With love to Astarion.

Next, tamraspizz calls me “our little liar.”

“If you can’t handle the pain of another person—someone you love—that raises some serious questions.” (с) tamraspizz

For some reason, that particular sentence really struck a nerve with our little liar. I have a theory as to why, but I'll save that for another time. Here's a quote from my comment under that post:

After that, she composes a “quote” from her own nonexistent comment (I have no idea why she would link to something that doesn’t exist instead of simply writing about “what she meant”).

“What you seem to prefer is the polished version of Astarion: smiling, laughing, and never allowing himself to be vulnerable. His pain makes you uncomfortable. But after more than 200 years of enslavement, it's perfectly normal for him to experience grief, fear, anger, and every other painful emotion that comes with trauma.

To me, the pain of someone you love shouldn't be something that drives you away. If you choose to build a relationship with someone carrying that kind of trauma, you should be prepared to stay with them through it, not reject them because of it.” (с) tamraspizz

It's amazing how one can “turn everything upside down.”

As if a sincere “yes” in response to a loved one’s most important question:

“But if they die and I ascend, I won't have to rely on the parasite to walk in the sun. I'll be free - truly, completely free. Isn't that what you want?”

And helping him so that he can do what he’s decided to do—never suffer from hunger again and enjoy the sunshine—is, according to tamraspizz, choosing the “polished version”; it’s the same as rejecting a person who has experienced trauma, not wanting to see their pain. When I clearly stated that I wasn’t going to stand by and watch a loved one suffer WHEN THERE IS A WAY OUT (a way to relieve their pain). I quote verbatim:

“The phrase itself—“If you can’t handle the pain of another person—someone you love—that raises some serious questions”—implicitly asserts that, when a solution exists (the ability to relieve a person’s pain), the “norm” is the ability to endure that pain. For the sake of… someone else’s “emotional satisfaction.” And the desire to use all available effective means to relieve a loved one’s pain is considered a deviation.”

There’s no timer in the game where Сazador ascends on his own and you might not have time to stop him in Honor Mode; there’s no Astarion in the game who decides on his own to stab Сazador and then cries, after you’ve told him that you’ll support whatever decision he makes and will always be on his side. There’s no such Astarion in the game. And there’s no such scenario either. The persuasion—and, in my opinion, some pretty nasty lines: “I want you to live a life you’re proud of. You can’t be proud of this” = “It doesn’t matter how unhappy you’ll be, it doesn’t matter that you won’t be free from all this suffering, it doesn’t matter that you’ll be doomed to ‘some half-existence, hiding in the shadows for the rest of eternity’—the main thing is that I’ll be satisfied, and you can feel like a good guy for that.”  And “This power will trap you, just like it trapped Cazador”—that’s also utter nonsense, a manipulative, categorical statement.

The trap lies in the Tavs’ minds, in their view of a world where “power” inevitably “corrupts.” Persuasion is influencing a character to get what you want. I can’t reject a loved one by helping him get what he’s wanted all game long, as soon as he learned such a possibility existed. I can tell those who want him to give up his own desires to go to hell, but that in no way equates to rejecting him because of the emotions he feels when he’s forced to give up the sun and being “truly, completely free.” And his pain against the backdrop of someone else’s joy and someone else’s “victory”—yes, I truly won’t allow that in my game.

I agree only with this: “But after more than 200 years of enslavement, it's perfectly normal for him to experience grief, fear, anger, and every other painful emotion that comes with trauma.”

I completely agree that Astarion’s anger—his “SILENCE! How dare you speak his name?”—is perfectly normal for a victim of 200 years of slavery; in fact, it’s more than normal. For people who have experienced PTSD, the reaction to something like this can be very aggressive—even lightning-fast—but Astarion merely raises his voice in response to a triggering insult; nothing more.

And take note of the phrase “version of Astarion”—this is precisely what a projection is. It seems that tamraspizz, like others like her, chooses the “version” that suits her best, failing to perceive Astarion as a whole person and disregarding his desires and feelings. The division of a single personality into “versions”—this behavior is called splitting—is one of the classic and most recognizable defense mechanisms, indicating serious difficulties in perceiving oneself and others. It is the psyche’s inability to hold contradictory qualities of the same person in consciousness; instead, certain “versions” of the same personality are created. The psyche, as it were, “splits” the whole personality into two parts because it cannot tolerate ambivalence. Based on this perception, they also believe that other people will likewise choose the “version” of Astarion that suits them, even though he is the same character, and the player chooses the sequence of events that will happen to that character.  I reject the chain of events that happens to Astarion on the UA path; I reject playing as this Tav, who persuades Astarion and then simply doesn’t care that Astarion will never see the sun, neglects his problems, and goes about doing other things. And Tav stands calmly in the docks scene, as if they’re perfectly fine with it. From an outsider’s perspective, this character’s behavior can only seem malicious. Yes, the player has nothing to do with it—the player can’t do anything about it—but isn’t it also possible for another player to reject this particular playthrough and refuse to “step into the shoes” of and play as someone whose behavior they find repulsive? Tamraspizz is far from the first person to try to claim that “you don’t like UA,” as if the discussion were even about a “desired version” of Astarion for anyone.

Yes, Сazador’s death is cathartic in and of itself. Without a doubt. It’s impossible not to feel catharsis when killing the one who tortured Astarion for 200 years. But then what? Astarion mourns what was stolen from him. Taken away forever. That’s it. Nothing can be brought back; it’s no longer possible to “unmake what you made me.” Astarion will forever remain what Cazador made him. He’ll remain a spawn. Yes, Neil portrayed that beautifully.

A situation that makes him feel bad, and a character who is right there with him and is okay with it—that’s what I’m rejecting when I reject this option, not Astarion’s “version.”

And then she quotes that well-known quote from Adam Smith about “fears,” as if it were some kind of “revelation.”

