Just finished second run. A few more plotholes (or "bugs"?) BIG SPOILERS

helmo1977

So I have finished a solo run. I did more things than in my first run and, consequently, I have run into more plotholes. Or perhaps they are "bugs" (things that were forgotten). The thing is that, when exploring the underground river caverns, the warrens and the castle basement, I discover the thruth about Haphernaan. However, when de Lancie asks me what I have discovered, I have no option to tell him about it. On top of that, it strucks me that, when meeting Caelar in Dead Mans Pass, there is no option to tell her about all that. Just visiting Haphernaans quarters should be enough to know that guy wasnt up to anything good (not to talk that Haphernaan hadnt been discovered yet. In a world where Truesight allows you to see through disguises, Haphernaans should have been discovered as a devil a long time ago).

I have felt forced into the path the writers wanted me to take. I had no option to side with Caelar (nobody thought that helping Caelar to bring all the souls back from Hell was a good and noble deed?). When you get to meet Caelar, in Dead Mans Pass, you probably know what is the true Caelars aim. You know that simply helping her to open the portal would stop the meatgrinder, even if freeing the Hells souls can be seen as something impossible (as if becoming a god was easier...). But writers dont let you to take that path. It is a path that makes perfect sense for many characters.

There should have been alternative paths OR a different story. Because the current one, even if it is OK, leaves several important plotholes and railroads you into paths you dont want/like. Everytime Caelar rants about you not wanting to join her I thought: "hey, tell the writers, not me¡"

jastey

Can you really not join her? I didn't try, but I had the impression there were several answer options that went into that direction (at the first meetings, at last). If this is so, then indeed it's a plothole.

As to Haphernaans intentions and the meeting with Caelar at the Crossing: Yes, I second that this is a plot hole. I sneaked into the castle with the ogre-driven lift, witnessed him talking to his evil master, even talked to the ghost in there (forgot his name) and then run the hell out of there. So, I knew the dark scheme, I knew that even Caelar was tricked, but I couldn't play out this knowledge, which was quite frustrating as it spoiled the gaming experience. I played the confrontation with Caelar and the whole battle feeling a huge, blinking sign saying "oversight error" over my head.

I have more suggestions:

EDIT: Ophyllis and the gold. The sword I got from him was a normal +2 long sword. I would have liked the chance to confront one specific person with this, and I actually expected it after the journal entry. Did I miss the possibility to confront the crusader who killed him?

-Who is uncle Aoun (sp?)? After all the chaos his nice's love for him caused, at least give me an extended dialogue option to ask him about his connection to Caelar and what he thinks about all this. (If this was available, I didn't see it).

-My PC was paladin and she didn't want to escape the prison, as she wouldn't run from a trial. The game design gave me no chance, or at least I didn't try as it seemed to be one-dimensional.

-Seeing that the mysterious thief who freed the PC in prison killed all the guards, my paladin PC nearly break down, crying. Again, no chance but to move on as the game was designed. At least give me a chance to confront Imoen with that! Also, an explanation who that thief was and how Imoen came to know him would be nice.

-All the PC's gear laying on the table in FF Headquarters, I mean - really? It was nice, of course, but since all is lost soon anyway, so why? This was screaming bad design in a moment I was discontented with the game events, anyway.

I could go on about how the ending disturbs continuity with BGII but I guess that's for another topic.

helmo1977

jastey said:

Can you really not join her? I didn't try, but I had the impression there were several answer options that went into that direction (at the first meetings, at last). If this is so, then indeed it's a plothole.

Nope. I have tried many dialogues and you cant join her (even when you know that she is being cheated by Hephernaan, and that her real objective is to rescue souls from Hell, not flooding the Swrod Coast in blood). And Caelar adds insult to injury when she rants about you not siding with her.

lansounet

jastey said:

-Who is uncle Aoun (sp?)? After all the chaos his nice's love for him caused, at least give me an extended dialogue option to ask him about his connection to Caelar and what he thinks about all this. (If this was available, I didn't see it).

