One Of My Favorite Personal Headcanons Is That My Dark Urge Chooses To Become Astarion's Spawn To Deprive

Neil on Ascended Astarion's Laugh

Neil: I didn't ever really improvise anything. I'd improvise how I'd say the line obviously, but I didn't improvise any words really for Astarion. There's hardly anything that I've changed, maybe like one thing, just because it didn't quite work. So largely all the script is as scripted. I did the lines as scripted.

But there was definitely a moment I think I tried to squeeze in muahahas and things like that. *laughs* Like what if I can get away with a cackling laugh that kind of sounds like a muahaha?

Oh, he has a new laugh, I didn't tell you that. Ascended Astarion has a new laugh. Do you want to hear it?

Blue Owl Medic: I feel like it's more true to the character.

Neil: But do you want to hear the actual Ascended Astarion's laugh? I don't know if you picked up on it on your playthrough.

BOM: Yes. No, I haven't actually gotten there.

Neil: I changed the laugh. So, the laugh with Unascended is *high-pitched giggling laugh*. It's all like high and lilting and trill and shrill sort of up and piercing. And then Lord Astarion is *laughs haughtily* Like that. So I dropped it. So he goes, "Oh dear. Well that's not very good, is it. *laughs*" It's all like down here. *points at throat* And low and short as well. So it was really like--it was fun. You'll see it. So there's a difference.

BOM: It's like a wealthy laugh.

Neil: It's a wealthy laugh. It's an of-means laugh.

BOM: Aristocratic, I see somebody say.

Neil: It's a better-than-you laugh. 'I have more money than you. *laughs*'

BOM: 'I have a palace. What do you have? A camp? Fuck you.'

Neil: 'I have a castle. *laughs* Don't you have one? Sorry, that's sad for you.' Yeah, like that.

--from Neil's February 1, 2024 twitch stream

«The first stage is usually characterized by the creature feeling a dark joy in its new powers. It is overwhelmed by the sense of power engendered by its strength and its supernatural resilience. Newly-formed vampires will often assume animal form for the pure and simple-minded joy of flitting as a bat over the forests of the night or running, seeming tireless, with a pack of wolves.» — Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, TSR, 1991.

Regarding the claim that the lore of vampire brides is supposedly outdated because it’s based on Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, published in 1991, and that this lore isn’t mentioned in the current edition of DnD 5e, specifically in the 2021 edition of Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft:

First of all, vampire brides are also mentioned in Van Richten’s Monster Hunter’s Compendium from 1999.

But most importantly, the 2021 edition of Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft directly references Van Richten's Guide to Vampires.

So…

If we disregard the lore of Ravenloft (even though the game clearly alludes to it) and focus solely on the game itself:

Player: How does someone become a vampire, exactly? Astarion: It's simple. Just find a vampire that will drink your blood and turn you into a vampire spawn: their obedient puppet. In theory, the next step is to drink their blood. Once you've done that, you're free and a true vampire. Player: 'In theory'? Astarion: People think the biggest threat to a vampire is a cleric with a stake. It's not. The biggest threat to a vampire is another vampire. They're scheming, paranoid, power-hungry beasts. So why would any vampire give up control over a spawn to create a competitor?

Player: So they bite you, you bite them? Astarion: Yes and no. The problem is once you're a vampire spawn, they completely control you. They have to allow you to bite them. And why would they do that? Vampires are power-hungry creatures. They won't lose a servant to create a competitor. Trust me. It doesn't happen.

Once AA gives Tav his blood, they can no longer be considered a spawn—according to the lore, they become a true vampire. This is confirmed both by in-game dialogues and the D&D 5E lore on which the game is based.

Astarion: Nearly two hundred years and I never came back. Not since the night I woke up down there. I had to punch a hole in the coffin and claw my way through six feet of dirt. Then when I finally broke the surface, retching up dirt and congealed blood, Cazador was waiting. From that day on I was his. Until today. Moreover, we never see AA mentally controlling Tav the way Cazador controlled his spawns—which would be undeniable proof of their status as a spawn. The game only presents a dialogue about freedom, which does not contradict the concept of Tav as a bride but also does not confirm any magical control that could prove otherwise.

