Eh, that like saying there's no point in watching Movie 1 because Movie 2 kills several characters off.
It's nothing of the kind.
When watching a movie you have no control over the story or over which character does what; it is a completely passive experience.
These games, on the other hand, allow you to control events, and the whole point of party selection is to customise the game to your own preferences.
Now when we play BG1 (within BGEE) we know in advance that Dynaheir is going to die so what's the point in having her in the team. Minsc is bound to her, so what's the point with him. Khalid is going to die, so what's the point having him. And Jaheira won't leave Khalid, so her role is devalued as well.
Unless a solution is created, and my earlier posts were identifying that i doesn't take too much imagination to find one.
Some stories are better because they make an important character to the reader/player in this case and then kill them off. It also allows new stuff to be added in, such as Minsc befriending the wingless thing.
This is an enhanced edition, not an entirely reworked edition or brand new game where every little detail you already know is changed. For example they aren't going to change Irenicus into a halfling (despite this being a much requested feature) or give you a chance to play it all from Yoshimo's perspective.
It will be like you remembered it with new content added along the way that ties in with what is already there. If you really want to make changes to the base of the story, you'd best get learning to mod. =(
These games, on the other hand, allow you to control events, and the whole point of party selection is to customise the game to your own preferences.
To be more precise, these games allow you to control some events, not all of them. Some plot points will happen no matter what, the beginning of BG2 is an example of that.
These games, on the other hand, allow you to control events, and the whole point of party selection is to customise the game to your own preferences.
To be more precise, these games allow you to control some events, not all of them. Some plot points will happen no matter what, the beginning of BG2 is an example of that.
And the point is that many of the events that we thought we had control of when we played BG1, we now know that we don't.
The BG1 part of BGEE is now diminished. Khalid and Dynaheir (and Ajantis) are no longer companions who we try to protect and develop their characters in order that they will survive with us and remain with us throughout the campaign.
They are now no more than mercenaries who will remain with us for only a part of our journey because we know they're going to die and there's little point to investing our time and energy with them, when they could be spent elsewhere.
This is a lot like saying that there's no point in using Aeris because you as a player know that she's going to die, and so the game should let her live.
It's the player's responsibility to suspend their knowledge of future events when playing the game for a second time.
1)There are people here that like to roleplay. Like me. If my mainchar wouldnt take Dynaheir and Khalid along because I knew that they would die in BG2 EE then this would be metagaming thus immersion-breaking for me
What are you talking about? Not taking Khalid or Dynaheir along because you 'know' they will die is the DEFINTION of metagaming!!
Not everyone made it into BG2. You've had over a decade to come to terms with this, but if you still can't move on I don't know what I (or anyone else) can say anymore to change your mind.
1)There are people here that like to roleplay. Like me. If my mainchar wouldnt take Dynaheir and Khalid along because I knew that they would die in BG2 EE then this would be metagaming thus immersion-breaking for me
What are you talking about? Not taking Khalid or Dynaheir along because you 'know' they will die is the DEFINTION of metagaming!!
Not everyone made it into BG2. You've had over a decade to come to terms with this, but if you still can't move on I don't know what I (or anyone else) can say anymore to change your mind.
I think that's the point @Shandyr was trying to make.
@shandyr@aosaw Ah, you're right... I read the comments the wrong way. That's what I get for speed-reading. My opinion on the silliness of the concept still stands.
Why are we even petitioning the position of ressurection for Dynaheir? Tiax is the BG1 npc we need carried forward. Save Tiax from Spellhold, for Tiax shall rule all.
@IchigoRXC I prefer the theory that Tiax faked his own death in Spellhold in order to take over the Realms more easily. Such things come easily to Tiax.
Truly, ask not to save Tiax, but instead BEG Tiax to save us!
1)There are people here that like to roleplay. Like me. If my mainchar wouldnt take Dynaheir and Khalid along because I knew that they would die in BG2 EE then this would be metagaming thus immersion-breaking for me
2)Eventually everybody dies. Why care about anybody ever at all? This is life. Everyone can die at all times. So you should rather spend the time with the ones you love/like and enjoy it because nothing will last forever.
And yes even in the real world there are people who know that they have just like months left to live. Do they deserve being shunned?
3) In a game/novel making players/readers like certain characters and then kill them is a method of drama. (Game of Thrones anybody?) It adds to the ups and downs. A reader/player should experience all kind of emotions during a playthrough/read. This is what makes a game/novel a good one.
