the draft sketches, privileging origin, but it's not enough for me when compared to the characters in the actual games. You know the characters as I experienced them originally, which are different. Those are still the characters I hold dear and the one's I'd wish to revisit here, if they're going to be kicking around still hehe.
Ps. What's particularly wild here, given the parallels/analogy to SW, is that this is also the Kotor dude! And of course I love Kotor! You can almost imagine how it happens, like a bunch of old timers call each other on the phone (cause that's how it used to be done hehe) and they say ok let's do it again, with some more characters from the big binder and even more deets. I'm fine with that generally, I like directors' cuts and VH1 behind the musics, as much as anyone, but then you get into issues of provenance and who really authored a collective work vs the reception the completed work received in it's particular moment. It works somewhat better when there is a shift in medium, so - the novelization/comic book/animated series or video game, tie ins - 'based' on the movie. When the medium is the same (in this case cRPG to cRPG sequel) the spotlight burns brighter and much hotter. We fixate on everything there and make fewer allowances for liberties taken, even when the person at the helm has all the bone fides. It's just scrutinized in a more exacting way. Also, now we have a whole vocabulary to describe this stuff, the 'Requel' or 'soft reboot' all that diction, cause we've seen it play out elsewhere.
How much obeisance is shown to the thing that actually blockbusted vs the notebooks that it came from? Fraught issues to be sure, but it's like one can definitely chart some of these courses in advance and see how it's played out with other similarly popular art-works and popular characters over the years. Thoughtful omission only works when something is actually omitted. Having once gone there, and including the thing, the dynamic changes. Like painting over a famous painting 20 years later, or re-recording an old song (but also misplacing the master and pulling it from the radio) where no-one can get at it anymore, the first thing that got the big first response and the broader cultural impact. I think I can sorta see where it goes, I just miss Viconia! I think she could have been a great companion in BG3! heheh
I think bringing Viconia or Sarevok into the party in any respect would be the worst thing Larian xould do. Its already clear thag Larian included them in this game without any real point to their inclusion. Unlike Jaheira and to a lesser extent Minsc, they have no point in the story, not one that is worthy of their status and past in the series. We've already seen with Halsin what happens when they try and force in characters for fan demand. The best thing to do would be to remove them outright. Forcing characters who don't ha a purpose in a story to occupy even more space within that story is a recipe for disappointment.
Also I don't for a moment think wotc had anything to do with this. Clearly Larian was not meaningfully beholden to anything.
Couldn't agree more. Better to not touch a good character than to ruin it, and to produce this mangled garbage with S and V, Larian obviously doesn't want to bother to make them justice. So let's just remove them and replace them with whatever else that doesn't tie with BG.
All I can say is, Larian is still a far cry from the Bioware of old, either by the innate abilities of the writers, or because time has changed since BG 1 and 2. There is a reason why the old RPGs from pre-2012 Bioware are still beloved to this day.
I'm still not at all convinced that Larian really did anything at the 'fans request' that they weren't going to do already anyway hehe.
Minthara made waves because she was in that initial cutscene and they kept changing her hair around patch to patch in EA lol. People probably would have made similar noise if they'd changed Nadira's appearance ya know. Karlach is still conspicuously absent in all the banner art, with Mizora in her spot for the Struzan style poster stuff.
I don't see these characters being heavily iterated in response to EA feedback, since frankly, everything in the EA development process seems like it took about 10 times longer than any of us really imagined. Some of that datamined material for other planned companions or origins seems like it's from way early on. The Narrator was already the narrator by the time EA started, right so any self narration recorded in the past tense was probably scrapped early on.
Disappointment with where they landed seems to come in two contrasting favors, like it's either "just listen to what the players are telling you they want" = keep noodling, or "don't listen to what the players say they want" at the risk compromising intent or going lowest common denominator for everything. I think EA was more the later than the former honestly. Most things didn't get a big change from what they showed off initially 3 years ago. I feel like the lead time on some of this characterization was probably like a full year, or even 18 months, or more, so I somehow doubt player Feedback was the culprit on this one. Like anything else they held back for full release that didn't get run through the pressure cooker.
I think they could course correct for their Collector's Edition whatever, and maybe still hit some marks. I think the doppelganger thing would work well for a mod that just does the hard cut, but it's harder for me to imagine them doing that for the game as released. For that stuff, I think they have to add material, since walking it back after the fact is almost impossible. You don't get a second chance at the first impression, but you can get for the second third and fourth impression, but that means more paths.
Having the characters included but sans recruitment into the party, means there is nothing to the character outside the story as presented. When the character joins the party as a companion, this changes, and you get other ways in on it. I think that's why Jaheira works here, since her callback flavor once she's in the party just gives more opportunities for happy recall. They should have done the same for Viconia in my view, so the contrast in approaches wouldn't seem so stark.
Well, this thread just killed all motivation I had to finish BG3 - and especially any desire I had to do Shart's romance. Or even take her with me at all, anymore. Between the Halsin issues, the issues Shart has because of Halsin's issues, and how their writer also handled Red Prince's romance back in DOS2... now, we add character assassination of what, in my opinion, is one of the most well-written and complex characters in RPGs?
Baldur's Gate 3 really does get worse the more time passes. I don't even know if a Definitive Edition could fix these problems, anymore.
Thank you OP for the thread, regardless, though it leaves perhaps the most bitter taste of all in my mouth thus far regarding BG3's copious issues. I think after I do an Emperor run, I'll just... leave it alone, at least until DE - and only if DE manages to fix even half of these problems, which I feel is a big ask at this point.
now, we add character assassination of what, in my opinion, is one of the most well-written and complex characters in RPGs?
It was brought up earlier but there's a fair amount of reason to believe it's not "character assassination" but rather following step with WOTC and a book they wrote called "Minsc and Boo's Journal of Villainy". It's unclear whether WOTC gave Larian notes to follow or if WOTC liked what Larian was writing, but this is what WOTC canonized. Sarevok canonically turns back to evil in the greater WOTC lore, and while there's plenty of argument to be had about Viconia's different values between games, Shar is the exact goddess that would be most likely to manipulate Viconia to be who she is in BG3 and the book doesn't make a statement on it either way except that she carries out Shar's orders faithfully.
now, we add character assassination of what, in my opinion, is one of the most well-written and complex characters in RPGs?
It was brought up earlier but there's a fair amount of reason to believe it's not "character assassination" but rather following step with WOTC and a book they wrote called "Minsc and Boo's Journal of Villainy".
Trying to claim it isn't character assassination, in the same breath as saying "following in step with WOTC", is a bit humorous. Not in a good way, but humorous all the same.
Originally Posted by Auric
but this is what WOTC canonized.
I consider BG1 and BG2 to be the canon story. Any awful and widely-mocked trash WOTC tried to release after the fact, is not what most people who didn't read or even know about it would consider "canon". They would consider the overall events of the past games as the canon, and thus BG3 is indeed retconning and assassinating the canon.
I could give less of a rat's backside what WOTC wants to claim is canon vs. how things were written before by the actual writers who first worked on it. WOTC hasn't exactly given me, or anyone, a reason to extend that courtesy and good will towards them. They're an awful company.
There have been a lot of what feel like, kind of reductive commentary towards people who have played BG1 and 2 quite often for many years, and find this treatment of Viconia (and Sarevok, to a lesser degree) horrid, in this thread - and, with all respect to folks, I don't really plan to get into long discussions over it. Agree to disagree, but as someone who has cited Viconia as probably one of my favorite characters in D&D-related media, learning about all this is incredibly depressing and, quite frankly, kind of infuriating. Like with Halsin's.... everything, I'm glad to learn about it early on before experiencing the full brunt of these feelings myself unexpectedly, but it still doesn't make it sit any better, unfortunately.
edit: Ah, there's the reductive commentary. Yes, it quite is a waste of time trying to speak to people who want to treat other's dissatisfaction as somehow not worth respecting or even trying to understand. Talk down to them and make passive aggressive remarks, instead. That'll show 'em!
Don't get me wrong, WOTC is absolutely an awful company as most corporations usually are. But the writers and designers generally aren't the reason for that. I can see saying anything else is gonna be a complete waste of time so, uh... best of luck to you finding DnD continuity bridging 20 year content design gaps and full century timeline gaps you like.
I'm surprised they didn't just say Viconia had her memories messed with by Shar or something. I dunno, feels like an easy way to still use her as a baddie but let people keep the head canon that she'd reformed
Yeah, the problem is actually that people who loved BG2 will never accept WotC's canon because every time they mess with it, it just looks like nobody at WotC never actually played the game. It's embarrassing.
Baldur's Gate 3, and all of the BG2 legacy characters that WotC so carelessly dumps on, would not even exist without BG1 and BG2. All credit for the enduring love for the Baldur's Gate series is owed to the BG2 writers, not WotC. You would think WotC, Larian, and fans would show some basic respect for the hard work and thought that went into that success. But apparently not.
Don't get me wrong, WOTC is absolutely an awful company as most corporations usually are. But the writers and designers generally aren't the reason for that. I can see saying anything else is gonna be a complete waste of time so, uh... best of luck to you finding DnD continuity bridging 20 year content design gaps and full century timeline gaps you like.