"So with Astarion, his evil ending is actually him...much of what he does is out of fear. And as a player, you can say to him, "You're right to be afraid." And that sends him to a really horrible place, and that I think is really powerful" — senior writer Adam Smith.

“I bet you'll once again claim that the developers' views are just their personal opinions, conveniently ignoring the fact that they're the ones who created these characters, shaped their personalities, and wrote their story arcs.” © tamraspizz

First, Adam Smith says that “his evil ending is actually him.” This is what Astarion himself desires. Astarion strives for power—throughout the entire game, and even before he learned about the ritual. And the fear is something anyone with PTSD will experience. For people who don’t live in a world of pink ponies, fear is also part of a rational mechanism for survival and adaptation in a hostile environment. That form of “fear” which prompts a person to perceive reality accurately and take steps to ensure their own safety is a useful survival mechanism. Astarion behaves exactly this way; he sensibly looks out for his own safety and increases his chances of survival. On the UA path, he is more afraid, because he is more vulnerable and weaker—and he is still the same Astarion, with the same PTSD. There is a big difference between irrational fear and the rational desire to improve one’s chances of survival.

And as a player, the game did manage to scare me once (it managed to scare me only once, and the character’s facial expressions—as if she’s afraid—are shown out of place in cutscenes from time to time, which looks silly when you’re trying to role-play as a warrior)—with this very diary entry: “Astarion’s fate is sealed. He will be a vampire spawn for the rest of his days” during my first playthrough. Fear is a valuable defense mechanism that warns you not to “go down the wrong path”; a little stress—fear—protects you from greater stress—sudden disaster (which is what happens if you encounter that scene at the docks without spoilers or a warning). So, as a player, yes, I could tell Astarion that he’s absolutely right. He’s right in that he’s making a rational decision to reclaim a full life and gain more power—and, consequently, more security—in a hostile world. Later in the interview, the developers discuss the scene where Astarion burns. In other words, they themselves clearly demonstrated in the game what would happen to him without Ascension, and just how right Astarion is in his desire to Ascend. At least, that’s exactly how it looks to me on screen when comparing both final scenes.

But I haven't found any “really horrible place” in the game's plot that “sends him” there. I guess this “place” is in the same place as the well-developed content for “evil” playthroughs. Continued from Adam Smith's comment:

“I think one of the things that happens on the evil playthrough is I always see this thing where they're like, "Oh, there's no tieflings anymore because I killed the tieflings." It's intentional. Your world is a little emptier because of that, and you are playing a route which is much more selfish and much more, again, afraid. You end up isolated.

SV: It's very hard to show lots of consequences in the evil playthrough that are actually happening.

AS: Yeah, they become emptiness instead.”

Criticism from players regarding how Larian realized “evil” playthroughs in the game was also quite widespread.

Personally, I’m very glad that this “really horrible place”—as Adam Smith called it—doesn’t exist in the game, but I have a different opinion about the non-existent interesting content for “evil” playthroughs. For some reason, the creators of the original BG1 and BG2, as well as many other excellent role-playing games, didn’t find it “very hard” to make a full-fledged RPG with a variety of options and a decent amount of content for the role-playing of various alignments. This interview is worth reading for those who were impressed by the new Divinity trailer and are expecting grimdark from the upcoming game. At the very least, it’s intriguing to see how Larian will handle this genre at all.

While I was writing this post, I received an email notification about yet another piece of “work” by this person. It’s funny—I thought that having personal haters was a perk reserved for major content creators, not for a small personal blog on Tumblr.

And this person's craving for attention is obvious. “As you can see, it attracted quite a bit of attention, which was hardly surprising.” – about her petty comment, which people responded to. 

“People push back”—when someone comes along with a “valuable” opinion along the lines of “You can’t even properly process the writer’s own words” (similar things happened all the time on YouTube channels dedicated to Ascended Astarion). This is what they call “push back.”

“The next morning, I woke up to a flood of messages from the author.” – Oh my gosh, the author showed up later and replied, but there’s a character limit on comments on Tumblr, so you have to write several.

“I reposted my reply, censoring the author’s identity to avoid unnecessary drama.” – with a clear intention that is now absolutely obvious.

I evaluate Tav as a character, and given how much is constantly being directed at Astarion, is a similar personal assessment of another in-game character—that is, how that character comes across when certain lines are chosen—considered “aggression”?

"...you also called Astarion an asshole, and I think it’s fine for me to call the character what I consider them to be" — At that point, I hadn't insulted the author, Tav, or, least of all, Astarion. So what exactly is this AA fan talking about?”

Here's what I'm talking about:

“And let me remind you, if you break up with AA, he spits just as much venom as Spawn does, because at the end of the day, it's still Astarion—an asshole with a terrible attitude.” © tamraspizz

I consider myself more than justified in pointing out Tav’s “terrible attitude” toward Astarion in certain situations and calling this character a “bitch”—which is exactly what they are, in my opinion, in those instances.

She “quickly became fascinated by Astarion as a character” (who, in her own words, was “an asshole with a terrible attitude”). And she “pushes back” against those who don’t like the bitter ending and who didn’t appreciate the “author’s intent” enough.

“Well… the thing is, while I was working on these posts, researching the lore, watching developer interviews, and various video analyses to make sure I hadn't overlooked anything, I stumbled across one video. I happened to scroll through the comments.” – Is that what they call searching for a user’s comments by nickname across different platforms these days? “I happened to scroll through the comments” to find a comment from a year ago under a video that’s also a year old. Unless, of course, tamraspizz is @Mithcoriel herself, or Mithcoriel is one of the people tamraspizz was writing this post with. Remembering a whole year’s worth—wow, I would never have thought to remember all of them by their usernames…

 Here's the full picture of how I'm “attacking them personally”

I responded to an extremely stupid and insulting comment from @octopus-i1n

You can form your own opinion about this “discussion in the comments” by following the link to the video.