So if you believe that the Bride Theory is unfounded and that the process of becoming a vampire bride doesn’t align with what is shown in the game, then consider this: it has even less in common with the process of becoming a spawn. The turning into a spawn is described in detail in the game, and clearly not without reason—and Tav's/Dark Urge's turning is not just different in some aspects, it has absolutely no similarities with it.

No matter which lore you take, Tav is not a spawn.

Maybe I should make a post with counterarguments to all the most common arguments against the Bride Theory.

Lately, I often come across the opinion that Ascended Astarion’s line, “I can't believe you let me do that. Killing all those people,” supposedly indicates that he recognizes the immorality of his actions and even condemns Tav/Dark Urge for allowing him to do it. Allegedly, he feels guilty and regrets not being “saved.”

This opinion is obviously influenced by the dialogues in the spawn ending, where Astarion thanks Tav for talking him out of performing the ritual. However, it’s important to pay attention to the full content of his line in the Ascended ending:

Astarion: I can't believe you let me do that. Killing all those people. A pleasant surprise.

Astarion does not express regret or condemnation, but rather surprise and pleasure that Tav went to such a serious crime for him.

This is followed by claims that he is lying or pretending, while deep down he feels guilt and disappointment. However, such conclusions merely show how objective facts are interpreted and distorted to align with one’s own beliefs.

Yes, Astarion fully understands that his actions are immoral, but this awareness does not imply disappointment in the ritual or Tav. On the contrary. He simply calls things as they are. He is honest with himself and with Tav/Dark Urge.

Moreover, it’s important to consider the context in which this phrase is spoken. It is clearly addressed to the player, who throughout the game made mostly morally good decisions, and then unexpectedly committed a radically evil act, surprising Astarion. If you played as a consistently evil character throughout the game, this line may seem illogical, strange, and devoid of meaning — yet another example of questionable RPG design and storytelling methods used by Welch.

To be honest, some people go to absurd lengths in their interpretations to present AA’s ending as a "bad" one for him.

Oberyn Martell and Ellaria Sand. They're perfect for references. The dynamics of Lord Astarion and Tav. Oberyn different character, of course. Similar vibes: - bisexuality/pansexuality - a very close relationship with one partner, who has all his trust, despite various erotic adventures (although I'd like to point out if Tav doesn't like that sort of thing, I think their pleasures largely reflect each other, and they'll find plenty of ways to have fun just the two of them) - sun symbolism

Fans of Ascended Astarion have consistently faced accusations of romanticizing abuse since the fandom’s inception. After Patch 7, these accusations have only intensified, now directed not only at players but also at the developers themselves, Larian Studios.

And I have something to say about this.

Astarion has become a sort of mirror for players, reflecting their own experiences, personal preferences, and so on. The romanticization of this character is common among almost all of his fans, regardless of which route they have chosen as their favorite. Attachment to this character inevitably involves a degree of idealization and bias in the perception of his actions. Even when Astarion engages in questionable or cruel behavior, fans often tend to find justifications for him.

From the very first moments of the game, Astarion reveals himself as a personality prone to deviant behavior: he manipulates those around him, shows a tendency towards violence, and exhibits a disregard for morality. Yet, despite this, players often interpret his actions from a standpoint of sympathy, seeing them as a result not so much of his character, but rather of his tragic past. As a victim of violence and cruel torment at the hands of Cazador, Astarion evokes a desire to justify his actions, labeling him as a victim of circumstance.

Thus, Astarion's past serves as a powerful justification for many players regarding his dark deeds: instead of viewing him as a cruel manipulator, they see a wounded soul struggling to survive in a world that has always been unfair to him. This desire to find justification and "save" the character "from himself" is intensified by the romantic context of his interactions with the player. Such a perspective often results in the dangerous traits of Astarion losing their edge, creating a more palatable image that fits into the romantic fantasy of redemption.