...your argument was literally 'it's not character assassination because WOTC character assassinated them first!' And the continuity thing is equally bizarre as you basically said that people aren't allowed to be upset with the Star Wars sequels or other modern attempts at 'continuing' franchises like Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Ghostbusters, etc when they retcon or make things up.
First things first, Sarevok always struck me as looking more Kurd-ish than just straight up Michael Clarke Duncan. And no Kevin Richardson is GREATLY disappointing on his front.
As for his role in the story, the only way I could make it make sense is if the original Bhaalspawn took away his will(which is an option in the original ToB) and then when he was gone, Sarevok with no will of his own defaulted to being a mindless slave of his heritage.
Viconia was underwhelming, but otherwise she was fine.
You just have to assume for both of these, neither were redeemed even though that was an option in the original games.
I also learned that after 20 years, Viconia did not in fact gain a new streak of blonde hair in BG2. Imagine my surprise realizing she's actually wearing a hood. I feel especially dumb, because that directly falls in line with how she's introduced in BG2 lol
This might be off topic, but in the spirit of "Rewriting" I think making Shar basically just "EviL' just cuz is a terrible writing choice, or whatever... When I was first playing the game and having Shar and her followers being described, it felt mostly like they were the misunderstood and outcasts for "some reason" or another, So i had it in my head they were just basically Anti-Hero/Anti-Villain-ish or along those lines. So what I'm trying to say is I'd rather Shar etc be rewritten to fit that mold more.
That would be big change to the lore. Shar is the original evil. If you ever watched Buffy she's the equivalent of the first evil. Selune wants Faerun to support life, Shar wants to see all life ended.
There are other anti hero gods - Hoar, Shevarash - but Shar? Not so much - she literally invented evil.
That would be big change to the lore. Shar is the original evil. If you ever watched Buffy she's the equivalent of the first evil. Selune wants Faerun to support life, Shar wants to see all life ended.
There are other anti hero gods - Hoar, Shevarash - but Shar? Not so much - she literally invented evil.
Well I'm not familiar with any sort of DnD Lore; but I thought that was Tiamat? I thought Shar was Darkness etc; I've heard the Editions change things up or something...
This might be off topic, but in the spirit of "Rewriting" I think making Shar basically just "EviL' just cuz is a terrible writing choice, or whatever... When I was first playing the game and having Shar and her followers being described, it felt mostly like they were the misunderstood and outcasts for "some reason" or another, So i had it in my head they were just basically Anti-Hero/Anti-Villain-ish or along those lines. So what I'm trying to say is I'd rather Shar etc be rewritten to fit that mold more.
I honestly don't remember a time, when Shar wasn't really, really evil and I play DnD for a while. I'm sorry, but she was never just misunderstood. That doesn't mean, that some of her followers couldn't be redeemed - I have not much experience with Viconia, since I never liked her enough to have her in my party and make all my favourite characters leave or fight her, but apart from Shadowheart in BG3, there is also her friend in the House of Grief, who stands by her, no matter, how she decides in the end. She seems to be a pretty decent person for worshipping such an evil goddess. So the followers could potentially be outcasts and anti heroes, with a very poor choice of god(ess), but Shar is evil.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Hmm That sounds very boring; Wish it weren't so. But nothing I can do about that.
Dnd and especially Faerun has a really big pantheon, there are a lot of more interesting gods than Shar or her sister Selune tbh, same with the Dead Three - those are the poster childs of edgelord gods. But I guess those kind of gods make better stories than Oghma, who is just pretty chill.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
That would be big change to the lore. Shar is the original evil. If you ever watched Buffy she's the equivalent of the first evil. Selune wants Faerun to support life, Shar wants to see all life ended.
There are other anti hero gods - Hoar, Shevarash - but Shar? Not so much - she literally invented evil.
Well I'm not familiar with any sort of DnD Lore; but I thought that was Tiamat? I thought Shar was Darkness etc; I've heard the Editions change things up or something...
That's the Dragonlance setting. Tiamat is the original evil in that setting. It's confusing because, as you say, WotC stopped producing the Dragonlance setting and tried fold it into the Forgotten Realms.
Shar is Darkness - but he's even more evil than Darkness in the movie Legend - but her darkness is also the void. The original fight between Shar and Selune is about life on earth (on Chauntea).
Selune wanted "earth" to support life and that meant creating a sun. Shar wanted to maintain the status quo - darkness and moonlight. No life, no stars . . .
I'm still not at all convinced that Larian really did anything at the 'fans request' that they weren't going to do already anyway hehe.
Thanks. However an example of Larian following fan demands would be Wyll. He is a completely different character from his old self in EA, literally in every way: different origin story, different personality, even different voice actor. The reason writers did this was because people hated EA's Wyll, always leaving him in camp. The process was rushed btw, Karlach's VA mentioned her work was done just 6 month before the game release, right after Wyll's part. As a result, among all companions, Wyll got least content.
Are Wyll's rewrites good? Well, depends on who you asked. Personally I think it's one of the worst decisions Larian have made, for I found new Wyll extremely generic and uninteresting, and sometimes, even a bit cringe. I can understand why people hated old Wyll, I disliked him too: he was a fake hero, a hypocrite who liked to show off. However story like that has huge potential, how a dissapointing son deals with the demon within him, will he choose to keep his ego and facade when he faces the true hard choice, how he grows up as a person. Writing fake hero Wyll well would be a challenging task, I'd agree, but it would be a memorable one if it's executed successfully, instead of the bland samaritan we got right now who needs us to decide what he will do in his life. Sadly Larian chose the most safe option, instead of the challenging one.
Above, of course, is just my personal taste, apologize to new Wyll's fans. My point here is Larian did change very fundamental things based on players' feedback.
Sadly Larian chose the most safe option, instead of the challenging one.
Considering the mess that is Halsin and his "polyamory/polygamy" writing... I almost could be convinced it's better they did. For what it's worth, like you I think there would've been merit in Wyll's prior story if it was executed well - but, I like what we have now too, for the most part. Maybe he's more tame than some of the other companion stories, but meh.
At this point, though, I feel like the only companion who was written exceedingly well and tastefully was Astarion. Nearly every other companion - especially of the 'popular' ones - has a 30~60+ page thread about their various writing or ending issues, many of which feel like there would need to be massive rewrites and redoes in order to fix. Which, even for a Definitive Edition, just doesn't sound feasible at this point.
Well, this thread just killed all motivation I had to finish BG3 - and especially any desire I had to do Shart's romance. Or even take her with me at all, anymore. Between the Halsin issues, the issues Shart has because of Halsin's issues, and how their writer also handled Red Prince's romance back in DOS2... now, we add character assassination of what, in my opinion, is one of the most well-written and complex characters in RPGs?
Baldur's Gate 3 really does get worse the more time passes. I don't even know if a Definitive Edition could fix these problems, anymore.
Thank you OP for the thread, regardless, though it leaves perhaps the most bitter taste of all in my mouth thus far regarding BG3's copious issues. I think after I do an Emperor run, I'll just... leave it alone, at least until DE - and only if DE manages to fix even half of these problems, which I feel is a big ask at this point.
Thank you friend, I share your pain. Honestly it's not Shadowheart's fault, but I also find it very difficult to care about her when the story remains this way. And I agree BG3 gets worse the more time passes, for me, besides assassinations of old characters, there are lackluster Act III villains, cut Upper City, Karlach's ending and the game's ending. (We used to mock games like Fallout 4, in which players' choices during the playthrough didn't really matter for they won't show in the end. However in BG3 we don't even get one slide telling us what's going on in the world afterward. Compared to DOS2, it's really night and day.)
Hope you get better, I myself became happier when I started to play other good games. Though just curious, I'm not very familliar with Halsin, and Red Prince was always my PC (and I always paired him with Sebille so no Sadha) so I didn't know much about his romance, could you please explain where their problems lie?
I agree with @SerTomato on Wyll. I know I was in the minority that liked EA Wyll but it was a better story than final release Wyll. Wyll is just pretty empty. He doesn't have much to say and the horns moment has no weight to it because we've not seen him wrestle with his inner demon: does we want to look like a devil and act like an angel or play the hero while acting like a devil.
Agreed, it would have been challenge but it would have almost certainly been better than what we got.
BUT we shouldn't conclude that Larian was wrong to listen to fans - remember that originally planned to ship the game WITHOUT reactions. Imagine a 5e game without reactions! You could eat a pig head in the middle of combat. You could carry 20 barrels around with you . . .
BUT we shouldn't conclude that Larian was wrong to listen to fans - remember that originally planned to ship the game WITHOUT reactions.
Oh of course not. It's a rare quality for game studios to listen to fans' feedback nowadays, I think it's a very good thing no matter what. (I myself hope they will listen to me hehe.) And DOS2 did become a better game because they listened, for that I applaud. It's just sometimes I wish they could put more thoughts into the decisions they gonna make.
Though just curious, I'm not very familliar with Halsin, and Red Prince was always my PC (and I always paired him with Sebille so no Sadha) so I didn't know much about his romance, could you please explain where their problems lie?
