The best villain is Sarevok for me. He just works in the context of his game. Sure, his level might be lower than that of Irenicus, but that only means Sarevok has to manipulate and scheme to achieve his goals. Irenicus could just explode his enemies. Quite boring. Just imagine if the games would have been switched around somehow. Irenicus with his behaviour, the ultimate arcane power of a mage in his single digits levelwise. Now compare that to Sarevok and what and how he did things. He'd have spun a net of lies and intrigue in Athkatla with its many guilds and powers. Irenicus was also a very flawed person. He might have been stripped of his elven soul, but retained his elven arrogance and racism. Read his diary. Irenicus let's Charname walk out of spellhold because he doesn't care. We know how that ended.
The third isn't even an option. Come on. Mellissan was preordained to loose. That was a foregone conclusion, even ingame. Solar tells you as much. Your Charname is the destined child of Bhaal who will have the choice of what to do with Bhaals energies. Whatever Mellissan did, wasn't going to work. Her plan was spoiled to you in Saradusch almost immediately by Grom Il Khan.
All the Irenicus fanboys are making me laugh. Boo, you are making some great points, in line with my own style of thinking on the matter.
Can you please accept that other people have different opinions? There are people being considerate of your own viewpoint, so there's no reason to get indignant. They're just video game characters.
I guess my issue with Mellisan is that I never really FELT threatened or outwitted by her. I know that storywise the game was very clear that she totally outsmarted everyone except maybe Balthazar and... Well, technically Gromnir... But the lack of subtlety in the writing just made it hard to buy. Like I was going along with her plans because otherwise the story wouldn't advance, not because I was being fooled...realistically I pegged her as probably a villain when Gromnir died, and DEFINITELY a villain when Yaga-Shura died and she basically just walked out of the massacre of Saradush unharmed and said "Heeey don't tell anyone but I totally have secret info on the Five. (Not because I am evil though)."
I suppose story-wise she was the villain who got closest to success, which she gets some props for. But writing-wise, Irenicus and Sarevok felt like threats. Big, dangerous forces who hunt and torment you and you question your ability to deal with them. Melissan I mostly felt annoyed by, like "So, I know you are gonna turn on me when the other Bhaalspawn are all dead, it got kinda obvious around the third time you pointed me at one and said 'sic 'em'. You realize you will lose, right? I mean, I am out here killing all the super demigods, I can probably beat you too. Keldorn has a really good sword, is all..."
Just reading these quotes and remembering David Warners incredible voice acting gives me goose bumpes
"You dare to attack me here? Do you even KNOW whom you face? You will suffer! You will ALL suffer!"
"Your pathetic magics are useless. Let this end!"
"You know nothing of me! You know nothing of what I must do! You will suffer! You will all suffer!"
"Silence dog! You have no purpose but to die by my hand!"
"I cannot be caged! I cannot be controlled! Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools!"
"There is nothing else beyond my revenge. Revenge for what you did to me, what the Seldarine did to me!"
"I... I do not remember your love, Ellesime. I have tried. I have tried to recreate it, to spark it anew in my memory, but it is gone... a hollow, dead thing. For years, I clung to the memory of it. Then the memory of the memory. And then nothing. The Seldarine took that from me, too. I look upon you and feel nothing. I remember nothing but you turning your back on me, along with all the others. Once my thirst for power was everything. And now I hunger only for revenge. And I... WILL... HAVE IT!!"
While David Warner did an incredible job as Irenicus I slightly feel as if some people are not giving the writing the credit that they deserve for Jonaleth. His original background story could have been the villian in any other Bioware game, mad mage that goes power hungry. What set Irenicus apart for me though is that they took it a step futher then that.
The curse set on Irenicus was brilliant and does make one wonder who is truly to blame for what happened in Baldur's gate 2. After all Irenicus was "dead inside" just as he described. He couldn't have felt anything even if he wanted to and the elves just set him free without thought on a unsuspecting world simply because they had zero regard for the human kingdoms and they had far too much pride to share their 'shame'. It's sort of like letting lose a serial killer with no feelings what so ever and then being surprised that it cause trouble.
Even then it seems to have taken years for Irenicus to reach a point where he would seek revenge. His final conversation with Ellesime and the horrors of the starting dungeon does hint that he tried to make something from his memories but eventually even the feelings they brought faded. In many ways I almost believe Ellesime to be the real villain of the game. After all the best you can get out of her is that she "might" have done something wrong.
The only reason why detect evil doesn't work on Mellissan is due to the original devs railroading a linear plot on the player. Her being a high level cleric of an evil deity makes it impossible for her to hide her aura. (see http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm). But all this is fine. It is an expansion. And the plot needs to move forward and having her as the guiding hand allows it to move smoothly. However, it does not make her a better villain because the writers had to take short cuts in both her character and the main plot.
