Wyll often falls into a pattern of black and white thinking where the sentient beings of Faerun can be sorted into one of two basic categories: monster (bad) and person (good). Monsters are acceptable to kill and in some cases, their death is morally necessary. People on the other hand, may be flawed but are ultimately valuable beings worth protecting at all costs (at least, at all cost to Very Heroic Wyll). This is a theme bg3 plays with more generally. We see it in the discourse around Astarion (āCan a vampire demonstrate empathy?ā āCan a vampire love?ā) as well as Minsc (āif minsc can be evil, and Nine Fingers Keene can be good⦠what then?ā). Many more such examples!
Ulder Ravengard thinks in a similar way, and we have to imagine that Wyll learned much of this thought patterning from him. Whatās so interesting about Wyllās story in particular is that he must bear the repercussions of his fatherās moral categorizing. When Wyll takes Mizoraās deal, he gets shunted straight into his fatherās Bad Category. In Wyllās own words, āHe thought I was a fool or a traitor, and Duke Ravengard suffers neither.ā Notice itās āDuke Ravengardā and not āMy Fatherā, but I canāt explore that rn.
Though Wyll gets redeemed in his fatherās eyes depending on the players choices, we fall short of seeing Ulder acknowledge that his way of looking at the world is fundamentally cruel. Instead of fully confronting that the world is complex, Ulder simply shifts Wyll back into the Good Category. Wyll is reframed as Good, and thus worthy of love again. Nothing has really ontologically changed for Ulder Ravengard. Love from Ulder Ravengard was conditional and remains conditional.
What I find compelling and relatable in Wyll is that he wants to be Good. And not only that, he wants the people he loves to think he is Good, too. Though Wyll can read as very confident and generally happy on the surface, thereās an undercurrent that doesnāt get totally probed in the writing: if I am not Good, then what is left?