This is dragonspear wars lore, I'm sure there are books about it scattered around. And even if there was no lore book about it, did it matter when Drizzt appeared out of nowhere in other BG games?

jastey said:

-My PC was paladin and she didn't want to escape the prison, as she wouldn't run from a trial. The game design gave me no chance, or at least I didn't try as it seemed to be one-dimensional.

-Seeing that the mysterious thief who freed the PC in prison killed all the guards, my paladin PC nearly break down, crying. Again, no chance but to move on as the game was designed. At least give me a chance to confront Imoen with that! Also, an explanation who that thief was and how Imoen came to know him would be nice.

I guess you didn't play paladin-y enough, otherwise you'd have the options to prove your innocence during the trial and the grand dukes (minus Entar) organize your escape

jastey said:

All the PC's gear laying on the table in FF Headquarters, I mean - really? It was nice, of course, but since all is lost soon anyway, so why? This was screaming bad design in a moment I was discontented with the game events, anyway.

Apparently you got the fugitive ending so you had to go through the sewers and potentially encounter creatures? Getting your gear is useful then don't you think? This also matters for items transition to BG2

jastey said:

I could go on about how the ending disturbs continuity with BGII but I guess that's for another topic.

How so? I admit I was a bit disappointed by what actually happens on the screen (nothing) but the BG2 intro cutscene works with that ending.

Wraith_Sarevok

You cannot make radical changes to the story without having an alternate ending. And even if you do, we all know it's just gonna be non-canon and we're not gonna care because BG2 exists. Ultimate goal of all this crap is to get you in Irenicus's dungeon and to neatly tie everything up with a nice big bow at the end. When you get right down to it, nothing else matters. Nobody cares what happens to Caelar because she never shows up again.

This is yet another example of how the expansion sucks. Limited storytelling. It would have been a lot more fun if they had written something new and not had to reel everything back to BG2. Kind of how Tales of the Sword Coast was just a neat little adventure with an interesting story and mystery behind it. That would have worked out a lot smoother.

jastey

@lansounet:

Drizzt was an easter egg for people accustomed to the canon of D&D. Not knowing him makes him just another encounter you could like or not like. SoD evolves around the rescue of this uncle. It would be nice for people like me to understand his meaning while playing the game. It didn't even occur to me that he could be canon and someone important. Not knowing D&D lore shouldn't disqualify me from having a full game experience.

Of course it's nice to get all the gear back. But would they lie on the table right next to the cell? I am not complaining about getting the gear back. I am complaining about tha way it was done, making it look like "the player needs all the gear back, but we don't want to spend more time on that, so let's just dumb it onto the table".

Playing as a paladin: At the public hearing I chose the dialogue option not to say anything more. I thought it's paladin-like not to argue about one's own "not-guilt". Because, at that moment, it all hinted to the PC making the deathly blow, so even if my PC thought she didn't made it willingly, she was ready to account for being the hand who did it (as I indeed attacked the "slayer"). It was only in jail afterwards that The Hooded Man confronted her with memories that showed that she wasn't it.
Also, maybe I am too dumb but I didn't see this public flaming in the streets of the city as an official trial. The PC was just being returned after being catched and presented to the public. In my understanding, a real trial would have been something to happen later. You might understand my irritation that the escape was before that, and that my paladin PC was quite unhappy about how it all went.
But, if I have to talk and talk about me not being guilty in a stage where I would still have doubts about what was happening, it is bad game design I would have to go that path with a paladin PC. My opinion.

Thank you for the hint about a different ending, although I am quite shocked the endings would differ to so great extend - because it makes it even harder to combine them to one line again in BGII, if it's either escaped criminal with the whole city on your trial or escaped innocent with backup from the Dukes..