It could even be said having her sit back and let you do all the dirty work was foolish because it allowed you to become more powerful in the end. If anything, and using your same reasoning, she should of captured a weaker bhaalspawn herself, hid it away somewhere and wait for you to finally end up killed some how (bondari can't keep reloading, falling cow, old age maybe). Then with the other weaker bhaalspawn she locked away she could finish her plan more smoothly than having to face you.
The villian that got closest was Sarevok. He was the first to rise, had the most knowledge and when i first played bg1 i thought he was crazy.
But if charname had not stopped him in baldurs gate he would have been the new lord of murder by a way none of the others understood. He was not mad he was right (and evil ofc)
And even if charname killed him after bargaining with him in the abyss (which probably did not happen) he is the only one that finds a way out of death and the abyss. Which dwarfs irenicus and mellyfan
Irenicus is a absolutly fantastic villian, one of the reeasons ive played BG so many times. So why am i voting Sarevok? He is just a tad "worse", and the fact that you get to PLAY with him later is the cutting edge for me. Very very fun and powerful character to use.
Hmmmm.... it seems like everyone misinterpreted what this poll is asking. It's not who is the BEST villain as in who is the best character or the most detestable. I think everyone agrees that Sarevok is a cool character, and that Irenicus had some of the most menacing badass lines ever.
The question is who is the *best* at BEING a villain in the story. Melissan is the most successful and powerful of the lot.
Sarevok was the most realistic. He was smart, he had allies, loved ones, etc. He was a full character, and a perfect villain... The only reason he wasn't as 'successful' is because Baldur's Gate is a low level campaign, so he had bloody hobgoblins and kobolds in his army...
Irenicus was just as good, but I would have prefered him as a twisted ally, like a certain character in NWN2... And Bodhi being the main villain.
Melissan doesn't deserve to be in the list. ToB was just a rush job, and Melissan was a tacked on boss. Anyone with half of brain could see her 'twist' coming.
Well, obviously Edwin_Odesseiron has crafted a scenario of comparison where he feels Melissan is superior, but the scenario needs to be taken without context to such a degree that it starts to lack in meaning.
You can argue the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is smarter than Irenicus and Sarevok as well if you disregard all their character traits and how the stories in which they feature are constructed - the wolf did everything right, a sly disguise that he managed to uphold in the face of scrutiny (unlike Koveras who gets angry about it and cracks at the seams) and that totally got the better of both Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother - it's not his fault that the story had to end with the huntsman coming by and putting an end to his masterplan.
Another example is the Gandalf was a fifth level magic-user notion where you after looking at one particular thing exactly as it is presented can hypothesize that Gandalf probably wouldn't last very long in BG2 because he's so low-level.
Hmmmm.... it seems like everyone misinterpreted what this poll is asking. It's not who is the BEST villain as in who is the best character or the most detestable. I think everyone agrees that Sarevok is a cool character, and that Irenicus had some of the most menacing badass lines ever.
The question is who is the *best* at BEING a villain in the story. Melissan is the most successful and powerful of the lot.
I understood that. Mellissan was the most powerful from a mechanical standpoint, because she was the villain of the third game in the series. The game series doesn't make a lot of sense when it comes to levels. Or should we believe that people from Baldurs Gate have a far lower level than the citizens of Athkatla? A bunch of Kobolds were able to sabotage their biggest iron mine for weeks, while some street thugs in Athkatla had access to third level spells and guys just as mighty (leveled) as the hero of Baldurs Gate are selling turnips in the streets. When it comes to actual villainy, Mellissan achieved nothing. Her end was already prophesised. Solar tells you so in her first appearance. From that point on your Charname knows that he's going to be the one to decide what happens with Bhaals energies. I get that her fight is very challenging from a gameplay perspective, but the end was already known. She wasn't so much a villain as she was the endboss of a video game. All she did as a villain served to drive Charname on his way to the conclusion of his prophesy. She enabled him to kill the five one after the other. At no point did she try to mess with Charname or even harm him. Mellissan lied to him about her intentions, that's all. Her plan boiled down to having the Bhaalspawn kill each other, while she was absorbing Bhaals energies in a place they could not reach. Too bad that she told the ony guy who could reach her how to kill all his siblings. I'm not even sure she knew about Charnames pocket plain.
From the hard fight perspective, Sarevok by far is the hardest vanilla battle in the game, maybe with Demogorgon exception, still Sarevok fight to me is harder.
From a roleplay perspective, Irenicus is one of the BEST villians made, and i really hope we have a Baldur's Gate movie or serie in the future, cos i would really like to see irenicus in movies/series.
