@The_Shairs_Handbook - You do realize that I get a notification every time you mention me, right? I'm not "following" you, I'm posting on the same forum. Star Trek species have also often been compared to real world countries, and it just never makes real sense because it's science fiction and not reality. It just doesn't work, regardless of fantasy or science fiction. Races in games are not created to resemble reality, but to fulfill a function in storytelling.
On topic, I'm all for adding NPCs that are not stereotype, even if it results in illegal combinations. A favorite would be a female half orc druid. Druids are neutral and can fit in good and evil parties, so it's an easy way to provide something useful for most players. Druids can also really rock on BG2 levels, and it's a shame Cernd is so insanely boring and forgettable. He can't be changed due to the contract, so the obvious solution is a new druid with a more memorable and interesting personality and quest.
@Goodstave you might don't know this but the common race of calimshan (Based on Turkey)are Genasis (disguised as humans) And one of the common race of Mulhurandi (based on Egypt) are Aasimar...
@The_Shairs_Handbook With all due respect, please refrain from mixing real countries and high fantasy settings, since you like reading and quoting wiki so much, you might have found a mention that arabs are a proud people, and middle east people don't take kindly to being compared to genasis diguised as humans, not even to aasimars paladins. You just quote wall of texts and think you're making a point, better speak your own mind lest you be inadvertently judgemental. Also not in wiki but in the game journal: Baldur's Gate adventure starts 1369 DR, 110 years before whatever events you're talking about.
Sorry guys for the thread derailment, but I had to say my piece.
To be fair, Mulhorand *is* based on Egypt. In fact, wasn't it supposed to be canon that the Mulhorandi people were like, descendents of ancient Egyptians from our world that somehow ended up on Abeir-Toril? Never really made much sense to me, but I'm pretty sure I read that in some of the official source material. Where @The_Shairs_Handbook is a little inaccurate is with that claim that Aasimar are "one of the common race of Mulhurandi". Now, there may be something different in 4th ed, I don't know, I don't bother myself with 4th ed, and it's kind of irrelevant to Baldur's Gate. What is canon about Mulhorand is that Planetouched individuals in general are far more common there than they are in other places in the Realms, and yes, that includes Aasimar. However, they are still a minority.
In response to the posts that started this argument, I believe it would be perfectly plausible to add one or two more Planetouched characters to BG. I don't think it's necessary, but it is plausible. They are not 'common' in the Forgotten Realms, as was previously claimed, however, they are far less uncommon in the Realms than in most other campaign settings. They're certainly commonplace enough that genasi, aasimar, and tieflings are covered fairly in-depth in the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms campaign setting, and in "Races of Faerun". Not sure about the 2nd edition, never read it, but still. It would be perfectly normal for the main character to run into some of them. Yes, they're in the minority, but there's bound to be at least a couple of them in any given large city in Faerun, and they're probably going to stand out due to their appearance and nature.
I would not be against adding genasi or aasimar to the game. Heck, there's a minor NPC in Icewind Dale II that's a genasi, and Aasimar are a playable race. So, it's not unheard of in these kinds of games, and would make perfect sense in BG. After all, if there are even tieflings, aasimar, and genasi living up in a sparsely populated, frozen wasteland like that, I can't see why there couldn't be a at least couple living in a huge city like Baldur's Gate.
Well, there is Haer'Dalis. In my opinion, one (neutral, hence versatile) NPC from an "uncommon, but not totally unheard of" race covers it. I'd be more interested in covering the playable races more equally, for example female dwarves, gnomes and half orcs (and BG2 could also use a male halfling).
Well, there is Haer'Dalis. In my opinion, one (neutral, hence versatile) NPC from an "uncommon, but not totally unheard of" race covers it. I'd be more interested in covering the playable races more equally, for example female dwarves, gnomes and half orcs (and BG2 could also use a male halfling).
Yeah, but the thread is about both games in the series, with an emphasis on BG1. honestly I wouldn't mind another character like that being added to BG2, but really if there were another planetouched character, I'd want them to be added to BG1. Haer'Dalis is plenty adequate for BG2. I was just pointing out that adding another planetouched character in general would still make sense. I'm not advocating for one side or another. I'm just saying that it makes sense. It's not entirely implausible, and it shouldn't be totally dismissed like it seems it's being.
Oh, I was thinking BG2. BG1 already has a lot more NPCs, I don't really see a need to add more. I guess a planetouched good-aligned sorcerer might be nice; Dynaheir is the only good-aligned pure class arcane caster, and I always found that a bit weird. Especially since evil now has 3 of those, and most of the "exotic" races (both drow and the half-orc) - giving good parties a rare species and another arcane caster would be a good fit.