Red Prince, if you romance him as a custom PC (or, I assume, one of the other Origin characters - don't quote me on that, as I usually don't play Origin characters), basically straight up refuses to prioritize you over Sadha. You only learn about her in Act 2, fully - but you can sort of flirt with him a bit/try to people please him beforehand, from what I recall. However, if you want to actually romance him, you have to make it obvious you have feelings for him after he meets Sadha and they go into the wagon to uh. Consummate, as it were.
And then he's all ready to get involved with you, despite literally just having been about to mate with his supposed "Destined love". And throughout the game, he really does often act as if he genuinely loves you, but is constantly reminding you that Sadha comes first for him, and you HAVE to be okay with her if you want to be with him. There's no discussion, really, no establishment of boundaries or openness. It's his way or the highway - so you basically have to pursue someone you know will not prioritize you, yet constantly strings you along with seeming like he does genuinely care about you and your feelings.
It was at least not entirely an out-of-nowhere thing like Halsin's "polyamory" and his gross commentary towards Shadowheart or Astarion if you're romancing one of them. But it was still an incredibly unsatisfying romance, for what would otherwise be an amazing character - and even a really sweet romance, since Prince does have his moments.
But unless you are actively PLAYING as Red Prince, he will refuse to give up Sadha. If you let her be killed at any point, I believe it ends his romance as well. It was just a really gross way to handle a polygamous character to begin with, and even worse for people who wanted to romance Prince only to have to initiate it in full by... peeping on him trying to mate with his "Destined" partner, and essentially throwing a fit about how you were jealous of her.
...your argument was literally 'it's not character assassination because WOTC character assassinated them first!' And the continuity thing is equally bizarre as you basically said that people aren't allowed to be upset with the Star Wars sequels or other modern attempts at 'continuing' franchises like Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Ghostbusters, etc when they retcon or make things up.
That's not what I did at all, as I don't see it as a character assassination in the first place. Sarevok even redeemed still had his entire history of evil under his belt. You know how often people that get out of cults and the like (in real life I mean) slip back into that sort of thing? It's sadly very common. Viconia on the other hand has not only always been faithful to the greatest source of evil in all of Faerun, but she had an extra hundred years between games to be manipulated into giving ground to Shar's darker asks of her to say nothing of the easy contextual read that maybe she did just have her memory manipulated and doesn't talk about it. Maybe because she doesn't know it happened or because Tav never had a chance to Talk no Jutsu her, it's just speculation but it's very easy speculation to think about. But I mean when the immediate response to "I don't think it was character assassination" is "I don't care what you or anyone says" it's not exactly worth carrying that on is it.
A more interesting angle of dissatisfaction is how the changes to Divine Portfolios has affected lore since the edition of DnD the old games were made around. The portfolios used to be rather rigid definitions of influence and power under which different types of worship and different sects of worshippers could revolve around. That's mostly gone these days in 5E and they're more like a broad border to their primary types of influence. As a result it's kind of understandable that while Viconia used to pretty rigidly follow an aspect of those portfolios while ignoring others as the portfolios themselves became less important so too did her narrow scope of worship end up widening. That's a lot more fun for me to think about than "the character isn't what I expected therefor it's wrong."
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Selune wanted "earth" to support life and that meant creating a sun. Shar wanted to maintain the status quo - darkness and moonlight. No life, no stars . . .
It's been a minute since I really dug into Shar's whole schtick but isn't there a little wiggle room for what life COULD still exist in those conditions? She wants complete darkness, but I don't remember it being a necessity that ALL life be extinguished.
...your argument was literally 'it's not character assassination because WOTC character assassinated them first!' And the continuity thing is equally bizarre as you basically said that people aren't allowed to be upset with the Star Wars sequels or other modern attempts at 'continuing' franchises like Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Ghostbusters, etc when they retcon or make things up.
That's not what I did at all, as I don't see it as a character assassination in the first place. Sarevok even redeemed still had his entire history of evil under his belt. You know how often people that get out of cults and the like (in real life I mean) slip back into that sort of thing? It's sadly very common. Viconia on the other hand has not only always been faithful to the greatest source of evil in all of Faerun, but she had an extra hundred years between games to be manipulated into giving ground to Shar's darker asks of her to say nothing of the easy contextual read that maybe she did just have her memory manipulated and doesn't talk about it. Maybe because she doesn't know it happened or because Tav never had a chance to Talk no Jutsu her, it's just speculation but it's very easy speculation to think about. But I mean when the immediate response to "I don't think it was character assassination" is "I don't care what you or anyone says" it's not exactly worth carrying that on is it.
A more interesting angle of dissatisfaction is how the changes to Divine Portfolios has affected lore since the edition of DnD the old games were made around. The portfolios used to be rather rigid definitions of influence and power under which different types of worship and different sects of worshippers could revolve around. That's mostly gone these days in 5E and they're more like a broad border to their primary types of influence. As a result it's kind of understandable that while Viconia used to pretty rigidly follow an aspect of those portfolios while ignoring others as the portfolios themselves became less important so too did her narrow scope of worship end up widening. That's a lot more fun for me to think about than "the character isn't what I expected therefor it's wrong."
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Selune wanted "earth" to support life and that meant creating a sun. Shar wanted to maintain the status quo - darkness and moonlight. No life, no stars . . .
It's been a minute since I really dug into Shar's whole schtick but isn't there a little wiggle room for what life COULD still exist in those conditions? She wants complete darkness, but I don't remember it being a necessity that ALL life be extinguished.
WOTC retconned a lot in their written works, or made bizarre decisions that made no logical sense, like saying the Bhaalspawn from BG1 was a lvl 3 fighter. So you're already starting out at a deficit, and then you followed it up with that 'good luck finding a better continuity' comment. You answered a 'the canon is bad' with 'but it's canon.' That is a non sequitur that doesn't address it being bad.
Sarevok: Saying he is 'Evil' is an Faulty Generalization that lacks nuance. His history of evil begins and ends with resentment towards Bhaal. Someone who will stab people on the train is probably not a good person. However, it would be entirely unreasonable and more importantly, fallacious to argue that someone who lobbies to change the law to benefit only them will also randomly stab people on the train because they are both Evil.
Viconia: And this is an Appeal to Ignorance, or as I like to call it, the 'Maybe There is a Wizard Behind the Curtain' argument that supposes an impossible to prove wrong conclusion by saying 'anything could happen' in a time frame. By this logic, Viconia could have shacked up with a random farmer, had 3 half-drow babies before being killed and replaced with a doppelganger because Shar was still pissed at her and I would have just as much evidence for it as you do for yours. That is why this is a logical fallacy.
[ It's been a minute since I really dug into Shar's whole schtick but isn't there a little wiggle room for what life COULD still exist in those conditions? She wants complete darkness, but I don't remember it being a necessity that ALL life be extinguished.
I don't think so, no. There's a SH and Wyll banter where SH mentions the original betrayal and Shar is the god of old wrong hidden but not forgotten. The betrayal, the original sin was creating life. In Shar's mind she was willing to tolerate the balance (think yin-yang symbol withe Chantea in the center) but after Selune's betrayal it's back to the void.
The reason Shar won the first battle is that she was the first twin to emerge. Before that she was the void - now she wants to go back. In the end even the undead will go away - which is why she's at odds with Myrkul and the dead three.
That is a non sequitur that doesn't address it being bad.
Sarevok: Saying he is 'Evil' is an Faulty Generalization that lacks nuance. His history of evil begins and ends with resentment towards Bhaal. Someone who will stab people on the train is probably not a good person. However, it would be entirely unreasonable and more importantly, fallacious to argue that someone who lobbies to change the law to benefit only them will also randomly stab people on the train because they are both Evil.
Viconia: And this is an Appeal to Ignorance, or as I like to call it, the 'Maybe There is a Wizard Behind the Curtain' argument that supposes an impossible to prove wrong conclusion by saying 'anything could happen' in a time frame. By this logic, Viconia could have shacked up with a random farmer, had 3 half-drow babies before being killed and replaced with a doppelganger because Shar was still pissed at her and I would have just as much evidence for it as you do for yours. That is why this is a logical fallacy.
I guess my bad for attempting to explain a reason for something being the way it is to someone that sounded extremely upset about why it is how it is. Whether that reason is sufficient is wholly subjective, I wasn't trying to say it was qualitatively "not bad" but rather lay out the likely path taken to the result we have. Because retcon or not, character assassination is a phrase with an actual meaning which does not match what happened here. Retcon does, and as you can see I'm not arguing that it wasn't a retcon.
Speaking of lacking nuance, wow that is a very reductive way of summarizing Sarevok. Yes I'm sure Minthara's evil also begins and ends at *checks notes* resentment toward Lolth and the Absolute. And fallaciousness is getting brought up... I didn't realize we were in a highschool debate club.
Since this is actively where you want the conversation to go, yes actually it is possible for anything to happen in a fictional timeframe that has not had the events in that timeframe specifically defined. That's why story and character-development heavy tabletop games in these settings work so well in spite of how unique each game is. The entire point is that it's a starting point to play our games in, and as it happens if IP holder gives the go ahead that includes things like official videogames specifying things within or at either end of that timeline for the sake of a more established narrative to play through. Yeah, sure "but but but I just told you WOTC involvement is logically invalid" but this isn't a contest to score debate points, this is just how things generally work. I gave an EXAMPLE of speculative thought that is easy to understand and easy to apply to what's already there while you've chosen to give one that is actively ridiculous in order to falsely equate them (oh yes imagine that other people can also point out fallacies). Not very consistent of you with how much you seem to dislike that sort of thing.