Amelyssan is... a poor work. An evident antagonist that poorly play the good lady position. A shame BG2:EE didn't made changes on her (assignments of rights prevent that i supose).
Bah, there is no point even trying for objectivity with you people. Your fandom of the other two villains has clearly blinded you to the greatness of the third, simply because you don't happen to like her.
lol @ everyone saying "I knew it straight from the start I knew it! I'm so SMART, I just knew it! She was crap!" etc.
Yes, very good. You knew it due to generic storyline tropes. Certainly not because you are smart. After all, if you were smart, you'd have grasped such an obvious concept by now.
Also, Disgruntler, it has nothing to do with Amelyssan's power level. In fact, Amelyssan pre-essences was likely weaker than Irenicus. The fact that she maneuvered herself (by manipulating everyone with her tactical ingenuity) into being one of the most powerful beings in the game is the part that makes her top dog. She had the wherewithal and presence of mind to be able to make long term plans, and position everything in its proper place for her to succeed.
Deltago said above that Amelyssan should have captured a weaker Bhaalspawn. What? Unlike Irenicus (who needed only two Bhaalspawn dead), she needed ALL of them dead. Including charname. So what would have capturing a weaker one done, when she would STILL have the problem of charname being alive? Nothing. She was sending charname on dangerous missions to either kill charname off, or have charname kill off everyone else, leaving only charname to fight in the end (she figured after she absorbed EVERYONE'S essences, she'd be strong enough to take them down.) Which is the logical thing to think. So on all accounts, you are wrong. Evidently you would not get far as a villain, so best stay home and continue (wrongly) criticising them.
With the Sarevok argument, I don't even think his plan would have worked in BG1, even IF he succeeded, because in TOB, we find out that the way to either raise Bhaal or become the new god of murder, the process is entirely different. He evidently didn't do his research properly and his efforts were futile, even if he managed to kill charname. Therefore, he cannot be considered the best. Irenicus, I've already covered his plethora of mistakes.
It's funny to see people grasping at every possible excuse to deny Amelyssan's rightful place as the top villain of the series.
- "Ah, it was too linear!" - "Ah, if this happened, she wouldn't have..." - "Oh, the game makers were short on time!" - "Omg, I knew about her betrayal, I just KNEW it because I am so smart!" - "Ah she was a crap character, I didn't like her personality" - "Umm, Irenicus/Sarevok WERE SO MUCH BETTER WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!"
And it goes on like this. And on.We aren't discussing what ifs, your wishes, etc. We are discussing what IS.
It seems that everyone is putting her down because she doesn't fit their "badass" o'meter like the other two did. Perhaps it's because she didn't need to act badass, as most of the game she was playing the good person trying to help, in order to manipulate charname.
Once her true side comes out though, I thought she was evil personified. She seems so full of herself and so full of hate and contempt to everything that she deems lesser than her (which is.... everything). She didn't bother herself with petty vengeances and personal vendettas (a la Irenicus.) She had a one-track mind, to become the goddess of murder, and she didn't need to act like a cartoonish, moustache twirling villain to achieve this ambitious, well-planned goal.
But, each to their own. The logicals voted for her, the deluded, not her.
On the bright side, at least my prediction came true (despite the fact Divination is my opposition school.) Irenicus remains the most popular, and Amelyssan the least.
Hopefully at least some people thought about this and changed their starting opinion. But I doubt it. Cognitive Dissonance, after all, is nigh on incurable.
IRENICUS FTW!!!! WhatI really like of BG villians: they've all have nice plans, maybe they don't succeed, and they are always searching to become the Lord/Lady of Murder or to gain Power.
First of all protagonist had a lifetime worth of plots, betreyals, dealing people with hidden agendas, people racing for bhaal's power. What you call fantasy tropes, i call his/her lifetime experience. Unless char-name had wisdom/int of 3, in most cases he doesn't. Her plan only worked because story-writers thought it was so smart (and it's not - same with your mistake).
Also, i saw it not because i was THAT smart, i saw it since it was too OBVIOUS.
BTW great job trolling all the people around inc me since i wrote you a reply...
Yes, very good. You knew it due to generic storyline tropes. Certainly not because you are smart. After all, if you were smart, you'd have grasped such an obvious concept by now.
That's why she is a "bad" villian (Not as great as the other two, anyway). Generic is normal, if normal, not great. Sarevok is not generic, nor Irenicus (he has a bit of a Frankestein monster and Faust himself, but these are great characters).
She is a bit of a walking Deus ex Machina, any other character would have served her purpose as a "I've planned all this all along". She only serves to retroactively justify everything thas has happened, but we almost don't see how, why, when or... nothing. In a game preordained to be a battle where "only one will survive", any character that you put as a final boss will, inevitably, be the greatest "evil", but that's almost like believing the winning ticket in a lottery is the greatest and most cunning ticket. Only her Saradush scheme (quite good, true), redeems her as a villian.
