Astarion/Cazador choices: Good or Evil?

[Ichthyic]

So, how did people consider the moral choices here. There are 3 distinct choices:

1. You let Astarion take Cazador's place in the ritual. IMO, this, oddly enough, has Astarion making an evil choice for himself, but a GOOD choice for the prisoners, since they are mostly feral spawn with little hope of controlling themselves after being starved for decades.
2. You do an insight check, and discover Astarion doesn't really WANT to be Cazadon, so you talk him down "off the ledge" so to speak, he cancels the ritual, frees his bretheren, and frees all the prisoners. This is the GOOD choice for Astarion himself, but a quite evil choice for freeing 7000 ravening vampires. He knows that they will not be able to resist the thirst after being imprisoned for so long, underdark or not.
3. You stop Astarion from ascending (good), then tell him to destroy the 7000 prisoners. This is the most debatable, but really this is the best moral choice for a "good" run.

I think 3 is the best overall choice because Astarion tells you repeatedly that those 7000 prisoners are feral, and would very likely not be able to control themselves at all. so, very unlikely to follow his bretheren to the underdark, and also very likely to cause a lot of mayhem. This is reinforced by what the Gul tell him afterwards if you do choose to free them. But, there IS the argument that Astarion himself had to choose, and thus you are removing their "freedom to choose".

So how do others see this choice?

[Quacksalber]

The1Kobra eredeti hozzászólása:

It is a complicated situation, ethically, more so because the lore on Vampire Spawn isn't always clear. In 3E, Vampire spawn are always evil. And you have Astarion who is a pretty nasty person and is clearly Chaotic Evil, however he is capable of some degree of empathy later on which, should normally be beyond a 3E undead who are normally incapable of any degree of character growth or development. So already, some of the known lore is challenged. (I don't know the 5E lore, which is what is being used).

Further complicating the matter is actually how paladins react to this. Particularly Oath of the Ancients, and Oath of Devotion. Both are pretty staunchly lawful good oaths.

But there is a difference in how they handle this:

For Oath of the Ancients, releasing the Vampire Spawn causes a fall, because you are unleashing unnatural undead to destroy the natural order and cause harm. Something that goes against the Oath's principles. The correct solution for this Oath is to kill all of the Vampire Spawn.
However, for Oath of Devotion, killing all of the Vampire Spawn causes a fall, because despite them being (presumably) evil undead, they're by in large, innocents, even children, and no one's given them a chance to try and be better. And if you've kept Astarion around, you know he can be at least somewhat better and capable of empathy. In this case, freeing them because of helping innocents is the correct solution for this Oath.

It does present an interesting moral challenge, for sure.

Edit to add: Astarion becoming the Vampire Ascendant is /definitely/ the unambiguous evil choice though. 7000 Sacrifices? Infernal ritual? Yeah, Unambiguous evil here.

Wouldn't the explanation for Astarion be the parasite having freed him from thrall status? Re the empathy part.

[The1Kobra]

EH! eredeti hozzászólása:

The1Kobra eredeti hozzászólása:

It is a complicated situation, ethically, more so because the lore on Vampire Spawn isn't always clear. In 3E, Vampire spawn are always evil. And you have Astarion who is a pretty nasty person and is clearly Chaotic Evil, however he is capable of some degree of empathy later on which, should normally be beyond a 3E undead who are normally incapable of any degree of character growth or development. So already, some of the known lore is challenged. (I don't know the 5E lore, which is what is being used).

Further complicating the matter is actually how paladins react to this. Particularly Oath of the Ancients, and Oath of Devotion. Both are pretty staunchly lawful good oaths.

But there is a difference in how they handle this:

For Oath of the Ancients, releasing the Vampire Spawn causes a fall, because you are unleashing unnatural undead to destroy the natural order and cause harm. Something that goes against the Oath's principles. The correct solution for this Oath is to kill all of the Vampire Spawn.
However, for Oath of Devotion, killing all of the Vampire Spawn causes a fall, because despite them being (presumably) evil undead, they're by in large, innocents, even children, and no one's given them a chance to try and be better. And if you've kept Astarion around, you know he can be at least somewhat better and capable of empathy. In this case, freeing them because of helping innocents is the correct solution for this Oath.