@Mithcoriel decided to engage in a discussion with me of her own accord, even though she couldn't read the text of the comment, but still had something to say on the matter: “Sorry if I don't read your whole post, but I just wanted to say: you see Astarion's crying after he chooses not to ascend as a sign that he's miserable?That's ridiculous.”

Is it okay to respond to someone who wants to argue with you without reading what you wrote (which, admittedly, they themselves honestly admit) by saying that they “take only one thing out of context, ignoring all other examples, which changes the meaning of what your opponent said and is not a good-faith argument”? Or is that “attacking them personally” and “getting aggressive”?

I wasn't “attacking” @Mithcoriel at all; I was just discussing the game's plot. Tamraspizz didn't include her comment, to which I replied:

Also, @Mithcoriel seems to have deleted her comment about something along the lines of “self-delusion” and my “fetishes” and “vampire powers.” Of course, I don’t remember exactly what it said, but otherwise I probably wouldn’t have responded that way, putting my opponent’s words in quotes:

If tamraspizz really did visit some Russian Telegram community for consorts, I sincerely sympathize with all of its members. But any fool can make images like that—just by typing text on a black background and taking a photo. My words are my words, and I’m not going to take back a single one of them, but I think those who followed this “discussion” could clearly see what tamraspizz was trying to do with my words.

Tamraspizz tries to project a sense of grandeur and superiority. She positions herself as a “whistleblower” who sees the “true” picture, in contrast to her “misguided” opponents. Her posts are structured like a patronizing lecture.

It seems there’s a need for admiration and validation. She writes certain “exposé” posts, clearly expecting her words to be taken as a compelling argument and to receive likes from antis. There are noticeable fantasies about potentially causing pain, a sense of pleasure in the thought that she’s managed to hurt someone (regardless of whether this corresponds to reality or not; in the mind of such a person, everything comes together into a picture that’s most “emotionally satisfying” for her). Or simply taking pleasure in fantasizing that someone might be suffering. Even my quote along the lines of:

“I honestly believe that this kind of experience could be used to test the effectiveness of antidepressants—whether they work or not.

But that's a sign of good writing, isn't it?”

(In the sense that good writing, in one way or another, evokes strong emotions; the player won’t feel indifferent or bored, and evoking strong negative or distressing emotions can also be a sign of the author’s talent.) Tamraspizz even found a reason to indulge in her own fantasies here:

“Well, I don't think they work...” © tamraspizz

“In the current research, we were interested in the Dark Triad with respect to appropriateness of emotional response to sad, fearful, or happy stimulus. Previous studies have found that especially Machiavellianism and psychopathy have an association with schadenfreude, feeling happy about other's misfortune (Porter, Bhanwer, Woodworth, & Black, 2014).” - A quote from the study I cited, which made her so angry.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916309461#:~:text=The%20Dark%20Triad%20has%20been,%2C%20happy%2C%20and%20fearful%20stimuli

Belittling opponents. She uses derogatory labels (“our little liar,” accusations of an inability to “read” and “understand”) to try to belittle her opponents and their arguments. This is a way to defend her sense of superiority.

Use of DARVO. She systematically denies her insults, attacks her opponent, and reverses the roles of victim and abuser. This is a calculated tactic to evade responsibility and maintain control over the narrative. The key behavioral pattern of tamraspizz is precisely DARVO as her central tactic.

Deny: She denies the insults I highlighted and pointed out, as well as any misrepresentation of the facts.

Attack: She attacks her opponent, accusing them of being illogical, “toxic,” and unable to read and understand.

Reverse Victim and Offender: She portrays herself as a “fighter against toxicity” and a “whistleblower,” while portraying the other person as an aggressor who imposes “their roleplay” instead of some “narrative” and “slanders” the developers.

The use of traps (“baiting”). Her provocative questions and personal attacks on her opponent are a deliberate attempt to rile them up, so she can then accuse them of “aggression” and “an inability to engage in dialogue.”

I also think that this quote from a psychiatric study: “One of the suggestions is that individuals high in the Dark Triad may understand the feelings that other individuals have (i.e., have cognitive empathy), but they don't show an appropriate emotional response to emotion-evoking stimulus (i.e., lack affective empathy; e.g., Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012).”

Can explain this paragraph:

“Perhaps the issue is also that the person simply does not read these kinds of emotions in the way they were intended. Strong emotions such as pain, fear, and vulnerability require the viewer to step outside of their own immediate reaction and try to understand what is happening inside the character. You have to see the inner conflict behind the outward expression of emotion, rather than simply judging how comfortable or uncomfortable the scene is to watch”. © tamraspizz

A person with a deficit in affective empathy cannot “read” another person’s emotional state intuitively or naturally. Instead, they look for external guidance—such as “what was intended” or “how to interpret it correctly.” They insist that the only correct interpretation is the one “intended by the author” (according to their interpretation) and “cannot understand” why anyone would see it differently. They cite the interview as “sacred scripture,” attempting to label those with a different interpretation as “people with mental health issues” (“Are you batshit crazy?”). Furthermore, tamraspizz attributes emotions to other people, claiming that they stem solely from a desire for their own comfort—“simply judging how comfortable or uncomfortable the scene is to watch.” As if a player capable of feeling empathy toward a loved one—understanding what happened but not intending to interpret it “correctly” (according to someone’s “orders from above”)—is some kind of “superficial” person who simply doesn’t want to witness a “scene that’s unpleasant to the eye”.

Impulsiveness and a tendency to escalate conflicts. Instead of responding calmly and substantively, she resorts to personal attacks and uses emotionally charged language when she feels threatened.

“Can we finally let him express the emotions and pain he has kept buried inside for so long, instead of turning him into nothing more than a beautiful image?” © tamraspizz

“We” must “let” him suffer from eternal hunger, never even knowing what it’s like not to feel that torment. “Let” him never again be able to turn his face toward the sun and catch its rays, smiling. “We” must finally “let” him burn almost to the bone and then sit, huddled behind crates in the docks, while the rest celebrate their “victory.” “We” must “let” him never see in the mirror—“It’s... me. The ritual gave me back my reflection—after all these years... Hello again. Gods, I missed you.” “We” must “let” him experience all of this, let everything be taken from him again. Otherwise… something “terrible” will happen—Astarion won’t experience the pain and emotions he expresses in that bitter, desperate sob.

