WTF was Viconia Evil in BG3

[Atlantico]

Actual Bioware employees: Our content was constained by TSR's code of ethics.

I wouldn't trust Bioware employees to tell me time of day, but I would trust them to massage their memories to push an agenda.

 

[Roguey]

I wouldn't trust Bioware employees to tell me time of day, but I would trust them to massage their memories to push an agenda.

What agenda? They were forced to make a game where evil was always punished in Baldur's Gate. That restriction was lifted for the sequel, so they went edgier.

 

[Atlantico]

I wouldn't trust Bioware employees to tell me time of day, but I would trust them to massage their memories to push an agenda.

What agenda? They were forced to make a game where evil was always punished in Baldur's Gate. That restriction was lifted for the sequel, so they went edgier.

What agenda? Again, go home Roguey, you're drunk.

 

[whydoibother]

Roguey, are you talking to the berber (african (black) )? Don't do that, you are encouraging it to post more. And its not like it will read your posts and respond in kind, rather it will just post slogans and truisms from 4chan.

 

[roguefrog]

Viconia was reset to factory default settings in BG3. I guess they tried to explain it with that mirror in the place that can steal your memories. Still, a shit move by Larian. Viconia was the best babe of both Baldur's Gate 1 & 2.

Also it's so obvious how they clearly wanted to supplant her with Shadowheart as you have to choose between them.

 

[Luka-boy]

Give me a FUCKEN BREAK!

Larian Support Chatbot: "Understood. You want a Bear Fuckin'. Let me redirect the call to our Gay Druid department."

 

[Saldrone]

Why unfortunate? Because back then it was used less for things that it should have never been used? Things like teenager-deep questions of morality? Or romances? You have many other RPG systems for that. Tons of them in fact. Why would anyone want to explore them in D&D is beyond my limited understanding. Other than Goodkind's wizard's first rule: people are stupid.

Opps, perhaps you meant: in 1998, times of the hegemony of Real-Time. Then I agree 100%. Very unfortunate.

I don't think games should punish you for being evil other than logical outcomes (commit murder or theft in front of witnesses then yeah the law should go after you). But if you can be evil in sneaky underhanded ways, yeah that should be more rewarding than being an honorable person. That's why people do evil things.

Though Bioware going into morally grey territory in BG2 led to nonsense like a lawful good paladin player character agreeing to work with a murdering, torturous thieves' guild on the "good" path and being punished/blocked for not smiting them all on sight. They never were expert writers.

I think there is a mod that offers the Noble Order of Radiant Heart as a third option. I don't know how well executed it is but yeah thinking "morally grey" choices are good for the sake of moral ambiguity is something that only impressionable minds would say.

 

[Morality Games]

I like Viconia and her redemption and it forms part of my preferred playthrough, but canon generally assumes minimalism. The most minimal evolution of Viconia's character is that she stays evil.

Same reason why Drizzt is alive in Shadows of Amn even if you killed him in BG1. Canon narratives generally assume the Player Character took the most direct route and did the least number of things possible. Killing Drizzt in BG1 represents the Player Character actively doing something, so it is supposed not to have occurred in the sequel for purposes of canon.

The issue at stake as I see it is that we should want developers to include fun role playing options, but developers will resist doing so if they perceive they will be judged later for not creating an ideal canon.

 

[Eirinjas]

Given that there were options in the preceding game to redeem Viconia, it seems to me that Larian could have put resources that instead went into shit like dong physics and Bear sex into narrative options such as Viconia is not evil based on togglable options on a fresh game start.

 

[Morality Games]

Given that there were options in the preceding game to redeem Viconia, it seems to me that Larian could have put resources that instead went into shit like dong physics and Bear sex into narrative options such as Viconia is not evil based on togglable options on a fresh game start.

The end result of that is that you get an endless escalatory cycle of pointless references to decisions from prior games, as Bioware proved with the Dragon Age franchise. Superficial, distracting, and artificial feeling.

The most parsimonious approach is just to assume the Player Character did the least possible to resolve the tensions of the previous games' storylines, which means no romances and no redemptive arc for Viconia because the Player Character never had a strong moral alignment in the first place and thus never possessed the desire or the basis from which to attempt to rehabilitate Viconia. Viconia was just a cleric he became party mates with out of the mutual convenience that they were both trying to survive their respective situations and pooling their powers together improved their odds of achieving this.

The baseline canonical Player Character's lack of strong alignment arises because not only do they do the least possible, but they also are and become the least possible version of themselves. The Bhaalspawn canonically did not ascend to godhood in Baldur's Gate 3 because that would have entailed being and becoming something more impactful than the narrative required to resolve the core tensions of the plot, which simply requires that Bhaal's essence be neutralized so it stops being a danger in the world. A garden variety canon would assume that given the choice between this or using the essence to become a god, the Bhaalspawn would definitely choose to remain mortal because that is the most direct and least impactful solution to the problem that imposes the least burden on future developments in the narrative in later games.

In short, canon is supposed to be boring and straightforward in broad terms.

 

[SkyFlyer97]

Honestly, I just find it interesting whenever a game decides not to follow the generic good ending for each character/faction. That's why Viconia's turn didn't bother me like it bothered so many of you. In a hypothetical BG4 scenario (which isn't happening at this point), I thought it would have been cooler if some of the companions canonically chose the evil path, and you found yourself fighting them.

 

[NecroLord]

Given that there were options in the preceding game to redeem Viconia, it seems to me that Larian could have put resources that instead went into shit like dong physics and Bear sex into narrative options such as Viconia is not evil based on togglable options on a fresh game start.

Hell, you could even sleep with her multiple times WHILE BEING A PALADIN!
And no, you did not fall and lose your Paladin status in the process.

 

[jf8350143]

The problem with Viconia and Sarevok in BG 3 is not they are evil, it's that they are essentially different characters comparing to their counterpart in BG1 and 2.

For example no matter what you choose, Sarevok was never a loyal follower of Bhaal. He always wanted to grab power for himself and Bhaal is just a means to an end.

On top of that the BG 3 version of them is just boring and generic.

 

[Stoned Ape]

The problem with Viconia and Sarevok in BG 3 is not they are evil, it's that they are essentially different characters comparing to their counterpart in BG1 and 2.

For example no matter what you choose, Sarevok was never a loyal follower of Bhaal. He always wanted to grab power for himself and Bhaal is just a means to an end.

On top of that the BG 3 version of them is just boring and generic.

Most of that's down to Larian following the WotC official canon for all of the BG2 characters, which is probably set in stone. The only way for Larian to treat them with any care for players would be to not include them in the game (similarly to Bodhi and Irenicus not being included although also currently alive in canon).

TLDR; WotC are cunts and I hope they go bust.

 

[jf8350143]

The problem with Viconia and Sarevok in BG 3 is not they are evil, it's that they are essentially different characters comparing to their counterpart in BG1 and 2.

For example no matter what you choose, Sarevok was never a loyal follower of Bhaal. He always wanted to grab power for himself and Bhaal is just a means to an end.

On top of that the BG 3 version of them is just boring and generic.

Most of that's down to Larian following the WotC official canon for all of the BG2 characters, which is probably set in stone. The only way for Larian to treat them with any care for players would be to not include them in the game (similarly to Bodhi and Irenicus not being included although also currently alive in canon).

TLDR; WotC are cunts and I hope they go bust.

In official cannon Sarevok is dead. LLarian went out their way to bring him back just to make him a generic dumbass villain who also fucks his daughter for some reason. It's 100% on Larian, no need to drag WoTC into it.