Abdel Adrian seems to have evolved as a character since the BG novelization by Phillip Athans. I'm not sure which authors in WotC's stable have developed him. But he became a Grand Duke of Baldur's Gate with a history over the following decades. Another Bhaalspawn appeared in the current post-Spellplague Realms to fight him to the death, and it is currently a mystery who the victor was. I think they're gonna kill him off.
More like devolved from a character (if one can call it that ) to just a name and a class with everything else that might remind people of the books stripped away.
*Starts banging head on the desk* Not this thread again.
The Baldur's Gate Saga is over. End of story. Charname's story is over in an epic way.
This is absolutely true.
However, consider the other Forgotten Realms games.
"Icewind Dale 2" is only loosely related to "Icewind Dale" (in that the villains of 2 are the children of the villain of 1).
"Hordes of the Underdark" is a direct sequel to "Shadows of Undrentide", but neither are related to the original campaign of "Neverwinter Nights" beyond the appearance of a single character (Aribeth).
Similarly, "Neverwinter Nights 2" has absolutely nothing to do with anything from the first game beyond using the same setting.
"Mask of the Betrayer" is a direct sequel to "Neverwinter Nights 2", but neither "Storm of Zehir" nor "Mysteries of Westgate" share that connection.
What do all these games have in common? Their stories are, for the most part, modular and self-contained. The fact that BG1, BG2 and ToB tell a continuous saga is the exception, not the rule.
So why should BG3 be about the Bhaalspawn? Why should it have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn Saga at all? Why not tell a new story using the same setting?
Exactly. The BG Saga is the exception and breaking that exception would be a bad idea. The Baldur's Gate Saga has established that from BG1 to ToB, it's all about Charname's story.
Making an Baldur's Gate III would give the impression that it's connected to Charname's story or the other games and it would be really strange if it's not.
Like I said, Lord of the Rings has established that it's the Fellowship's story and it would be like making a Lord of the Rings 4, without it.
There's no reason to call it Baldur's Gate III. Other than brand-recognition marketing tactics if it's not connected to Charname directly.
@Shawne Totally agree, but given the appeal of the original story I think there is probably going to be a tie-in to the past history of the preceding games? It really is a blank slate to create a new story with. They can take it any direction they choose.
Again, let us assume that the Bhaalspawn saga (and what happened to Bhaal) set certain things in motion. For the purposes of BG3's story we know not what, but it did. BG3 will probably be the tale of whatever that is. I would expect it to be set in the current Realms, which is at least a century after the BG series takes place from 1368-1372 (do I have the end year correct for ToB?); and in the current Realms that will be from 1479 DR or after.
So this new story would presumably start with a level 1 protagonist. The only troubling aspect to all of this for me is the carnage wrought to the setting itself from the Spellplague from 1385-1395 DR when the Toril that I am so fond of was dramatically reshaped. I mean wth? The setting was gutted by this imho. This really saddened me. But it is what it is, I guess.
I have read on FR related discussion sites that following ToB, beyond the portion of Bhaal's essence that still resided in Abdel Adrian (and any other Bhaalspawn who might have survived), the rest of Bhaal's remaining essence was locked away in Mount Celestia in the Outer Planes. Apparently Mount Celestia was not destroyed or significantly altered by the Spellplague. I cannot provide the canon source for this, though.
The following links contain spoilers if you want to play or read the adventure Murder in Baldur's Gate. But I would think that a fresh new story can be developed that in some way ties in to the following as providing a historical foundation. The new adventure would begin at some point from 1479 DR or after. See the spoiler below if you wish to learn what happened to Abdel Adrian without first reading Murder in Baldur's Gate:
Abdel Adrian and Viekang (the Bhaalspawn who teleports away in the tavern in Saradush in ToB) fight to the death. But it doesn't matter who won because the victor was transformed into the Slayer or Ravager and was killed by the adventuring party in Murder in Baldur's Gate. So evidently Abdel Adrian is no more. I would imagine that that means that all the Bhaalspawn are then dead, at least as far as anyone knows.
So I guess what I'm getting at with all of this is that whatever we wish or hope BG3 would be, (this question for all of us) don't you think that from WotC's vantage it is mostly likely going to tie in with canon?