The title of the post itself sounds pretty silly: “Toxic Trends in the AA Segment of the BG3 Fandom and efforts to Imprint Personal Roleplay and Headcanons onto the Game’s Narrative!”

In my “discussions” with this person, I never once discussed my own roleplay or headcanons—only facts from the game and interpretations of in-game events. But it sounds as if you can “imprint” something on the most sacred “Game’s Narrative” itself if you write about your roleplay or your favorite h/c. Yes, all this nonsense started with a post containing a player’s opinion on an interview with the writer. Look, don’t write about your own perceptions, roleplay, or headcanons, or else a “Toxic Trend” will come after you—because someone dared to encroach on the sanctity of the divine scripture and didn’t worship the “Game’s Narrative” in the form that took shape in tamraspizz’s head based on various interviews with the game’s authors!

But as for the toxic users who regularly show up in the AA fandom section, trying to spread their “Toxic Trends” there—yes, that does happen (and everyone has encountered it). Specifically, tamraspizz has lost it and resorted to insults several times.

“our little liar” to me, twice.

“У тебя там совсем кукушка съехала?” – For some reason, there’s Russian text in an English post. The translation closest to the original is: “Are you batshit crazy?” Well, as usual—ableism and declaring everyone who disagrees with them mentally ill.

“are still in the same room with you? I’m worried about you.”  – similar crap has been posted by anonymous users before, word for word. And I sincerely sympathize with everyone in the fandom who has any kind of mental illness and is forced to deal with shit like this on a regular basis. Their goal is to harm you by any means necessary; they get a kick out of it. It goes so far that they’re even willing to imagine the harm they’ve caused someone else.

“If you can’t handle the pain of another person—someone you love—that raises some serious questions.”

For some reason, that particular sentence really struck a nerve with our little liar. I have a theory as to why, but I'll save that for another time.” (с) tamraspizz

Tamraspizz хочет верить, что её слова имели значение для оппонента, что она достигла своей цели и что ей удалось « действительно задеть за живое ». Эта же высокомерность и уверенность в значимости собственных слов для другого человека схожи с поведением анонимного пользователя, который оскорблял меня после моего появления в сети, а у других пользователей ранее уже был небольшой конфликт с tamraspizz. Подробнее об этом читайте здесь:

Her hatred for commenters and her description of them as the “cancer tumor of the fandom,” as well as her naming of specific individuals (whose names have been redacted in my post)—this most likely refers to those who had the misfortune of ever interacting with her on Russian-language platforms.

“Before I begin, I would like to clarify one thing: personal impressions, assumptions, and headcanons presented as facts, as well as the rephrasing of an opponent’s arguments into a more convenient form for debate, are not particularly convincing arguments”. (с) tamraspizz

“personal impressions, assumptions, and headcanons” from her are collected here:

She shifts the “focus” to other companions and the “narrative.” I want to admit right away that I run a personal blog about Astarion; of course, a fan of Lae’zel, Gale, or Shadowheart who has devoted as much time to them as I have to Astarion will write about their endings and story arcs much better. I can discuss other companions in general discussions without tagging them or interfering with their fandoms, but nevertheless, I apologize to the die-hard fans of any particular companion if I’ve gotten anything wrong. But that doesn’t change the fact that Astarion’s so-called “good” ending, in my opinion, is much worse than the “good endings” of everyone else (maybe Karlach wasn’t very lucky either, but she doesn’t have an “evil” option where her engine could be repaired at the cost of some “sacrifices”; essentially, the only choice for her romantics is to go with her to Avernus).

“Here is what Sven Vincke said about the overall narrative of the game:

“We wanted to make a game about survival and trust; these are two of our main themes, from which everything began. Later, we also added the theme of power, so these are now our three central themes.” (с) tamraspizz

The source of the quote is not specified, and I was unable to find any articles containing this specific quote by Swen Vincke on the three central themes—survival, trust, and power. If it came from a video interview, no reader would go through the trouble of combing through all of Swen Vincke’s interviews to verify it. It seems that tamraspizz doesn’t bother with links and perhaps genuinely views readers as people incapable of following a link and evaluating the source for themselves. Otherwise, how could a verbatim, abridged quote from an article be presented as “a completely distorted way”?

You’d probably have to be someone like tamraspizz not to realize right away that the developers’ initials are mentioned in the interview, that this is the interview’s subtitle, and that if you simply copy the interview text, it would look exactly like this (Chrystal Ding’s quote is provided separately; anyone can view the full text of the interview via the link). Adam Smith agrees with the interviewer’s statement: “In many ways it is, yeah.” And Swen Vincke also responds to “If you wait that long, it’s a cool ending” with agreement: “It is.” Gale’s fans reacted negatively to this interview; they probably managed to read the entire interview themselves, without relying on anyone’s abridged quotes. My opponent keeps trying to make it seem as if I’m calling the developers “sadists,” when nothing of the sort happened. Authors may have different preferences and interests when it comes to writing tragic, violent scenarios for characters—that’s perfectly normal. The quote about Gale’s ending refers to the difference in perception between writers and players—the fact that you can love a character but still have different views from the writers regarding “preferred” endings or gameplay situations in the scenario. Similarly, if one wishes, one could cite numerous interviews with game developers where certain writers challenged the interviewer’s claims when they disagreed with the journalist’s opinion.

Let’s try to find something similar to this quote from Swen Vincke. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter (“Baldur’s Gate 3” Director on Re-Creating the “Table-Top Experience” in New Role-Playing Game), Swen Vincke does indeed discuss trust as a central theme of the game. He notes that the plot of Baldur’s Gate 3 is specifically structured around testing trust among party members, especially against the backdrop of the threat of turning into an illithid. However, in this interview, he does not mention power as a separate central theme on par with survival and trust.