Which leads to your question about my feeling this ending disturbs continuity. Let me put it shortly:
1. Somewhere else someone phrased it: SoD shifts the question about why the canon party was in ID to the question why the BGII-canon party met with the PC after the escape. This question is not answered. They are just there "because". What made it even worse: After my PC thanked them for helping escape, Dynaheir said something that told me that she din't know it was Imoen who organized the escape, and that she disapproved. It felt like Dynaheir wasn't happy about being there, nor being informed about what was going on. Knowing that she will be killed the next moment doesn't make it better.

2. Leaving BG city as a fugitive murderer, thus, starting BGII as a fugitive murderer exiled from BG city changes the starting conditions quite a bit. The whole situation would be so much worse. Up to now, the PC could walk quite unnoticed in BGII, pursuing his foe. Now (s)he is a fugitive and murderer, there have to be follow-ups on that.
2-A. I would like to be able to address this in dialogues etc. Maybe even someone would recognise the PC from BG city.
2-B. My PC wants to have the possibility to get that dagger and clear her name.

3. It affects almost all BGII-NPC mods from NPCs also available in BG1. With the PC believed to be an escaped murderer, I would think most NPCs from BG1 would greet him/her differently. As of now, I have to play BGII with everyone saying "Oh, hi, CHARNAME! Nice to see you, what were you up to the last weeks?"

The last being the reason why the current ending hurts my understanding of continuity so much. (To phrase it bluntly, I didn't like the SoD ending. It felt forced, it felt wrong, and it didn't explain why the NPC that were there were actually there. Simply spoken: I didn't understand it.)

I want to state clearly that I welcome the Skie murderer case as another reason why the PC would pursue Irenicus (in the hopes to find the dagger and convict him as the real murderer).

But because it fits so well into the whole saga, it is so sad that there is no reference in BGII to any of these happenings yet. My hope is that BeamDog will add continuity here. (EDIT: The problem with discontinuity for all mod NPCs remains, and makes me real sad.)

EDIT: I swear that the misspelling of BeamDog was not intentional (I wrote MeanDog originally!!). That's what I'd call a Freudian slip, I have to say.

jastey

Alright, I just replayed the end and let the PC defend herself. Yes, this ending is far better. Duke Eltan tells you that the city is parted with defenders and people who wants the PC dead. This info I didn't get before. I could tell the Duke I know who did it. This I couldn't do with the other ending.

I wished they'd make a Duke Eltan ending for all cases. Having the wrong ending for my paladin PC (having to leave the city shamed and as murderer) really spoiled the experience of the game for me.

onewithoutasoul

I understand why you can't join Caelar. She's a liar, she's not in it for the innocents. She's in it for herself. Could've been cool if you could've joined her and still had it all play out similarly, but whatever.

I just hope a following patch in BG2 allows us to call out Irenicus about framing us. Or hell, use it as another reason for the PC to want to hunt down Irenicus. What if your PC doesn't care all that much about what happens to Imoen? Maybe he/she wants to clear their name more than anything?

SpaceInvader

Wraith_Sarevok said:

You cannot make radical changes to the story without having an alternate ending. And even if you do, we all know it's just gonna be non-canon and we're not gonna care because BG2 exists. Ultimate goal of all this crap is to get you in Irenicus's dungeon and to neatly tie everything up with a nice big bow at the end. When you get right down to it, nothing else matters. Nobody cares what happens to Caelar because she never shows up again.

This is yet another example of how the expansion sucks. Limited storytelling. It would have been a lot more fun if they had written something new and not had to reel everything back to BG2. Kind of how Tales of the Sword Coast was just a neat little adventure with an interesting story and mystery behind it. That would have worked out a lot smoother.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating yourself over and over and over?
Maybe that's where your patience wears off.

jsaving

Well, look -- the purpose of the expansion was to bridge the gap between BG1 and BG2. Anyone hoping SoD would somehow enable you to start BG2 in a different/better situation was destined to be disappointed no matter how good SoD turned out to be. Similarly for those hoping you could start BG2 with different companions, better equipment, etc.