Where @Foggy is a little inaccurate is with that claim that Aasimar are "one of the common race of Mulhurandi". Now, there may be something different in 4th ed, I don't know, I don't bother myself with 4th ed, and it's kind of irrelevant to Baldur's Gate.
You got me mixed with the guy that wrote it. I too don't bother myself with 4th ed, nor have interest in Mulhurandi, what is based of, nor it's population. The argument was about something else entirely. Nevermind, back to NPCs and the more interesting BG 2nd edition setting. Dwarves, half-orcs and thieves are clearly what the majority of players want. Question is will there be additional NPC in BG2EE other than the evil(?) female thief?
Where @Foggy is a little inaccurate is with that claim that Aasimar are "one of the common race of Mulhurandi". Now, there may be something different in 4th ed, I don't know, I don't bother myself with 4th ed, and it's kind of irrelevant to Baldur's Gate.
You got me mixed with the guy that wrote it. I too don't bother myself with 4th ed, nor have interest in Mulhurandi, what is based of, nor it's population. The argument was about something else entirely. Nevermind, back to NPCs and the more interesting BG 2nd edition setting. Dwarves, half-orcs and thieves are clearly what the majority of players want. Question is will there be additional NPC in BG2EE other than the evil(?) female thief?
Ah yes. I'm sorry. The post was directed at you, and the person I was talking about was @The_Shairs_Handbook Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I will fix that right away.
@Goodstave you might don't know this but the common race of calimshan (Based on Turkey)are Genasis (disguised as humans) And one of the common race of Mulhurandi (based on Egypt) are Aasimar... In the case of of genasi In sword coast... they are more common than elves at 2nd edition era most of the elves flees (the Retreat) to Evermeet.. however there are some few elfs left in The Forest of Tethir, also known as Wealdath and High Forest...
The common race of Calimshan in 4e might be Genasi, in 2nd and 3rd edition that is not the case. Likewise, Mulhorand may be made up of a large portion of Aasimar in 4e but in 2nd (the time BG is set) and 3e it is not the case. I know much about the realms, my friend. I have DMed four long running games set in the realms and played in several more. I've also converted many of the races, spells and domains, prestige classes, and regional feats (among others) to the Pathfinder RPG rule set to avoid the monstrosity known as 4th edition DnD (both the rules and fluff are horrendous).
The denizens of Mulhorand are humans that were taken from another world (commonly believed to be earth) much like the Rus that populated Ruathym and Rasheman. The majority of them were not Aasimar since, well, there are on Aasimar on Earth...
The idea of the majority of humans in calimshan one day shedding their human disguises to reveal they were Genasi all along has to be one the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life. Thank goodness 4e has absolutely nothing to do with BG.
The idea of the majority of humans in calimshan one day shedding their human disguises to reveal they were Genasi all along has to be one the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life.
Yes indeed, it's ridiculous. That's part of what I meant earlier, when I wondered whether 4e was a degeneration into absurd nonsense.
Thank goodness 4e has absolutely nothing to do with BG.
And let's hope it stays that way! Rasaad and Khalid are both humans from Calimshan ... but the introduction of a "plot twist" in which they turned out to be genasi would lack all credibility, that'd be the moment when the BG series jumped the shark and we'd all lose interest very quickly. And Overhaul would probably go bust as a result, which would be a great shame. So, Overhaul: please stay clear of stupid 4e ideas, for your own good as well as ours!
What you guys said. A good-aligned dwarven defender to tank, another gnome, and a female skald would be great. If the future thief is neutral that's fine, if evil then maybe a good-aligned wizardslayer or kensai that you can dual to thief.
@GoodSteve First of all the Aasimar of Mulhorand Is not 4th edition it is 2nd and 3rd edition timeline in 4th edition Mulhorand and Unther are destroyed by spellplague or switch placed with abir-thorils twin planet..and the Aasimars are replaced with Devas as a divine planetouched race (horribly choose). as DnD is taking back most if the orginal content the Aasimar will do a come back in DnD next... More facts on Mulhorand http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Mulhorand
and 2nd of of all what does a campagn worlds history and flavour to do anything with 4th edition ruleset... I mean you and some people are so BLIND (yes thats the word Blind) by senseless rage against 4th edition ruleset that you even hate the campagn worlds... sure they use 4th edition as base.. but please do also remember you can just run the campign world and apply 2nd and 3rd edition rulset if you want.. cuz after all the latest edition of forgotten realm just show a flavour and how the timeline and the world does look like in 1385 DR and after.... YOU DON'T NEED TO USE 4TH edition Rules if you don't want or like it...... myself are not big fan of 4th edition ruleset but it doesn't turn me into a blind hater...