Quote:

“Vincke views the latter as especially integral to delivering an authentic, conversation and debate fostering, pen-and-paper experience. “There’s a very strong focus on the party, and the relationships between the companions,” he says. “When it comes to companions and your party, trust is the central theme of the game.”

Tamraspizz posted a video featuring the fixed companions' lines from Patch 7, trying to make me look like some kind of “crazy person” for my old interpretation of this scene, which I saw back in Patch 4. By the way, in Patch 7, Larian also fixed the terrible expressions on the Tavs’ faces during the kisses with the Ascended Astarion. Anti-AA fanatics constantly ranted that fans “forced” Larian to change “their vision,” even though (this so-called “vision”—in the form of an insulting “fart-service” and a slap in the face to the people who had supported them since EA and voted for them as “Game of the Year”—was only added in Patch 6; before that, the game had always featured wonderful kisses and 18 lines about love in the romance arc).

The vision in which the “good” companions were portrayed as meanies who clearly shouldn’t be trusted (unless you’re the main character holding the prism, outside of whose protective field they risk turning into Illithids) wasn’t found in interviews or statements, but directly in the script itself, in the UA scene at the docks. And it was there for a very long time—from the game’s release all the way up to Patch 7 (the penultimate one).

Earlier lines from the companions:

Shadowheart: It seems that's the end of Astarion's love affair with the sun. That'll be hard on him.

Gale: I suppose that's the last time any of us will see him, and the last time he'll ever see the sun.

Wyll: Astarion will keep to the dark now, I wager. At least... he'll find plenty to feast on.

Halsin: He will sorely miss that freedom, I sense. It may be quite some time before we see him again.

Jaheira: I doubt we'll ever see that face baskin in the sun again.

Minsc: We will find you, Astarion! AND BOO WILL BRING A SUNFLOWER!

“It even includes the Patch 6 versions, and while those reactions are noticeably more subdued, there is still no laughter. Is there a single thing you won't lie about? (Spoiler: nope)” (с) tamraspizz

“more subdued,” she says. It seems that when a person clearly doesn’t understand any emotional nuances (in a scene meant to be mocking and derisive, the characters absolutely must be laughing out loud, I suppose—otherwise it won’t be clear that they’re trying to mock your loved one), any perception of a phenomenon based on its essence—rather than on “what the author said” and how it “should” be perceived—will be a “lie.” And although, in terms of what’s actually happening, nothing really changed in the docks scene, the change in the “authors’ vision” of the “good” companions’ lines didn’t occur until Patch 7. After a wave of feedback from dissatisfied players, including those who had previously calmly ignored the existence of the UA path in the game and the scenes it contained—those who simply had no intention of accepting or choosing this, and for whom Larian simply decided in Patch 6 to turn their paid-for game into crap, instead of fixing their own screw-ups on their “good” path.

Especially since the theme of trust is explored so beautifully in the romance Ascended Astarion"s romance. Trust—after everything Astarion has been through—is the most important and most valuable thing of all.

“You are so beautiful... And you will be beautiful forever. Thank you for trusting me.”

When he thanks you for trusting him, he has such a look in his eyes and such an expression on his face that he just breaks the fourth wall.

“I have one person who trust me completely. That’s enough for me”

his line in a banter with Karlach.

“Quite the opposite - I need someone I can trust. And now I know they'll never betray me.”

a banter with Lae'zel.

“Trust me, I know what I'm doing.”

(During the ritual, when Tav asks Astarion: “Didn’t you hear him? If you complete the ritual, you’ll be consumed”).

His gratitude—for love, for trust, for help, for the chance at happiness for the first time after two hundred years of pain—is, truly, deeply moving. It moves me much more and feels far more meaningful than the single line about relationships in UA’s romance (“Nothing special, of course. You're only the first person who I truly care for”), which was perhaps meant to convey “that sense of him having learned how to care about someone” at the cost of “He loses his ability to walk in the sun. He loses a lot of the cool stuff that has made him an unusual vampire.”

The quote from “another interview” with Sven Vincke can indeed be verified; it comes from here:

So? There really are a lot of subtle details—you can see how Astarion is feeling, his depression, his pain on the UA path, and how he opens up and breaks free, his laughter, his joy on the Ascended Path. These subtle details definitely deserve a separate study. The title of this article: “Baldur’s Gate 3’s Swen Vincke: ‘I Believe in Agency for Both Developers and Players’.”

Well, then, the esteemed Swen Vincke should make games that live up to his own words, and if the game embodies complete agency for the developers themselves (which is certainly the case in BG3), if the developers can express their love for tragedies, for glass, for “bittersweet” endings, regardless of the players’ wishes—well, art and self-expression should be free. Just don’t take away the agency in an RPG from those players who don’t like this version of events (for writing their own fanfic in the game, Baudelaire Welch had too much agency, clearly at the expense of the player’s agency).  There’s no need to force players into a submissive role according to the script, denying them a choice (when it would have been easy to add D/s kisses as a free add-on, and anyone who wanted them could click a single button to download and replace the animations in their game, while the rest would keep the wonderful animations from Patch 5, and there would be no arguments or dissatisfaction). There’s no need to break the game’s check mechanics just to force players to agree that they enjoy “degrading themselves.”

And further on in tamraspizz’s post, the developers said this, the developers said that, without any references to interviews (“In one of his interviews…” etc.). I’m not going to check all the quotes—it would take too long—but maybe they’re taken from video interviews. Although it would be very interesting to compare what Larian’s developers say with how they actually implemented it in the game. For example, a possible quote from Crystal Ding (I couldn’t find the original article containing this quote) about how you, the player, “are influencing how they develop and who they become.”

