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

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.

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 . . .

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.

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.

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 . . .

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Edit: Rahaya said it better.

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.

Funny that the word "Character Assassination" is brought up. A lot of presumption to justify what one's already believe.

I think it would be correct to say that "I don't like the retcon".

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.