so if we use the history ( not ruleset ) this is how calimshan do look like as the core... as I said earlier about Genasi they are hiding or using Illusion too look like human in time of troubles era http://community.wizards.com/lfr/wiki/Calimshan
and trust me if bg3 going to use any ruleset it probably going to be the DnD next rules and if something it is core forgatten realms race that been there sense 3rd edition and so on is that Genasi, Aasimars, Thieflings and Drow (plus the traditional demiraces) are specific forgotten realms race some of them are mentioned back in 2nd edition in history or as monsters (drow, Aasimars)
with other word If you buyed a PnP forgotten realms handbok sence year 2000 up to now ..you always got (besides elves, dwarves, gnomes and the rest) was drow, Genasi, Aasimar and thieflng as a core race of forgotten realms camping world. and as a core race of forgotten realms I personally wouldn't mind if they added those races... after all Abir-Toril is not another Tolkein fantasy world and it's complex in diversity fantasy setting is what makes people love it... it is diffrient, it's not tolken
Ps. don't take me wrong me here I love tolken Books... But any fantasy world that are based on tolken are such a cliche...
Dear @Gallowglass you exaggerate it little bit Of course there are Humans in calimshan but they are just less than before and followers background and race that are from calimshan won't change (Khalid and Rasaad)
and back to the quastion on what might wind up in bg2.. The teories I have is: The evil Thief is in fact 1.Dual class Fighter/Thief and might be Shar-Teel 2. They maybe going to introduce a new thief kit and what better way than introducing it with thru a new interesting and charming Thief follower with that Kit
persionally I do hope for more neutral Alig. follower (they have bigger usage when playing good,evil or neutral runs...)
I'd love to see Bodhi return in ToB like Serevok just not as a vampire i't would be funny to see her and Serevok argue over who had the best scheme to kill the PC
I remember when I first played BG2 I saw that Bodhi had a portrait, and the only character's I'd met up to that point with portraits were recruitable NPCs, so I then assumed that I'd be getting a sweet vampire on my team. Alas it was not to be.
@Eudaemonium Glad to hear i'm not the only Bodhi fan here! i would honestly pay money to see her return as a join able npc even if it's a dlc. or in Baldur's gate 3 if they make it. I know she makes a cameo in ascension but it was kinda disappointing that it was just for the big ending. Honestly i liked her for her personality more that the fact she was a vampire so even if she returned without her vampiric powers i'd still recruit her.
@Goodsteve@Gallowglass Not every human was a genasi in disguise. It also makes perfect sense that a nation rife with djinn and efreeti would have some crossbreeds.
Also, @Gallowglass Let's not start this again. Evil has only 3 NPCs, and plenty of people play Evil. The need for more Evil NPCs is the most pressing. You can already have a full Good or Neutral party without even including Neera and Rasaad. Evil will just barely have a full party with Dorn and Evil Female Thief.
@Goodsteve@Gallowglass Not every human was a genasi in disguise. It also makes perfect sense that a nation rife with djinn and efreeti would have some crossbreeds.
Sure, yes, some. I think @GoodSteve and I are scoffing at the idea that this would be the bulk of the population (as implied earlier in thread), not disputing that there'd be some.
Also, @Gallowglass Let's not start this again. Evil has only 3 NPCs, and plenty of people play Evil. The need for more Evil NPCs is the most pressing.
I believe we agree that we'd like to see several more NPCs to fill various serious gaps, but we disagree about what the priorities ought to be for the very limited number which Overhaul are likely to be able to provide. I think we've both already explained the details of our opinions quite sufficiently, here and in a previous thread. Is that fair enough?
@Gallowglass I'm not sure how the alignment with the fewest NPCs can be considered not the priority, whether you play an Evil party or not. Agree to disagree, then.
As for genasi, 4th is my edition of choice, but I've never had the impression that post-spellplague Calimshan was just suddenly 90% genasi or something. But, between the Calimshan revelation and another major event I cannot recall, there are a lot more genasi on Toril in general, certainly. Genasi have been more frequent in FR since 3E, though, so this is to be expected.
If Overhaul wants to please the most people (because even though some, including me now and then, like to play Evil, good/neutral includes the vast majority) the next possible character they include will be a good/neutral one. The evil side will get one, and also got (seemingly) the most interesting addition continuing from BG I. I'd argue that most of the really interesting and flavoured characters are the evil ones at the moment.