How the player's influence is implemented in the Astarion storyline (to persuade him to refuse the ritual):

“It doesn't matter which answer options you choose throughout the game, Astarion himself does not refuse the ritual, only if he does not have the opportunity to perform the ritual: if he has not read the scroll or one of the spawns is killed.

It also doesn't matter if you're friends with him or in a romantic relationship, the test of persuasion is always the same.

18 persuasion and 20 insight, but you'll have an advantage in the insight test if you're having an affair with him, that's the only difference - Verified!” (Quote from a comment by the channel's creator, AlexKhodja).

I’ve verified this as well. Anyone can verify it. It’s a single roll of the dice, with no connection to the plot, other choices, relationships, etc. Astarion was simply stripped of the ability to choose his own fate; he can’t Ascend without the player’s help, and that’s it. Only someone who has never played a good RPG before—and who hasn’t played Rogue Trader since BG3—might admire this approach to “influencing” companions. In that case, this option, where you can press a button and think you’re able to “influence” in this way:

It's probably impressive.

«In my recent post, I also emphasized the importance of choices and the consequences that follow from them in relation to the endings of character arcs. My point is that every choice has its own cost» (с) tamraspizz

Wow, so there are choices and consequences in RPGs? That’s news to me! And we could also point out that water is wet, fire is hot, and if you don’t breathe, you might suffocate. That’s certainly a profound insight for the gaming industry. Is there even a single action, in principle, that has no consequences? Even if I don’t do anything right now—that’s still an action, and it has consequences. “Every choice has its own cost” isn’t a discovery—it’s a description of the basic mechanics of RPGs. This idea boils down to the fact that the universe is structured in such a way that any action (or inaction) sets off a chain of events. This is called “life.” In RPGs, it’s called “the game.” And in tamraspizz’s post, it’s called “narrative depth,” though in essence, it’s basic physics. But this is what distinguishes RPGs from games with a single, strictly predetermined plot, where there may be pseudo-choices that boil down to whether you say “yes” politely or sarcastically—but the outcome will be the same.

“My argument was that every companion ending—whether commonly perceived as "good" or "bad"— carries its own set of consequences.” –

That’s great. In her previous post, tamraspizz wrote about “losses”—this companion loses this, that one loses that, even Wyll loses the powers he gained through his contract with Mizora, and blah, blah, blah. Which, of course, looks like a blatant neglect of what Astarion loses on the UA path. Now it turns out her argument is based on the principle of cause and effect, whereas I, apparently, wasn’t offering my own assessment of the “losses” suffered by other companions, but was actually arguing against the cornerstone of classical physics—the idea that every action has a consequence—almost as if I were disputing Newton’s second law. Tamraspizz, I agree that in an RPG, every ending has its own set of consequences. And I agree that all objects and processes in the universe are interconnected through physical fields and interactions. And I agree with the butterfly effect in deterministic systems, too, lol.

This is a good example of a situation where someone tries with all their might to confuse you in order to “catch” a flaw in your reasoning and “prove” that you “always lie.” Okay, let’s go over a couple of points with some other companions, even though this has nothing to do with either the Astarion’s plot itself or Stephen Rooney’s much-talked-about interview.

“Once again, instead of acknowledging that every ending comes with consequences, you're trying to evaluate those consequences instead—and in a rather questionable way.” (с) tamraspizz-  So, does evaluating the consequences amount to the same thing as denying their existence? That’s some kind of verbal pun. It’s impossible to both evaluate and deny them at the same time.

“Lae'zel gains freedom, but she also loses the worldview, purpose, and identity she devoted her entire life to.” And “The fact that she enjoys fighting doesn't change the reality that a war against Vlaakith would be dangerous, bloody, and claim countless lives—perhaps even Lae'zel's.”

It will also be a fact that the Githyanki people, in order to “avoid bloodshed,” must remain under Vlaakith’s rule and fight in her wars. The worldview has changed; the chain of former beliefs has been shattered. An “identity crisis” is the collapse of the chain of previous beliefs. New ones are born in its place. The worldview has not “shattered”; it is based on a chain of new beliefs. A worldview is a search for oneself. I don’t know how this contradicts the quote from Kostov.

Moreover, the Githyanki’s beliefs are based on Gith’s plan and Gith’s teachings. This is the lore of the Githyanki. The Githyanki believed that Vlaakith was Gith’s heir, and the tablets revealed the truth about Prince Orpheus. The chain of their former beliefs has not even been completely broken—the Githyanki and Laezel continue to follow Gith’s teachings. They learned that Orpheus is the true heir. Yet they continue to follow Gith’s teachings. The question regarding Gith’s plan and Gith’s teachings is: who is leading the Githyanki people to victory? Some aspects of their previous beliefs have been revised, and their worldview has shifted. Moreover, this adjustment was still made in relation to the teachings of Gith. And the teachings of Gith—that is the essence; that is what the Githyanki follow. Laezel lost her faith not in the teachings of Gith itself, but in the idea that Vlaakith rightfully occupies her place. What she felt in that moment is a separate topic.

“So persuading her to avoid both death and a life built on lies is a good thing. Why doesn't that same reasoning apply to Astarion? Or am I misunderstanding something? Was Tav supposed to do nothing, even if it meant the person they love would likely.. die?”

A complete misunderstanding. What’s more, the author even highlighted my words in the text:

Is it really not clear enough that Tav must persuade Lae'zel to swear allegiance to Vlaakith in Act 3? Once she has learned the truth about Orpheus, in order for Lae'zel to continue serving Vlaakith and die at the end—resulting in one of “some of the most heartbreaking endings”—you must pass a Persuasion check. Persuasion is required for La’ezel to remain on Vlaakith’s side. You’ll also need Persuasion to keep La’ezel with you if, in the finale, you decide to betray Orpheus and side with the Emperor (DC 15 without the hammer, DC 30 with the hammer in your inventory).

Therefore, the same logic applies to Astarion as well; Tav can persuade both of them against their will and desires.