Anyway I'm not here to score imaginary points about fallacies. That's kind of just insufferable. If this is how you want our replies to continue you are free to chase me away with the next one.
That's not what I did at all, as I don't see it as a character assassination in the first place. Sarevok even redeemed still had his entire history of evil under his belt. You know how often people that get out of cults and the like (in real life I mean) slip back into that sort of thing? It's sadly very common. Viconia on the other hand has not only always been faithful to the greatest source of evil in all of Faerun, but she had an extra hundred years between games to be manipulated into giving ground to Shar's darker asks of her to say nothing of the easy contextual read that maybe she did just have her memory manipulated and doesn't talk about it. Maybe because she doesn't know it happened or because Tav never had a chance to Talk no Jutsu her, it's just speculation but it's very easy speculation to think about. But I mean when the immediate response to "I don't think it was character assassination" is "I don't care what you or anyone says" it's not exactly worth carrying that on is it.
May I recommend you to read previous discussions in this thread? Feel like we might be talking in circles.
The basic points are:
1. Evil characters are different, an evil ambitious conspirator is different from an evil mindless fanatic. (Again, slip back into what exactly?)
2. "Characters can change 180 because time passes and random things could happen" is not an excuse nor character development. And speculations are not evidence, in-game details and quotes are.
3. Some of your memory of old games are inaccurate, "Viconia on the other hand has not only always been faithful to the greatest source of evil in all of Faerun", she hasn't, not in her default ending (evil ending btw, not her romance one). They retconned it on purpose.
3. Some of your memory of old games are inaccurate, "Viconia on the other hand has not only always been faithful to the greatest source of evil in all of Faerun", she hasn't, not in her default ending (evil ending btw, not her romance one). They retconned it on purpose.
I'm aware she was at one point a worshipper of Lolth. But in the videogames she always worships Shar. In her default ending she kills other cultists but there is no mention of her own worship stopping. Any point at which she explicitly did not worship Shar is entirely prior to her introduction. There is never a clearly labelled point at which she stops, you know unless any ridiculous thing happens and she did and was kidnapped and re-indoctrinated for it between BG2 and 3, but that still seems a little out there compared to the Goddess that actively manipulates memories just kinda doin' her thing, or as I mentioned the gradual lore changes about divinity made the writers consider that her scope of worship didn't need to remain so narrow. Sure that's maybe an unsatisfying reason but I find it greatly interesting that as divinity rules change so too do the followers.
Again, I'm not arguing it wasn't a retcon. I'm saying it's not character assassination and that I don't see it as nearly so far removed from her original characterization as others. I see connective tissue both in-universe and in the meta-narrative changes to Dungeons and Dragons that have occurred in the intervening years.
I'm aware she was at one point a worshipper of Lolth. But in the videogames she always worships Shar. In her default ending she kills other cultists but there is no mention of her own worship stopping. Any point at which she explicitly did not worship Shar is entirely prior to her introduction. There is never a clearly labelled point at which she stops, you know unless any ridiculous thing happens and she did and was kidnapped and re-indoctrinated for it between BG2 and 3, but that still seems a little out there compared to the Goddess that actively manipulates memories just kinda doin' her thing, or as I mentioned the gradual lore changes about divinity made the writers consider that her scope of worship didn't need to remain so narrow. Sure that's maybe an unsatisfying reason but I find it greatly interesting that as divinity rules change so too do the followers.
Again, I'm not arguing it wasn't a retcon. I'm saying it's not character assassination and that I don't see it as nearly so far removed from her original characterization as others. I see connective tissue both in-universe and in the meta-narrative changes to Dungeons and Dragons that have occurred in the intervening years.
1. Being a worshipper =/= being faithful, being a worshipper =/= not being rebellious. Even in WotC canon, Shar followers are far more complex than that, people worship Shar for many different reasons, many even have good intentions. You're arguing a different concept.
2. The random things you said that could happen were invented by you, not established by the game, you're writing for the writer.
3. Again, inaccurate memory. What the writer claimed was not Viconia was different because she was kidnapped or manipulated, but she was a different person from the very start. They not only retconned things she has been through, but also her motives.
In BG2 ending, she "slaughters them all when they betray her, shrugging off the chastisement of her goddess."
In BG3, the writer said she killed those cultists because she wanted to prove she's the bestest cultist to Shar. They literally changed her personality, therefore her original characterization was assassinated and it's character assassination. Can you understand this logic?
I agree with Auric. Like SerTomato the viconia romance was my favorite but she was a Sharran to the end. David Gaider had a plan to have her convert to Elistraee but said there wasn't enough time in ToB to implement it. (I thought Sharess would be better but he never responded)
Now you are right it is implied in the good, charname-is-a-mortal ending that she has lost Shar's favor because Lloth kills her but in both the good ascension ending and the evil ending she stays true to Shar.
I my mental cannon she did so to protect Charname. If she starts the church of Charname - Charname will be targeted by both Lloth and Shar. And she just lost her love so the god of loss can offer some cold comfort.
I am engaging in what you might call "examples" of speculation when I bring up ridiculous anythings, referencing Rahaya's response to me who decided my first example of light speculation was open season for such behavior. I am not projecting those things as things that actually happened. I hope that helps you understand my posts. I'm not interested in arguing what kind of worshipper or faithful or follower she was. I have not argued any of the things you're saying worshipping does not equal so I don't understand why you're saying I'm arguing a different concept from another when I can't even discern what you're actually trying to say. All I said is that in the videogames she is a Shar worshipper and in the videogames that Shar worship has not ever explicitly stopped since it first began prior to her introduction.
Again, this is the definition of a retcon, not character assassination. Character assassination is a social attack on someone's personal character with the goal of making them look bad to others. Orin engages in a little bit of this in the story when she's doppleganging, specifically when Jaehira can first run into Minsc as an example. You might be familiar with the term mudslinging from political campaigns which is very similar to character assassination. This is not what happened to her character, retconning happened to her character. But even with the retcon, I can see reasons why her characterization in BG3 makes sense both from within the game narratives, and from meta-narrative stuff as rules change between tabletop editions.
What is character assassination except a retcon that undermines the core of a character? This is splitting hairs.
Viconia loses her goddesses favor in the original ending. She is betrayed instead of being the betrayer. Her faith is a portrayed as a personal coping mechanism and not blind zealotry. She's a hero that fights cultists with Drizzt Do'Urden. The surface elves of Suldanessallar accept her as one of her own.
It's blatently obvious just from playing the original games and seeing the ending epilogues that Larian went in a completely different *contradictory* direction from Bioware in terms of Viconia's original personality and character development.
And can we stop bringing up Minsc and Boo's? I have that PDF, and from the way it keeps getting brought up as 'proof' that this was WoTC's vision makes me think that nobody has actually read it, because BG 3 Viconia doesn't line up with M&B Viconia, like *at all*.
I am generally able to separate the story and character introductions or motivations as presented, from the story I tell myself while playing the game, since that latter is way more ad-lib, but here in BG3 it's tougher. I do think more goes into the Character (writ large), than just the story of the character though or their subplot, provided they're in the fold. Faldorn is a good contrasting example going from BG1 to BG2. In BG1 she was in-the-party (as basically the antipode to Jaheira) both true neutral and the same VA, but with different angles. Harper fighter/druid communitarian vs Shadowdruid (proto-avenger) who's way more lone wolf about it. In BG2 we got the continuation of the Jaheira saga in a big way, but Faldorn was relegated to a boss fight nemesis (likely for Jaheira to handle) in the Druidic challenge in later chapters of BG2. The druidic stronghold was generally acknowledged to be among the weakest in BG2, but I think the Faldorn thing also played into it. They teased us meeting like literally every single companion from BG1 in BG2 except Khalid and Dynaheir who got got, but then of course only a few could actually be recruited. Jaheira and Minsc on team good, Viconia and Edwin on teams villainy, and Imoen of course but she hops in and out. Shadowheart and Minthara are basically Viconia's archetype sorta split across two characters, so those angles are both sorta taken care of from a visualization and class mechanics standpoint, but still there was something cool about just seeing Jaheira in a new edition implementation right? Trying to tease out multi-class sub-class angle or spec the abilities and feats, all the itemization stuff and party comp stuff. It would have been cool to see that for Viconia, and then she could also be a story delivery vehicle for the villainous endgame the way Jaheira does that for the heroes.
What is character assassination except a retcon that undermines the core of a character? This is splitting hairs.
No, that's not at all what the phrase means and at this point I'm going to encourage people actually look it up to understand how different it actually is. Character assassination is about having who you are as a person attacked in an effort to ruin how others perceive you. It's more similar to defamation/libel. Even the Shar cult betraying her wasn't that. A retcon is just a change the reasons for which can vary.
And the reason I continue to correct this is because REAL character assassination when it happens is actually pretty horrific for victims of it. I'm not saying anyone can't be disappointed with the retcon, but Viconia isn't being victimized by a writer who hates her to make others hate her, the people working for the Intellectual Property just decided they wanted her canon to be a little different. It's just an adjustment to her characterization that is no more false than her old characterization, the degree and acceptability of which is going to differ between players who know it happened at all.
