Well, so much for the epic-ness of the BG story. I really, really tried to resist, but...
TO END... LIKE THIS?!
I guess my dreams of continuing on my reign as the Lady of Murder are canonically nixed for good now. Indirectly, this also means that a possible BG3 would go in a very different direction.
what does abdel do in the end of the original series? does he become lord of murder or mortal? I always assumed lord of murder you wouldn't walk on faerun anymore, but wouldn't the becoming mortal mean that he can't become the slayer? also wasn't it impossible for bhaal to return if you become mortal? I should go watch the tob ending again to remember.
Afaik, he chooses to abandon the essence of Bhaal, and remain mortal. According to the game, that would mean the essence disperses into... whatever. Limbo, I don't know. Anyway, it would mean that Bhaal cannot be resurrected - that was the whole point.
How we got to the whole Slayer part... I guess it has something to do with Viekang surviving? So not all the essence was actually gathered at the Throne of Bhaal, and it couldn't be fully dispersed. I suppose that could leave enough of an "anchor" for Bhaal to resurrect, though with how much power remains to be seen.
according to the adventure, Abdel and Viekang are the last Bhaalspawn, when one of them dies, the other becomes the slayer. Apparently Abdel thought he had lost the essence, but in the adventure it's still there.
I remember viekang being quite the coward. why would he even show up to murder abdel? yeah, definitely not how I will be thinking of my own bhaalspawn. would hate to go through everything and even after the end fail.
Well, so much for the epic-ness of the BG story. I really, really tried to resist, but...
TO END... LIKE THIS?!
I guess my dreams of continuing on my reign as the Lady of Murder are canonically nixed for good now. Indirectly, this also means that a possible BG3 would go in a very different direction.
Even if it wasn't nixed, I seriously doubt the overgod Ao would allow our charnames to join the pantheon of Faerunian gods, because our charnames would create an extreme imbalance of good or evil, and there is a balance to uphold after all.
I only hope that a possible BG3 ignores this and allows me to continue as charname. Make something happen that charname survives and must deal with his resurrected father
I mean, in the case that the EEs are successful enough, as beamdog has stated they would love to do a BG3 wheather related to the bhaalspawn or not
How is it BG if it's not related to the Bhaalspawn? More RPGs in the FR setting sure by all means, but is there a reason to call it BG if it doesn't have to do with the Bhaalspawn?
Well, so much for the epic-ness of the BG story. I really, really tried to resist, but...
TO END... LIKE THIS?!
I guess my dreams of continuing on my reign as the Lady of Murder are canonically nixed for good now. Indirectly, this also means that a possible BG3 would go in a very different direction.
Even if it wasn't nixed, I seriously doubt the overgod Ao would allow our charnames to join the pantheon of Faerunian gods, because our charnames would create an extreme imbalance of good or evil, and there is a balance to uphold after all.
A good/neutral charname changing the murder portfolio would be the same as Kelemvor changing how he dealed with Myrkul portfolio. AO didn't stopped him there, so why would he stop charname? An neutral/evil charname can keep the same principles without changing the portfolio by all, so why would AO care about his divinity?
Well, so much for the epic-ness of the BG story. I really, really tried to resist, but...
TO END... LIKE THIS?!
I guess my dreams of continuing on my reign as the Lady of Murder are canonically nixed for good now. Indirectly, this also means that a possible BG3 would go in a very different direction.
Even if it wasn't nixed, I seriously doubt the overgod Ao would allow our charnames to join the pantheon of Faerunian gods, because our charnames would create an extreme imbalance of good or evil, and there is a balance to uphold after all.
A good/neutral charname changing the murder portfolio would be the same as Kelemvor changing how he dealed with Myrkul portfolio. AO didn't stopped him there, so why would he stop charname? An neutral/evil charname can keep the same principles without changing the portfolio by all, so why would AO care about his divinity?
