Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9248177" data-attributes="member: 6796468">Yes. I'm aware of what BG3's canon is.My point was to touch on the growing disagreement about what was and wasn't canon in FR and stuff and how trying to create and maintain a hierarchy of canonical importance was silly.That said: Yup. NPCs are totally allowed within BG3 to follow their gods all the way to their deaths without being shown to be in abusive relationship. Once again this thread was about the Origin Characters, I.E. the ones you control as a player and have some kind of narrative input over, all being in fairly toxic or one-sided relationships with their deities and/or religious figures in the case of Vlaakith.No one cares about random Banite #24's relationship with Bane before you kill them and rush over to stop the device from nuking all the Gondians. Nor Viconia's. Nor Ketheric's. Their relationships being healthy or unhealthy are not important to the story and do not convey significant emotional weight.... Viconia -could- be argued to have emotional weight since there are players who worked so hard to get her to become True Neutral in the other BG games. BUT. Her relationship with Shar was never central to that conflict or important to that particular story. They are well within their rights, of course, to be angry that they put all that effort into the character only for her to become a generic kidnapping sociopath antagonist in BG3 whose whole purpose is to be a punchable manifestation of Shadowheart's toxic relationship with Shar for a BG3 player's catharsis.</blockquote>

Verification