So I've seen a few topics about 'canon' parties for BG2 floating around, and they prodded my curiosity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but discounting the novels (which any actual fan of BG should do), doesn't BG2 have no canon whatsoever?
That is to say, a party with Viconia, Cernd, Anomen, Jan and Aerie is just as valid as one with Jaheira, Minsc, Imoen, Sarevok and Nalia, correct?
Am I missing something or are a few people just trying to promote their favourite characters to a 'canon' status in a game that has none?
The canon in the games do not matter really. As horrible as they are, the books are actually canon in the forgotten realms settings. What Abdel Adrian did in the books is actually recorded in the forgotten realms's history.
BG2 is up to you, but I think Minsc, Imoen and Jaheira are must haves. Minsc is iconic in the BG world, the plot HEAVILY involves Imoen, and there is so much detail put into Jaheira.
BG2 is up to you, but I think Minsc, Imoen and Jaheira are must haves. Minsc is iconic in the BG world, the plot HEAVILY involves Imoen, and there is so much detail put into Jaheira.
The rest is up to you.
I'm aware of the BG1 canon party. After all, they're the ones who show up in the prison cell with you.
As for BG2... Well, I'll definitely take Imoen for the Bhaalspawn family reunion in ToB. I'm not so sure about Minsc and Jaheira though.
The canon in the games do not matter really. As horrible as they are, the books are actually canon in the forgotten realms settings. What Abdel Adrian did in the books is actually recorded in the forgotten realms's history.
Please don't remind me. I suppose it's true though, which makes suggestions of canon in the game seem rather silly.
No, outside of those tragic novels there is no canon party. It would only begin to matter if a BG3 was ever made, which is unlikely... not a direct sequel with those same characters and storyline anyway. If there was one, I think I've already said; mainstays of Imoen, Minsc and Jaheira, Yoshimo, Sarevok in ToB, and Aerie because of her relationship with Minsc and her likely being the first NPC you'll encounter out of the first dungeon. That seems like a good standard party, leaving the last slot to be rotated with different NPC's... in fact, you could probably write any future references in such a way that all the characters would be included regardless.
No, outside of those tragic novels there is no canon party. It would only begin to matter if a BG3 was ever made, which is unlikely... not a direct sequel with those same characters and storyline anyway. If there was one, I think I've already said; mainstays of Imoen, Minsc and Jaheira, Yoshimo, Sarevok in ToB, and Aerie because of her relationship with Minsc and her likely being the first NPC you'll encounter out of the first dungeon. That seems like a good standard party, leaving the last slot to be rotated with different NPC's... in fact, you could probably write any future references in such a way that all the characters would be included regardless.
Out of interest, can't Nalia become Minsc's new witch as well? And she shows up in the Copper Coronet, which the player is directed to right off the bat.
No, outside of those tragic novels there is no canon party. It would only begin to matter if a BG3 was ever made, which is unlikely... not a direct sequel with those same characters and storyline anyway. If there was one, I think I've already said; mainstays of Imoen, Minsc and Jaheira, Yoshimo, Sarevok in ToB, and Aerie because of her relationship with Minsc and her likely being the first NPC you'll encounter out of the first dungeon. That seems like a good standard party, leaving the last slot to be rotated with different NPC's... in fact, you could probably write any future references in such a way that all the characters would be included regardless.
Out of interest, can't Nalia become Minsc's new witch as well? And she shows up in the Copper Coronet, which the player is directed to right off the bat.
Not in canon. That was part of a Nalia romance mod (there have been a couple I think). Personally, it doesn't work for me anyway. Nalia's interests are centered on Amn and politics, rather than travel and adventure. Whereas Aerie joins the group to prove herself, gain experience and learn about the world, sort of on a dajemma of her own.
I always explore the promenade first regardless, and it's hard the tents and commotion.
I've been through every script for the characters in Infinity Explorer... it isn't there. Like I say, it just doesn't seem like something Nalia would be interested in anyway. She's already got a castle to protect her, after all.
I've been through every script for the characters in Infinity Explorer... it isn't there. Like I say, it just doesn't seem like something Nalia would be interested in anyway. She's already got a castle to protect her, after all.
Hmm. Maybe a mod I had installed had it as an unmentioned feature then.
When BG2EE comes out the canonical party will clearly be the Harem of Dorn, which consists of Dorn, a female charname, Viconia, the new female thief, and Edwina.
When BG2EE comes out the canonical party will clearly be the Harem of Dorn, which consists of Dorn, a female charname, Viconia, the new female thief, and Edwina.
Add to that Aerie, level-drained and in chains, so Dorn can have a piece of Avariel ass when the fancy takes him, and Aerie can have an elf/half-orc baby named Úgluk. >;-]
...... Ahem! Where was I? .....