If, for example, we could have glimpsed a few detalis of her existence and planning in BG1 and 2, and with a better character development in ToB, yes, she could have become the greatest villian in the series. But as it is, nope. I don't see any reason to believe that she planned it all allong or that she manipulated everyone (nor how she achieved it, we just have to believe she dit it) but the game tells me so and I have to believe it.
I've made my points more than adequately, as has the only other rational person on this thread.
The rest of you can continue your worthless romp through life, and remain subjective in all things without regarding factual evidence. I'm sure you'll get far.
I feel like I am easy to troll. I thought I said what I had to and was done. Apparently not. But something still bothered me, and in Edwins last post I finally found something concrete I can argue ignoring the rest of the rethoric.
We aren't discussing what ifs, your wishes, etc. We are discussing what IS.
Why aren't we though? What ifs I mean. How can you judge "cunning, competence, plans, resources, resourcefulness" when you restrict yourself to viewing what was the effect? THAT is a fallacy if I've ever seen one. Especially when we are discussing around a game based on dice rolls.
Imagine two mages arguing whose spell is better. One posses one, that kills the target on a roll of 20, and does nothing in any other circumstances. The other one has one that kills upon roll of anything but 1. The go on and test it. First mage rolled 20. Second rolled 1. And so they concur that spell of the first mage is better.
I can create many more scenarios like that if you are not cinvinced.
We have a game which was written as is. The ONLY way to judge their plans, cunning or resourcefulness is to think about their weak and strong points, creating what-if scenarios. Thougt experiments are the most powerfull and versatile tool for finding truth.
And when you agree with the above, the matter is up for discussion again. Arguments you deemed invalid stand again. Yes, Amelissans plan did turn out the best. And just that. If we were discussing whose plan failed the least it would be her. But we are not.
Now, there is an agrument that her plan turned out the best because it was the best. You could say that. But that is NOT a fact, you need to provide supporting evidence (facts) and interpretation of the evidence whcih again will NOT be a fact. Outcome and deciding whose arguments, evidence and interpretations are better is left for the judge (or the reader seeing how that is a discussion in which we try to persuade the audience) and not the attorney.
And of reiteration of my stance for Irenicus - he planned to prevent failures and around failures. It was not perfect, he had setbacks, most things that could go wrong did. And yet his plan still lead him to the endgame. Amelyssan on the other hand did not plan for failure, protection from detecting alignement (villian under cover 101 if you ask me) the only precaution we see her take. And she put herself in harms way, discussing with the 5 as herself, trapping herself within Saradush for no good reason, surviving because of charnames arrival which she couldn't predict beforehand and therefore no excuse for mistakes up to this point. She won (well, got as close as she could), but in my opinion she didn't deserve to.
I've made my points more than adequately, as has the only other rational person on this thread.
The rest of you can continue your worthless romp through life, and remain subjective in all things without regarding factual evidence. I'm sure you'll get far.
This is uncalled for. Everyone has opinions on this amazing game and they all should be respected. All three main antagonists have their strengths and flaws. It's what makes them believable characters. Just because someone's opinion is different than yours, it does not call for this type of language.
Yeah, I kind of hoped for at least one appearance of word "simians" in his later response.
Seems to me that every one of them had a fatal flaw of overconfidence when it comes to their own abilities and underastimating Main Char power.
Sarevok had nice political ambitions and thought very high of himself. He called you Gorion's whelp and killed your foster father. Made you run into the woods, so naturally thought he had the upper hand. But then time and time again, the Bhaalspawn proved him wrong. Nashke, Cloakwood... Finally, Sarevok couldn't even hit my fire elemental (weapon ineffective).
Jon Irenicus was a powerful archmage who believed himself invincible. He underestimated you because he captured you easily. But then again, your actions throughout the game should've made him reconsider.
Amelyssan toyed with greater powers. She wanted to defeat you while enhancing her own power, but it wasn't you running from wolves in BG1 whom she met. It wasn't you from Irenicus' Dungeon who got captured so easily.
It was you, who stomped on Sarevok, then on Irenicus and then proceeded to kill other Bhaalspawns. You, who emerged from Watcher's Keep victorious and defeated dragons, liches and demiliches. Someone here pointed out that it started to be kind of obvious that after she made you kill all other Bhaalspawns, she would turn on you. For a hero with that kind of experience it wasn't that far-fetched in my opinion. And of course she should have reconsidered. Asked herself a question - do I really have the power to fight this one?
And by the way - "She gets her underlings killed" ? I am beginning to think you weren't following the plot or didn't know what was going on. That's what was SUPPOSED to happen. Everything - EVERYTHING (except the final battle) worked out *exactly* as she planned.