The Baldur's Gate series, even though it gives you an opportunity to sort of play evil, is clearly designed to mainly cater for good aligned characters. You will have no trouble playing evil with the two new additions and you can always spice it up with one of the seven neutral characters or Imoen (since she will never leave you no matter what).
@Stickan Good/Neutral players should already be pleased. They have enough NPCs to form a full party without CHARNAME's presence at all. Evil will now have just enough for a full six that includes CHARNAME. Appeasing people who already have quite a lot to be thankful for in this aspect of BG2 seems like a waste of time, and the reason that Evil Female Thief is the only new NPC being added to BG2 (besides Neera, Dorn, and Rasaad of course) is because of those time/budget constraints.
Do I want a Barbarian? Yes. Do I want a Lawful Neutral Dwarven Defender? Hell yes. Are these more important to the enhancement of the game than an Evil Female Thief? Absolutely not.
@Schneidend I don't think anyone is denying that the evil female theif is a much needed addition. I was refering to any additional characters they might have time to implement.
I would also argue that just forming a full party of one alignment is little consolation. You'd want a nice balance and most importantly interesting interactions and backstories. Many of the good NPCs appear very flat and unexotic compared to the evil ones in my view. Quite a few also appear as charity cases when you first pick them up... And then add the simple fact that three of the good characters are female mages. Some variation would be nice.
And that is not even mentioning the fact that the evil NPCs are simply better when it comes to game mechanics.
Haven't you ever thought that some of us are actually okay with 4th edition rules and just really think the 4th ed FR campaign setting is ridiculous? I've played tabletop with 4th ed rules before and while it's certainly a different experience than the editions before it, it was still hella fun. I mean, they're defs not my favorite ruleset of all time, but I would be fine playing an FR game with 4th ed rules so long as we stayed with the lore from 3rd ed or earlier. Because 4th ed forgotten realms really makes no sense to me, no matter how many chances I seem to give it.
[Spoiler]If you want his personal quest to have a good ending and not tell him to come with you and abandon his family again, which seems very selfish, you have to let him go. Otherwise I feel like a jerk[/Spoiler]
Minsc is only really interesting to bring along if you have Aerie. It feels like the designer assumes you should know a lot about Minsc from BG I (where you didn't really get to know him at all). Aerie is... well. I really can't stand her constant whining and insecurity, but each to his own. I wouldn't bring such a person along to save the world...
"flat and unexotic" Minsc. Mazzy. Aerie. Keldorn. Good has plenty of NPCs that are both mechanically potent and interesting to bring along.
Indeed, from a purely game mechanics perspective many of the good NPCs are better than the evil alternatives. Given that there are very few advantages to a pure class cleric, and the few disadvantages of an evil one (turn undead isn't all explodey) Aerie is better than Viconia. Likewise the argument can be made that Keldorn and Anomen are better than Korgan thanks to all the extra utility they bring to the table besides being potent in melee, Korgan's only advantage here is his Berserker Rage which I'll grant is a pretty big one.
The only evil character that is unquestionably the best in their class in every way is Edwin.
@LadyEibhilinRhett sure every edition has it's good and bad side... when I wrote that it was meant to be for people who used their hate against everything that was 4th edition or future campign worlds... I'm not a person who would hate any edition... there are good and bad side in every edition classes that I personally like in 4th edition are Nethermancer, Sha'ir and swordmage.. they are diffriently and interesting what i don't like about 4th edition is all the spells description... they sound like final fanstasy limit breaks (with other word not logical when it comes with description= effect of the spell). many of the spells of 4th editions would be instant death spells in 2nd edition.. also i don't like that players are dependable of big party to finish their quest (or the dm needs to twicth the rules)..
about the new era... sure there are alot things that I don't like about it... it feels sad that Tyr (the only norse mythology god) of abir-toril died and torm took his place as greater god, Helm died (personally I never cared about helm but sure there are people out there that feel sad that helm died). also I never liked that Unther and Mulhurand was destroyed by spellplague (so no more egyptian gods) only gods that survived from Unther and Mulhurand is Assuran( more known as Hoar), Bast (Sharess), Tiamat, and Marduk (more known as Bahamut) not sure if set survived (he is after all an extremly popular god).... hmmm i do like those gods... but the thing is... that I accept it.. and i'm move on... I see it as a good roleplaying... just sail the wave... anyway Abir-toril going probebly look diffrient in forgotten realms Next edition.. the rumours are that it's going to be less magical and mystra going to make a comeback (probably as a lesser god).
and back to the Npc I would like to see... hmm dwarves... I say if they add any dwarve follower .. i do hope that it is a female and with lotsa beard... a female dwarven Defender would be interesting.... also a Blunt Female gnome barbarian with aloot of hubris would be very funny to have as a follower (with quotes like me kill you watch ooh weak leader).... hopefully both the female dwarf and the female Gnome can be a love interest for Charname Dwarf or Charname gnome....
