Thoughts on Dev Statements
Once more I recommend reading my pinned post.
As a reminder, I will be using the following initials to refer to the devs, as I do not feel comfortable attaching their names to discourse (I am aware we all know who these people are, but "encoding" it makes it difficult for this to pop up when you search their names). So:
SR = Astarion's Main Writer
BW = Astarion's Secondary Writer
AS = BG3's writing director
My general philosophy when it comes to dev statements is simple: while I may agree or disagree, I do not think material outside the main game counts as canon or dictates what the "truth" of the text is, so to speak.
I think it's okay to take the intent into account and count it as canon, but have noticed there tends to be a lack of consistency in this regard where certain dev statements will be rubbed in people's faces while simultaneously a contradicting dev statement is discarded as "not counting". This whole phenomenon, so to speak, has largely contributed to the tensions in the fandom, unfortunately.
Basically, I think the most consistent thing to do is to either treat all dev statements as canon, or none of them.
With that being said, here are my opinions!
Let's start strong, as this is the interview that has recently caused quite a ruckus in the community.
A reminder to everyone that once the text is out there, it doesn't really matter what the author preferred - the story is there for you, to speak to you as it may. I do not think it is right to rub in people's faces that SR prefers one ending or another. It doesn't matter. He has no say over anyone's game, and he acknowledges as much. The game is finished, and his interviews aren't part of it.
That being said, I mostly agree with what he's saying here. I have my own interpretations of some of his statements that have been discussed recently, I suppose. In the end, interpretation leads to a lot of confirmation bias (more of that in a future post), and however we interpret it might as well be right or wrong - without asking him for clarification, we don't know the specifics of what he truly meant with some of these.
For example, one of the most ambiguous things he says here is that "He kind of replaces Cazador". One could intuit that he's saying that he's fulfilling the same sort of role Cazador was, or that he just means that he now has the same palace and titles. I lean towards the first interpretation, but I wouldn't be surprised if he meant the other (or both) either.
The second thing that was widely being discussed is the use of the words bittersweet and tragedy.
As for the first part, to me it felt fairly obvious that the Spawn arc was bittersweet, and that has been how I've always seen it. The bitter part is the loss of his ability to be in the sun, not feel vampiric thirst, etc. The sweet part is, in my opinion, a gained sense of self and community (to keep it short, and I hope that summary does it enough justice). Bittersweet endings are most often understood to describe victories that come with hard losses.
As for the tragedy aspect, and this might be one of the reasons I get called dumb on this app - it might seem weird to say, but saying there is a tragedy to this ending is not the same thing as saying that the ending is a tragedy. For example - a cake can be described as having a cherry on top, yet that does not mean the entire cake is a cherry. This is obviously just my interpretation, but at the very least it'd feel contradictory to say it is bittersweet and then also say it is just downright a tragedy - these are quite different definitions on the "happy to sad" spectrum of stories.
The tragedy being referred to is, of course, the loss of all the perks of the tadpole. And yeah, I'd call it a tragedy too (a very touching one given the sacrifices he's made to do, let's say, "the right thing"), but I wouldn't refer to the whole ending as one, and if that was what he meant, then I disagree.
Regarding some discussions, I also have to say that we shouldn't assume from this interview that, because he didn't describe the AA ending in terms of tone, that he sees it as a victory by contrast, as I have seen it conflated. His views on AA's ending haven't really been established other than a preference for the other ending, so whether he sees it as a victory, bittersweet, or tragic, we have no idea. The same way one could argue that he prefers Spawn because he said he doesn't like optimistic endings (the conclusion being that AA is the optimistic ending), one could say that, since he said he discarded an ending for being too optimistic, that he doesn't consider AA an optimistic ending and that's why he included it. That's the magic of confirmation bias. In truth, we know next to nothing about his views on it.
