Talk:Astarion

MTG Cards advertising and canonicity?

As per the current editing discussion: What can we consider canon? An advertisement for the cards is currently being used as a source for Astarion's status as a noble (the ad referring to him as a Noble High Elf), but I find it very unlikely devs were consulted for it and the description sounds like fairly average marketing lingo formulated through a google search on the character (the canonicity of the cards themselves are debatable- they've depicted Astarion biting Gale, which is unlikely to be pleasant for him as depicted, and Wyll and Astarion in an intimate relationship, amongst other inconsistencies that I doubt we'd want on the wiki) We know the og batch of cards was made during EA but I can't say that for the newer ones, considering some of them depict some (albeit modified) versions of possible events ingame. 84.122.126.28 21:16, 8 January 2025 (CET)

Thank you for creating the discussion!

To quote Astarions VA on the subject:

"he was a magistrate, he's a High Elf, he's of noble class" - YouTube Interview

If we look into how he was described ingame during EA with the background "Noble", and how he is described now, a High Elf Magistrate - which is basically a "Judge" - I'd say that assuming that he is a noble isnt far fetched.

As the cards themselves, they have been endorsed by Larian & BG3 MTG card packs are included in the collectors edition for bg3.

My words arent gospel, discussions about this topic are encouraged!

~Valk Valk (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2025 (CET)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

During the "editing discussion" (not sure what to call it) I also brought up that it was his background during EA, however it no longer is and much of the EA content is not canon anymore, even if him being a noble doesn't contradict anything and is not in any way a huge leap, so I'm not sure what to do with that (it is also included clunkily into the article so I might overhaul that new section altogether once I get my pc back even if we decide it is best to include that info)

I can't discuss that they're backed by Larian, but that they've been consulted over this or worded it carefully is where I am skeptical (and what to make of new "BG3" canon in a post-BG3 WOTC world is something I wonder what to do with altogether). Like I've said it does conjure some problems, regarding the Gale and Wyll cards, where I can't confidently say what counts or not.

As for Neil, I also find the subject touchy because in the past there have been a few instances of him getting info about Astarion wrong based on people's fan content. I admit there's some personal bias there in that in regards to lore canon I prioritise what the writers have to say (and in all honesty I fully expect Rooney to confirm he was a noble, because as we pointed out it's the most logical conclusion, but we don't have that statement, I believe) 31.4.198.250 12:30, 9 January 2025 (CET)

Just realised the different IP must look suspicious. I went out and I'm using data. 31.4.198.250 12:34, 9 January 2025 (CET)

Please consider creating an account, that would make discussing much easier.

I agree that it could be speculated that Astarion a noble, but the evidence, we have is not enough. Because being a Magistrate does not neccessarily mean being a noble. And that he had the noble background in EA is not that relevant because Larian changed it, so it is no longer canon as it was mentioned before. And Neil Newbon seems, in this case, as it was said before, not a valid source for this particular information.

So I would move the whole thing in the Notes section.

And imho the cards should be moved below the gallery section, at best as part (or sub-section) of the gallery. Hawkeye (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2025 (CET)

So, I'm not familiar with how discussion topics are resolved on wikis- do we have to wait until we have a consensus or should I edit the current info to be neater, moving the cards to the gallery and making the ad a reference instead? (This is taking into account that the validity of his former background is still being discussed so we haven't reached a consensus regarding whether it is canon or not) AFrigidDoor (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2025 (CET)

You could edit the current info to be neater, make the ad a reference and also move the cards and the ad. And Astarion's background as noble should be considered possible but not definitely proven. The use of the word "background" for this topic should be avoided, because it could be misleading. It's already used for a specific game mechanic; Astarion has the (game mechanic) background "Charlatan". So maybe we should use something like "social status"? Hawkeye (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2025 (CET)

On it. I'll also move the noble mention to a more appropriate spot. Anyone else, feel free to touch up my revision or further discuss this topic, as always. AFrigidDoor (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (CET)

Great job! I edited the gallery section so that there some line breaks now, before the different kinds of cards. Hawkeye (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (CET)

Upcoming Astarion book - valuable or not?

I want to get ahead of the issue here if new stuff needs to be added (or not). Is the info in this wiki limited to stuff you can find in-game, or not?

Might be getting ahead of myself here given we don't exactly know the contents yet (though a new tavern important to Astarion, 'Rat's Run' was mentioned, funnily enough somewhat contradictory to BG3 canon) but it'd be good to know for the future of characters/lore that originated in BG3 and whether or not those will be addressed in the wiki. I'm pretty confident Karlach is also getting new stuff, for example. AFrigidDoor (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2025 (CEST)

My two cents is that it's existence and any trivia that bears on his life before/during the game period is worth throwing in the notes section, but not the page proper Capranaut (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2025 (CEST)

Can we get rid of the out-commented game script section now?

It seems like this content has already been addressed elsewhere and does not belong here. I'd do it myself, but given the amount of content involved and my dislike of removing most content in general, I think it's best this be done with clear consensus. Raelin (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2025 (CEST)

Yes, it seems our Don Quixote have attained what they wanted, and bet we'll never see them again unless they dig out anything else on Astarion. The cinematics page they created contents all that was outcommented in Romance page, so I think the latter can be freely cleared Arikel (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2025 (CEST)

I agree, the outcommented game script section can and should be removed. Hawkeye (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2025 (CEST)