Frankly, I'm a little insulted that you assume I'm "blinded by hate" and can't really percieve how great 4e realms are because I don't like the ruleset. I stated clearly and concisely that I do not like the campaign world (the changes that the spellplague engineered) nor the rules. I gave both the benefit of the doubt when they came out. I read many of the initial 4e books (or 4e metamorphisis books) and played a half dozen sessions of 4e before I knew that I didn't like it. Why in the world would I still play in or follow a setting that I don't like? Why would I use a rule set that I don't like?
You say "YOU DON'T NEED TO USE 4TH edition Rules if you don't want or like it...... myself are not big fan of 4th edition ruleset but it doesn't turn me into a blind hater..." So, if I don't use the rules I'm a blind hater? How? So, it's ok not to use the rules, but as soon as you do you are a blind hater? Yeah, no. Screw you sir.
Not entirely sure why you're posting "more facts" on things when no one asking for them and they do nothing to prove your outlandish claim that 2e and 3e Calimshan was predominantly genasi or that 2e and 3e mulhorand was predominantly aasimar. If you'd like to post a credible source saying this other than "First of all the Aasimar of Mulhorand Is not 4th edition it is 2nd and 3rd edition timeline in 4th edition Mulhorand and Unther are destroyed by spellplague or switch placed with abir-thorils twin planet..and the Aasimars are replaced with Devas as a divine planetouched race (horribly choose)" which isn't based on anything official from my understanding, that would be great. Like to source where you are getting this information (read: the relevent information for the topic ie the bit about 2e and 3e aasimar being the predominant race of mulhorand)? It's Abeir-Toril by the way, for being the realms expert you claim to be you haven't spelled it correctly once.
"so if we use the history ( not ruleset ) this is how calimshan do look like as the core... as I said earlier about Genasi they are hiding or using Illusion too look like human in time of troubles era http://community.wizards.com/lfr/wiki/Calimshan" Wrong. If by history you mean post spellplague, then sure I suppose that's a form of history but has absolutely nothing to do with the timeline of BG.
"after all Abir-Toril is not another Tolkein fantasy world and it's complex in diversity fantasy setting is what makes people love it... it is diffrient, it's not tolken" That made me chuckle since one of the most common criticisms about FR since its inception was that it was a Tolkein clone. Not that I fully agree with that but for someone to come out and say that one of the iconic characteristics of a campagin setting known for being a tolkein clone is that it's not a tolkein clone speaks volumes about their ignorance.
First of all sorry if you got offended 2nd of all by posting words like Screw you sir and made me chuckle and so on just shows you are at the moment see everything in red anger, behave extremly immature and very unprofessional at the moment... Like I said I'm sorry if I hurt your feeling and let us go back to the same game we love BG.. anyway you asked some information I can give you some but the rest of information read Empires of the Sands books.
Post Planescape Genasi was called Half-elementals when planescape campaign came out half-elementals name changed to somewhat to genasi (this is especially true in newer editions of DnD).
In the year -6200 Skyfire war began... Memnon and Calim bring their forces of genies to the realms.. the war took place in calimshan and tethyr. many of those genies took mortal lovers, wifes,husbands and concubine.. there offsprings were the half-elementals (in 4t edition Genasis.. in 3rd editions the a half-elemntals and a human offspring are a genasi). in -6060 the last djinns are ousted by humans and dwarves. the rest was trapped in genie prisons and the half-elementals were persecuted killed or trapped in prisons. some of them fled the others (4t edition) used spells to look like humans.
Comments
Star Trek species have also often been compared to real world countries, and it just never makes real sense because it's science fiction and not reality. It just doesn't work, regardless of fantasy or science fiction. Races in games are not created to resemble reality, but to fulfill a function in storytelling.
On topic, I'm all for adding NPCs that are not stereotype, even if it results in illegal combinations. A favorite would be a female half orc druid. Druids are neutral and can fit in good and evil parties, so it's an easy way to provide something useful for most players. Druids can also really rock on BG2 levels, and it's a shame Cernd is so insanely boring and forgettable. He can't be changed due to the contract, so the obvious solution is a new druid with a more memorable and interesting personality and quest.