In my eyes the main problem is similar to the general Act 3 problem. A good chunk of content would've benefitted from more ability to explore the situations with the kind of time and care you do in Acts 1 and 2. Viconia not being able to exposit about herself much at all is unfortunate.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
It would have been cool to see that for Viconia, and then she could also be a story delivery vehicle for the villainous endgame the way Jaheira does that for the heroes.
Like exactly this. Though I think one of the bigger problems in the way of this is the nature of the endgame villains. Based on Early Access Shadowheart and the history of the Grove/Shadowlands I sort of expected Shar to be much closer to the main villain than she is and then I think Viconia would've had a lot more time to shine, or at least have a more active role in one plot or another for us to learn more about the why and how of who she is in BG3 in a more immersive way.
So here is the visualization for Viconia in BG3...
I put a few glances together in a quick image like a character sheet
Heavy Spoilers*
I love the character's visualization and her voice is great too! Main prob for me was that we really only got a handful of voiced lines. Just not enough at all. I'd really like options to give our companions some hair and makeup adjustments and have the portraits update accordingly, sensible stuff like that, but she's lookin' rad in BG3 for the template. Just feels like that should have been an option, recruitment into the fold, and then they could have done more a lot more with her.
That is a non sequitur that doesn't address it being bad.
Sarevok: Saying he is 'Evil' is an Faulty Generalization that lacks nuance. His history of evil begins and ends with resentment towards Bhaal. Someone who will stab people on the train is probably not a good person. However, it would be entirely unreasonable and more importantly, fallacious to argue that someone who lobbies to change the law to benefit only them will also randomly stab people on the train because they are both Evil.
Viconia: And this is an Appeal to Ignorance, or as I like to call it, the 'Maybe There is a Wizard Behind the Curtain' argument that supposes an impossible to prove wrong conclusion by saying 'anything could happen' in a time frame. By this logic, Viconia could have shacked up with a random farmer, had 3 half-drow babies before being killed and replaced with a doppelganger because Shar was still pissed at her and I would have just as much evidence for it as you do for yours. That is why this is a logical fallacy.
I guess my bad for attempting to explain a reason for something being the way it is to someone that sounded extremely upset about why it is how it is. Whether that reason is sufficient is wholly subjective, I wasn't trying to say it was qualitatively "not bad" but rather lay out the likely path taken to the result we have. Because retcon or not, character assassination is a phrase with an actual meaning which does not match what happened here. Retcon does, and as you can see I'm not arguing that it wasn't a retcon.
Speaking of lacking nuance, wow that is a very reductive way of summarizing Sarevok. Yes I'm sure Minthara's evil also begins and ends at *checks notes* resentment toward Lolth and the Absolute. And fallaciousness is getting brought up... I didn't realize we were in a highschool debate club.
Since this is actively where you want the conversation to go, yes actually it is possible for anything to happen in a fictional timeframe that has not had the events in that timeframe specifically defined. That's why story and character-development heavy tabletop games in these settings work so well in spite of how unique each game is. The entire point is that it's a starting point to play our games in, and as it happens if IP holder gives the go ahead that includes things like official videogames specifying things within or at either end of that timeline for the sake of a more established narrative to play through. Yeah, sure "but but but I just told you WOTC involvement is logically invalid" but this isn't a contest to score debate points, this is just how things generally work. I gave an EXAMPLE of speculative thought that is easy to understand and easy to apply to what's already there while you've chosen to give one that is actively ridiculous in order to falsely equate them (oh yes imagine that other people can also point out fallacies). Not very consistent of you with how much you seem to dislike that sort of thing.
Anyway I'm not here to score imaginary points about fallacies. That's kind of just insufferable. If this is how you want our replies to continue you are free to chase me away with the next one.
I was not being reductionist with Sav. I was stating his motivations for his evil. I even gave context for exactly what I was talking about. What is reductionist is pretending the comparison of evil wasn't in my reply, so you could dismiss it. If in BG4 Minthara was around, but she was slavishly following the orders of her mother, that would be a retcon of similar quality. And anyone complaining about the retcon being poorly done doesn't need the explanation of 'but it's canon' or your other variant 'well Drow are matriarchal and she's lived a long time in it and you know how difficult it is to just abandon your culture like that? Maybe her mother caught up to her between games.'
Why are you bothering to lay out the path? There is no path from A to B to C with a retcon. Because claiming A was C all along is what a retcon does.
There is really no point in claiming you weren't saying it wasn't a retcon, only to muddy the waters by saying people fall back into cults all the time or was doing light speculation on the timeline as if it were a logical extension of events instead of a retcon. And then only to then flip back to saying you didn't say it wasn't a retcon when pressured on these justifications you have no reason to give.
As I said earlier, how does that address the problem? How does that pertain to this thread and why it was created?
I would be thrilled if others could and would accurately point of logical fallacies! Recognizing and avoiding them can only improve discourse in general, like recognizing faulty arguments made in politics, not just in debate class. It makes no difference if I say insulting people doesn't prove your point, or if I say an ad hominem of attacking the person and not the argument is counterproductive. I'm not sure why you are so particular about the definition of Character Assassination, but this terminology is a problem.
It is quite consistent of me. Your light speculation and my light speculation are equally unable to be disproven. It becomes a fallacy if I was saying my scenario was equally as likely, in which the absurd nature of it would be a mark against it. However, I did not say that. Just that there was an equal amount of evidence for it. Which is none and the absurdity was to highlight that the blade you were using cuts both ways. The argument in question, that using "time skip" as a reason for why BG3 characterization makes sense in absentia of any actual background is a poor justification, remains intact. Because if it made sense, it wouldn't need a retcon.
In extension of that, you have gone on to argue as if I was saying having a time skip where things develop is not possible or is bad, complete with a lecture on how adventure modules work. When the actual argument is that your rationale was basically the Step 1. Use Viconia, Step 2 ??? Step 3. Profit! meme in order to simultaneously argue that Viconia's situation is a logical progression because 100 years of mysterious character development and also say it's a retcon WOTC/Larian did for their own reasons, take it or leave it.
Pick one.
My main issue is that Vic and Sav are used as stepping stones for Larian's characters. It does not matter what events in the backstory are established (or not) because Vic's sole purpose in the game is either to be replaced by Shadowheart, or defeated as the big bad abuser on SH's behalf and her character was retconned accordingly. Giving her more time on screen doesn't change her role as a prop. The same goes for Sav. I'm pretty sure the incest isn't in Boo's Journal of Villainy. Making him and the cultists pathetic lackies (with altered personalities and motivations) for the sole purpose of being stomped by Durge, Daddy's favorite and the special Bhaalspawn, is aggrandizement of Larian's creations at the expense of Bioware's. As far as legacy characters go, this is one of the most poorly handled examples I've seen.
WOTC having their canon does not oblige Larian to use them, at all, or in this 'mine is better than yours' way. I am as interested in 'this is how things work' as a defense as I am in 'Rey Skywalker is canon' arguments. It doesn't address the argument. It doesn't address the problem. It answers questions no one asked.
I thought I was pretty clear I wasn't here to score points by seeing who can most insufferably twist a discussion with intentionally ridiculous false equivalences and more or less meaningless appeals to a type of logic that in practice doesn't exist outside of debate. So this is goodbye between us, I think.
A thread on reddit reminded me that they included incest as a part of Sarevok's new characterization. Honestly intentional character assassination to prime players to absolutely despise Sarevok and Viconia is really the only way to explain it. If Larian's motivations weren't to elicit such a response from players who encounter them with such portrayals, then their drastic changes to their previously established endings and characterizations really don't make a lick of sense
Well, thanks again Rahaya, basically summed up my thoughts and said them in a more logical way. And the incest part, yeah...During last week I read some WotC books as research while playing other games, and boy oh boy they're god awful, however I didn't find anything about Sav doing incest, so I really don't know where that part came from in-game.
I agree with every word! Because of this, I quit playing BG3, I'm waiting, hoping that someone will create a mod that changes Sarevok and Vikonia and make her a companion. Unfortunately, as I understand it, Larian is not going to correct this shameful misunderstanding. That's why I keep playing BG 1 and BG 2.
To tell you the truth I haven't even noticed that this Viconia was the same as in BG2. I played through that game at least 2 times that I can remember but she must have slipped my mind. Oh well, that was 20 years ago. Sarevok I remember as a brute and he's still that here.
What I was disappointed by were Jaheira and Minsc. These two I remember very well from previous games and while I love their addition I feel like they weren't done justice. The two of them should be on a much higher power level than they are in this game. After all they've been through lore vise making them as powerful or, due to their starting stats, less powerful than the player is a joke. I especially dislike the addition of Minsc so late in the game, it feels pointless.
It would have been better if they were high level NPCs that help you if you're good or oppose you if you're evil. Help could be in the form of information and being there for the final fight while oppose could be a mini boss battle. As is their character is not done justice.
I thought I was pretty clear I wasn't here to score points by seeing who can most insufferably twist a discussion with intentionally ridiculous false equivalences and more or less meaningless appeals to a type of logic that in practice doesn't exist outside of debate. So this is goodbye between us, I think.