I have to admit, and I'll probably elaborate on this on a future post, that I am not fond of how people will take quotes from interviews and start using them as repetitive mantras when said words had never been commonly used previous to said interview. This goes for any side, about any character, and have seen it countless times. It, to me, feels like the writer had to come to establish people's opinions instead of forming their own. I'm going to sound very pretentious with this, but I think it's a glowing sign of character to show independent thought and not have to use someone else's words like they had to provide them for you.
That being said, I feel the descriptors of this ending being emotionally true and emotionally satisfying do ring very true for me, at least. It is very sincere, quite gut-wrenching in its execution and how it explores the psychology of going through this sort of thing. I'm of the same mind as SR here in terms of liking some emotional pain to make an ending whole. The word "cathartic" is often used for this ending, and I think that's a good word for it.
Something interesting about this interview was SR's description of a Cure ending.
First of all, because it completely validates the theories I had about the Necromancy of Thay during EA almost 1:1. Well, I didn't account for the River Styx, but I was certain it'd be very important to unlock one of Astarion's endings because of how everything was set up. During FR I made sure to get it and then was quite disappointed it didn't have any role whatsoever and thought maybe I had been dumb. Turns out I wasn't!
That being said, I completely agree with his assessment that he didn't like the tone. Back in the day I thought there'd be 3 endings: Cured, Spawn, and Vampire Lord. I was really dreading the "cured" one, because, well... being a vampire is a really important part of Astarion's identity. It's not all he is, but it has defined a lot of him (as nicely put in the epilogue, a part of it which I quite appreciated).
I liked him as he was, so the idea of a "spawn" ending was appealing to me. I was glad that I got that! It was actually the ending I was doubting we'd get, out of the 3. I even thought he'd end as a mercenary, and that's also kind of what happens. I also just hate sappy, happy endings and good characters, because, as we have established, I am edgy. And I am also just not sure what kind of point this would've made. It's a winstate that doesn't say much. Astarion went through a lot but now he's fine and everything's perfect and he's normal you guys, essentially.
One last thing I would like to make note of, however, is that SR shows a fixation on talking about Astarion in terms of redemption, or something being redemptive. Namely, the discarded "cured" ending. I have no idea why being cured would redeem him, unless being a vampire is inherently immoral (which it really isn't in a world where you can survive while causing the same casualties humans do when eating meat, if not less by feeding from people without killing them, or by feeding from idk, serial murderers). This is also wording that is used in the game, and I've always been a bit confused by it. Because uh, in this instance, Astarion doesn't exactly have to redeem himself from what they want him to redeem himself for. He had no choice, they weren't truly his crimes. If his magistrate past and his misdeeds back then, when he had free will, had been brought up, then a talk of redemption would make a lot more sense.
I completely agree with AS' assessment here. AA is Astarion (and I find other explanations... not very compelling at all, in a way that almost seems to want to release him from any responsibility for this choice, which "regular Astarion" would've been the one making it anyways), and I perceive him as someone who moves through the world mostly fueled by fear as the reasoning for why he is the way he is and acts the way he acts. Essentially, he makes sure he is -and stays- on top by squashing others first, in fear of being squashed himself.
As for the evil routes, I actually really like his logic here and find it compelling (it makes me think back to some statements from one of Obsidian's writers) - however, I am not sure how true that rings when actually playing and might instead just feel rushed/incomplete. There are ways to make the world feel emptier without neglecting half of the morality binary presented.
I honestly haven't seen an interpretation of this interview that I haven't either found unconvincing or just plainly disagreed with.
If we try to see it more from a "Spawn fan" side, I suppose you could try to make the conflation (which I disagree with doing for these) that he's referring to pre-ritual Spawn, but I don't think that makes sense. That or that the mask described here is only describing part of Astarion's act, given that AA is still described as operatic... but it feels like a stretch, as well, I don't know. It is true that he has more recently described the Spawn ending as one of "freedom and joy", so one can assume that he doesn't see it as a negative ending as it had been assumed by some before, but that new info still doesn't really change anything about this quote.
Now, the more common interpretation is that it just means that Spawn is masking while AA doesn't - I just completely disagree with that, if that's what he's saying.