Shandyr
This whole conversation's just getting silly.
1) If your standards of purity around metagaming and immersion-braking are so high that your mainchar has to be protected from the knowledge you hold as a player, then you really shouldn't be on here at all, where different players are sharing knowledge and information that your mainchar has never experienced.
2) If you are so worried about the welfare of your mainchar's companions, why would you allow them to go on the run with you. If you had any decency you would deliver them directly to the Candlekeep infirmary, but you certainly wouldn't take them on the road and into danger, especially as you have this special knowledge that they will die because they are your companions. So the decent thing is not to allow them to become your friend in the first place.
But that's is where you become confused because you talk about avoiding any metagaming, then argue in favour of spending time with these characters because that's what you should do when someone you like or love is dying.
When you first meet these NPCs, the mainchar neither knows them or trusts them (you do, but the mainchar doesn't). While the mainchar may not know that they are going to die, you as the player does. The mainchar cannot choose to spend extra time with these dying NPCs on the basis that they are dying because he does not know they are dying, only you know that. But if you as player choose to have your mainchar spend more time with these NPCs then you are metagaming.
3) Game of Thrones is a TV show, BGEE is a role playing game. There is no comparison. A TV show is a completely passive experience, where you have no role to play, nothing to influence.
Role Playing Games are based on the notion of free will, even in the faces of impossible circumstances and unavoidable events, there are still choices. Bringing these two games together has the effect of removing of diminishing many of these choices from the original game, because the timing of the deaths of certain NPCs is now pre-determined and this has removed the element of hope from any dealings with these characters.
@Dougie, I think you missed the broad scope of what @Shandyr was saying. I'll try to elucidate some of it for you:
1) You were arguing that Dynaheir is less appealing as a character to recruit in BG1 because the player knows that she will not be in BG2. Shandyr is pointing out that if you let that fact cloud your judgment about whether or not to use her in BG1, you're metagaming. Dynaheir's death is a part of BG2's story, it's canon, and there's no getting around that. So you play BG1 with the party that you want, and if that includes Dynaheir, then you get to benefit from the emotional events at the start of BG2.
2) Again, this is a player-centric question, not a protagonist-centric one. You can use the foreknowledge of Dynaheir's death to enhance your experience of playing with her in BG1. In this case, the knowledge of her dying in BG2 makes her actions in BG1 more important, not less so.
3) Two things. First, Game of Thrones is a TV show based on a novel. That's just for clarification.
Second, Dynaheir's death is not something that can be influenced by the actions of the protagonist. The player experiences the game through the lens of the protagonist. Ergo, Dynaheir's death is not something that can be influenced by the actions of the player.
There are some elements of any game that you simply can't control, and that's by design. You can't just say to the game, "No, I'd rather Dynaheir not get killed by the villain of this game."
Dynaheir dies. It's just part of the game. Do your best to move on.
@Dougie is abolutely right about the fact that the deaths of certain characters during BG1 makes one question whether they're worth the trouble (AND XP) if you're gonna miss them for the other 2/3 of the game (BG2+ToB being longer) And being able to choose through conversation with Irenicus who dies and who stays, is a great way for players to choose their party for the whole duology.
It could either be a conversation with Irenicus where, for example, he'd penetrate your mind and through a conversation dialog, he'd determine whether it'd be more plausible to "untap powers" from Khalid or Jah, Minsc or Dyna etc. Or the player could also be able to choose whoever to save on their way to Athkala in an unexpected dangerous situation, but I'm pretty sure, as it's already been said, that the writer could come up with many versions how to implement this.
Talking license-wise, it'd easily be a post-shop DLC.
Thank you for your attempted elucidation, but I think you missed a couple of points yourself (This is all very silly).
It may also help clarify things if I tell you that I rarely used Dynaheir due to her being stuck with Minsc, who I just didn't like at all. So it is not a problem of stuggling to move on. Instead it is identifying a consistency problem in bringing the storylines together, and trying to find a solution.
1) It's not a matter of your judgement being clouded. My point was that the claims of purity around not not metagaming are completely unrealistic. Are you telling me that you or Shandyr read though every single book, from start to finish? I think it more likely that you either don't open them up at all because you have read them in previous games, or you open them up, pretending to the game that you're reading them but not actually doing so.