For someone who didn't like the term fallacy, and apparently doesn't like rationality, you sure are quick to accuse others of false equivalencies as an excuse to not address anything when you are the one that equated how TTRPG modules for tabletop campaigns with randoms handles story to a CRPG video game made by professionals should be handling story. Logic has great relevance in fields such as science, for example, forming and supporting hypothesis, conclusions and peer review papers of PhDs.
My main issue is that Vic and Sav are used as stepping stones for Larian's characters. It does not matter what events in the backstory are established (or not) because Vic's sole purpose in the game is either to be replaced by Shadowheart, or defeated as the big bad abuser on SH's behalf and her character was retconned accordingly. Giving her more time on screen doesn't change her role as a prop. The same goes for Sav. I'm pretty sure the incest isn't in Boo's Journal of Villainy. Making him and the cultists pathetic lackies (with altered personalities and motivations) for the sole purpose of being stomped by Durge, Daddy's favorite and the special Bhaalspawn, is aggrandizement of Larian's creations at the expense of Bioware's. As far as legacy characters go, this is one of the most poorly handled examples I've seen.
This puts my feelings into words exactly. Larian's writers should not have been so insecure about their own characters (Shadowheart and Orin/Durge, respectively) that they had to trash Viconia and Sarevok to make their characters look more sympathetic.
The deliberateness of it particularly gets my goat too. I have read/watched enough media to recognize the little tricks being used to elicit desired emotional reactions from players, and I have played the earlier games enough that I can pretty readily recognize Larian's deviations from those games. It really bothers the hell out of me knowing that their depictions weren't accidental or the result of the team not being familiar with the source material, there would have had to be actual discussions taking place about how to make the characters produce such a visceral dislike in the playerbase that they'd *want* to kill them, so that they'd have a feeling of cathartic triumph after finally vanquishing them.
You can see similar writing/acting tricks used with other antagonists like Cazador and Lorroakan in the game, the difference being that those aren't existing beloved characters from a franchise that the game is purportedly paying homage to.
The deliberateness of it particularly gets my goat too. I have read/watched enough media to recognize the little tricks being used to elicit desired emotional reactions from players, and I have played the earlier games enough that I can pretty readily recognize Larian's deviations from those games. It really bothers the hell out of me knowing that their depictions weren't accidental or the result of the team not being familiar with the source material, there would have had to be actual discussions taking place about how to make the characters produce such a visceral dislike in the playerbase that they'd *want* to kill them, so that they'd have a feeling of cathartic triumph after finally vanquishing them.
You can see similar writing/acting tricks used with other antagonists like Cazador and Lorroakan in the game, the difference being that those aren't existing beloved characters from a franchise that the game is purportedly paying homage to.
Yup. For example, if Larian really wanted Vic to still be a high ranking Sharran involved with SH's story? Off the top of my head, SH could have been in a Stockholm Syndrome situation with Vic as someone she would want to aspire to in order to serve Shar instead of making Vic an abuser. They could have made finding memorabilia from the previous games something you could confront Viconia with, so that instead of having to fight her its a case of having to choose to, because she willingly steps aside. Could even have her shrug off Shar's chastisement as a callback to the epilogue WOTC retconned.
Still want Sav as a Bhaal cultist? First, get rid of the fucking incest, WTF? Second, make it clear since Bhaal rezzed him, he has no choice but to bide his time following orders and has reactions to a Resist Durge story instead of literally being author insert with a handwave for why they fucked up the BG continuity.
That's just off the top of my head, done in five minutes. All it takes is treating the characters, their backgrounds and the players of BG 1 and 2 with respect.
The issue with both Sarevok and Viconia is that Larian are clearly fans of the previous BG games and do understand the characters. In fact, we have in game evidence that supports this idea.
Jaheira: Shadowheart. You should know - Viconia was not half so heartless as she liked to appear. Shadowheart: I knew her well enough. You might have travelled with her for a time, but she trained me. What's your point? Jaheira: Only that I find it hard to believe that she could have raised you, and felt nothing for you. Shadowheart: Perhaps she took some pride in her work, forming me to Shar's liking. She certainly relished wielding the rod.. Shadowheart: ... but who knows. Perhaps someone else made her that way, as she tried to do to me.
While we can argue about what Jaheira actually means when it comes to Viconia it's pretty clear that the following description of Sarevok matches with what we know of him from the previous games.
Jaheira: Not... mad, no. Take Sarevok, for example. For as much carnage as he caused, there was always a cold calculation to it. Jaheira: He craved power, and his bloodline was just another path to achieve it. I saw that same bloodline turned to better ends than Bhaal ever intended for it
So I don't get why they had to shove these characters and change them just for the sake it. In my opinion, they should've been used been used to show that you can have a dark past and still somehow overcome it, where Viconia would've shown a Sheart a more neutral path perhaps and Sarevok would've been the ex-Bhaalspawn inspiration for Durge.
However. I don't think this warrants a rewrite, as, all things considered, both characters have only but a few lines If one character *needs* removal and/or rewriting, it is the Emperor. Thanks to this Emperor, the entire main plot is hot garbage. And that's not even taking into account the 'revelation' during Wyll's dragon quest, which makes it all even more absurd and unbelievable.
It's not just the Emprah. There are many plot holes, inconsistencies and contradictions because of late rewrites(and different conflicting visions for the characters and story?) which show up at the end of act 2.
An example: Balthazar doesn't know where the Nightsong is imprisoned even though he is the one who drains her power for Ketheric? Why? Well, because originally the Nightsong was a pretty different character. https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Aylin#Datamined_content
Another example would be romanced Shadowheart. From act 1 Shadowheart is supposed to be the "sheltered girl with overly strict parents" which is why during the Tiefling party even though she was happy she said lady Shar doesn't approve of it. Enter evil Shadowheart who tells you that Shar's teachings didn't allow for flings but she still did it in secret anyways. Then cheat with Mizora and Shadowheart tells you flings were encouraged so which one is it??
Sure, the Emprah is most guilty of this especially since he robbed us of a Durge vs Orpheus vs Tadpole three way battle. I don't understand why they added him in the first place to be honest. Just make the tadpole dreams pop up even if you don't use the powers?
Also, add in an unnecessary origin system with only one real origin that makes sense which sadly isn't even fleshed out. Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think a rewrite would be nice.
I have to support the OP post. The characters in this game are so amazingly bad and so much worse than the quality of almost everything else in the game, but the Viconia treatment seems almost intentionally bad. I know Larian said they were really into the originals when they designed this game, but you can't tell. I assuming they always went with Aerie in their playthroughs, as Shadowheart's romance is just Aerie 2.0 anyway. Not only are the BG3 companions some of the least likable and boring of any game with companions I have played in years, they totally trashed all of the BG original companions. Larian should really consider seeking outside help with scripting and characterization for future BG games, it does not appear to be where their strength is.
Wait.... This is a little ott-topic, but Shart's romance is Aerie 2.0? How do you figure? I honestly can't draw the connection. Gale, maybe, who is whining and moaning about his condition, just like Aerie, until it's unconditional love.
Maybe they just mean that the "optimal" SH path has you
end up with a blonde, sweet, good-aligned cleric?
But that is a fairly superficial similarity. I can see where they might think that, IF SH's writer played BG2 (if he did I can't tell), he saw the arguments between Aerie and Viconia and thought "Oh wow, Viconia is such a meanie, I bet she would enjoy literally torturing a sweet innocent girl." Which would be a conclusion that only takes one sliver of Viconia's character into account and doesn't understand her at all.
Also, IMO Aerie has a lot more reasons to "whine" than Gale. She tried to help a child (when she was probably little more than a child herself) and for that, had her freedom and wings painfully taken away from her. She can be moody and irrational, but I can see why. Meanwhile, Gale
was an archmage who wanted to one-up his goddess gf and made a stupid decision with full agency.
He got hit with a reversible curse; Aerie lost two of her body parts, forever.
My main issue is that Vic and Sav are used as stepping stones for Larian's characters. It does not matter what events in the backstory are established (or not) because Vic's sole purpose in the game is either to be replaced by Shadowheart, or defeated as the big bad abuser on SH's behalf and her character was retconned accordingly. Giving her more time on screen doesn't change her role as a prop. The same goes for Sav. I'm pretty sure the incest isn't in Boo's Journal of Villainy. Making him and the cultists pathetic lackies (with altered personalities and motivations) for the sole purpose of being stomped by Durge, Daddy's favorite and the special Bhaalspawn, is aggrandizement of Larian's creations at the expense of Bioware's. As far as legacy characters go, this is one of the most poorly handled examples I've seen.
This puts my feelings into words exactly. Larian's writers should not have been so insecure about their own characters (Shadowheart and Orin/Durge, respectively) that they had to trash Viconia and Sarevok to make their characters look more sympathetic.
Yeah, that's very well said. Looking back at it, Viconia has one function and one function only in BG3: to be Shadowheart's stepping stone and punching bag. I really can't find any "respect" in the portrayal of her (even though the lead writer claimed they wanted to "pay respect" to the classic series in an interview), only resentment and insecurity.
