I'm suddenly realizing something else about the story. It doesn't have a main villain, not really. And it makes sense in hindsight. Way back when they first revealed Kethric, they said he was a lieutenant of the main villain, like the other three chosen. And I think that's how they're written
Look at it this way; at the start of the game in act 1, our main enemy is the vague concept of the Absolute and its cult. But then Kethric becomes the main villain for act 2, but the Absolute is still above him. And then the reveal. The absolute is actually a lie, a tool, wielded by the chosen of the dead three to enact their masters plan. But... the dead three never take centre stage, and set 3 has the looming threat of the elder brain, which is the absolute, breaking free, something even the chosen are worried about, so we have to worry about that. And we kill yhe chosen before the end of the game and the final battle is against tbe brain, which is never an active presence in the story. So... who is the main, central antagonist?
Yo don't HAVE to kill all of the chosen.
I honoured my deal with Gortash and we went to face the netherbrain together after I killed Orin and got her stone. Him holding on to his stone, and me carrying those of Ketheric and Orin. We can't control the crown however and the brain blasts Gortash before the emperor appears to give us shelter on the astral plane.
So in this path, Gortash is not a villain with respect to the player. We're both villains.
I haven't playeed the inverse , kill Gortash and keep the pact with Orin, but somehow I think Orin will want to kill you anyway.
My poiont still stands though. He's not really the central antagonist, so there is no central antagonist. The game is just unfocused, forcing all these potential antagonists to share screentime in a way that diminishes all of them. If the game had just picked a lane it could have felt much stronger and more narratively clear. I think the Netherbrain should never have broken free. It should have always remained as a tool for the chosen, and if we were to fight it, it should have been because the chosen sent it to attack us.
....
I can understand your point of view in a classic fantasy good vs. evil tale. What I meant to say with my example is, that we can join with the baddies, then betray them, or honour alliances with them. The PC can flip-flop at will between evil and good. In the final act however, all the different paths reconverge to 3 or maybe 4 different outcomes. But the freedom you get during the play might be the factor that blurs the identity of the evil arch enemy. Another example is Raphaël. You can fight him, make a deal with him, then go on a quest to destroy the deal. In the end it doesn't change much, but it may blur how Raphaël is perceived.
I kind of like that way (possibility to freely flipflop between good and evil -- I guess my alignment is chaotic neutral :-o), but it does make everything more complicated for the game scenario's. Could we hope that the next game they bring out can find a better way to find an equilibrium between choice and history integrity ? That would be nice.
And I didn't want to deny that there are several terrible plotholes. The emperor and Orpheus are the major factors that make the game scenario feel bad for me. (In addition to several other plotholes, like how did Shadowheart get the artefact, the Ketheric timeline doesn't seem to match up, plus Isobel and Ketheric being arch-enemies, contrary to why Ketheric turned to Shar and Myrkul, and others....)