More seriously, the canon BG2 party:
Charname - well, obviously. :-) Imoen - Saves your butt in Château Irenicus. Yoshimo - Until spellhold, replaced with Imoen. Jaheira - Whose butt you save in Château Irenicus. Minsc - Same as Jaheira. Aerie - First NPC you find after escaping Château Irenicus.
That leaves one slot open, for either Nalia or Anomen (I'm discounting Korgan, since he is a trouble-maker with a history for eventually breaking up his parties - with his axe!). If we assume that Charname is a fighter type, then I'd go for Anomen as primary healer and assistant front-liner, since with Aerie and Imoen you already have all the mages you need, and Imoen is a better thief.
I think the issue of "canon" regarding Baldur's Gate needs to be discarded once and for all - the games are, by their very nature, malleable to the point of allowing every player a different narrative experience, and there's no one choice that can be "imposed" upon others. Even the notion of a BG1 "canonical" party is a misconception: there are dialogue options at the start of BG2 that allow you to confirm/deny whether you actually took Jaheira, Imoen and/or Minsc with you on your adventures.
The novels may be considered canonical in terms of the larger "Forgotten Realms" milieu, but frankly, if D&D can revise its history and continuity over and over (via different Editions and such), we should have the same freedom to construct whatever canon we like.
I would not say that CHARNAME, Imoen, Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc and Dynaheir MUST be the canon party. For me it's just canon that they travel with me for a time. I usually use Minsc and Dynaheir untill the Naschkel mine is completed. (Then they where captured by a elven mage who held and tortured them for information about CHARNAME). Later on I pick up Neera and a fighter.
@SamuelVarg: That's exactly my point. Anyone who plays BG, or any BioWare RPG, really, has their own story (or stories) to tell. My canon is that an evil elf sorceress out of Candlekeep assembled the toughest, most powerful women in Faerun and forged them into a force that could topple gods. That's how I played the game, and that's the narrative I helped construct. I'll never accept someone else's story as being "more true" than mine, in the same way that I'll never accept a male Commander Shepard or a light-sided Exile in KOTOR2. The moment a game gives you a choice in how the plot unfolds, there can never be (and should never be) a canon that supersedes that choice.
Everyone *knows* that Revan was female and both Revan and Exile were severely Darkside. Damned Jedi propaganda.
Sith code forever.
See, I actually preferred the LS path for Revan (who was, of course, female) because KOTOR1 went a little too far with the extremes of the spectrum - being a true Sith means doing some really, really despicable things just for lulz. But KOTOR2's DS arc is amazing: it's basically "Kill Bill" in the Star Wars setting, where the Exile's out for revenge against the Council jerks who ruined his life (and because you can play it as a revenge story, you don't have to be a complete monster to every single person you meet in order to get there).
Hmm. I'm still seeing a lot of people here using the word "canon" who don't know what it means. @Lord_Tansheron tried to educate us, but I don't think most people listened or cared.
The word "canon" means "1. rule enacted by a church body 2. group of writings accepted as authentic"
That definition is from dictionary.com. Number two is the one that is relevant here.
Since the novels are not "accepted as authentic" by the majority of Baldur's Gate fans, you could make an argument that they are not "canon". But, you could also counterargue that they are, since they are "accepted as authentic" by Wizards of the Coast in their published Forgotten Realms timelines.
We could use the game dialogues and letters as our "group of writings accepted as authentic." If we do that, any party configuration supported by dialogue choices given in the game is "canon." Some of the written and spoken lines give us some evidence that certain characters have traveled with Charname; for example, when you find her in Irenicus' dungeon, Jaheira says "I swear, travelling with you is never dull!", implying that she has, in fact, travelled with you in the past. How long she did so is not made clear by the written dialogues.
People's individual favorite parties and story interpretations are irrelevant to a discussion of what is "canon", unless specific texts from the "canon" are quoted to support their "canon" party configurations and story interpretations. Anything that you are just making up yourself, while perfectly valid and fun, does not have anything to do with a discussion of the BG canon.
For convenience's sake, I would suggest using the game's dialogues and in-game books and letters as the "canon", and ignoring the novels.
@belgarathmth: The trouble with using traditional definitions of canon is that they broadly assume you're dealing with a singular, linear text (ie: it is canon that Kyle Reese is the father of John Connor in "Terminator"). Video games - particularly video games with branching narratives - problematize this application for two reasons:
1. it's not entirely clear who has the authority to determine authenticity: is it the player who makes the choices in the game? Is it the developer/writer/company who created the game? Is it the tie-in/adaptation writer who picks a particular path and crystallizes it for everyone who follows (ie: Drew Karpyshyn establishing Revan as a LS male)?