What I'm talking about is bigger than Kelemvor changing Myrkul's portfolio. This is about a mortal who seems to believe if he/she ascends, he/she can change the Realms for better or worse. So why would the overgod Ao stop charname? Because charname wouldn't respect, understand or maintain the balance of good and evil. Whether charname ascends or not, he/she is not powerful than the overgod, so charname must respect the balance whether he/she is good or evil, which means the Realms will never change for better or worse even if charname ascends.
Well, so much for the epic-ness of the BG story. I really, really tried to resist, but...
TO END... LIKE THIS?!
I guess my dreams of continuing on my reign as the Lady of Murder are canonically nixed for good now. Indirectly, this also means that a possible BG3 would go in a very different direction.
Even if it wasn't nixed, I seriously doubt the overgod Ao would allow our charnames to join the pantheon of Faerunian gods, because our charnames would create an extreme imbalance of good or evil, and there is a balance to uphold after all.
A good/neutral charname changing the murder portfolio would be the same as Kelemvor changing how he dealed with Myrkul portfolio. AO didn't stopped him there, so why would he stop charname? An neutral/evil charname can keep the same principles without changing the portfolio by all, so why would AO care about his divinity?
What I'm talking about is bigger than Kelemvor changing Myrkul's portfolio. This is about a mortal who seems to believe if he/she ascends, he/she can change the Realms for better or worse. So why would the overgod Ao stop charname? Because charname wouldn't respect, understand or maintain the balance of good and evil. Whether charname ascends or not, he/she is not powerful than the overgod, so charname must respect the balance whether he/she is good or evil, which means the Realms will never change for better or worse even if charname ascends.
Aren't we presuming too much here? AO isn't worried with Good/Evil or Law/Chaos, he's worried with portfolios being respected. What base we have t state that charname wouldn't respect, understand or maintain balance, which is irrelevant to AO in fact anyway. Char name can be anyone that think anything.
I managed to read the first book, couldn't be bothered with the second. Always thought if there was a canon ending it would involve Abdel slaughtering his party himself by accident while a miniature slayer/devil sat laughing his ass of on his left shoulder, and the solar/angel sat face-palming herself on his right.
I'm sure the guy who wrote that book researched it by playing the game and only learning how to point, click, and attack.
I'm sure the guy who wrote that book researched it by playing the game and only learning how to point, click, and attack.
And he tried to make "creative" changes to the plot, trying to be original but failed miserably, creating plotholes. For example, none of the three leaders of the Iron Throne are in the first book, yet Abdel and Jaheira return to Candlekeep because they heard that the Iron Throne is having a meeting at Candlekeep. What's the point in having an important meeting if the leaders can't attend it? And Sarevok, who seems to be in complete control of the Iron Throne in the book, wasn't at Candlekeep neither, unlike the game.
I'm sure the guy who wrote that book researched it by playing the game and only learning how to point, click, and attack.
And he tried to make "creative" changes to the plot, trying to be original but failed miserably, creating plotholes. For example, none of the three leaders of the Iron Throne are in the first book, yet Abdel and Jaheira return to Candlekeep because they heard that the Iron Throne is having a meeting at Candlekeep. What's the point in having an important meeting if the leaders can't attend it? And Sarevok, who seems to be in complete control of the Iron Throne in the book, wasn't at Candlekeep neither, unlike the game.
And taking the fact that the game came before the novel, Abdel history by itself is an total disrespect of official lore, as Baldur's Gate game is part of D&D lore with the approval of WotC.
If anything, the fact that WotC are insisting on Abdel Adrian being canon should be more than enough reason for BG fans to hope that BG3 would have nothing to do with the Bhaalspawn story...
Many people wanted the BG games to be *canon* (for what it's worth) and now that moment has come at last. I guess the creators of the module simply weren't aware that people would be so focused on the abstract placeholder-character of CHARNAME instead of on the whole game itself. I mean, if someone made an adventure or a novel about the Icewind Dale games, it would have to have some canon characters, too, and no abstract party.
But I also think there's some witty irony in having the "popular" duke Abdel Adrian helplessly suffer a painful death.
