Oh, it seems UA fans are attacking the bride theory again. Especially the ones who were dying on a Larian forum because of how they wanted fear and victim faces for AA in kissing. When Larian made faces appropriate for Valentine's Day content, accused Larian of romanticizing abuse. Can you imagine - yeah, not even play, you made a romance with a vampire for fun in the game, and then 👁👄👁 Shitawn-fans
What polite analysis afterward, because there is still a way to say that AA fans are spreading toxic misinformation.
Astarion: pain, buried in the ground, blood given willingly makes a true vampire. Lore DnD5 and BG3 You drink vampire blood that is given willingly = you are a true vampire.
Tav: no pain is shown Tav doesn't remember how it was, use UA logic that Astarion is lying and for amusement agree with charisma - still a failure. No burying in the ground, Blood given willingly and spreads the power of ascension, so Tav does not burn like Astarion spawn after the final battle. Barovia and Strahd from lore Ravenloft mentioned several times in BG3.
The theory has inconsistencies, like the amount of blood. Still Tav's turn is not usual and does not follow the canon of DnD5 and BG3. The bride theory explains why this is so.
Larian specifically wrote those differences, specifically gave Tav blood, purposefully even italicized.
I really don't think people who want to see Astarion on path of evil as a sexual abuser want to talk about lore DnD and be able to make any kind of unbiased analysis of lore. Maybe you think so, but I'm convinced: not in this case.