Now I do agree that the new story could also have nothing to do with the legacy of the Bhaalspawn saga. It might just start in the city of Baldur's Gate and tell something entirely new. But given the fondness for the BG series by fans, and how wide open a new story could be (they can basically invent anything they want based on something--i.e., be creative here--that the Bhaalspawn saga set in motion), my guess is that it will connect with the BG series story as a foundation.
@Archaos: Oh, I disagree about that completely. I mean, you could just as easily argue that "Neverwinter Nights 2" shouldn't have been called that because it wasn't related in any way to the previous game, and that that was just brand recognition. But so what?
The Faerun games already have Gorion's Ward, the Hero of Neverwinter, the Devilslayer of Waterdeep, the Knight-Captain of Crossroad Keep and the Serpent's Bane - what's one more new main character? Just tell a new story, set it in or around Baldur's Gate, and get on with it.
@Lemernis: Meh, the games aren't obligated to follow D&D canon to the letter if it doesn't serve the story - and, quite frankly, it would be a huge mistake to insist on Abdel Adrian as the canonical Bhaalspawn.
I mean, to use the same example again: there's a bit in NWN2 where you meet Deekin from NWN1, and he tells you a bit about his adventures. At no point does he ever say anything concrete about the identity of the Devilslayer of Waterdeep - not the gender, not the race, none of that. So sure, Deekin himself is a link to what's come before, but by not boxing the previous PC into a specific identity/canonical ending, you get to have your cake and eat it too.
What kind of reference would you find in BG3? Say you're visiting Beregost - the main shop is Kagain's Emporium. You go to the Duchal Palace in Baldur's Gate, you find Sarevok's armor strung up as a reminder to the Dukes' enemies. You go to High Hedge and Thalantyr is still there, and maybe there's a chicken running around, I don't know.
References are fine, because they don't interfere with the player's own constructed narrative. But if you start dictating how the BG games turned out, it's not going to work.
@shawne I don't disagree, I'm just emphasizing how I think WotC most likely looks at it above and beyond what each of us individually hopes for, or believes would make the best game.
The game that I would like to see would allow the player to import the .chr file of CHARNAME from the final save of ToB, which would include the info about the choice made about the Solar's offer of godhood, i.e., of divinity vs. mortal. That information would then be be plugged in to the new game as background info. There would still be a brand new level 1 protagonist. But in-game the backstory for the BG series is customizable as such.
Actually, the NwN games established since the first expansion of NwN1 that it's not a continuous story.
That's not the case with BG. In BG1, TotSC, BG2, ToB, in all of them it's the Charname's story.
Also the Icewind Dale games have different parties in each one. Again, a different case. The Final Fantasy games have established that each game is a separate story with separate protagonists.
Making a BGIII, means that it continues the story of the previous two games. If it doesn't, why market it as BG3 if it has nothing to do with the previous games?
Because marketing purposes? I would much prefer a spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate games, with a different name. Not a DnD game with the Baldur's Gate brand.
I just want another Infinity Engine adventure module. I don't care if we're stuck on the Darksun world (although playing a Thri-kreen would be fun) or if we're supposed to accept Dragonborn as interesting creatures, just give the engine a good sendoff game... EE everything if you can, but a good original adventure wouldn't hurt.
I don't personally believe in absolutes like "Can't" and "Won't" and "Must", particularly where the fantasy genre is concerned. I think that anyone says that a good author "Can't" write something engaging and impressive within the confines of the Bhaalspawn story simply isn't looking at the infinite universe of possibility.
With that having been said (that BG3 could potentially be a continuation of a kind) I don't think that it NEEDS to be. I just don't think that it needs NOT to be either.
My point is that if there will be an official Baldur's Gate III, it has to be connected to Charname. Either involving him after he chose to be mortal or after he ascended to godhood.
Making a Baldur's Gate game in name only and having absolutely no connection to the Bhaalspawns or Charname, will earn a huge facepalm from me.
@Lemernis: I guess I just don't see the need for that - if BG3 has a brand-new level 1 protagonist, then that protagonist isn't (and shouldn't be) directly affected by the events of BG1-2 anyway, especially if it's meant to be set a century later. It's not like the Sword Coast only has one story to tell.
@Archaos: We'll just have to agree to disagree here: a BG3 that directly follows ToB, written by different people, 15 years later, would just be bad fan fiction - especially if WotC insists on using the novels as canon rather than the games (which they already have for the PnP modules Lemernis mentioned).