It does present an interesting moral challenge, for sure.

Edit to add: Astarion becoming the Vampire Ascendant is /definitely/ the unambiguous evil choice though. 7000 Sacrifices? Infernal ritual? Yeah, Unambiguous evil here.

Wouldn't the explanation for Astarion be the parasite having freed him from thrall status? Re the empathy part.

Not necessarily. According to the (3E) lore at least, Vampire Spawn are always evil. Nothing can change that. The tadpole is a parasite, but as far as we've seen, it doesn't change one's hardcoded alignment nor affect one's personality in a great way, beyond the outside influences. Remember that regularly turning into an illithid destroys the soul.

So Astarion, and perhaps the other Vampire Spawn gaining empathy would be on themselves. You see a bit of it with Dalyria too, where she shows genuine concern for Petras and for the other 7000 spawn.
So ultimately, according to the lore this game is using, Vampire Spawn are not necessarily always evil. Or at least, not always 100% evil. Astarion still is Chaotic Evil for most of the game, and he's the hardest to change from that of your companions.

It ultimately is a lore question there. Are Vampire Spawn in 5E always hard-locked into evil alignment or not?

[talemore]

Astarian = Evil

Want to control them

Last time the illusive man tried it.

[DizzyD]

The1Kobra eredeti hozzászólása:

It ultimately is a lore question there. Are Vampire Spawn in 5E always hard-locked into evil alignment or not?

5E lists vampire spawn as neutral evil.

Astarion's alignment is more complicated than that though. He starts as neutral evil, but as the tadpole draws more and more of his soul back from the fugue plane, his alignment can change based on his interactions with the player character.

[Staryu]

Given that we encounter the Emperor and Oomelelumum (sp?) who are nothing like the other mindless husks, we still do not hesitate to put mindflayers on their backs with a sword in their bellies. I really don't see the difference with the 7000 vamps. Just because Astarion is okay and has learned to control his appetite over the course of 200 years, does not mean that the ferals will. Killing them is the good choice IMO.

[Hyena]

The ability potion he can get you in Act 2 is not worth the harassment. Stake him as soon as you can.

[ᵒ ͜ ᵒ]

Ichthyic eredeti hozzászólása:

So, how did people consider the moral choices here. There are 3 distinct choices:

1. You let Astarion take Cazador's place in the ritual. IMO, this, oddly enough, has Astarion making an evil choice for himself, but a GOOD choice for the prisoners, since they are mostly feral spawn with little hope of controlling themselves after being starved for decades.
2. You do an insight check, and discover Astarion doesn't really WANT to be Cazadon, so you talk him down "off the ledge" so to speak, he cancels the ritual, frees his bretheren, and frees all the prisoners. This is the GOOD choice for Astarion himself, but a quite evil choice for freeing 7000 ravening vampires. He knows that they will not be able to resist the thirst after being imprisoned for so long, underdark or not.
3. You stop Astarion from ascending (good), then tell him to destroy the 7000 prisoners. This is the most debatable, but really this is the best moral choice for a "good" run.

I think 3 is the best overall choice because Astarion tells you repeatedly that those 7000 prisoners are feral, and would very likely not be able to control themselves at all. so, very unlikely to follow his bretheren to the underdark, and also very likely to cause a lot of mayhem. This is reinforced by what the Gul tell him afterwards if you do choose to free them. But, there IS the argument that Astarion himself had to choose, and thus you are removing their "freedom to choose".

So how do others see this choice?

For most playthroughs?
Spawn ending, freeing the 7k. As he says, theyre weak and the underdark is dangerous, so even having his siblings to guide them is only going to help them so much.

Spawn still have their reason, their souls. They deserve the chance to do better and they can feed on animals same as he did (and does, if you refuse to agree he can feed on humanoid, or even thinking enemies, actually. He'll point out even the "plonk" that is boars and bears is much better than the sewer water that cazador forced upon him.)