“By the way, do you know what other parallel Lae'zel shares with Astarion? Ascension. In Lae'zel's Ascension ending, she actually dies. Just an interesting little fact.” (с) tamraspizz

Lorroakan also asks for help with “his Ascension.” He doesn’t die, but is very pleased if Eileen is given to him. Lorroakan seeks immortality; in his understanding, “Ascension” is a victory over death and the attainment of eternal life. To achieve this, he needs to obtain the Night Song in order to draw the power of immortality from her. Gale’s Ascension is his transformation into The God of Ambition, the attainment of divinity. Gale can also offer his beloved the chance to ascend to his new divine realm and rule it alongside him. If the offer is accepted, Gale will fulfill his promise and ascend his partner to the heavens so that, together with them, he can fulfill the ambitions of mortals in bliss. Raphael has an “Ascended Fiend” form—this is his Phase 2 form, which he transforms into during the battle against him in the House of Hope.

On the Forgotten Realms wiki, you can read about the ascension of Wyll's father, Grand Duke Ulder Ravengard. About how

“Prior to his ascension as Marshal of the Flaming Fist, Blaze Ravengard enjoyed a strong working relationship with Grand Duke Abdel Adrian.”

“Ascension,” in a broad cultural sense, is an archetypal metaphor for the transition to a fundamentally new level of existence, power, or consciousness. It is one of humanity’s most ancient and universal themes, found in mythology and religion. Christianity: Christ’s Ascension into heaven is a key dogma, signifying victory over death and a return to the Father. Greek mythology: After his death, Hercules ascends to Olympus and becomes a god. Ancient Egypt: After death, the pharaoh ascends to the stars and merges with Osiris/Ra. Transhumanism: Technological ascension—the fusion of human and machine, the uploading of consciousness into a digital form, and the transcendence of the biological body. Warhammer 40,000: The Primarchs ascend to the status of daemonic princes, gaining the power of the Chaos Gods.

In BG3, the authors used the same term to refer to Astarion and Lae’zel. What’s the difference? Probably the fact that Lae’zel doesn’t actually achieve any personal Ascension; Vlaakith deceives her and devours her, as Withers explains in the epilogue. Astarion achieves Ascension; Lae’zel was deceived. There are no parallels; Lae’zel only shares the ending’s title, “Ascension.”

“Really? Did Lae'zel ever grab Tav by the throat during a kiss? Did she ever shove them during an intimate moment?” (с) tamraspizz

Oh yeah, for some reason, the developers didn't insult Lae'zel's fans as a “Valentine's Day gift.” Or at least they didn't try to pull off some not-so-successful fan service for D/s featuring her.

During Larian's presentation at PAX West 2024, when asked about sexuality in BG3, Adam Smith mentioned that they purposely added "kinky" sexual scenes into the game to make things more authentic, and that they consider that a good thing that they're proud of. He said,

"We wanted it to feel authentic... I don't think sexuality should be controversial; different kinks, arousals, fetishes, whatever it might be... I think it's okay for things to be sexy.”

Larian wanted to include the BDSM community in the game and chose Astarion for the role of the dominant partner, since he’s the best fit for it. In Patch 6, they rendered the player character's facial expressions in a terrible way, which insulted many players, but in Patch 7, they fixed the facial expressions, making these scenes consistent with the vision Adam Smith outlined in this presentation. But why weren’t players who want classic romance taken into account, even though Astarion’s character would have been perfectly suited for exactly two choice-based storylines or different options? That’s a question for the developers. And this applies only to the “fan service”—the kisses. In the main romantic scene, Astarion grabs Tav by the throat only at the player’s request, when choosing the line: “Let it hurt.” (“Player squirms a bit, gasping for breath. They’re enjoying it”), as indicated in the dev notes. After the bite, he gently releases Tav’s neck and also touchingly utters words of gratitude. If you choose “Be gentle,” Astarion does not do this.

“Astarion reaches down, takes Player's left hand with his right hand. He brought the hand up to his lips. He kisses it gently, tenderly. Then looking at Player, he turns their hand over to expose the wrist. He takes a bite. Player stares at Astarion while he feasts, enjoying the sensation” © devnotes

And Astarion shoves the player during an intimate moment in the UA scene at the graveyard.

But, “of course,” it’s only after the Ascension that Astarion shoves the player away during an intimate moment.

“People compare Ascended Astarion to Cazador for many reasons, not because of a single line. You've got to be trolling me. T_T”

There are many reasons…

1. Primitive thinking. The inability to view a character as a distinct, complex individual, but only in terms of certain stereotypes. In that case, Astarion will be either Cazador, or Strahd, or some other familiar nonsense—but certainly not a character with his own personality.

2. Malice. Both in relation to Astarion in the game—to cause him pain (comparing him to a tormentor is a triggering comparison for a victim of abuse)—and within the fandom, to provoke anger in people who love Astarion and incite them to aggression, for example. This is called “reactive abuse.”

“Now we're going to talk about reactive abuse. And this happens very often with narcissists. So what they'll do to paint the picture that you are the problem is that they will pull the strings behind the scenes and maybe get you to explode in anger or to act in a way that you're not proud of in front of other people. And this paints the picture that you are the abusive person when really the other person is behind the scenes pulling the strings and they know exactly what they're doing and they are purposely getting you to react in a certain way in front of other people. So they will bait you into arguments or they'll bait you into a reaction. They'll talk about something that they know is triggering to you or they'll act in a way that they know is triggering to you. Maybe they'll act in a way that's exceptionally insensitive. And that's been a hot button issue in your relationship.” – a quote from a psychologist’s video:

The people I wrote about in my post, citing studies that show that “narcissism relates to feeling positive when viewing sad faces, and psychopathy to feeling positive when viewing fearful faces”. It's about people like that, and certainly not about “everyone who chooses the Spawn path.”

3. Read a bunch of nonsense and just repeat this headcanon about how destroying your enemy and using him as an ingredient in a ritual automatically and magically turns you into his exact copy.

“Clear answer”

(which doesn’t include any words about Astarion, only about the ending for Karlach) from the developers—as I understand it, this is from Community Update #24: Looking To The Future

I don't know what tamraspizz was getting at in that post, but in order not to be “the only one” among those who “dare to criticize Larian” (“you still have the audacity to criticize Larian”—yeah, I still do, lol), I’ll quote another player’s review for a change of pace (and yes, I agree with this review):

“Larian attempts to say that it isn't "Cut Content" but then immediately says:

"One of the reasons why we trimmed the epilogue is because we were afraid the ending cinematics were becoming too long and would detract from the epicness of the experience."

I mean okay, you didn't think it worked properly, but that is still...cut content. It doesn't just stop being cut because you will it to not be so. (Or call it "trimmed" like that is better?).

Also the idea that they made a 120+ hour game and thought that a few minutes of cinematics to end it off was "too long" is about the silliest excuse I've ever heard someone attempt to say with a straight face.” © Maverick56

The ending of Unascended Astarion in the docks completely undermined the game’s “epic” feel to such an extent that it literally destroyed the meaning of all those epic battles and victories—what the hell is the point of all that (from a player’s perspective) if, as a reward, your loved one ends up burning and running away? But I started criticizing Larian only after they insulted players in Patch 6; they did warn players with a journal entry about Astarion’s failed quest and gave everyone who wanted a truly beautiful and epic finale the chance to realize what was happening and reload—there was no deception. And my scene at the docks (the scene at the docks of Ascended Astarion) was done superbly and perfectly right from the start, without needing to correct anything at all.

The best way to see just how good the scene at the docks after the Ascension is, is to compare the two scenes:

And it’s such an optimistic and magnificent scene that after your first playthrough, it’s impossible not to feel genuine joy, a rush of excitement, and the desire to get back into the game as soon as possible! I love this game, and I criticize Larian only in those areas where, in my opinion, the developers deserve criticism, and I’m happy to praise them where they’ve succeeded and created fantastic scenes.

"Gale does have a bad ending — the one where Tav persuades him to sacrifice himself and blow himself up in the finale" — Oh, really? 😂Tav persuades him? That's lie number… 1,209,039,024.” (с) tamraspizz

Well, holy shit... Yeah, it's true, and Tav persuades him.

Here's a video showing the playthrough option I mentioned in my post:

tamraspizz posted screenshots of Tav’s lines from Act 2 to… Accuse me of lying about what I said regarding a possible ending for Gale in Act 3? If that was intentional, it’s just too stupid.

Before the second act, after meeting with Elminster, there will be a conversation like this with Gale at the camp.

And at the very end of Act 2, when we see Gortash, Ketheric, and Orin, Gale himself starts volunteering for the suicide mission, and if you let him blow up the sphere, that will end the game.

How does the act two relate to the possible ending with an explosion in act three? (in the video above)

God, I realize that her possible tactic is a primitive form of DARVO (provoke, insult, elicit a predictable harsh response, run around and yell about how toxic AA fans are—and profit). Then she tells other people in the comments that they “can’t read properly.” She writes in Russian, not even bothering to translate from her native language into the international language on an English-language platform. Here:

“You’re making things up again. I don’t know, maybe you don’t understand Russian very well.” (c) translation of a fragment of a comment by tamraspizz

I think it’s worth learning to read English or using a decent translator if you want to “take someone down” and “expose them,” so you can at least understand which part of the game that person’s post is referring to.

“Just like with Astarion's ascension, Tav can either support Gale's decision or persuade him to find another way.” - Well, when some deity demands that Astarion sacrifice himself—tricking him into thinking it’s his Ascension—and after Astarion’s Ascension we’ll all die and the game will end, I suppose, in this magical world of tamraspizz’s imagination, it’ll really be “Just like.”

“It's a truly astonishing level of disrespect toward the writers” regarding this:

Actually, that’s quite respectable. Forgiving the developers of your favorite game for their mistakes and oversights, while assuming that the studio head should pay more attention to how the studio is run. Otherwise, it might turn out that Swen Vincke himself is lying:

After all, if directly insulting players in Patch 6—showing them non-con scenes right to their faces as a “Valentine’s Day gift”— and the trauma inflicted on SA/DA victims—who were also among the game’s buyers—wasn’t an oversight or poor quality control that Larian managed to patch up half a year later, then Swen Vincke claims he doesn’t approve of what he himself did. And ruining the game for people who bought it at launch or during Early Access, taking their money, and assuming they’ll just cry their eyes and gift their money to the delight of r4pe-gooners and haters of their beloved character—that’s a far worse option for “milking people who sincerely love their game” than the options involving optional paid content. Therefore, it’s probably much more respectful to assume an oversight and a lack of attention on the part of the quality control team regarding the writing of romantic storylines for those characters whose authors, unfortunately, fell ill during the game’s production. After all, if it were possible to wave a magic wand and redirect the resources spent on the vile, mocking, and cruel options in Astarion’s romance (such as the “kick him in the balls” option) into resources that could have been spent on a beautiful romantic scene for Wyll—the romance in the game as a whole would have been much better. And the money players spent to buy it would have been spent on more appropriate content.

“Just like that, you allow yourself to pass judgment on the writers' talent.” (с) tamraspizz

Yes, that's exactly right. I'm a consumer who paid for this game. Or am I supposed to idealize the author and worship every word and every line they write just because I love a character they created? Would it be “disrespectful” to admire some of a person’s work while disliking certain specific aspects of it? I didn’t know that buying a game and loving a character in it meant I had to worship the game’s creators (it’s not like I bought a ticket to join a cult). tamraspizz can, of course, set up idols of the developers in her apartment and worship them, but I prefer to criticize what's done badly and praise the successful aspects.

Because of the large number of media files, the post had to be split into two parts.