@Archaos and @shawne. I am somewhere in between. I think that it would be Optimal if the story were connected with Bhaalspawn in some way. I think that would get the best bang for your buck. However, considering all of the potential story lines that you could do that are "Connected" with Bhaal and his spawn, I think that still leaves an almost endless list of things to choose from.
I think the story "Could" just be a different adventure, but I think that would get a LOT of detractors if they did that. And I don't think that needs to be done to have something good and original.
I have not ever read anything positive about the 'Canon' books. And I don't follow WoTC very closely at all. I do have to believe that they know how the books were received and that anyone willing to go to bat for BG3 would have enough brains to not feed too closely into that despite what may happen in the books (which are of varying degrees of quality) and the modules etc... Leastwise, if they don't have that much brains, I think we have more to worry about than a crappy story.
All my humble opinion. Feel free to think/feel/believe differently as you undoubtedly will.
@Anduin Do you think the Jansen family would agree to send an young member of the family to help the new Charname in BG3? I've been thinking and total absence of gnomes would lead to Charname's inevitable defeat....
My point is that if there will be an official Baldur's Gate III, it has to be connected to Charname. Either involving him after he chose to be mortal or after he ascended to godhood.
Making a Baldur's Gate game in name only and having absolutely no connection to the Bhaalspawns or Charname, will earn a huge facepalm from me.
If BG3 does happen to have connections to the Bhaalspawn saga, then I believe that Charname might canonically have chose to be mortal, just like how Khalid, Jaheira, Minsc, Dynaheir and Imoen are Charname's canon party members, because the game must respect the path WoTC's canon protagonist made, to maintain the status quo in the pantheon of Faerunian gods and goddesses.
I think the main reason why WoTC wanted to novelize the Baldur's Gate series is because Charname can potentially change the Forgotten Realms for better or worse if he/she ascends to godhood, and they wanted a protagonist like Abdel who would have no interest in ascending to godhood, to keep the Realms from canonically changing by the hands of Charname.
Besides, I seriously doubt that Ao would allow Charname to create an extreme imbalance of good or evil in the Realms for all eternity.
What if... the game doesn't tell you if you chose godhood or not: everything after the moment you beat the final boss is a blur, this way there's plenty of room for if-then trigger based gap filling answers that YOU the player decide. Deus-ex-Machina has kicked in and you have been weakened, like, "you're now level 1" weakened, stranded and powerless regardless of your choice at the end.
As you travel, you can decide whether you want godhood back/to find your lost love/etc or if you want to start anew.
I agree. That is probably the most optimal path to keep FR canon and continuity.
Charname chooses to stay mortal, perhaps has a child or grandchild. Then with 5E, if Bhaal returns, history repeats itself.
The best example for a sequel like that would be basically what they did with Final Fantasy IV. The original game was released in 1991. Much older than BG.
But very recently, they released FFIV: The After Years where you basically take the role of FFIV's protagonist's (Cecil's son) child and meet with old and new people.
"Set 17 years after Final Fantasy IV, The After Years follows the original cast and their descendants in episodic tales as a new villain appears"
Personally, that's too cliche. "Yeah, somethin' somethin', you're level 1 again, woo." The Ultima games did that where the Avatar is the same person but in each game you start at level 1 or something.
If it has to happen, I would prefer an ancestor or something. After all, the whole BG Saga is all about your bloodline.
@Archaos: Not for nothing, but "The After Years" was panned by pretty much everyone as being a pale imitation of the original, with every possible "sequel" cliche you can think of - maybe not the best example of a successful follow-up to a very popular game.
Sure, but that was part of the problem: Ceodore was little more than a faded photocopy of Cecil, which is a risk you always run when dealing with "son/daughter of previous hero" types.
And the only reason that works is because Cecil and Rosa are established characters. Try to apply that principle to the BG games, and the first question you have to deal with is: who's the other parent? Aerie? Jaheira? Dorn? Viconia? Anomen? Rasaad? Which romance (and, by extension, PC gender) do you canonize at the cost of all others?
This is exactly the same mistake Drew Karpyshyn made with the KOTOR franchise, by establishing canon identities for Darth Revan and the Exile when, previously, they were whoever the player wanted them to be. A lot of people ended up having their stories invalidated simply because they imagined Darth Revan as a woman, or the Exile as a Sith Lord.
@Anduin Do you think the Jansen family would agree to send an young member of the family to help the new Charname in BG3? I've been thinking and total absence of gnomes would lead to Charname's inevitable defeat....