The deliberateness of it particularly gets my goat too. I have read/watched enough media to recognize the little tricks being used to elicit desired emotional reactions from players, and I have played the earlier games enough that I can pretty readily recognize Larian's deviations from those games. It really bothers the hell out of me knowing that their depictions weren't accidental or the result of the team not being familiar with the source material, there would have had to be actual discussions taking place about how to make the characters produce such a visceral dislike in the playerbase that they'd *want* to kill them, so that they'd have a feeling of cathartic triumph after finally vanquishing them.
You can see similar writing/acting tricks used with other antagonists like Cazador and Lorroakan in the game, the difference being that those aren't existing beloved characters from a franchise that the game is purportedly paying homage to.
Thank you, couldn't agree more. Honestly, some parts reminded me of how Neil Druckmann wrote characters in TLOU2. For example, to prove Ellie and Joel are "evil" and deserve to suffer plus his new characters are better, Druckmann would put lengthy scenes of Abby's father saving an animal, Abby playing catch with a dog, and a pregnant woman having an adventure in zombie post-apocalyptic warzones, etc. Then later he would let Ellie kill all of them and scream: "You see? You see? Ellie is evil! Now watch Abby beat the shit out of her."
BG3's portrayal of old characters is a bit less clumsy than that (it's Neil Druckmann after all), but has similar manipulative energy and intentions. The writers even let Shadowheart say "nobody will remember you" to Viconia, well pardon my language, but fuck off.
Anyway, just come here to say in recent days I found even BG3's Viconia wiki page acknowledges how Viconia's actions in BG3 precisely contradict her previous motives and personal traumas.
It's a bit funny because I have seen a similar wiki page of another character, and that's Lucian from Divinity series. Recently a Divinity fan told me she shares my pain and how she despises DOS2, because Larian had made Lucian, a previous PC character, into a genocider and main villain in DOS2, and in the end the player will have to choose if they gonna "forgive" Lucian for his crimes or not (especially Ifan). I only knew the second part, and I have enjoyed DOS2, but now I'm not sure if I gonna play it again.
Seriously Larian, solve this. You won't want to make "making old characters punching bags in the next game" a tradition, the number of players you lost because of this is building up. Right now I have little faith that the writers would do Viconia & Sarevok right, so just remove them, or change their names, or make them doppelgangers. You can write whatever new characters you want, nobody will stop you, is it so hard to just leave old characters and good things alone?
Well i Played a Lot the other two Games and indeed there are some weird stuff here in BG3.. But i tolaret this Things.. becouse i always knew from the start the any choice i ever made in BG2,BG1 were no probably the Canon Ones.. And in the Future this will Happen with this Game.. if yu really think that the Good ending for all the companions will be the Canon.. Thing Twice.. i always felt that the Bad endings here will be the Canon in the future.. especially becouse of Wizards of the cost.. Most of the Good endings here will change a Lot the Original Lore of the Sword Cost and Forgotten realms overalll and they even Made some Hard Canon Brake stuff already with Karsus.. Like Karsus did not make a Crow guys.. really larian ?! yu are just Making the dude a lot weaker the he really was.. Karsus Made a Spell not a Crow. to steal the power of a God. He was the One and Only Mage that ever existed in the entire Dungeons and Dragons to Make a 12 lvl spell Yu cannot understand how Powerfull he really was.. Becouse Mistry cut the Balls of all Mages when he try to take her Power. Made impossible for any other Wizard even be able to Try what he did.. if im not Wrong Nobody nowadays Besides her Chosen Can cast a 10 lvl spell.
So the point im trying to bring up is This.. Maybe just Maybe the Choises yu Made in the Other Games yu Think its the Canon one.. But nop. It wasant.. it was Canon only to your Game get it ?!
Well i Played a Lot the other two Games and indeed there are some weird stuff here in BG3.. But i tolaret this Things.. becouse i always knew from the start the any choice i ever made in BG2,BG1 were no probably the Canon Ones.. And in the Future this will Happen with this Game.. if yu really think that the Good ending for all the companions will be the Canon.. Thing Twice.. i always felt that the Bad endings here will be the Canon in the future.. especially becouse of Wizards of the cost.. Most of the Good endings here will change a Lot the Original Lore of the Sword Cost and Forgotten realms overalll and they even Made some Hard Canon Brake stuff already with Karsus.. Like Karsus did not make a Crow guys.. really larian ?! yu are just Making the dude a lot weaker the he really was.. Karsus Made a Spell not a Crow. to steal the power of a God. He was the One and Only Mage that ever existed in the entire Dungeons and Dragons to Make a 12 lvl spell Yu cannot understand how Powerfull he really was.. Becouse Mistry cut the Balls of all Mages when he try to take her Power. Made impossible for any other Wizard even be able to Try what he did.. if im not Wrong Nobody nowadays Besides her Chosen Can cast a 10 lvl spell.
So the point im trying to bring up is This.. Maybe just Maybe the Choises yu Made in the Other Games yu Think its the Canon one.. But nop. It wasant.. it was Canon only to your Game get it ?!
Okay, looks like we're back to square one once again. May I recommend you to read previous discussions in this thread, or other related threads on reddit? Many valid points were made there. But to put it in simple words:
In-universe, it's not about players' past choices, it's not about good or evil, it's not about redemption happened or not, it's about characters' fundamental motives and personalities. BG3 contradicts those, simple as that. Let me give you an example:
What is reasonable: In BG4 Karlach never appears, because her canon ending is she didn't fix her engine in time, therefore she burned to ashes, but she loved and protected her friends and the world to the very end.
What is unreasonable: In BG4 Karlach happily works for Zariel, she loves killing people for her, especially children. Actually, she has done such things for 100 years. And why? Well, nobody knows, maybe because concussion is a thing.
Out-universe, consider writers' intentions. Did they retcon old characters because they wanted to explore new narrative possibilities with them, or because they wanted to make them new characters' stepping stones? Don't speak like this is natural development for characters and the writers didn't have a choice, they did, and this is what they chose to do.
Also I think it's funny to say "everything happened isn't canon" when the writers specifically chose a canon ending in which the character stayed in the party till the end to retcon.
I really can't understand your point. First it's "there's something wrong but consider WotC got involved, it's normal and we should get used to it", and later it's "there's nothing wrong because everything isn't canon and is just in your head". Which is it? Is there something wrong or not? You seem to have some arguments about Karsus there as well, can I say to you "your points are all invalid because those settings just exist in your head, they are Schrodinger's settings"? Last, sincerely, are you okay friend? Your response is...a bit concerning.
Well i just think they will never rewrite anything.. thats why i dont bother that much.. but indeed there are some weird things but i really dont care that much anymore.. In the end i will be probably wrong anyways.. its always like that in Forums.. hauhauha Just Try to not get too Mad if they dont change anything in the end.
Well i just think they will never rewrite anything.. thats why i dont bother that much.. but indeed there are some weird things.. but i really dont care that much anymore.. In the end i will be probably wrong anyways.. its always like that in Forums.. hauhauha
Well you do you friend, really, I'm glad you have made peace with it, being able to enjoy a game is a great thing, I wish I and many others have the luck too.
i Get so much disapointment with gaming companies during my life.. that i just become like that.. Sorry if that kinda pissed yu off i was just Trying to Help in some way. i already have some situations like that in other Games and never get what i wanted. So for me its just better not get Mad about it anymore.
I only saw 2 games made Ok for this stuff of Bringin Characters and choices yu made in other games to the new one.. Dragon age inquistion had something like that.. yu could go there and mark the stuff yu did and chose in other games and that would trully affect the world giving yu new quests and stuff. relly cool the idea.. the other was in Witcher 3.. in the beginning when the dude is shaving yu the other start to ask yu a bunch of stuff.. and yu can say evrything yu did in the others.. same stuff even new npcs will apear in the world depending on what yu did in the last 2.
i Get so much disapointment with gaming companies during my life.. that i just become like that.. Sorry if that kinda pissed yu off i was just Trying to Help in some way. i already have some situations like that in other Games and never get what i wanted. So for me its just better not get Mad about it anymore.
Hey, nothing against you, really. We all have experienced that, haven't we? Remember how Blizzard have ruined Warcraft, or how Bethesda have ruined Fallout? Just to name two. Well, thanks for replying anyway.
Seriously Larian, solve this. You won't want to make "making old characters punching bags in the next game" a tradition, the number of players you lost is building up. Right now I have little faith that the writers would do Viconia & Sarevok right, so just remove them, or change their names, or make them doppelgangers. You can write whatever new characters you want, nobody will stop you, is it so hard to just leave old characters and good things alone?
Even though I don't think Larian will actually change anything, if they did at least offer an out for why these characters are so OOC I would look much more favorably on BG3 and actually bother to finish it. Just saying.
Also, I know this is probably radical, but I do think if you're making what's supposed to be the continuation of a beloved game series, giving some slight respect to player choice is probably a good move, no matter how old the preceeding game is. (Looking at WotC here, too).
Seriously Larian, solve this. You won't want to make "making old characters punching bags in the next game" a tradition, the number of players you lost is building up. Right now I have little faith that the writers would do Viconia & Sarevok right, so just remove them, or change their names, or make them doppelgangers. You can write whatever new characters you want, nobody will stop you, is it so hard to just leave old characters and good things alone?
Even though I don't think Larian will actually change anything, if they did at least offer an out for why these characters are so OOC I would look much more favorably on BG3 and actually bother to finish it. Just saying.