This undoubtedly contradicts the author's intent, who, when asked what traits are most important for Astarion to "be him," emphasized that Astarion remains a horrible character throughout the game and in many respects. According to the writer, he is prone to violence, revels in blood, and embodies the darker sides of human nature. Astarion is someone who can kill with a smile on his face. Nevertheless, his character is also designed for the player to feel sympathy for him: despite his wicked nature, he must remain appealing and cheerful so that the player wants to have him in their party. The writer likely did not believe that the status of a victim and survivor should serve as an indulgence for the character.

But only fans of Ascended Astarion face accusations of romanticizing him, and I just want to draw your attention to the double standards behind such accusations.

The idea of "fixing" Astarion is a form of romanticization, and this trope, in essence, is indeed a romanticization.

The trope "I can fix him" is one of the popular plot devices in literature, film, and games, especially in romantic storylines where one partner encounters a dark character. In the realm of gaming and artistic fiction, such a trope is not only acceptable but also appealing, as it allows players to experience an emotionally rich yet safe fantasy.

However, in real life, the trope "I can fix him" can be dangerous, as it creates the illusion that love can change a person and resolve psychological or behavioral issues that actually require professional help.

This trope can distort the perception of relationships, creating the illusion that toxic behavior, violence, or manipulation from a partner can be changed by the power of love, attachment, or willingness to sacrifice oneself.

"You were by my side through all of this. Through bloodlust and pain and misery. You were patient. You cared. You trusted me when that was an objectively stupid thing to do."

Here, one might ask: why is the romanticization of the spawn route considered more acceptable? Analyzing both routes, they both imply the romanticization of a potentially dangerous person to some extent. It’s possible that fans of Ascended Astarion attract more attention due to the obvious symbolism of power and its imbalance, but that doesn’t mean the spawn route is less romanticized in its essence. Both endings represent different facets of the same character, and attachment to one version is not necessarily more "justified" than to the other. Some romanticize him as vulnerable and seeking redemption, while others see his dark potential and ambition for power. In both cases, the perception of the character remains subjective, and it is unfair to assert that one form of romanticization is more acceptable than the other. In my opinion, again subjective, ignoring his dark sides in favor of the idea of "redemption" can create a distorted image of the character, where his darker tendencies are downplayed and undervalued for the sake of his potential "salvation."

But it's always only the fans of Ascended Astarion who often face concerns about their mental health and claims that such fantasies supposedly push women to choose abusive partners in real life. But by that logic, the spawn route ending is also a dangerous fantasy when applied to reality.

Thus, by following the "good" path, we willingly bind ourselves to a potentially dangerous partner who can kill us several times throughout the game, yet we continue to believe that we can fix or heal him with love, friendship, and support, and that he will ultimately reveal a different, better side of himself. This is literally the mentality of abuse victims: they see the deeply hidden "kindness" behind the aggressive facade and believe they can awaken it and change the person for the better. It is this faith in the "healing" of the abuser that prevents them from leaving.

But it is obvious that there is a profound divide between the world of fantasy and reality, and what works within the framework of a fictional story should not be applied to everyday life. Fantasies in games, books, or movies allow us to safely experience complex and idealized situations, immersing ourselves in roles and scenarios that can be destructive or dangerous in real life. For no fan of Ascended Astarion does this story serve as a basis for real beliefs or behavioral models in real life.

But I have seen some fans of the spawn route sincerely claim that Astarion evokes a sense of safety for them due to his status as a victim of sexual violence, which resonates with many women's experiences and personal experiences of abuse. This statement raises questions, especially when it comes to a character who can kill you when you try to help him. And if you do not want to help him, he may manipulate you into doing so.

The entire romance with Astarion is a romanticization of a walking red flag.

A romance with Astarion offers several ways to experience fantasy, and it would be hypocritical to judge it from a real-world perspective solely in the evil route. Like the "I can fix him" trope, the storyline with Ascended Astarion allows the player to explore certain psychological and emotional aspects.

Ultimately, characters like Astarion are designed to be ambiguous. All fans of Astarion, in one way or another, are involved in the process of romanticization, as they choose the path that resonates most closely with their personal preferences.