True. Maybe one or two, to keep the game challenging.
I believe BG3 should be about Bhaals return if possible. Let them play with their CHARNAME one last time before Bhaal rises from the deceased husk of CHARNAME... Then take the player straight to the creation screen to raise your hero... Obviously either Aerie's, Imoen's, Viconia's, Dorn's... Ugh... Complicated, but spawn of the CHARNAME and the NPC's child...
Unfortunately the game would break if a Gnome was playing. As Bhaal would not be able to rise from the deceased husk of a Gnome, as high level Gnomes are obviously unkillable. Something to think about at current character creation...
Sure, but that was part of the problem: Ceodore was little more than a faded photocopy of Cecil, which is a risk you always run when dealing with "son/daughter of previous hero" types.
And the only reason that works is because Cecil and Rosa are established characters. Try to apply that principle to the BG games, and the first question you have to deal with is: who's the other parent? Aerie? Jaheira? Dorn? Viconia? Anomen? Rasaad? Which romance (and, by extension, PC gender) do you canonize at the cost of all others?
This is exactly the same mistake Drew Karpyshyn made with the KOTOR franchise, by establishing canon identities for Darth Revan and the Exile when, previously, they were whoever the player wanted them to be. A lot of people ended up having their stories invalidated simply because they imagined Darth Revan as a woman, or the Exile as a Sith Lord.
I agree. It's a huge slap in the face when RPGs, particularly series that built themselves on continuity of player's choice decide to go back and invalidate your story like TOR did to the KoTOR series, or Murder in Baldur's Gate did with the Baldur's Gate series. At least with MiBG and the books take place in a separate medium, which makes it easier to ignore, but another computer game would be much too 'in your face' with it's retcons for me to be comfortable with.
Add to that complications with the spellplague & sundering-since any sequel would almost certainly happen in 'modern' Forgotten Realms because WoTC will want to promote the current setting, and you get a situation where most companions are dead either from age or the spellplague, we are set in a barely recognizable campaign setting, and the player characters we spent so long getting attached to are reduced to a stock human warrior character before getting whacked by a joke character. IMO that's just not the sort of thing that I have any interest in playing.
@Catoblepas The problem for WotC, though, is that to make the BG series story canon, they can only have one protagonist for the Bhaalspawn saga. And since they had the novels they went with Abdel Adrian. Point being they had to choose someone as the protagonist.
Murder in Baldur's Gate takes place when Abdel is 131 years old; because of his divine blood I guess he lived longer in decent health than the average human mortal (he chose the path of mortality).
Sure, but that was part of the problem: Ceodore was little more than a faded photocopy of Cecil, which is a risk you always run when dealing with "son/daughter of previous hero" types.
And the only reason that works is because Cecil and Rosa are established characters. Try to apply that principle to the BG games, and the first question you have to deal with is: who's the other parent? Aerie? Jaheira? Dorn? Viconia? Anomen? Rasaad? Which romance (and, by extension, PC gender) do you canonize at the cost of all others?
It could be left vague on purpose. We don't know much about Charname's mother also. Only that she was a priestess of Bhaal and that's it. No details.
If we skip the whole 4E and Spellplague and theoretically use 5E rules and set it some centuries in the future, the origins could be simply: "you are the descendant of Gorion's Ward and former Bhaalspawn etc etc".
And if that leaves plot-holes again, then we can agree that a continuation of Charname's story wouldn't work, so it should be left alone. Like I said, Charname's story is over.
Which means that there's no reason to call it Baldur's Gate. Call it something else and people wouldn't start comparing it to the other games. New IP equals more creative freedom and less comparisons to the previous two games.
Nevermind that the cancelled Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound wasn't supposed to be set in Baldur's Gate but in the Dalelands with a new protagonist and actually meeting people from the Icewind Dale games.
So it was more of an Icewind Dale III than an Baldur's Gate III.
"None of the characters from the previous Baldur's Gate games would have returned, the cast would have been completely original as well as the story, although characters from the Icewind Dale series would have returned."