Also, I know this is probably radical, but I do think if you're making what's supposed to be the continuation of a beloved game series, giving some slight respect to player choice is probably a good move, no matter how old the preceeding game is. (Looking at WotC here, too).
This might be a case of trying to have their cake and eat it too?
MortismalGaming points out that Saverok literally just exposition fairy's an attempt to paper over the holes in the Baldur's Gate continuity the game made and does so poorly. The Emperor being Balduran "reveal." Vic and Sav's characterizations, and I'll include Minsc to some extent here as he feels more internet meme version than anything else. And IIRC, in WOTC's canon, isn't Jaheira dead? IIRC, "BG3" was advertised as a sequel to the games. However, it turns out that it's actually a sequel to the Descent into Avernus module by WOTC in a clown suit, which is why literally all of the tie ins to the games are clunky at BEST.
Yup Jaheira is already Dead in the Canon. She died in one of the Comics if im Not Wrong.. Like i told in my Other Posts.. when i Played this Game the first Time and see the Weird Stuff. i just Try my Best to not get so Pissed Off. Or i would not even enjoy keep playing .
But Yeah Jaheira and Minsc been in the Game its weird ass Hell besides the other stuff weird with the old Characters. (i already saw a Bunch of People Pointing other companions from the older games that would Work Better instead of Minsc and Jaheira..)
Great job SerTomato. I first played BG3, then i played BG1 and i am not finished with BG2 (I am at the beginning of chapter 5), but i feel already that the change of Viconia in the BG3 is really very big. Yes, it is 100 years, but! She is not human, she is not homo sapiens sapiens. I want to say by this way: We (humans) have shorter lifes, we live more intense in compare to some other humanoid races which have longer lifes. I think for human 10 years are something like for drow/elf 50-100 years. Yes, 10 years is long time for human to change, but not that much!
I am sure there is no way how it will be fixed in the game by Larian Studio, but! The modders community is huge, maybe one day some modder/modders will create some big fixed patch/mod for old characters from previous games. It maybe will not have dubbing (but.. A.I. is maybe solution for this), but it will be better than this.
Good luck!
Last edited by chrabryj_Bogatyr; 18/12/2301:21 PM.
Great job SerTomato. I first played BG3, then i played BG1 and i am not finished with BG2 (I am at the beginning of chapter 5), but i feel already that the change of Viconia in the BG3 is really very big. Yes, it is 100 years, but! She is not human, she is not homo sapiens sapiens. I want to say by this way: We (humans) have shorter lifes, we live more intense in compare to some other humanoid races which have longer lifes. I think for human 10 years are something like for drow/elf 50-100 years. Yes, 10 years is long time for human to change, but not that much!
I am sure there is no way how it will be fixed in the game by Larian Studio, but! The modders community is huge, maybe one day some modder/modders will create some big fixed patch/mod for old characters from previous games. It maybe will not have dubbing (but.. A.I. is maybe solution for this), but it will be better than this.
Good luck!
Thank you. Even though I highly doubt "Larian can't do nothing" (maybe writers can just pin their big brain Shadowheart & Orin stories on someone else instead of shitting on old characters), I do think a simple mod that turn these two into doppelgängers can make Act 3 at least playable, like many players have already suggested.
Great job SerTomato. I first played BG3, then i played BG1 and i am not finished with BG2 (I am at the beginning of chapter 5), but i feel already that the change of Viconia in the BG3 is really very big. Yes, it is 100 years, but! She is not human, she is not homo sapiens sapiens. I want to say by this way: We (humans) have shorter lifes, we live more intense in compare to some other humanoid races which have longer lifes. I think for human 10 years are something like for drow/elf 50-100 years. Yes, 10 years is long time for human to change, but not that much!
I am sure there is no way how it will be fixed in the game by Larian Studio, but! The modders community is huge, maybe one day some modder/modders will create some big fixed patch/mod for old characters from previous games. It maybe will not have dubbing (but.. A.I. is maybe solution for this), but it will be better than this.
Good luck!
Thank you. Even though I highly doubt "Larian can't do nothing" (maybe writers can just pin their big brain Shadowheart & Orin stories on someone else instead of shitting on old characters), I do think a simple mod that turn these two into doppelgängers can make Act 3 at least playable, like many players have already suggested.
This was a fun thread to read. I have no idea how you managed to keep your sanity.
"Viconia and Sarevok's characters are completely at odds with their prior depictions"
"WELL AKCHULLY THERE EVIL IN OLD GAEMS ND EVIL NOW SO THEY ARE THE SAME I DONT UNDERSTAND"
it's like talking to a 5 year old.
And no offense to Blackheifer, if he reads this, but you are a massive dickhead.
The writers even let Shadowheart say "nobody will remember you" to Viconia, well pardon my language, but fuck off.
I didn't play the originals but this kind of writing always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Obviously these kinds of in-character statements are not meant to be taken as a 1:1 indicator of the writer's own beliefs but usually the shoe just fits if you know what I mean. I also get that writers picking up threads from older generations need to have some freedom in how they handle these characters but it always comes across as besmirching their legacies to prop up their own characters. I just don't get why you would write it like that. Those older characters and their stories form the foundation you walk on and their legacies are part of the reason why people buy into your story to begin with. By undermining that foundation you're just shooting yourself in your own foot. Or to put it on other words: if no one will remember Viconia then why would they remember Shadowheart?
There are some really prominent examples of this (Blizzard's treating of Arthas in World of Warcraft comes to mind) and it's usually controversial at best and unanimously hated at its worst.
That being said, there will not be a rewrite of anything. Best you can hope for is a slight rearrangement of content in a potential definitive edition.
It 100% feels Blizz like. My skin crawls every time I see what they did and keep doing to Arthas or Archimonde. There is no reason to bring back beloved characters just for a cameo/minor boss fight.
I don't think they'll ever fix whatever is wrong with the story. I mean looking at their priorities they care more about adding more kissing and hugging scenes as I predicted.
Totally agree with this. Viconia and Sarevok were so badly treated and were so "off", that it felt like the writers hadn't even touched the previous games. Almost stopped playing the game at that point, since I felt the writing dropped into fan-fiction category.
I think I've already made this point so apologies for the repetition.
Like the OP the Viconia romance was my favorite. And part of what made it great can't be grasped from posting the text. It was also the quirky romance system that was based on a real world timer. That meant you really never knew when a conversation was going to take place. Which gave it an organic feel. Sometimes discussions about relationships happen when one party pushes them and sometime they just emerge. "I know we need to talk about this, when is she going to feel comfortable enough to address the elephant in the room"
The barks were also part of the experience. Viconia was constantly seething about how much she hated surfacers - ". . . how I hate them *all*" - all except one. This gave the romance had a you and me against the world aspect that warmed my goth heart.
More importantly, the romance dovetailed with the theme of the story. Charname is seething with a desire to murder people, but the good charname kept those desires in check and give stoic responses to provocations. Likewise Charname remained level headed in the face of Viconia's insults. Not because they enjoyed the abuse but because they saw it for what it was, as false face, a mask that kept people from getting to know the real person full of fears and insecurities; there are aspects of the Viconia romance in the Laezel, Shadowheart and Astarian romances. Keep your dark urge in check and the facade will crumble.
BUT
For all of my love of the story it never made sense that Shar would keep rewarding her for remaining with the hero of baldur's gate.
UNLESS . . .
she was on a secret mission from Shar. Viconia's job was to corrupt the good hero, have him* take his father's throne and encourage the new god to ally with Shar.
If I were to change something I would leave behind a secret diary that describes how Viconia fell from grace** When the hero of baldurs' gate ascends as a good god Shar's plan is ruined and Shar decides to punish Viconia. In the cruelest possible way.
Having Viconia raise a child and serve the as matron mother cloister is something of a cruel joke on Shar's part. Forcing Viconia to adopt a child reminds her of what she has lost. She could have had a child with charname . . .
The second part the joke forces her to live as a pantomime of the life she could have had in the underdark as the matron mother of house DeVir.
In my headcannon / fan fiction reading Viconia actually set Shadowheart up for failure because Viconia knew that an ascended Shadowheart would kill her one day. So she ignored the secret alcove, let Showheart form friendships, never forced her to hurt animals . . .
So TL;DR. Keep Vicky as she is but let us know how Shar claimed her.
* she only romanced men unless you installed a mod ** or with Shar would it be fall from disgrace? not sure
I like the idea of Viconia's memories of her time with charname causing her such anguish that she might have asked Shar to take them from her. But, I had a similar theory about Shadowheart during the EA though so maybe that's a little to pat.
I remember you, KillerRabbit, mentioning cut content from Throne of Bhaal where a reformed Viconia loses her divine powers, BG3 would have been a prime opportunity to retroactively add that back in, or have her heel turn be roped in to her penance somehow.
I can understand now in the lead up to the game why they were bring up the muliplicity of canon, "BG3 exists in its own continuity like all your campaigns do", they knew how people would react to the return of certain characters. I even felt like I was walking on egg shells around Jaheria a character who I thought they handled the translation into BG3 pretty well.
That would be great! Yes, that sequence was written by forum member Kalthorine Ut Wistan and David Gaider said he wanted to include it but time ran out . . .