So suddenly it's intention that counts, not actual facts? That's a bit of a turn, isn't it?
Amelissan managed abso-fucking-lutely nothing. You say she fooled everyone, played everyone against each other and then couldn't have been any closer to actually achieving her victory?
Wrong.
Her plan was to pit the last bhaalspawns against each other and kill off the last one herself. This is pretty short and concize and terribly flawed, if it would turn out that the last bhaalspawn actually is stronger than herself. That's a HUGE oversight for someone who is up for the "best villain" award in careful planning and coming close to achieving her goal.
In fact, it couldn't have been that hard to find this out. You're obviously well-known at this point in the game, and she is able to get somewhat close to you. She had a lot of turns to figure out, or at least consider the effin possibility that she couldn't beat you alone.
Now, before she put this plan in motion she had way better possibilities to carry it out. Since you did what she asked, she could've set a trap of sorts. She could've convinced the five of how dangerous you are after you killed Illasera and together set up a careful trap to take care of you - the greatest threat - first.
But no. She's too dumb to do that, so instead she lets you dispatch the only chance she had of actually beating you. And when that's done, she just dies, because of an incredibly huge oversight in an incredibly simple-minded plan.
She was never close. She didn't fool anyone except herself. She played all the cards in her hands wrong, and the only thing she managed in the end was to get all of her underlings, and then herself, killed.
While it might seem as if she came close to someone simple-minded, you have to look a little further to realize how horribly bad of a villain she really were.
Irenicus is one of the best villains I've ever seen in anything. A lot of that has to do with David Warner's amazing voice acting. I had never realized how much a good voice actor matters to a game before I heard Irenicus.
Voice acting alone doesn't make him the best villain, though. After all, Sarevok had Kevin Michael Richardson. But what I think Irenicus really has over the other baddies in the series is presence. You never get the feeling that he's out of the plot or that he isn't a danger to you. You get frequent interactions with him that help to stoke the fires of hatred.
Sarevok was a good personal villain, but after killing Gorion he's completely gone from the story until you get to Baldur's Gate. Melissan isn't even revealed until the very end of Throne of Bhaal. Irenicus is there from beginning to end, always a danger, always a step ahead of the PC, and always dominating the story with his presence.
Well, obviously Edwin_Odesseiron has crafted a scenario of comparison where he feels Melissan is superior, but the scenario needs to be taken without context to such a degree that it starts to lack in meaning.
You can argue the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is smarter than Irenicus and Sarevok as well if you disregard all their character traits and how the stories in which they feature are constructed - the wolf did everything right, a sly disguise that he managed to uphold in the face of scrutiny (unlike Koveras who gets angry about it and cracks at the seams) and that totally got the better of both Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother - it's not his fault that the story had to end with the huntsman coming by and putting an end to his masterplan.
Another example is the Gandalf was a fifth level magic-user notion where you after looking at one particular thing exactly as it is presented can hypothesize that Gandalf probably wouldn't last very long in BG2 because he's so low-level.
Well.... the wolf didn't trick the the god of murders entire legion of progeny into killing eachother while stealing their essence and achieving godhood. He fooled a girl into thinking he was her grandmother (an impressive act, if I say so myself, and even better if you have read the comic series Fables)
Comments
Irenicus could just explode his enemies. Quite boring.
Just imagine if the games would have been switched around somehow. Irenicus with his behaviour, the ultimate arcane power of a mage in his single digits levelwise. Now compare that to Sarevok and what and how he did things.
He'd have spun a net of lies and intrigue in Athkatla with its many guilds and powers.
Irenicus was also a very flawed person. He might have been stripped of his elven soul, but retained his elven arrogance and racism. Read his diary. Irenicus let's Charname walk out of spellhold because he doesn't care. We know how that ended.
The third isn't even an option. Come on. Mellissan was preordained to loose. That was a foregone conclusion, even ingame. Solar tells you as much. Your Charname is the destined child of Bhaal who will have the choice of what to do with Bhaals energies.
Whatever Mellissan did, wasn't going to work. Her plan was spoiled to you in Saradusch almost immediately by Grom Il Khan.
I suppose story-wise she was the villain who got closest to success, which she gets some props for. But writing-wise, Irenicus and Sarevok felt like threats. Big, dangerous forces who hunt and torment you and you question your ability to deal with them. Melissan I mostly felt annoyed by, like "So, I know you are gonna turn on me when the other Bhaalspawn are all dead, it got kinda obvious around the third time you pointed me at one and said 'sic 'em'. You realize you will lose, right? I mean, I am out here killing all the super demigods, I can probably beat you too. Keldorn has a really good sword, is all..."
It was just kinda awkward.