"The game would not have been a sequel to Baldur's Gate II in terms of story but rather gameplay, however, it did continue part of story of Icewind Dale II through joinable NPC's, specifically Maralie Fiddlebender, who would have been an adult in the story." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate_III:_The_Black_Hound#Characters
Yes, I know why they did it, but that doesn't mean I think it was a good idea. They didn't need to make a 'canon' PC for Baldur's Gate any more than they did for the Protagonists of any of the Neverwinter games-none of them had a canon protagonist despite having the potential for some incredibly widespread consequences in many of the endings. I can't imagine Mephistopheles emerging from beneath Waterdeep and killing half the city could conceivably be a historical non-issue in the scheme of things, but there you have it. Likewise, in the Dark Alliance games you have the Onyx tower arriving to Baldur's Gate *twice* and laying waste to the city, with nary a mention in the lore.
Point being, there's a fine precedent for Forgotten Realms games 'branching off' from the chronology of the setting, so I don't think it was in any way necessary to capstone the series with another generic designed-by-committee hero character that likely doesn't represent the vast majority of player experiences. But here we are, stuck with Abdel, and WotC *really* knows how to dig their heels in on issues like these.
Comments
*bows continously*
However, consider the other Forgotten Realms games.
"Icewind Dale 2" is only loosely related to "Icewind Dale" (in that the villains of 2 are the children of the villain of 1).
"Hordes of the Underdark" is a direct sequel to "Shadows of Undrentide", but neither are related to the original campaign of "Neverwinter Nights" beyond the appearance of a single character (Aribeth).
Similarly, "Neverwinter Nights 2" has absolutely nothing to do with anything from the first game beyond using the same setting.
"Mask of the Betrayer" is a direct sequel to "Neverwinter Nights 2", but neither "Storm of Zehir" nor "Mysteries of Westgate" share that connection.
What do all these games have in common? Their stories are, for the most part, modular and self-contained. The fact that BG1, BG2 and ToB tell a continuous saga is the exception, not the rule.
So why should BG3 be about the Bhaalspawn? Why should it have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn Saga at all? Why not tell a new story using the same setting?
Exactly. The BG Saga is the exception and breaking that exception would be a bad idea.
The Baldur's Gate Saga has established that from BG1 to ToB, it's all about Charname's story.
Making an Baldur's Gate III would give the impression that it's connected to Charname's story or the other games and it would be really strange if it's not.
Like I said, Lord of the Rings has established that it's the Fellowship's story and it would be like making a Lord of the Rings 4, without it.
There's no reason to call it Baldur's Gate III. Other than brand-recognition marketing tactics if it's not connected to Charname directly.
Again, let us assume that the Bhaalspawn saga (and what happened to Bhaal) set certain things in motion. For the purposes of BG3's story we know not what, but it did. BG3 will probably be the tale of whatever that is. I would expect it to be set in the current Realms, which is at least a century after the BG series takes place from 1368-1372 (do I have the end year correct for ToB?); and in the current Realms that will be from 1479 DR or after.
So this new story would presumably start with a level 1 protagonist. The only troubling aspect to all of this for me is the carnage wrought to the setting itself from the Spellplague from 1385-1395 DR when the Toril that I am so fond of was dramatically reshaped. I mean wth? The setting was gutted by this imho. This really saddened me. But it is what it is, I guess.
I have read on FR related discussion sites that following ToB, beyond the portion of Bhaal's essence that still resided in Abdel Adrian (and any other Bhaalspawn who might have survived), the rest of Bhaal's remaining essence was locked away in Mount Celestia in the Outer Planes. Apparently Mount Celestia was not destroyed or significantly altered by the Spellplague. I cannot provide the canon source for this, though.
The following links contain spoilers if you want to play or read the adventure Murder in Baldur's Gate. But I would think that a fresh new story can be developed that in some way ties in to the following as providing a historical foundation. The new adventure would begin at some point from 1479 DR or after. See the spoiler below if you wish to learn what happened to Abdel Adrian without first reading Murder in Baldur's Gate:
Abdel Adrian
Murder in Baldur's Gate
Bhaal
So I guess what I'm getting at with all of this is that whatever we wish or hope BG3 would be, (this question for all of us) don't you think that from WotC's vantage it is mostly likely going to tie in with canon?
Now I do agree that the new story could also have nothing to do with the legacy of the Bhaalspawn saga. It might just start in the city of Baldur's Gate and tell something entirely new. But given the fondness for the BG series by fans, and how wide open a new story could be (they can basically invent anything they want based on something--i.e., be creative here--that the Bhaalspawn saga set in motion), my guess is that it will connect with the BG series story as a foundation.