In your statement "cloud your judgement", (i.e. selecting Minsc and keeping him in your party throughout BG1 is a better decision than not recruiting him) you are also suggesting that there is a proper way of doing things, a proper series of decisions, which is moving towards the believe that everything is predetermined. The game, of course, is not supposed to be of that nature at all, hence the element of party selection.
Returning to my point. I know and had acknowledged that if you accept the two seperate storylines at face value then that is fine, but when they are joined together as one game, as in BGEE, it devalues much of the story in BG1. As such we either accept that there's this problem and have certain BG1 characters devalued, or we find a way around the problem with the use of an in-game explanation. The reason I used the example of Dynaheir was not because I desperately want her not to die, but because her story is the easiest to explain.
I had suggested that as the only evidence for Dynaheir death was Minsc's report, then it is extremely plausible that the guy who follows the directions of a space hamster might just have got it wrong. So there is a way of getting around it, and easily, if the game developers chose to do so. Who knows, maybe the extra three months is specifically for ironing out a major problem like this.
2) I completely disagree unless you can provide me with some reasons as to why knowing that Dynaheir is going to die at the beginning of BG2 enhances your experience with her in BG1.
3) I do know that Game of Thrones is based on a book, but thank you for pointing that out in case I didn't.
This seems to be where you reveal that you have completely missed the points I have made.
You could influence events around Dynaheir's life or death within BG1, you could keep her alive until the end; this was not like the Shandra in NWN2 where she died mid-story, that was canonical. Dynaheir only became dead after the completion of BG1, because the story was written without any concern about how it would impact on the unfolding of BG1.
In putting the two stories together, in an interactive, character selecting game, that decision has changed the first part of the story. Her death was not designed in BG1, but only in BG2, and that's where the problem lies.
You could influence events around Dynaheir's life or death within BG1, you could keep her alive until the end; this was not like the Shandra in NWN2 where she died mid-story, that was canonical. Dynaheir only became dead after the completion of BG1, because the story was written without any concern about how it would impact on the unfolding of BG1.
In putting the two stories together, in an interactive, character selecting game, that decision has changed the first part of the story. Her death was not designed in BG1, but only in BG2, and that's where the problem lies.
Dynaheir's death is just as canonical as Shandra's. Her death at the start of BG2 in no way changes the story of the first (not sure how you can even claim this).
Your whole argument revolves around one thing only: you just don't want Dynaheir to be dead in BG2.
You've misread my comments. I rarely used Dynaheir. My point is to do with the flow of the story.
I didn't say that the choice for Dynaheir to die changes the story in BG1, I did say that it devalues the BG1 story, by limiting your experiences and choices because of your prior knowledge.
But why would it limit your experiences and choices? Dynaheir continues to be just as useful in BG1 regardless of BG2's existance or not.
If you want to complain about Dynaheir, you might as well make the same argument for ALL BG1 NPCs. And after the BG1 NPCs get "fixed", you should also then ask for all the BG2 NPCs to be present in BG1 too, because "why bother using BG2 NPCs when you can invest in the BG1 NPCs already in the first game".
But why would it limit your experiences and choices? Dynaheir continues to be just as useful in BG1 regardless of BG2's existance or not.
If you want to complain about Dynaheir, you might as well make the same argument for ALL BG1 NPCs. And after the BG1 NPCs get "fixed", you should also then ask for all the BG2 NPCs to be present in BG1 too, because "why bother using BG2 NPCs when you can invest in the BG1 NPCs already in the first game".
Having agreed with Dougie's thoughts, I haven't thought about it thoroughly enough and this is something that'd bother me as well. In the end it'd be better having an Dynaheir mode for BG2 which would add enough banters to make sure she wouldn't have a role of a mere mercenery.
But why would it limit your experiences and choices? Dynaheir continues to be just as useful in BG1 regardless of BG2's existance or not.
If you want to complain about Dynaheir, you might as well make the same argument for ALL BG1 NPCs. And after the BG1 NPCs get "fixed", you should also then ask for all the BG2 NPCs to be present in BG1 too, because "why bother using BG2 NPCs when you can invest in the BG1 NPCs already in the first game".
Having agreed with Dougie's thoughts, I haven't thought about it thoroughly enough and this is something that'd bother me as well. In the end it'd be better having an Dynaheir mode for BG2 which would add enough banters to make sure she wouldn't have a role of a mere mercenery.
This is what I've been trying to say.