Where @The_Shairs_Handbook is a little inaccurate is with that claim that Aasimar are "one of the common race of Mulhurandi". Now, there may be something different in 4th ed, I don't know, I don't bother myself with 4th ed, and it's kind of irrelevant to Baldur's Gate.
What is canon about Mulhorand is that Planetouched individuals in general are far more common there than they are in other places in the Realms, and yes, that includes Aasimar. However, they are still a minority.
In response to the posts that started this argument, I believe it would be perfectly plausible to add one or two more Planetouched characters to BG. I don't think it's necessary, but it is plausible. They are not 'common' in the Forgotten Realms, as was previously claimed, however, they are far less uncommon in the Realms than in most other campaign settings. They're certainly commonplace enough that genasi, aasimar, and tieflings are covered fairly in-depth in the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms campaign setting, and in "Races of Faerun". Not sure about the 2nd edition, never read it, but still. It would be perfectly normal for the main character to run into some of them. Yes, they're in the minority, but there's bound to be at least a couple of them in any given large city in Faerun, and they're probably going to stand out due to their appearance and nature.
I would not be against adding genasi or aasimar to the game. Heck, there's a minor NPC in Icewind Dale II that's a genasi, and Aasimar are a playable race. So, it's not unheard of in these kinds of games, and would make perfect sense in BG. After all, if there are even tieflings, aasimar, and genasi living up in a sparsely populated, frozen wasteland like that, I can't see why there couldn't be a at least couple living in a huge city like Baldur's Gate.
honestly I wouldn't mind another character like that being added to BG2, but really if there were another planetouched character, I'd want them to be added to BG1. Haer'Dalis is plenty adequate for BG2.
I was just pointing out that adding another planetouched character in general would still make sense. I'm not advocating for one side or another. I'm just saying that it makes sense. It's not entirely implausible, and it shouldn't be totally dismissed like it seems it's being.
Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I will fix that right away.
The denizens of Mulhorand are humans that were taken from another world (commonly believed to be earth) much like the Rus that populated Ruathym and Rasheman. The majority of them were not Aasimar since, well, there are on Aasimar on Earth...
The idea of the majority of humans in calimshan one day shedding their human disguises to reveal they were Genasi all along has to be one the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life. Thank goodness 4e has absolutely nothing to do with BG.
Also: I think a neutral thief would be fine, why wouldn't that be enough?
I agree that the game is lacking a good-aligned dwarf ...and a female bard ...and a wizardslayer.
First of all the Aasimar of Mulhorand Is not 4th edition it is 2nd and 3rd edition timeline in 4th edition Mulhorand and Unther are destroyed by spellplague or switch placed with abir-thorils twin planet..and the Aasimars are replaced with Devas as a divine planetouched race (horribly choose). as DnD is taking back most if the orginal content the Aasimar will do a come back in DnD next...
More facts on Mulhorand
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Mulhorand
and 2nd of of all what does a campagn worlds history and flavour to do anything with 4th edition ruleset...
I mean you and some people are so BLIND (yes thats the word Blind) by senseless rage against 4th edition ruleset that you even hate the campagn worlds... sure they use 4th edition as base.. but please do also remember you can just run the campign world and apply 2nd and 3rd edition rulset if you want.. cuz after all the latest edition of forgotten realm just show a flavour and how the timeline and the world does look like in 1385 DR and after.... YOU DON'T NEED TO USE 4TH edition Rules if you don't want or like it......
myself are not big fan of 4th edition ruleset but it doesn't turn me into a blind hater...
so if we use the history ( not ruleset ) this is how calimshan do look like as the core...
as I said earlier about Genasi they are hiding or using Illusion too look like human in time of troubles era
http://community.wizards.com/lfr/wiki/Calimshan
and trust me if bg3 going to use any ruleset it probably going to be the DnD next rules and if something it is core forgatten realms race that been there sense 3rd edition and so on is that Genasi, Aasimars, Thieflings and Drow (plus the traditional demiraces) are specific forgotten realms race some of them are mentioned back in 2nd edition in history or as monsters (drow, Aasimars)
with other word If you buyed a PnP forgotten realms handbok sence year 2000 up to now ..you always got
(besides elves, dwarves, gnomes and the rest) was drow, Genasi, Aasimar and thieflng as a core race of forgotten realms camping world. and as a core race of forgotten realms I personally wouldn't mind if they added those races... after all Abir-Toril is not another Tolkein fantasy world and it's complex in diversity fantasy setting is what makes people love it... it is diffrient, it's not tolken
Ps. don't take me wrong me here I love tolken Books... But any fantasy world that are based on tolken are such a cliche...