The Faerun games already have Gorion's Ward, the Hero of Neverwinter, the Devilslayer of Waterdeep, the Knight-Captain of Crossroad Keep and the Serpent's Bane - what's one more new main character? Just tell a new story, set it in or around Baldur's Gate, and get on with it.
@Lemernis: Meh, the games aren't obligated to follow D&D canon to the letter if it doesn't serve the story - and, quite frankly, it would be a huge mistake to insist on Abdel Adrian as the canonical Bhaalspawn.
I mean, to use the same example again: there's a bit in NWN2 where you meet Deekin from NWN1, and he tells you a bit about his adventures. At no point does he ever say anything concrete about the identity of the Devilslayer of Waterdeep - not the gender, not the race, none of that. So sure, Deekin himself is a link to what's come before, but by not boxing the previous PC into a specific identity/canonical ending, you get to have your cake and eat it too.
What kind of reference would you find in BG3? Say you're visiting Beregost - the main shop is Kagain's Emporium. You go to the Duchal Palace in Baldur's Gate, you find Sarevok's armor strung up as a reminder to the Dukes' enemies. You go to High Hedge and Thalantyr is still there, and maybe there's a chicken running around, I don't know.
References are fine, because they don't interfere with the player's own constructed narrative. But if you start dictating how the BG games turned out, it's not going to work.
The game that I would like to see would allow the player to import the .chr file of CHARNAME from the final save of ToB, which would include the info about the choice made about the Solar's offer of godhood, i.e., of divinity vs. mortal. That information would then be be plugged in to the new game as background info. There would still be a brand new level 1 protagonist. But in-game the backstory for the BG series is customizable as such.
Actually, the NwN games established since the first expansion of NwN1 that it's not a continuous story.
That's not the case with BG.
In BG1, TotSC, BG2, ToB, in all of them it's the Charname's story.
Also the Icewind Dale games have different parties in each one. Again, a different case.
The Final Fantasy games have established that each game is a separate story with separate protagonists.
Making a BGIII, means that it continues the story of the previous two games. If it doesn't, why market it as BG3 if it has nothing to do with the previous games?
Because marketing purposes? I would much prefer a spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate games, with a different name. Not a DnD game with the Baldur's Gate brand.
With that having been said (that BG3 could potentially be a continuation of a kind) I don't think that it NEEDS to be. I just don't think that it needs NOT to be either.
Either involving him after he chose to be mortal or after he ascended to godhood.
Making a Baldur's Gate game in name only and having absolutely no connection to the Bhaalspawns or Charname, will earn a huge facepalm from me.
@Archaos: We'll just have to agree to disagree here: a BG3 that directly follows ToB, written by different people, 15 years later, would just be bad fan fiction - especially if WotC insists on using the novels as canon rather than the games (which they already have for the PnP modules Lemernis mentioned).
I think the story "Could" just be a different adventure, but I think that would get a LOT of detractors if they did that. And I don't think that needs to be done to have something good and original.
I have not ever read anything positive about the 'Canon' books. And I don't follow WoTC very closely at all. I do have to believe that they know how the books were received and that anyone willing to go to bat for BG3 would have enough brains to not feed too closely into that despite what may happen in the books (which are of varying degrees of quality) and the modules etc... Leastwise, if they don't have that much brains, I think we have more to worry about than a crappy story.
All my humble opinion. Feel free to think/feel/believe differently as you undoubtedly will.
I think the main reason why WoTC wanted to novelize the Baldur's Gate series is because Charname can potentially change the Forgotten Realms for better or worse if he/she ascends to godhood, and they wanted a protagonist like Abdel who would have no interest in ascending to godhood, to keep the Realms from canonically changing by the hands of Charname.
Besides, I seriously doubt that Ao would allow Charname to create an extreme imbalance of good or evil in the Realms for all eternity.
As you travel, you can decide whether you want godhood back/to find your lost love/etc or if you want to start anew.
Maybe I'm just crazy though.
I agree. That is probably the most optimal path to keep FR canon and continuity.
Charname chooses to stay mortal, perhaps has a child or grandchild. Then with 5E, if Bhaal returns, history repeats itself.
The best example for a sequel like that would be basically what they did with Final Fantasy IV.
The original game was released in 1991. Much older than BG.
But very recently, they released FFIV: The After Years where you basically take the role of FFIV's protagonist's (Cecil's son) child and meet with old and new people.
"Set 17 years after Final Fantasy IV, The After Years follows the original cast and their descendants in episodic tales as a new villain appears"
@Dazzu
Personally, that's too cliche. "Yeah, somethin' somethin', you're level 1 again, woo." The Ultima games did that where the Avatar is the same person but in each game you start at level 1 or something.
If it has to happen, I would prefer an ancestor or something. After all, the whole BG Saga is all about your bloodline.
I meant the "you're the descendant of the previous hero" and not "you're some new and random person and the previous games don't matter".
And the only reason that works is because Cecil and Rosa are established characters. Try to apply that principle to the BG games, and the first question you have to deal with is: who's the other parent? Aerie? Jaheira? Dorn? Viconia? Anomen? Rasaad? Which romance (and, by extension, PC gender) do you canonize at the cost of all others?
This is exactly the same mistake Drew Karpyshyn made with the KOTOR franchise, by establishing canon identities for Darth Revan and the Exile when, previously, they were whoever the player wanted them to be. A lot of people ended up having their stories invalidated simply because they imagined Darth Revan as a woman, or the Exile as a Sith Lord.
I believe BG3 should be about Bhaals return if possible. Let them play with their CHARNAME one last time before Bhaal rises from the deceased husk of CHARNAME... Then take the player straight to the creation screen to raise your hero... Obviously either Aerie's, Imoen's, Viconia's, Dorn's... Ugh... Complicated, but spawn of the CHARNAME and the NPC's child...
Unfortunately the game would break if a Gnome was playing. As Bhaal would not be able to rise from the deceased husk of a Gnome, as high level Gnomes are obviously unkillable. Something to think about at current character creation...
*In other developments*
:-/ I really want out @mlnevese ...
:+) Stop being so negative! I don't wish to be King! I want us all to be equals!
:+> Thats the spirit!
Add to that complications with the spellplague & sundering-since any sequel would almost certainly happen in 'modern' Forgotten Realms because WoTC will want to promote the current setting, and you get a situation where most companions are dead either from age or the spellplague, we are set in a barely recognizable campaign setting, and the player characters we spent so long getting attached to are reduced to a stock human warrior character before getting whacked by a joke character. IMO that's just not the sort of thing that I have any interest in playing.
Murder in Baldur's Gate takes place when Abdel is 131 years old; because of his divine blood I guess he lived longer in decent health than the average human mortal (he chose the path of mortality).
If we skip the whole 4E and Spellplague and theoretically use 5E rules and set it some centuries in the future, the origins could be simply: "you are the descendant of Gorion's Ward and former Bhaalspawn etc etc".
And if that leaves plot-holes again, then we can agree that a continuation of Charname's story wouldn't work, so it should be left alone. Like I said, Charname's story is over.
Which means that there's no reason to call it Baldur's Gate. Call it something else and people wouldn't start comparing it to the other games. New IP equals more creative freedom and less comparisons to the previous two games.
Nevermind that the cancelled Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound wasn't supposed to be set in Baldur's Gate but in the Dalelands with a new protagonist and actually meeting people from the Icewind Dale games.
So it was more of an Icewind Dale III than an Baldur's Gate III.
"None of the characters from the previous Baldur's Gate games would have returned, the cast would have been completely original as well as the story, although characters from the Icewind Dale series would have returned."
"The game would not have been a sequel to Baldur's Gate II in terms of story but rather gameplay, however, it did continue part of story of Icewind Dale II through joinable NPC's, specifically Maralie Fiddlebender, who would have been an adult in the story."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate_III:_The_Black_Hound#Characters
Yes, I know why they did it, but that doesn't mean I think it was a good idea. They didn't need to make a 'canon' PC for Baldur's Gate any more than they did for the Protagonists of any of the Neverwinter games-none of them had a canon protagonist despite having the potential for some incredibly widespread consequences in many of the endings. I can't imagine Mephistopheles emerging from beneath Waterdeep and killing half the city could conceivably be a historical non-issue in the scheme of things, but there you have it. Likewise, in the Dark Alliance games you have the Onyx tower arriving to Baldur's Gate *twice* and laying waste to the city, with nary a mention in the lore.
Point being, there's a fine precedent for Forgotten Realms games 'branching off' from the chronology of the setting, so I don't think it was in any way necessary to capstone the series with another generic designed-by-committee hero character that likely doesn't represent the vast majority of player experiences. But here we are, stuck with Abdel, and WotC *really* knows how to dig their heels in on issues like these.