As to whether the SoD ending should change how people think of you in BG2: why would it? Amn has no great love for Baldur's Gate (the city) nor would its rulers trust, or even care about, decisions the city would make except insofar as it affects Baldur's Gate's ability to wage war on its neighbors. With little migration between the two at that point in time, it's doubtful many people in Amn would be aware of what CHARNAME did, and those who did know would probably welcome CHARNAME's alleged actions as weakening a regional rival.

Juris

First of all the game has definitive start and end-points so it's bound to be a bit railroady (new word)

I do get what you're saying about not being able to tell Caelar the truth after you discover it, I thought that was frustrating too. If they had just given the dialogue option with Caelar not believing you because you were a tainted Bhaalspawn I think that would've been a bit better.

The thing I hate about railroady plots is when NPCs criticize your 'decisions', when you don't get a decision. That is BS. The game gets dangerously close to that but I don't think crosses the line.

helmo1977

onewithoutasoul said:

I understand why you can't join Caelar. She's a liar, she's not in it for the innocents. She's in it for herself. Could've been cool if you could've joined her and still had it all play out similarly, but whatever.

I just hope a following patch in BG2 allows us to call out Irenicus about framing us. Or hell, use it as another reason for the PC to want to hunt down Irenicus. What if your PC doesn't care all that much about what happens to Imoen? Maybe he/she wants to clear their name more than anything?

She lied to her followers, so what? Her objective is fair, although not the means. And it is not that de Lancie (the commanding officer of the army and the one you take the order of not joining Caelar from) is a poisoner and a bit of a coward. Freeing the souls of innocents traped in Hell is a worthy objective, and, on top of that, agreeing to help Caelar, stops the bloodshed. Two birds in one shot.

gnaumiec

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but even if Caelar's goal is just (freeing the imprisoned souls), and even if you think she can accomplish it, the ramifications of opening a portal to the hells are too severe. If her mission fails, then you unleash hell upon the sword coast. I can see why any charname would side with Baldur's Gate on this, regardless of alignment, even if charname believes Caelar can do it.

rapsam2003

Yeah, I mean...it's not like any of the Infernal creatures might come through the portal she created if she fails, right? And never mind that any souls in Hell are pretty much lost to the devils already, right? It's also not as if the Blood War was still in full blow in the BG timeline, right? Note that the Blood War didn't "end" until Asmodeus became a god, and Avernus was a major battleground of the Blood War. Everything she sought to do severely endangered Baldur's Gate and the Sword Coast...

lansounet

Also the fact that Caelar lied about everything and she was only in it for her uncle whom she knew for sure could be saved, for the other victims she either assumed she could find a way eventually, or simply lied.

But @gnaumiec got it right, you don't just open a portal to the nine hells without consequences, and as soon as it is open, the ones outside the room close it and guard it expecting all sorts of demons to come through.

helmo1977

Good point, but then it should have been made clear, because nobody ever mentions it. And even then, chaotic neutral or evil characters might want to open it. On any case, I think it should have been OUR option.

rapsam2003

helmo1977 said:

Good point, but then it should have been made clear, because nobody ever mentions it.

It should NOT have to be mentioned that opening a portal to a place called "Hell" is bad...

helmo1977 said:

And even then, chaotic neutral or evil characters might want to open it. On any case, I think it should have been OUR option.

No, NO ONE in the Forgotten Realms universe would have a motivation to open a portal to hell, short of...possibly priests of Cyric or Cambions. (The Bhaalspawn are not Cambions.) Only those who really, really, REALLY want to see the world burn would open a direct portal to hell without several precautions. And even, it's a BAD IDEA. Player choice is not required here, because it is assumed CHARNAME is not on the level of either retarded stupid or suicidal that is required to agree with Caelar's choice to open the portal to hell.

illathid

I think a few more options where you could have told Caelar and the coalition forces about Hepheraan would've been good. It wouldn't have to change anything in game, but it'd be a nice bit of reactivity.

As for the events being overlooked in BG2, I'm hopeful we'll get an expansion of some kind for that. I personally would love to rescue Caelar and save Skie.