"You dare to attack me here? Do you even KNOW whom you face? You will suffer! You will ALL suffer!"
"Your pathetic magics are useless. Let this end!"
"You know nothing of me! You know nothing of what I must do! You will suffer! You will all suffer!"
"Silence dog! You have no purpose but to die by my hand!"
"I cannot be caged! I cannot be controlled! Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools!"
"There is nothing else beyond my revenge. Revenge for what you did to me, what the Seldarine did to me!"
"I... I do not remember your love, Ellesime. I have tried. I have tried to recreate it, to spark it anew in my memory, but it is gone... a hollow, dead thing. For years, I clung to the memory of it. Then the memory of the memory. And then nothing. The Seldarine took that from me, too. I look upon you and feel nothing. I remember nothing but you turning your back on me, along with all the others. Once my thirst for power was everything. And now I hunger only for revenge. And I... WILL... HAVE IT!!"
The curse set on Irenicus was brilliant and does make one wonder who is truly to blame for what happened in Baldur's gate 2. After all Irenicus was "dead inside" just as he described. He couldn't have felt anything even if he wanted to and the elves just set him free without thought on a unsuspecting world simply because they had zero regard for the human kingdoms and they had far too much pride to share their 'shame'. It's sort of like letting lose a serial killer with no feelings what so ever and then being surprised that it cause trouble.
Even then it seems to have taken years for Irenicus to reach a point where he would seek revenge. His final conversation with Ellesime and the horrors of the starting dungeon does hint that he tried to make something from his memories but eventually even the feelings they brought faded. In many ways I almost believe Ellesime to be the real villain of the game. After all the best you can get out of her is that she "might" have done something wrong.
It could even be said having her sit back and let you do all the dirty work was foolish because it allowed you to become more powerful in the end. If anything, and using your same reasoning, she should of captured a weaker bhaalspawn herself, hid it away somewhere and wait for you to finally end up killed some how (bondari can't keep reloading, falling cow, old age maybe). Then with the other weaker bhaalspawn she locked away she could finish her plan more smoothly than having to face you.
But if charname had not stopped him in baldurs gate he would have been the new lord of murder by a way none of the others understood. He was not mad he was right (and evil ofc)
So why am i voting Sarevok? He is just a tad "worse", and the fact that you get to PLAY with him later is the cutting edge for me. Very very fun and powerful character to use.
I followed her just to become a god!!!
The question is who is the *best* at BEING a villain in the story. Melissan is the most successful and powerful of the lot.
Irenicus was just as good, but I would have prefered him as a twisted ally, like a certain character in NWN2... And Bodhi being the main villain.
Melissan doesn't deserve to be in the list. ToB was just a rush job, and Melissan was a tacked on boss. Anyone with half of brain could see her 'twist' coming.
You can argue the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is smarter than Irenicus and Sarevok as well if you disregard all their character traits and how the stories in which they feature are constructed - the wolf did everything right, a sly disguise that he managed to uphold in the face of scrutiny (unlike Koveras who gets angry about it and cracks at the seams) and that totally got the better of both Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother - it's not his fault that the story had to end with the huntsman coming by and putting an end to his masterplan.
Another example is the Gandalf was a fifth level magic-user notion where you after looking at one particular thing exactly as it is presented can hypothesize that Gandalf probably wouldn't last very long in BG2 because he's so low-level.
When it comes to actual villainy, Mellissan achieved nothing. Her end was already prophesised. Solar tells you so in her first appearance. From that point on your Charname knows that he's going to be the one to decide what happens with Bhaals energies. I get that her fight is very challenging from a gameplay perspective, but the end was already known. She wasn't so much a villain as she was the endboss of a video game. All she did as a villain served to drive Charname on his way to the conclusion of his prophesy.
She enabled him to kill the five one after the other. At no point did she try to mess with Charname or even harm him. Mellissan lied to him about her intentions, that's all. Her plan boiled down to having the Bhaalspawn kill each other, while she was absorbing Bhaals energies in a place they could not reach. Too bad that she told the ony guy who could reach her how to kill all his siblings.
I'm not even sure she knew about Charnames pocket plain.
From the hard fight perspective, Sarevok by far is the hardest vanilla battle in the game, maybe with Demogorgon exception, still Sarevok fight to me is harder.
From a roleplay perspective, Irenicus is one of the BEST villians made, and i really hope we have a Baldur's Gate movie or serie in the future, cos i would really like to see irenicus in movies/series.
Amelyssan is... a poor work. An evident antagonist that poorly play the good lady position. A shame BG2:EE didn't made changes on her (assignments of rights prevent that i supose).
lol @ everyone saying "I knew it straight from the start I knew it! I'm so SMART, I just knew it! She was crap!" etc.