Fantasies about salvation through love are a normal occurrence in artistic works and fantasy settings, but is it fair to demand that fans of Ascended Astarion "take off their rose-colored glasses"? I am convinced that fans of Ascended Astarion have a much more sober view of the character, at least recognizing the dark side of Astarion and accepting it as a fundamental part of his character rather than as a mere byproduct of trauma.

The argument that "the romanticization of abuse in games encourages people to choose abusive relationships in real life" sounds as absurd as the claim that "shooters provoke people to commit real murders." Following this logic, one could accuse any stories that address complex or dark themes of allegedly romanticizing or promoting dangerous or socially unacceptable phenomena. For example, an intimate scene with Halsin in bear form could be perceived as romanticizing zoophilia since it is portrayed in a positive light if one ignores the entire context and forgets that it is fiction. However, it is clear that this scene is created for humor.

I truly believe that many of those who accuse fans of Ascended Astarion of romanticization hardly realize how deeply they themselves are immersed in it. There is nothing fair in these accusations, especially considering the source from which they come.

These excerpts from Van Richten's Guide to Vampires seem particularly intriguing in the context of Astarion’s “good” ending, as I’ve always been skeptical of the very idea of “fixing” a vampire. Even without considering the early concept of Astarion’s backstory, where he was already pursuing eternal life and acting immorally as a corrupt magistrate long before becoming a vampire.

In D&D lore, vampires are inherently evil creatures by default. Their alignment undergoes a drastic shift upon their transformation: emotions and feelings become distorted, moral principles (if they weren’t already corrupt before the transformation) are warped, and the thirst for power and control grows significantly. However, this aspect is often overlooked when it comes to Astarion’s spawn route, while all "vampiric" traits are attributed exclusively to his Ascended version. This, in reality, is a selective application of the lore.

Stephen Rooney: "It's important to have that… and also… he's a vampire, he's all about blood and he's all about darker sides of humanity. So, it's important that that's represented in the game."

Given these facts, the idea of shifting Astarion's alignment to good or even neutral seems highly unlikely. Considering the nature of vampirism, keeping him away from dark desires would be a significant challenge for Tav. It might even require rolling Charisma checks every few years to prevent him from succumbing to temptation. The only real way to move him toward a stable "redemption" would be to cure him of vampirism, which, as far as I know, is possible within D&D. However, the game itself never addresses this possibility. Instead, the spawn-ending merely offers the chance to seek a way to remain in the sun without sacrifices or deals with dark powers, as Ascended Astarion does.

However, according to Neil Newbon, Astarion is in harmony with his vampirism.

"Astarion’s challenge wasn't directly related to him being a vampire. It was that he was a spawn, and that he wasn't free. He is technically free now. [...] He's okay with being a vampire."

The prospect of being cured of vampirism does not even appeal to Astarion.

The first classification includes those who became vampires because of “deadly desire,” like Strahd Von Zarovich (see Chapter XIII, “The Who’s Doomed of Ravenloft,” in the Ravenloft boxed set).

The second comprises those who became vampires as the result of a curse, whether laid by a mortal or by an evil deity.

The third and final category is the most numerous: those unfortunates who became vampires as a result of the attack of another vampire.

The first two categories have one major factor in common: in almost all cases, these vampires were evil while they were alive. The transition to undeath never affects this, except, in some cases, to intensify their evil.

The final category is a completely different case. Victims of vampires have no commonality with regard to ethos, moral strictures, philosophy of life, care toward others, or any other factor. A victim of a vampire could be a saint or a sinner, a paladin or an assassin, a compassionate healer or a ruthless alley-basher.

The fact is that the vast majority of vampires are chaotic and extremely evil. How does this come about? In most cases, it seems that the transition to undeath itself brings about this grim change in the victim’s mentality; the Fledgling’s previous worldview is largely irrelevant.

There are, however, some fascinating exceptions—documented cases of Fledgling vampires that managed to retain some of the attitudes and beliefs they had while alive, at least for a time. What sets these exceptions apart? Was it, as some sages suggest, a characteristic of the vampire that created them? Or was it something inherent within the victim?

My own theory is this: the victim must possess immense strength of will, and the vampire that killed them must be prevented, in some way, from implementing the innate control such creatures have over “secondary” vampires. (This can happen if the creating vampire leaves the area or is destroyed between the time of the victim’s death and the night the victim first rises as a vampire.)

