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"?