2. If the story can play out in different ways depending on player decisions, how can there be a single objective canonical sequence of events? You pointed out Jaheira's dialogue, but she also has a sequence in response to a different dialogue option where she says she knows who you are, but does not explicitly claim that she ever traveled with you (it's in the dialog.tlk file, which I don't have with me at the moment). And what about the overall plot? Does the Bhaalspawn ascend, or give up the power? Does Imoen live or die? Is Viconia converted or does she stay evil? Is Sarevok redeemed or not?
These things are variables that change from person to person, depending on the narrative they've constructed - therefore, the only kind of "canon" possible is personal canon, ie: what's true for specific players regarding their specific playthroughs.
@shawne, I agree with both of your points one and two. We are dealing with a canonical source that consists of branching dialogue trees. Player choice determines which version of the story develops in the end.
My objection is to the use of the word "canon". The term "personal canon" seems at best an oxymoron to me, or at worst, a complete lack of precision in language and word definitions.
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I looked up the term "personal canon" and found a synonym, "headcanon", which is listed at urbandictionary.com, meaning that it is a legitimate slang term, although as such, it would not be an acceptable term for scholarly writing. Here is the definiton:
"Headcanon
(also written as "head canon" but it's really one word.)
An idea, belief, or aspect of a story that is not mentioned in the media itself, but is accepted by either the reader themselves (sic) or the fandom in general. If it is confirmed by the author of the story, it becomes canon."
@belgarathmth: "Headcanon" isn't quite the same thing. This term refers to details invented by the reader/viewer/player which may be inferred (but which are not explicitly confirmed) by the text.
For example, my headcanon for Javik (from "Mass Effect 3") is that he lives a long and fulfilling life rediscovering the galaxy after the game's conclusion. The game itself does not reveal his fate, and so it neither validates nor contradicts my assumption - therefore, this holds a value of "true" only insofar as it's my own interpretation of a particular "gap" in the text.
The problem you're having here is simply that the conventional definition of the term "canon" can't encompass branching narratives in which player agency shapes the plot (to varying extents, depending on the game in question). It's an understandable lapse, given that it's a relatively recent innovation and academia is still struggling with these concepts and with the validity of video games as viable objects of scholarly pursuit, but for the moment, I find "personal canon" to be the most useful term in defining a text which can (and frequently does) adapt itself to the specific whims of any given recipient.
@shawne, okay, but if I give you your point, then we need to just stop abusing the word "canon", and the answer to the OP becomes "there is no such thing as a BG canonical party." It simply doesn't exist, given the nature of the game we are playing.
Also, I need a definition of "personal canon" from a source that matches the one you have given. Absent that, I think you are making up unnecessarily confusing new terms. "Personal interpretation" is an already existing term that expresses and communicates the concept clearly.
Why kidnap a word that is already in use meaning something completely different? What I suspect is that the word in question has connotations of unassailable authority and absolute truth, going back to its first use in reference to churches, religions, and scriptures, and that people want to use it incorrectly to give an unfair air of authority to their own interpretations over those of others.
That less than honest motivation behind the abuse of the word is why I am objecting so stubbornly to its use here.
@belgarathmth: The point I've been trying to make is that the official definition of "canon" needs to be expanded, because narrative experiences in relatively new media (such as but not limited to video games) have evolved beyond the existing framework. "Personal interpretation" is insufficient, because this isn't about viewing the same event and coming to different conclusions: this is about mutually exclusive events which occur for some players and do not occur for others, based on their own decisions. Until sources you would consider "official" are able to catch up, why quibble over terminology?
Comments
That is to say, a party with Viconia, Cernd, Anomen, Jan and Aerie is just as valid as one with Jaheira, Minsc, Imoen, Sarevok and Nalia, correct?
Am I missing something or are a few people just trying to promote their favourite characters to a 'canon' status in a game that has none?
No one really knows if BG2 has a canon party. There's never been any official word.
I don't think anyone has anything to gain by "promoting their favorite characters as canon," to be totally honest.
BG2 is up to you, but I think Minsc, Imoen and Jaheira are must haves. Minsc is iconic in the BG world, the plot HEAVILY involves Imoen, and there is so much detail put into Jaheira.
The rest is up to you.
As for BG2... Well, I'll definitely take Imoen for the Bhaalspawn family reunion in ToB. I'm not so sure about Minsc and Jaheira though. Please don't remind me. I suppose it's true though, which makes suggestions of canon in the game seem rather silly.
I always explore the promenade first regardless, and it's hard the tents and commotion.
A number of game walkthrough sites also show it happening:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgateii/npcs/nalia.php
I didn't have any mods that should affect Nalia that deeply up at the time either, so I think it happens in Vanilla.
...... Ahem! Where was I? .....
More seriously, the canon BG2 party:
Charname - well, obviously. :-)
Imoen - Saves your butt in Château Irenicus.
Yoshimo - Until spellhold, replaced with Imoen.
Jaheira - Whose butt you save in Château Irenicus.