It's not just a question of "would it make sense" (which it wouldn't, in my opinion). It's a question of, "is it feasible". In order to bring a canonically dead character back to life to restore their place in your party, you would have to significantly alter several other characters' story arcs in BG2. This means new dialogue for Minsc, Jaheira, and Imoen, including voice-over parts. It also means an altered story arc for Aerie, who has a rather significant relationship with Minsc as a direct result of Dynaheir being dead.
The concept of Dynaheir returning and keeping her presence a secret is stupid. Not just because it would be poor writing, but because you'd be accepting her into a party of six adventurers, meaning that sooner or later somebody's going to have to interact with her, and there's a 1 in 5 chance that it'll be Minsc.
Creating a new NPC isn't just a matter of building a stat block and assigning a portrait. It's dialogue, and voice sets, and side quests, and all of the other things that make every NPC in BG2 worthwhile. But to include any of those things for Dynaheir, you have to significantly alter several existing elements of the game.
The same is true of Khalid. Bring him back, and you disrupt Jaheira's entire character arc, forcing you to rebuild her from scratch.
I'll say it again: If you want her so badly, make a mod for it. Deal with the inconsistencies and plot holes yourself. But this isn't going to happen in the canonical game.
@Dougie also, I'm not sure if I just misread you or what, but BGEE isn't a combined experience. BG:EE is an enhanced version of BG1 and Tales of the Sword Coast; BG2:EE will be released sometime in 2013 and will be an enhanced version of BG2 and Throne of Bhaal.
Maybe that will clear things up about what is and isn't worthwhile.
I wholeheartedly agree with Aosaw. Dynaheir is not just a set of stats, a voice set and a portrait, it's a character with a story arc and interactions with other characters. Bringing back Dynaheir without the proper story changes doesn't really bring back the character Dynaheir, it just makes something that looks and behaves somewhat like Dynaheir in BG2. You can already easily do that by starting a multiplayer game, and importing her voice set and portrait from BG1.
The argument that her presence could simply be ignored by those who do not want her in is wrong, terribly wrong. That's basically like saying "the game doesn't have to be coherent, it's the player's responsibility to ignore parts that don't make sense so as to not break his sense of immersion". How is someone who has never played the game, or not enough to remember that aspect of the story, supposed to know Dynaheir isn't really supposed to be there, if she's there? How is he supposed to make sense of a character that, unlike every other character, has no banter, no side quests, and everyone pretends she's dead when she's standing right there?
And if what you want is an off-by-default option that you can check before you start the game, then a mod would be strictly equivalent, just a few more clicks to enable it.
to bring back Dynaheir or Khalid brings aloot of changes to the main plot so they can't come back from the dead so much we do understand and accept.. but what about the other followers???
Safana and Tiax they die infront of your eyes... if we follow the rule of the thump that you get from buldurs gate 1 that you have 5 days to resurrect someone (priest of tymora quest in temple district bg1) then by that rule it should be logicall to resurrect Safana and Tiax and ask them to join our party in BG2.
Safana is extra interesting cuz she is CN in aligment by that i mean good party, neutral party and evil party can reqruit her (plus it would be logical that at least to have 1 or 2 human love romance options)... plus she loves strong men as she says all the time in BG1 and if you have high rep she gets really happy..
Tiax.. well many ppl love him.... maybe a good romance for the female gnome charname
Coran should be easy to add to the Bg2 party plus he is such a casanova. Romance option with him and female charname should be crazy fun.... (actually there are almost no male Elf follower in bg2... we do have 1 female drow,,,)
and what happens to Xan, Branwen And shar-teel they should be extra easy to introduce as followers in Bg2 ....
@Dougie is abolutely right about the fact that the deaths of certain characters during BG1 makes one question whether they're worth the trouble (AND XP) if you're gonna miss them for the other 2/3 of the game (BG2+ToB being longer)
Uh... you're aware that only a handful of characters are actually around for the entire saga, right? I mean, if you want a consistent team throughout, it's going to be Minsc, Jaheira, Imoen, Viconia and Edwin. So unless you restrict yourself to that party in every playthrough, I don't see how that's an issue.
On a broader note, I agree with the position that resurrecting Dynaheir would be a huge mistake for one very simple reason: her death, and Khalid's, serve as establishing moments for Irenicus.