Yes, very good. You knew it due to generic storyline tropes. Certainly not because you are smart. After all, if you were smart, you'd have grasped such an obvious concept by now.
Also, Disgruntler, it has nothing to do with Amelyssan's power level. In fact, Amelyssan pre-essences was likely weaker than Irenicus. The fact that she maneuvered herself (by manipulating everyone with her tactical ingenuity) into being one of the most powerful beings in the game is the part that makes her top dog. She had the wherewithal and presence of mind to be able to make long term plans, and position everything in its proper place for her to succeed.
Deltago said above that Amelyssan should have captured a weaker Bhaalspawn. What? Unlike Irenicus (who needed only two Bhaalspawn dead), she needed ALL of them dead. Including charname. So what would have capturing a weaker one done, when she would STILL have the problem of charname being alive? Nothing. She was sending charname on dangerous missions to either kill charname off, or have charname kill off everyone else, leaving only charname to fight in the end (she figured after she absorbed EVERYONE'S essences, she'd be strong enough to take them down.) Which is the logical thing to think. So on all accounts, you are wrong. Evidently you would not get far as a villain, so best stay home and continue (wrongly) criticising them.
With the Sarevok argument, I don't even think his plan would have worked in BG1, even IF he succeeded, because in TOB, we find out that the way to either raise Bhaal or become the new god of murder, the process is entirely different. He evidently didn't do his research properly and his efforts were futile, even if he managed to kill charname. Therefore, he cannot be considered the best. Irenicus, I've already covered his plethora of mistakes.
It's funny to see people grasping at every possible excuse to deny Amelyssan's rightful place as the top villain of the series.
- "Ah, it was too linear!"
- "Ah, if this happened, she wouldn't have..."
- "Oh, the game makers were short on time!"
- "Omg, I knew about her betrayal, I just KNEW it because I am so smart!"
- "Ah she was a crap character, I didn't like her personality"
- "Umm, Irenicus/Sarevok WERE SO MUCH BETTER WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!"
And it goes on like this. And on.We aren't discussing what ifs, your wishes, etc. We are discussing what IS.
It seems that everyone is putting her down because she doesn't fit their "badass" o'meter like the other two did. Perhaps it's because she didn't need to act badass, as most of the game she was playing the good person trying to help, in order to manipulate charname.
Once her true side comes out though, I thought she was evil personified. She seems so full of herself and so full of hate and contempt to everything that she deems lesser than her (which is.... everything). She didn't bother herself with petty vengeances and personal vendettas (a la Irenicus.) She had a one-track mind, to become the goddess of murder, and she didn't need to act like a cartoonish, moustache twirling villain to achieve this ambitious, well-planned goal.
But, each to their own. The logicals voted for her, the deluded, not her.
On the bright side, at least my prediction came true (despite the fact Divination is my opposition school.) Irenicus remains the most popular, and Amelyssan the least.
Hopefully at least some people thought about this and changed their starting opinion. But I doubt it. Cognitive Dissonance, after all, is nigh on incurable.
WhatI really like of BG villians: they've all have nice plans, maybe they don't succeed, and they are always searching to become the Lord/Lady of Murder or to gain Power.
Also, i saw it not because i was THAT smart, i saw it since it was too OBVIOUS.
BTW great job trolling all the people around inc me since i wrote you a reply...
She is a bit of a walking Deus ex Machina, any other character would have served her purpose as a "I've planned all this all along". She only serves to retroactively justify everything thas has happened, but we almost don't see how, why, when or... nothing. In a game preordained to be a battle where "only one will survive", any character that you put as a final boss will, inevitably, be the greatest "evil", but that's almost like believing the winning ticket in a lottery is the greatest and most cunning ticket. Only her Saradush scheme (quite good, true), redeems her as a villian.
If, for example, we could have glimpsed a few detalis of her existence and planning in BG1 and 2, and with a better character development in ToB, yes, she could have become the greatest villian in the series. But as it is, nope. I don't see any reason to believe that she planned it all allong or that she manipulated everyone (nor how she achieved it, we just have to believe she dit it) but the game tells me so and I have to believe it.
I've made my points more than adequately, as has the only other rational person on this thread.
The rest of you can continue your worthless romp through life, and remain subjective in all things without regarding factual evidence. I'm sure you'll get far.
Imagine two mages arguing whose spell is better. One posses one, that kills the target on a roll of 20, and does nothing in any other circumstances. The other one has one that kills upon roll of anything but 1. The go on and test it. First mage rolled 20. Second rolled 1. And so they concur that spell of the first mage is better.
I can create many more scenarios like that if you are not cinvinced.
We have a game which was written as is. The ONLY way to judge their plans, cunning or resourcefulness is to think about their weak and strong points, creating what-if scenarios. Thougt experiments are the most powerfull and versatile tool for finding truth.