Wraith_Sarevok

SpaceInvader said:

Wraith_Sarevok said:

You cannot make radical changes to the story without having an alternate ending. And even if you do, we all know it's just gonna be non-canon and we're not gonna care because BG2 exists. Ultimate goal of all this crap is to get you in Irenicus's dungeon and to neatly tie everything up with a nice big bow at the end. When you get right down to it, nothing else matters. Nobody cares what happens to Caelar because she never shows up again.

This is yet another example of how the expansion sucks. Limited storytelling. It would have been a lot more fun if they had written something new and not had to reel everything back to BG2. Kind of how Tales of the Sword Coast was just a neat little adventure with an interesting story and mystery behind it. That would have worked out a lot smoother.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating yourself over and over and over?
Maybe that's where your patience wears off.

Uh, don't really get what "that's where your patience wears off" is supposed to mean? And since you still can't read, I'm still going to repeat it until it gets through your head.

SpaceInvader

Wraith_Sarevok said:

Uh, don't really get what "that's where your patience wears off" is supposed to mean? And since you still can't read, I'm still going to repeat it until it gets through your head.

Unlikely. Everything you write looks like a boring jumble of repetitive nonsense filled with anger.

But you're welcome to vent your frustration here, it's a public forum populated by people far more patient than me.

BladeDancer

jastey said:

Alright, I just replayed the end and let the PC defend herself. Yes, this ending is far better. Duke Eltan tells you that the city is parted with defenders and people who wants the PC dead. This info I didn't get before. I could tell the Duke I know who did it. This I couldn't do with the other ending.

I wished they'd make a Duke Eltan ending for all cases. Having the wrong ending for my paladin PC (having to leave the city shamed and as murderer) really spoiled the experience of the game for me.

If you meet Coran and Safana in the Forest of Tethir in BG2, Safana wants to betray and kill you because there is a bounty on your PC's head. Why that is, was never explained before Siege of Dragonspear. The only logical explanation for Safana's desire to profit off your PC's death is because you're a wanted murderer. And in ToB in Neera's side quest, when you go to Thay to parteicipate in some kind of tournament battle, the Red Wizard announcer calls you the FALLEN hero of Baldur's Gate, and Yaga-Shura claims to know you as the "Terror of the Sword Coast", no matter if you're good or evil.

jastey

OK, but closing this possible plothole with Safana in BGII with the Skie murder opens huge other ones. The Order of the Radiant Heart, for example, would know of such accusations. They don't address it in BGII, though, which is unrealistic (they cannot ignore something like this and let a paladin PC be one of their knights).

illathid

jastey said:

OK, but closing this possible plothole with Safana in BGII with the Skie murder opens huge other ones. The Order of the Radiant Heart, for example, would know of such accusations. They don't address it in BGII, though, which is unrealistic (they cannot ignore something like this and let a paladin PC be one of their knights).

Could the Order know about the bounty? Yeah. Would they have to? No.

Amn is pretty damn far away from Baldur's Gate and most news travels by messenger.

BladeDancer

jastey said:

OK, but closing this possible plothole with Safana in BGII with the Skie murder opens huge other ones. The Order of the Radiant Heart, for example, would know of such accusations. They don't address it in BGII, though, which is unrealistic (they cannot ignore something like this and let a paladin PC be one of their knights).

Baldur's Gate's relationship with Amn before and after the iron crisis is neutral at best, they aren't exactly enemies or allies. News of what goes on in Baldur's Gate would not travel fast to a nation it almost went to war against, there are some wounds that need to be healed, it would take a while for news of the incident to filter down to Amn, and by the time that happens, you're already in Tethyr during ToB.

jastey

The Order of the Radiant Heart is not an Amnish institution. They only happen to have a headquarter in Athkatla, as they have in other cities (and countries). They would know, and care.

BladeDancer

Faerun has no "countries", and the Order of the Radiant Heart is only known to be in Atkhatla, not Maztica, not Zakhara, nowhere but Amn, and whether they like it or not, