Same with Viconia and the Sharrans. You'd think there'd be paladins on the hunt for a sect of a generally shunned goddess in a city which works to maintain law and order (unlike somewhere like Westgate which is an actual cultural and racial and religious stew), but I guess that would imply that there's clearly defined "good" and "evil" in Toril, and we can't have that nowadays, apparently.
What's weird is I feel BG3 presents itself from the outset as being more morally flexible (the lack of character alignments and such), but is actually quite simplistic in its morality and even more "black and white" than the OG games. Because Sarevok and Viconia, while having evil alignments, are nuanced characters whether you redeem them or not. In BG3, they are reduced to cartoon villain versions of themselves. BG3's handling of its evil paths also reflects this (for example, Larian doubling down on making it super clear that ascending Astarion is the "wrong" decision instead of merely an evil decision).
Anyway, Sarevok and Viconia's treatment is still my biggest issue with BG3 as a whole. It's just not cool to take characters people love and make them as repulsive as possible. My theory is still that whoever put the characters in this game (whether Larian or WotC) did not play BG1/BG2 or did not play with these characters. Or pay attention to the vast amount of free information on the internet about these characters. I could probably find upwards of 80% of their dialogue online if I looked.
Furthermore, there are weird things said about BG2 that just don't make any sense if you've actually played the game. Like Jaheira tells Gale that Irenicus did a blood transfusion to steal Charname's power, which is a bafflingly inaccurate summary of a major plot point of BG2. I know BG3 takes place over a century after BG2, but IMO it should not take that much effort to make callbacks to BG1/BG2 consistent and accurate. BG3 is a good game, but it's a horrible sequel (to my favorite game ever, no less), and that's why it disappointed me.