Especially when it comes to what's being conveyed through his acting, since this is what he's discussing. This is something I am sure I could get in hot waters for, since I've often been critical of some of his acting decisions. If he intended for AA to come across as honest, as someone who doesn't pretend, his performance, in my opinion, completely falls flat in that sense. His voice delivery is quite over-the-top in this smarmy, sultrier, TV-Villain-of-the-Week voice. And well, you know, ridiculously over-the-top tends to be read as fake. I wouldn't say Spawn stops masking or anything (in fact, he has an over-the-top issue as well...), but if anything I feel like AA goes for a facade even harder, in a different way and with a different intention. That is the impression I got while playing (which I did blind, so I didn't have any preconceived notions there), and thought it had been purposeful, but it seems that maybe it wasn't.
For BW's discord screenshots, I am opting to not quote them whatsoever. In summary, they described the Ascended route as an exploration of the player failing to understand Astarion and falling for the vampire fantasy too much, with Astarion seeing Tav as lesser. In other messages and interviews they also mention an exploration of the meta aspect of writing for the game, and essentially "how a character would feel about being objectified".
I don't necessarily disagree with some of what they're saying about Astarion's psychology, I find it interesting, in truth (not quoted here, and not super relevant). However, I think it's quite a dangerous game to assume what one's Tav is thinking. I've already said that, while railroaded dialogue choices might not personally bother me in videogames, it is a REALLY bad idea to do that for an RPG as it defeats its purpose. Now, while some people contested BW's claims by saying that not all Tavs romance Astarion, to me it was clear they were talking about the romance specifically. Still, I think it's a huge leap and blunder to think that all Tavs were ascending him for a fantasy thing, when I feel like there are way more obvious reasons for why they might do so. Ascending to fulfill a fantasy seems like something only a minority would really be thinking - most people are either doing so because their characters are evil and also value power, or because said character legitimately believes Ascension is the best option for Astarion.
The other thing I want to tackle is the fixation on meta narrative. This seems to be a topic that BW favors a lot, and I think that's fine, although I personally really really dislike meta stuff. And I also think it kinda fails here, mostly because it could've never worked for this game in the first place - I am not sure it was the right game for it. We've seen Karlach's deleted meta scene, and I personally hated it (BW's uninvolved, as far as I know).
I will say that their exploration of said meta themes in Act 2 worked for me in-game - because I never clocked it as that. I thought it was an exploration of Astarion's trauma, not a way to analyze what I was doing as the player or have Astarion, in a way, talk to me instead of my Tav. I really didn't like realizing that when he said "This is all a game to you, isn't it?" it was a nod to you playing a literal videogame. Either way, regardless of intent, I think the scene is great. I just don't really find the reasoning behind creating it convincing or effective if that's what it was setting out to do.
I do feel quite bad for everything involving this writer, nevertheless, as I feel like there have been countless personal attacks aired out online by fans of a route they had a large (and seemingly, quite large) role in writing. This is quite obvious once you recognize their writing style (even the character voice they give Astarion specifically is distinct from the one SR gives him), but, even when both writing parties confirm said involvement, I've still seen them treated as a liar or pieces of misinformation floating around such as them only writing the Tav dialogue choices - which from a production perspective wouldn't make any sense to do.
Anyways, I wish people were able to see both the good and the bad in what they wrote, instead of just attributing everything they hate about the route to them but never what they enjoy.
Lastly, I want to note that sometimes we get all hung up on these quotes, the intricacies of it, the most minute details in the wording used - while that person being interviewed hasn't given it that much thought. They're nervous, or casual, or spitballing, and also not taking into account how intense and dedicated (including myself there) we can all be when analyzing their wording. So a lot of these intricacies that they might actually think to themselves might not be coming across in their words, and putting too much weight onto these quotes isn't a smart move, unless the person in question has been crystal clear when asked for clarification. An interview where you're casually being asked questions isn't the same thing as an essay you're writing about what you've done with a character, essentially, and we should treat everyone with grace.