It's not an uncommon trope in serial narratives for new villains to make their mark by inflicting some kind of irreparable harm on the heroes, a sign that they are both more powerful and more dangerous than their predecessors. If Khalid and Dynaheir were in your party in BG1, you feel their loss, but you are also very clear about the threat Irenicus poses. Even if they weren't in your party, that still means he killed a Harper warrior and a Rashemen witch with minimal effort, in a way that has clearly traumatized their surviving companions. Even Evil characters would have a moment of pause upon learning that.
It also goes towards a larger problem with D&D fiction: someone said upthread that death is rarely final in the Realms. Well, that's great for games, but think about it in terms of story - what dramatic impact could any story-based death have if it were an easily reversible condition? What would be the point of Yoshimo's death, or Aeris', or Thane Krios', if all you had to do was wave a magic wand to undo it?
I can understand, in light of later BioWare efforts like "Dragon Age" and "Mass Effect", the desire to have more control over aspects of the plot (ie: who lives, who dies, etc.) but these games are over a decade old. They're just not built for that kind of branching storylines.
Comments
When watching a movie you have no control over the story or over which character does what; it is a completely passive experience.
These games, on the other hand, allow you to control events, and the whole point of party selection is to customise the game to your own preferences.
Now when we play BG1 (within BGEE) we know in advance that Dynaheir is going to die so what's the point in having her in the team. Minsc is bound to her, so what's the point with him. Khalid is going to die, so what's the point having him. And Jaheira won't leave Khalid, so her role is devalued as well.
Unless a solution is created, and my earlier posts were identifying that i doesn't take too much imagination to find one.
This is an enhanced edition, not an entirely reworked edition or brand new game where every little detail you already know is changed. For example they aren't going to change Irenicus into a halfling (despite this being a much requested feature) or give you a chance to play it all from Yoshimo's perspective.
It will be like you remembered it with new content added along the way that ties in with what is already there. If you really want to make changes to the base of the story, you'd best get learning to mod. =(
The BG1 part of BGEE is now diminished. Khalid and Dynaheir (and Ajantis) are no longer companions who we try to protect and develop their characters in order that they will survive with us and remain with us throughout the campaign.
They are now no more than mercenaries who will remain with us for only a part of our journey because we know they're going to die and there's little point to investing our time and energy with them, when they could be spent elsewhere.
It's the player's responsibility to suspend their knowledge of future events when playing the game for a second time.
Not everyone made it into BG2. You've had over a decade to come to terms with this, but if you still can't move on I don't know what I (or anyone else) can say anymore to change your mind.
That is the biggest pile of sentimental nonsense I 've ever read, with no bearing on the game at all.
I'm going out just now, but will respond properly later.
Truly, ask not to save Tiax, but instead BEG Tiax to save us!
This whole conversation's just getting silly.
1) If your standards of purity around metagaming and immersion-braking are so high that your mainchar has to be protected from the knowledge you hold as a player, then you really shouldn't be on here at all, where different players are sharing knowledge and information that your mainchar has never experienced.
2) If you are so worried about the welfare of your mainchar's companions, why would you allow them to go on the run with you. If you had any decency you would deliver them directly to the Candlekeep infirmary, but you certainly wouldn't take them on the road and into danger, especially as you have this special knowledge that they will die because they are your companions. So the decent thing is not to allow them to become your friend in the first place.
But that's is where you become confused because you talk about avoiding any metagaming, then argue in favour of spending time with these characters because that's what you should do when someone you like or love is dying.
When you first meet these NPCs, the mainchar neither knows them or trusts them (you do, but the mainchar doesn't). While the mainchar may not know that they are going to die, you as the player does. The mainchar cannot choose to spend extra time with these dying NPCs on the basis that they are dying because he does not know they are dying, only you know that. But if you as player choose to have your mainchar spend more time with these NPCs then you are metagaming.
3) Game of Thrones is a TV show, BGEE is a role playing game. There is no comparison. A TV show is a completely passive experience, where you have no role to play, nothing to influence.
Role Playing Games are based on the notion of free will, even in the faces of impossible circumstances and unavoidable events, there are still choices. Bringing these two games together has the effect of removing of diminishing many of these choices from the original game, because the timing of the deaths of certain NPCs is now pre-determined and this has removed the element of hope from any dealings with these characters.
1) You were arguing that Dynaheir is less appealing as a character to recruit in BG1 because the player knows that she will not be in BG2. Shandyr is pointing out that if you let that fact cloud your judgment about whether or not to use her in BG1, you're metagaming. Dynaheir's death is a part of BG2's story, it's canon, and there's no getting around that. So you play BG1 with the party that you want, and if that includes Dynaheir, then you get to benefit from the emotional events at the start of BG2.