Dear @Gallowglass
you exaggerate it little bit Of course there are Humans in calimshan but they are just less than before and followers background and race that are from calimshan won't change (Khalid and Rasaad)
and back to the quastion on what might wind up in bg2..
The teories I have is:
The evil Thief is in fact
1.Dual class Fighter/Thief and might be Shar-Teel
2. They maybe going to introduce a new thief kit and what better way than introducing it with thru a new interesting and charming Thief follower with that Kit
persionally I do hope for more neutral Alig. follower (they have bigger usage when playing good,evil or neutral runs...)
Not every human was a genasi in disguise. It also makes perfect sense that a nation rife with djinn and efreeti would have some crossbreeds.
Also, @Gallowglass
Let's not start this again. Evil has only 3 NPCs, and plenty of people play Evil. The need for more Evil NPCs is the most pressing. You can already have a full Good or Neutral party without even including Neera and Rasaad. Evil will just barely have a full party with Dorn and Evil Female Thief.
I'm not sure how the alignment with the fewest NPCs can be considered not the priority, whether you play an Evil party or not. Agree to disagree, then.
As for genasi, 4th is my edition of choice, but I've never had the impression that post-spellplague Calimshan was just suddenly 90% genasi or something. But, between the Calimshan revelation and another major event I cannot recall, there are a lot more genasi on Toril in general, certainly. Genasi have been more frequent in FR since 3E, though, so this is to be expected.
The Baldur's Gate series, even though it gives you an opportunity to sort of play evil, is clearly designed to mainly cater for good aligned characters. You will have no trouble playing evil with the two new additions and you can always spice it up with one of the seven neutral characters or Imoen (since she will never leave you no matter what).
Good/Neutral players should already be pleased. They have enough NPCs to form a full party without CHARNAME's presence at all. Evil will now have just enough for a full six that includes CHARNAME. Appeasing people who already have quite a lot to be thankful for in this aspect of BG2 seems like a waste of time, and the reason that Evil Female Thief is the only new NPC being added to BG2 (besides Neera, Dorn, and Rasaad of course) is because of those time/budget constraints.
Do I want a Barbarian? Yes.
Do I want a Lawful Neutral Dwarven Defender? Hell yes.
Are these more important to the enhancement of the game than an Evil Female Thief? Absolutely not.
I would also argue that just forming a full party of one alignment is little consolation. You'd want a nice balance and most importantly interesting interactions and backstories. Many of the good NPCs appear very flat and unexotic compared to the evil ones in my view. Quite a few also appear as charity cases when you first pick them up... And then add the simple fact that three of the good characters are female mages. Some variation would be nice.
And that is not even mentioning the fact that the evil NPCs are simply better when it comes to game mechanics.
Minsc. Mazzy. Aerie. Keldorn.
Good has plenty of NPCs that are both mechanically potent and interesting to bring along.
Haven't you ever thought that some of us are actually okay with 4th edition rules and just really think the 4th ed FR campaign setting is ridiculous? I've played tabletop with 4th ed rules before and while it's certainly a different experience than the editions before it, it was still hella fun. I mean, they're defs not my favorite ruleset of all time, but I would be fine playing an FR game with 4th ed rules so long as we stayed with the lore from 3rd ed or earlier. Because 4th ed forgotten realms really makes no sense to me, no matter how many chances I seem to give it.
[Spoiler]If you want his personal quest to have a good ending and not tell him to come with you and abandon his family again, which seems very selfish, you have to let him go. Otherwise I feel like a jerk[/Spoiler]
Minsc is only really interesting to bring along if you have Aerie. It feels like the designer assumes you should know a lot about Minsc from BG I (where you didn't really get to know him at all). Aerie is... well. I really can't stand her constant whining and insecurity, but each to his own. I wouldn't bring such a person along to save the world...
Mazzy is an interesting concept though, I agree.