What I find a bit dumb about it all is that BG got me reading FR novels; I haven't purchased a single novel since the spellplague, and here the "canon" link (even if it is a bit wispy) is just being treated with the same 'out with the old, in with the new' mentality.
@Calmar: The problem isn't that people wanted the BG games to be canon, it's that Philip Athans and Drew Karpyshyn took some rather broad and unfortunate liberties both with the plot and the characters, to the extent that the things WotC canonized actually have very little to do with the games at all. That's what people are reacting to, not the specific use of Abdel himself (though, given how wretched he comes off in his own adventure, that might be part of it too).
@Calmar: The problem isn't that people wanted the BG games to be canon, it's that Philip Athans and Drew Karpyshyn took some rather broad and unfortunate liberties both with the plot and the characters, to the extent that the things WotC canonized actually have very little to do with the games at all. That's what people are reacting to, not the specific use of Abdel himself (though, given how wretched he comes off in his own adventure, that might be part of it too).
Those guys aren't involved with the adventure, however. The writers of MiBG likely were bound by some company policy to include the stuff established by the novel if they wanted to make any references to the PC games at all.
That still makes it fruit of the poisoned tree, though. That's the thing with player agency - once you give your audience choices in how a story plays out, you can't then insist on a single version that's true to what you want to do. It's the same way with KOTOR: Del Rey says Revan was a man, the game I played says Revan was a woman. You either discount your own experience or ignore the "canon" that follows.
That still makes it fruit of the poisoned tree, though. That's the thing with player agency - once you give your audience choices in how a story plays out, you can't then insist on a single version that's true to what you want to do. It's the same way with KOTOR: Del Rey says Revan was a man, the game I played says Revan was a woman. You either discount your own experience or ignore the "canon" that follows.
From what I could tell, the module only very loosely references the novels in Abdel Adrian's name only. Coran doesn't even appear in the novels, but he's a major character in the module.
I don't mind him dying at the start. He's lived a long full life, much longer than a normal human due to his divine heritage. Sure it sort of sucks that it ends the way it does, but when the FR gods are involved, things don't always end happily for the mortals. In the end, no matter how powerful he once was, he was still a mortal.
What I find a bit dumb about it all is that BG got me reading FR novels; I haven't purchased a single novel since the spellplague, and here the "canon" link (even if it is a bit wispy) is just being treated with the same 'out with the old, in with the new' mentality.
Well to be fair, R.A. Salvatore mentioned in a relatively recent interview of a similar feeling for Ed Greenwood and himself after the 4e/Spellplague meeting. They were pretty devastated by all the changes happening to the Realms. The Sundering and all the events currently happening for the D&DN era of FR is the brainchild of Salvatore and Greenwood, which they started working on privately shortly after the 4e meeting to "fix" the Realms, after they predicted rightfully that the majority of FR fans wouldn't be happy with the 4e changes to the setting.
Comments
TO END... LIKE THIS?!
I guess my dreams of continuing on my reign as the Lady of Murder are canonically nixed for good now. Indirectly, this also means that a possible BG3 would go in a very different direction.
How we got to the whole Slayer part... I guess it has something to do with Viekang surviving? So not all the essence was actually gathered at the Throne of Bhaal, and it couldn't be fully dispersed. I suppose that could leave enough of an "anchor" for Bhaal to resurrect, though with how much power remains to be seen.
I'm sure the guy who wrote that book researched it by playing the game and only learning how to point, click, and attack.
But I also think there's some witty irony in having the "popular" duke Abdel Adrian helplessly suffer a painful death.
Thank God for Kickstarter.
...THIS!!!!!!
I don't mind him dying at the start. He's lived a long full life, much longer than a normal human due to his divine heritage. Sure it sort of sucks that it ends the way it does, but when the FR gods are involved, things don't always end happily for the mortals. In the end, no matter how powerful he once was, he was still a mortal.
At around 11 minutes 40 seconds is where Salvatore starts talking about their reaction to the Spellplague changes.