2) Again, this is a player-centric question, not a protagonist-centric one. You can use the foreknowledge of Dynaheir's death to enhance your experience of playing with her in BG1. In this case, the knowledge of her dying in BG2 makes her actions in BG1 more important, not less so.
3) Two things. First, Game of Thrones is a TV show based on a novel. That's just for clarification.
Second, Dynaheir's death is not something that can be influenced by the actions of the protagonist. The player experiences the game through the lens of the protagonist. Ergo, Dynaheir's death is not something that can be influenced by the actions of the player.
There are some elements of any game that you simply can't control, and that's by design. You can't just say to the game, "No, I'd rather Dynaheir not get killed by the villain of this game."
Dynaheir dies. It's just part of the game. Do your best to move on.
Look on Sarevok
But i do´t like Dynaheir, lets keep her dead.
It could either be a conversation with Irenicus where, for example, he'd penetrate your mind and through a conversation dialog, he'd determine whether it'd be more plausible to "untap powers" from Khalid or Jah, Minsc or Dyna etc. Or the player could also be able to choose whoever to save on their way to Athkala in an unexpected dangerous situation, but I'm pretty sure, as it's already been said, that the writer could come up with many versions how to implement this.
Talking license-wise, it'd easily be a post-shop DLC.
Thank you for your attempted elucidation, but I think you missed a couple of points yourself (This is all very silly).
It may also help clarify things if I tell you that I rarely used Dynaheir due to her being stuck with Minsc, who I just didn't like at all. So it is not a problem of stuggling to move on. Instead it is identifying a consistency problem in bringing the storylines together, and trying to find a solution.
1) It's not a matter of your judgement being clouded. My point was that the claims of purity around not not metagaming are completely unrealistic. Are you telling me that you or Shandyr read though every single book, from start to finish? I think it more likely that you either don't open them up at all because you have read them in previous games, or you open them up, pretending to the game that you're reading them but not actually doing so.
In your statement "cloud your judgement", (i.e. selecting Minsc and keeping him in your party throughout BG1 is a better decision than not recruiting him) you are also suggesting that there is a proper way of doing things, a proper series of decisions, which is moving towards the believe that everything is predetermined. The game, of course, is not supposed to be of that nature at all, hence the element of party selection.
Returning to my point. I know and had acknowledged that if you accept the two seperate storylines at face value then that is fine, but when they are joined together as one game, as in BGEE, it devalues much of the story in BG1. As such we either accept that there's this problem and have certain BG1 characters devalued, or we find a way around the problem with the use of an in-game explanation. The reason I used the example of Dynaheir was not because I desperately want her not to die, but because her story is the easiest to explain.
I had suggested that as the only evidence for Dynaheir death was Minsc's report, then it is extremely plausible that the guy who follows the directions of a space hamster might just have got it wrong. So there is a way of getting around it, and easily, if the game developers chose to do so. Who knows, maybe the extra three months is specifically for ironing out a major problem like this.
2) I completely disagree unless you can provide me with some reasons as to why knowing that Dynaheir is going to die at the beginning of BG2 enhances your experience with her in BG1.
3) I do know that Game of Thrones is based on a book, but thank you for pointing that out in case I didn't.
This seems to be where you reveal that you have completely missed the points I have made.
You could influence events around Dynaheir's life or death within BG1, you could keep her alive until the end; this was not like the Shandra in NWN2 where she died mid-story, that was canonical. Dynaheir only became dead after the completion of BG1, because the story was written without any concern about how it would impact on the unfolding of BG1.
In putting the two stories together, in an interactive, character selecting game, that decision has changed the first part of the story. Her death was not designed in BG1, but only in BG2, and that's where the problem lies.
Let's do a poll.
Your whole argument revolves around one thing only: you just don't want Dynaheir to be dead in BG2.
You've misread my comments. I rarely used Dynaheir. My point is to do with the flow of the story.
I didn't say that the choice for Dynaheir to die changes the story in BG1, I did say that it devalues the BG1 story, by limiting your experiences and choices because of your prior knowledge.
But why would it limit your experiences and choices? Dynaheir continues to be just as useful in BG1 regardless of BG2's existance or not.
