@shawne, well, I kind of thought I explained why. I tend to defend classical and traditional useages of words, because I think we are too quick to try to change word meanings through careless useage, leading to a lot of confusion, and an impoverishment of our language. I also mentioned that I see an unfair appeal to authority in abusing the word "canon".
I'm willing to let it drop, however, as people are going to keep abusing the word if they feel like it, and anything I can say is unlikely to make a difference. It still felt good to express my opinion, though, and I have enjoyed our stimulating back-and-forth debate about it.
My answer to the thread topic remains, "there is no Baldur's Gate canonical party."
I understand the impulse to defend classical terminology - in this case, however, the term carries with it a very specific, delineated framework. And really, for the most part that framework is perfectly valid for most forms of linear narrative (ie: novels, films, TV series). But when dealing with more complex innovations, the definition must change or be expanded in order to encompass new permutations of storytelling. "Canon" doesn't mean the same thing in video games as it does in film because video games don't tell stories the way films do.
And so my answer to the thread topic would be: "All Baldur's Gate parties are canonical to their respective players."
Apparently, Abdel Adrian (i.e. canon-CHARNAME) not only has an affair with Jaheira while Khalid is still alive and later whores out Imoen to Phaere - he also ends up falling for BODHI of all people, hopping in the sack with our favorite blood-sucker.
... I really don't know what to say to that. Maybe roll up Abdel and run him into some particularly nasty death? Seems appropriate to me.
...I dunno. For me, the canonical party involves a Beholder Paladin with a familiar Gnome Thief/Mage, a Drow Jester, an undead Mummy Mage with an odd relationship with vegetables, a dreamy Myconid Ranger ... aaand my CHARNAME - a delusional MindFlayer Priest of Lathander.
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.
I feel like I want to report this post as "Abuse".
@Southpaw, @Eudaemonium: The mission is clear! We need to go back in time and kill this Abdel Adrian guy to erase him from history. It is our destiny to set things right!
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.
I feel like I want to report this post as "Abuse".
Would make more sense to report WoTC for abusing their own D&D setting... :-/
@Southpaw, @Eudaemonium: The mission is clear! We need to go back in time and kill this Abdel Adrian guy to erase him from history. It is our destiny to set things right!
Any need of a former-Bhaalspawn Arch-mage? I'd be more than happy to throw a meteor shower or two in Abdel's face. And despite my neutral good alignment, I've nothing against Aberration.
According to CHARNAME's alignment: GOOD: If there is redemption for this poor soul, I will help him find it. (and in ToB, you can) NEUTRAL: Sarevok is strong, determined and - above all else - useful. But he better not try anything, he knows he can not win. EVIL: Join me and our enemies will fall. The world will tremble under our footsteps! Cross me again and I will end you.
Comments
I'm willing to let it drop, however, as people are going to keep abusing the word if they feel like it, and anything I can say is unlikely to make a difference. It still felt good to express my opinion, though, and I have enjoyed our stimulating back-and-forth debate about it.
My answer to the thread topic remains, "there is no Baldur's Gate canonical party."
I understand the impulse to defend classical terminology - in this case, however, the term carries with it a very specific, delineated framework. And really, for the most part that framework is perfectly valid for most forms of linear narrative (ie: novels, films, TV series). But when dealing with more complex innovations, the definition must change or be expanded in order to encompass new permutations of storytelling. "Canon" doesn't mean the same thing in video games as it does in film because video games don't tell stories the way films do.
And so my answer to the thread topic would be: "All Baldur's Gate parties are canonical to their respective players."
I really don't know what to say to that. Maybe roll up Abdel and run him into some particularly nasty death? Seems appropriate to me.
For me, the canonical party involves a Beholder Paladin with a familiar Gnome Thief/Mage, a Drow Jester, an undead Mummy Mage with an odd relationship with vegetables, a dreamy Myconid Ranger ... aaand my CHARNAME - a delusional MindFlayer Priest of Lathander.
According to CHARNAME's alignment:
GOOD: If there is redemption for this poor soul, I will help him find it. (and in ToB, you can)
NEUTRAL: Sarevok is strong, determined and - above all else - useful. But he better not try anything, he knows he can not win.
EVIL: Join me and our enemies will fall. The world will tremble under our footsteps! Cross me again and I will end you.