Minsc - Same as Jaheira.
Aerie - First NPC you find after escaping Château Irenicus.
That leaves one slot open, for either Nalia or Anomen (I'm discounting Korgan, since he is a trouble-maker with a history for eventually breaking up his parties - with his axe!). If we assume that Charname is a fighter type, then I'd go for Anomen as primary healer and assistant front-liner, since with Aerie and Imoen you already have all the mages you need, and Imoen is a better thief.
The novels may be considered canonical in terms of the larger "Forgotten Realms" milieu, but frankly, if D&D can revise its history and continuity over and over (via different Editions and such), we should have the same freedom to construct whatever canon we like.
Later on I pick up Neera and a fighter.
Sith code forever.
The word "canon" means "1. rule enacted by a church body
2. group of writings accepted as authentic"
That definition is from dictionary.com. Number two is the one that is relevant here.
Since the novels are not "accepted as authentic" by the majority of Baldur's Gate fans, you could make an argument that they are not "canon". But, you could also counterargue that they are, since they are "accepted as authentic" by Wizards of the Coast in their published Forgotten Realms timelines.
We could use the game dialogues and letters as our "group of writings accepted as authentic." If we do that, any party configuration supported by dialogue choices given in the game is "canon." Some of the written and spoken lines give us some evidence that certain characters have traveled with Charname; for example, when you find her in Irenicus' dungeon, Jaheira says "I swear, travelling with you is never dull!", implying that she has, in fact, travelled with you in the past. How long she did so is not made clear by the written dialogues.
People's individual favorite parties and story interpretations are irrelevant to a discussion of what is "canon", unless specific texts from the "canon" are quoted to support their "canon" party configurations and story interpretations. Anything that you are just making up yourself, while perfectly valid and fun, does not have anything to do with a discussion of the BG canon.
For convenience's sake, I would suggest using the game's dialogues and in-game books and letters as the "canon", and ignoring the novels.
1. it's not entirely clear who has the authority to determine authenticity: is it the player who makes the choices in the game? Is it the developer/writer/company who created the game? Is it the tie-in/adaptation writer who picks a particular path and crystallizes it for everyone who follows (ie: Drew Karpyshyn establishing Revan as a LS male)?
2. If the story can play out in different ways depending on player decisions, how can there be a single objective canonical sequence of events? You pointed out Jaheira's dialogue, but she also has a sequence in response to a different dialogue option where she says she knows who you are, but does not explicitly claim that she ever traveled with you (it's in the dialog.tlk file, which I don't have with me at the moment). And what about the overall plot? Does the Bhaalspawn ascend, or give up the power? Does Imoen live or die? Is Viconia converted or does she stay evil? Is Sarevok redeemed or not?
These things are variables that change from person to person, depending on the narrative they've constructed - therefore, the only kind of "canon" possible is personal canon, ie: what's true for specific players regarding their specific playthroughs.
My objection is to the use of the word "canon". The term "personal canon" seems at best an oxymoron to me, or at worst, a complete lack of precision in language and word definitions.
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I looked up the term "personal canon" and found a synonym, "headcanon", which is listed at urbandictionary.com, meaning that it is a legitimate slang term, although as such, it would not be an acceptable term for scholarly writing. Here is the definiton:
"Headcanon
(also written as "head canon" but it's really one word.)
An idea, belief, or aspect of a story that is not mentioned in the media itself, but is accepted by either the reader themselves (sic) or the fandom in general. If it is confirmed by the author of the story, it becomes canon."
For example, my headcanon for Javik (from "Mass Effect 3") is that he lives a long and fulfilling life rediscovering the galaxy after the game's conclusion. The game itself does not reveal his fate, and so it neither validates nor contradicts my assumption - therefore, this holds a value of "true" only insofar as it's my own interpretation of a particular "gap" in the text.
The problem you're having here is simply that the conventional definition of the term "canon" can't encompass branching narratives in which player agency shapes the plot (to varying extents, depending on the game in question). It's an understandable lapse, given that it's a relatively recent innovation and academia is still struggling with these concepts and with the validity of video games as viable objects of scholarly pursuit, but for the moment, I find "personal canon" to be the most useful term in defining a text which can (and frequently does) adapt itself to the specific whims of any given recipient.
Also, I need a definition of "personal canon" from a source that matches the one you have given. Absent that, I think you are making up unnecessarily confusing new terms. "Personal interpretation" is an already existing term that expresses and communicates the concept clearly.
Why kidnap a word that is already in use meaning something completely different? What I suspect is that the word in question has connotations of unassailable authority and absolute truth, going back to its first use in reference to churches, religions, and scriptures, and that people want to use it incorrectly to give an unfair air of authority to their own interpretations over those of others.
That less than honest motivation behind the abuse of the word is why I am objecting so stubbornly to its use here.