Ultimately, while all 7000 aren't on his soul he feels the weight of them, and theyre innocents. The Gur are also, while very "good" aligned in some senses, narrow in their thinking in terms of what makes a monster and their potential for morality. After all, they let Astarion go at the funeral and have a chance mainly because he was no longer controlled by Cazador, and in the end, if you track him down in the sewers even the hunter that was originally tracking him is ultimately relieved at the chance to have some kind of future with his daughters again, however grim it may be.

It's a complex choice and it seems to trip up people moreso than any other in the game.

Similarly, understanding the traumamess that informs whats happening in the moments leading to ascension is often too steep an insight check irl.

Ultimately though, its a role you're donning and what's right for your playthrough and your story is whats right. I enjoyed sifting through my thoughts on this though, thank you for actually posting something interesting in this hellscape of a forum.

[AsianGirlLover]

What I want to know is how you get Astarion to make the decision not to go through with the ritual on his own.

As for most moral option: free the prisoners. They deserve a chance to live their unlives, and the Gods will sort out the rest.

[Quacksalber]

The1Kobra eredeti hozzászólása:

EH! eredeti hozzászólása:

Wouldn't the explanation for Astarion be the parasite having freed him from thrall status? Re the empathy part.

Not necessarily. According to the (3E) lore at least, Vampire Spawn are always evil. Nothing can change that. The tadpole is a parasite, but as far as we've seen, it doesn't change one's hardcoded alignment nor affect one's personality in a great way, beyond the outside influences. Remember that regularly turning into an illithid destroys the soul.

So Astarion, and perhaps the other Vampire Spawn gaining empathy would be on themselves. You see a bit of it with Dalyria too, where she shows genuine concern for Petras and for the other 7000 spawn.
So ultimately, according to the lore this game is using, Vampire Spawn are not necessarily always evil. Or at least, not always 100% evil. Astarion still is Chaotic Evil for most of the game, and he's the hardest to change from that of your companions.

It ultimately is a lore question there. Are Vampire Spawn in 5E always hard-locked into evil alignment or not?

It depends upon why they are evil. Spawn were regular people beforehand, so my guess would be they are evil because they are mind controlled by an evil entity. Remove that entity and they have a choice. In the case of Astarion, we are given mixed messages anyway. On the one hand he says he had to do what Cazador dictated, on the other hand it seems he rebelled at least sometimes. You can't rebel if you are completely enthralled. He also claims only to have fed on animals, although he contradicts that later, but if we are to believe it, it also suggests a moral compass.

Then there is also the question, what if the vampire lord itself is not evil? Maybe the act of having thralls in itself is inherently evil, thus making any vampire with thralls evil and thus also all spawn.

[Amirit]

Aside from the obvious plot hole created for the sake of artificial moral dilemma (with the death of Cazador his "children" would die as well or stop being vampires, and even in the weird homebrew of BG3 Astarion and at least his siblings could drink Cazador's blood to get free).

I see the third one as the "good" option. Gur's acknowledge they would have to hunt them down themselves anyway, and with this choice, Astarion saves them time and pain (has a very touching line about it too). Quotation marks are because the whole path looks as unrealistic and forced as a Twilight fanfic. Sweet, yes, but weak and cringe.

The first choice feels, looks, and sounds better in every way aside from romance when Tav does not plan to become a vampire (in which case Tav gets a breakup). Better for society too - one vampire instead of six or 7000.

In terms of game mechanics, in the first case, you lose Gur as allies.

[Quacksalber]

AsianGirlLover eredeti hozzászólása:

What I want to know is how you get Astarion to make the decision not to go through with the ritual on his own.

As for most moral option: free the prisoners. They deserve a chance to live their unlives, and the Gods will sort out the rest.

If one or more of the siblings die during the ritual, he can't complete it. Otherwise I think you have to convince him.

[Staryu]

EH! eredeti hozzászólása:

If one or more of the siblings die during the ritual, he can't complete it. Otherwise I think you have to convince him.

This happened to me first time, one of the Petras died from AoE during the fight. I thought it would result in Astarion leaving camp, but I guess my approval rate was high enough that he stayed.