If you want to complain about Dynaheir, you might as well make the same argument for ALL BG1 NPCs. And after the BG1 NPCs get "fixed", you should also then ask for all the BG2 NPCs to be present in BG1 too, because "why bother using BG2 NPCs when you can invest in the BG1 NPCs already in the first game".
It's not just a question of "would it make sense" (which it wouldn't, in my opinion). It's a question of, "is it feasible". In order to bring a canonically dead character back to life to restore their place in your party, you would have to significantly alter several other characters' story arcs in BG2. This means new dialogue for Minsc, Jaheira, and Imoen, including voice-over parts. It also means an altered story arc for Aerie, who has a rather significant relationship with Minsc as a direct result of Dynaheir being dead.
The concept of Dynaheir returning and keeping her presence a secret is stupid. Not just because it would be poor writing, but because you'd be accepting her into a party of six adventurers, meaning that sooner or later somebody's going to have to interact with her, and there's a 1 in 5 chance that it'll be Minsc.
Creating a new NPC isn't just a matter of building a stat block and assigning a portrait. It's dialogue, and voice sets, and side quests, and all of the other things that make every NPC in BG2 worthwhile. But to include any of those things for Dynaheir, you have to significantly alter several existing elements of the game.
The same is true of Khalid. Bring him back, and you disrupt Jaheira's entire character arc, forcing you to rebuild her from scratch.
I'll say it again: If you want her so badly, make a mod for it. Deal with the inconsistencies and plot holes yourself. But this isn't going to happen in the canonical game.
Maybe that will clear things up about what is and isn't worthwhile.
The argument that her presence could simply be ignored by those who do not want her in is wrong, terribly wrong. That's basically like saying "the game doesn't have to be coherent, it's the player's responsibility to ignore parts that don't make sense so as to not break his sense of immersion". How is someone who has never played the game, or not enough to remember that aspect of the story, supposed to know Dynaheir isn't really supposed to be there, if she's there? How is he supposed to make sense of a character that, unlike every other character, has no banter, no side quests, and everyone pretends she's dead when she's standing right there?
And if what you want is an off-by-default option that you can check before you start the game, then a mod would be strictly equivalent, just a few more clicks to enable it.
@DavidW
@Miloch
to bring back Dynaheir or Khalid brings aloot of changes to the main plot so they can't come back from the dead so much we do understand and accept.. but what about the other followers???
Safana and Tiax they die infront of your eyes... if we follow the rule of the thump that you get from buldurs gate 1 that you have 5 days to resurrect someone (priest of tymora quest in temple district bg1) then by that rule it should be logicall to resurrect Safana and Tiax and ask them to join our party in BG2.
Safana is extra interesting cuz she is CN in aligment by that i mean good party, neutral party and evil party can reqruit her (plus it would be logical that at least to have 1 or 2 human love romance options)... plus she loves strong men as she says all the time in BG1 and if you have high rep she gets really happy..
Tiax.. well many ppl love him.... maybe a good romance for the female gnome charname
Coran should be easy to add to the Bg2 party plus he is such a casanova. Romance option with him and female charname should be crazy fun.... (actually there are almost no male Elf follower in bg2... we do have 1 female drow,,,)
and what happens to Xan, Branwen And shar-teel they should be extra easy to introduce as followers in Bg2 ....
On a broader note, I agree with the position that resurrecting Dynaheir would be a huge mistake for one very simple reason: her death, and Khalid's, serve as establishing moments for Irenicus.
It's not an uncommon trope in serial narratives for new villains to make their mark by inflicting some kind of irreparable harm on the heroes, a sign that they are both more powerful and more dangerous than their predecessors. If Khalid and Dynaheir were in your party in BG1, you feel their loss, but you are also very clear about the threat Irenicus poses. Even if they weren't in your party, that still means he killed a Harper warrior and a Rashemen witch with minimal effort, in a way that has clearly traumatized their surviving companions. Even Evil characters would have a moment of pause upon learning that.
It also goes towards a larger problem with D&D fiction: someone said upthread that death is rarely final in the Realms. Well, that's great for games, but think about it in terms of story - what dramatic impact could any story-based death have if it were an easily reversible condition? What would be the point of Yoshimo's death, or Aeris', or Thane Krios', if all you had to do was wave a magic wand to undo it?
I can understand, in light of later BioWare efforts like "Dragon Age" and "Mass Effect", the desire to have more control over aspects of the plot (ie: who lives, who dies, etc.) but these games are over a decade old. They're just not built for that kind of branching storylines.