And when you agree with the above, the matter is up for discussion again. Arguments you deemed invalid stand again. Yes, Amelissans plan did turn out the best. And just that. If we were discussing whose plan failed the least it would be her. But we are not.
Now, there is an agrument that her plan turned out the best because it was the best. You could say that. But that is NOT a fact, you need to provide supporting evidence (facts) and interpretation of the evidence whcih again will NOT be a fact. Outcome and deciding whose arguments, evidence and interpretations are better is left for the judge (or the reader seeing how that is a discussion in which we try to persuade the audience) and not the attorney.
And of reiteration of my stance for Irenicus - he planned to prevent failures and around failures. It was not perfect, he had setbacks, most things that could go wrong did. And yet his plan still lead him to the endgame. Amelyssan on the other hand did not plan for failure, protection from detecting alignement (villian under cover 101 if you ask me) the only precaution we see her take. And she put herself in harms way, discussing with the 5 as herself, trapping herself within Saradush for no good reason, surviving because of charnames arrival which she couldn't predict beforehand and therefore no excuse for mistakes up to this point. She won (well, got as close as she could), but in my opinion she didn't deserve to.
This is uncalled for.
Everyone has opinions on this amazing game and they all should be respected.
All three main antagonists have their strengths and flaws. It's what makes them believable characters. Just because someone's opinion is different than yours, it does not call for this type of language.
-Thought better of it-
Seems to me that every one of them had a fatal flaw of overconfidence when it comes to their own abilities and underastimating Main Char power.
Sarevok had nice political ambitions and thought very high of himself. He called you Gorion's whelp and killed your foster father. Made you run into the woods, so naturally thought he had the upper hand. But then time and time again, the Bhaalspawn proved him wrong. Nashke, Cloakwood... Finally, Sarevok couldn't even hit my fire elemental (weapon ineffective).
Jon Irenicus was a powerful archmage who believed himself invincible. He underestimated you because he captured you easily. But then again, your actions throughout the game should've made him reconsider.
Amelyssan toyed with greater powers. She wanted to defeat you while enhancing her own power, but it wasn't you running from wolves in BG1 whom she met. It wasn't you from Irenicus' Dungeon who got captured so easily.
It was you, who stomped on Sarevok, then on Irenicus and then proceeded to kill other Bhaalspawns. You, who emerged from Watcher's Keep victorious and defeated dragons, liches and demiliches. Someone here pointed out that it started to be kind of obvious that after she made you kill all other Bhaalspawns, she would turn on you. For a hero with that kind of experience it wasn't that far-fetched in my opinion. And of course she should have reconsidered. Asked herself a question - do I really have the power to fight this one?
Amelissan managed abso-fucking-lutely nothing. You say she fooled everyone, played everyone against each other and then couldn't have been any closer to actually achieving her victory?
Wrong.
Her plan was to pit the last bhaalspawns against each other and kill off the last one herself. This is pretty short and concize and terribly flawed, if it would turn out that the last bhaalspawn actually is stronger than herself. That's a HUGE oversight for someone who is up for the "best villain" award in careful planning and coming close to achieving her goal.
In fact, it couldn't have been that hard to find this out. You're obviously well-known at this point in the game, and she is able to get somewhat close to you. She had a lot of turns to figure out, or at least consider the effin possibility that she couldn't beat you alone.
Now, before she put this plan in motion she had way better possibilities to carry it out. Since you did what she asked, she could've set a trap of sorts. She could've convinced the five of how dangerous you are after you killed Illasera and together set up a careful trap to take care of you - the greatest threat - first.
But no. She's too dumb to do that, so instead she lets you dispatch the only chance she had of actually beating you. And when that's done, she just dies, because of an incredibly huge oversight in an incredibly simple-minded plan.
She was never close. She didn't fool anyone except herself. She played all the cards in her hands wrong, and the only thing she managed in the end was to get all of her underlings, and then herself, killed.
While it might seem as if she came close to someone simple-minded, you have to look a little further to realize how horribly bad of a villain she really were. That's Game of Thrones. Although they do have some similarities, so maybe it was a subconscious or intended reference. ;D
Voice acting alone doesn't make him the best villain, though. After all, Sarevok had Kevin Michael Richardson. But what I think Irenicus really has over the other baddies in the series is presence. You never get the feeling that he's out of the plot or that he isn't a danger to you. You get frequent interactions with him that help to stoke the fires of hatred.
Sarevok was a good personal villain, but after killing Gorion he's completely gone from the story until you get to Baldur's Gate. Melissan isn't even revealed until the very end of Throne of Bhaal. Irenicus is there from beginning to end, always a danger, always a step ahead of the PC, and always dominating the story with his presence.
Also Gandalf is a human flashlight