Some of the most fascinating examples of this sort of "carryover" were recorded by a sage whose name has been tragically lost in a treatise whose title I have borrowed (with thanks) for this chapter: The Mind of the Vampire. Two examples follow:

A young, naive man, raised in a sheltered and privileged family, was slain by a vampire passing through the neighborhood. At first, he was unaware of his true nature (or unwilling to accept it), believing that his "death" had been nothing more than a profound illness and that his "premature" burial was merely a mistake by his overzealous family. However, evidence of his vampiric nature soon became apparent. The poor wretch was unable to fully renounce the life he had left behind and took to "haunting" his old home, watching from the shadows and pretending he was still, at least peripherally, part of mortal life. He might have seemed a wholly pathetic figure were it not for his vicious attacks on anyone who dared to take away the semblance of his former life.

An intrepid vampire hunter was slain by one of the creatures she so tenaciously hunted; the monster that killed her was immediately destroyed by her colleagues. For reasons unknown, these colleagues neglected to take the necessary precautions to prevent the woman from rising as a vampire. The trauma she experienced upon realizing her vampiric condition was almost—but not quite—enough to drive her mad. She had taken up her life's work as a moral duty, committed to ridding the world of the scourge of vampirism, and now she had become the very thing she had always hated! Despite the shock, she resolved to make the best of the hand Fate had dealt her. She dedicated her unlife to continuing her mortal mission, using her newfound powers to track down and destroy others of her kind. Tragically, her sense of duty soon became corrupted by a quest for power, and she was ultimately destroyed by Strahd Von Zarovich.

Van Richten's Guide to Vampires. TSR, 1991, Chapter XII: "The Mind of the Vampire: The Psychology of Immortality."

But this thesis raises a fascinating question: if we set aside the matter of feeding habits, could a vampire exhibit other behavior patterns that might be described as “good”? The answer is “theoretically yes,” and I can even cite one short-lived example.

A man of good alignment was killed by a vampire and subsequently became a vampire himself, initially under the control of his dark master. When the master vampire was destroyed, the “minion” vampire became free-willed. Despite his undead condition, he still held the beliefs and attitudes that had, during his life, categorized him as Good. In secret, he resolved to use his powers to at least partially amend the damage caused by both himself and his master. For several decades, he acted as a secret benefactor to his hometown.

Unfortunately, this situation changed over time. At first, the undead benefactor sought no recognition, keeping his identity and nature completely secret. He lived in a cave on the outskirts of town and had no contact with the living. However, after a decade, it seems he began to resent the lack of gratitude shown by the townsfolk for his generosity. He started leaving behind notes requesting some form of “concrete appreciation,” generally in the form of money, in exchange for his efforts. (Of course, he had no need for money; the coins were purely symbolic of the thanks he felt he deserved.) His demands grew increasingly steep until the townsfolk decided his requests were excessive and stopped paying.

At this point, the vampire’s feelings toward the townsfolk turned to hatred. In his rage, he fell upon them like a scourge, terrorizing them until he was eventually destroyed by a group of intrepid adventurers.

I have a theory that explains this transformation. Eternity is a long time, and as the years passed, the vampire’s feelings began to change. Gradually, he lost his sense of kinship with the living and started prioritizing his own desires—even when those desires were irrational—over theirs. Eventually, he came to view their very lives as insignificant and unworthy of his consideration.

I strongly believe that this shift in attitude happens, inevitably, to all vampires. For some, it occurs almost immediately; for others, it may take decades. Although I lack concrete evidence to support this conjecture, I suspect that no vampire can maintain a nature other than Chaotic Evil beyond the Fledgling age category.

Van Richten's Guide to Vampires. TSR, 1991, Chapter XII: "The Mind of the Vampire: A Question of Alignment."

So impressed by a tremendous work that Kate Kotova did putting this massive analysis together. Brava!

The community is forever in your debt, Kate!

Kneel

This scene has always broken my heart, but the mod helped a little — at least now I can comfort him.