The only evil character that is unquestionably the best in their class in every way is Edwin.
sure every edition has it's good and bad side... when I wrote that it was meant to be for people who used their hate against everything that was 4th edition or future campign worlds... I'm not a person who would hate any edition... there are good and bad side in every edition
classes that I personally like in 4th edition are Nethermancer, Sha'ir and swordmage.. they are diffriently and interesting
what i don't like about 4th edition is all the spells description... they sound like final fanstasy limit breaks (with other word not logical when it comes with description= effect of the spell).
many of the spells of 4th editions would be instant death spells in 2nd edition.. also i don't like that players are dependable of big party to finish their quest (or the dm needs to twicth the rules)..
about the new era... sure there are alot things that I don't like about it... it feels sad that Tyr (the only norse mythology god) of abir-toril died and torm took his place as greater god, Helm died (personally I never cared about helm but sure there are people out there that feel sad that helm died). also I never liked that Unther and Mulhurand was destroyed by spellplague (so no more egyptian gods) only gods that survived from Unther and Mulhurand is Assuran( more known as Hoar), Bast (Sharess), Tiamat, and Marduk (more known as Bahamut) not sure if set survived (he is after all an extremly popular god).... hmmm i do like those gods...
but the thing is... that I accept it.. and i'm move on... I see it as a good roleplaying... just sail the wave...
anyway Abir-toril going probebly look diffrient in forgotten realms Next edition.. the rumours are that it's going to be less magical and mystra going to make a comeback (probably as a lesser god).
and back to the Npc I would like to see... hmm dwarves... I say if they add any dwarve follower .. i do hope that it is a female and with lotsa beard... a female dwarven Defender would be interesting.... also a Blunt Female gnome barbarian with aloot of hubris would be very funny to have as a follower (with quotes like me kill you watch ooh weak leader).... hopefully both the female dwarf and the female Gnome can be a love interest for Charname Dwarf or Charname gnome....
Frankly, I'm a little insulted that you assume I'm "blinded by hate" and can't really percieve how great 4e realms are because I don't like the ruleset. I stated clearly and concisely that I do not like the campaign world (the changes that the spellplague engineered) nor the rules. I gave both the benefit of the doubt when they came out. I read many of the initial 4e books (or 4e metamorphisis books) and played a half dozen sessions of 4e before I knew that I didn't like it. Why in the world would I still play in or follow a setting that I don't like? Why would I use a rule set that I don't like?
You say "YOU DON'T NEED TO USE 4TH edition Rules if you don't want or like it......
myself are not big fan of 4th edition ruleset but it doesn't turn me into a blind hater..." So, if I don't use the rules I'm a blind hater? How? So, it's ok not to use the rules, but as soon as you do you are a blind hater? Yeah, no. Screw you sir.
Not entirely sure why you're posting "more facts" on things when no one asking for them and they do nothing to prove your outlandish claim that 2e and 3e Calimshan was predominantly genasi or that 2e and 3e mulhorand was predominantly aasimar. If you'd like to post a credible source saying this other than "First of all the Aasimar of Mulhorand Is not 4th edition it is 2nd and 3rd edition timeline in 4th edition Mulhorand and Unther are destroyed by spellplague or switch placed with abir-thorils twin planet..and the Aasimars are replaced with Devas as a divine planetouched race (horribly choose)" which isn't based on anything official from my understanding, that would be great. Like to source where you are getting this information (read: the relevent information for the topic ie the bit about 2e and 3e aasimar being the predominant race of mulhorand)? It's Abeir-Toril by the way, for being the realms expert you claim to be you haven't spelled it correctly once.
"so if we use the history ( not ruleset ) this is how calimshan do look like as the core...
as I said earlier about Genasi they are hiding or using Illusion too look like human in time of troubles era
http://community.wizards.com/lfr/wiki/Calimshan" Wrong. If by history you mean post spellplague, then sure I suppose that's a form of history but has absolutely nothing to do with the timeline of BG.
"after all Abir-Toril is not another Tolkein fantasy world and it's complex in diversity fantasy setting is what makes people love it... it is diffrient, it's not tolken" That made me chuckle since one of the most common criticisms about FR since its inception was that it was a Tolkein clone. Not that I fully agree with that but for someone to come out and say that one of the iconic characteristics of a campagin setting known for being a tolkein clone is that it's not a tolkein clone speaks volumes about their ignorance.
anyway you asked some information I can give you some but the rest of information read Empires of the Sands books.
source of Information Aasimar
read history part here
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Aasimar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasimar
Post Planescape Genasi was called Half-elementals
when planescape campaign came out half-elementals name changed to somewhat to genasi (this is especially true in newer editions of DnD).
In the year -6200 Skyfire war began... Memnon and Calim bring their forces of genies to the realms.. the war took place in calimshan and tethyr. many of those genies took mortal lovers, wifes,husbands and concubine.. there offsprings were the half-elementals (in 4t edition Genasis.. in 3rd editions the a half-elemntals and a human offspring are a genasi). in -6060 the last djinns are ousted by humans and dwarves. the rest was trapped in genie prisons and the half-elementals were persecuted killed or trapped in prisons. some of them fled the others (4t edition) used spells to look like humans.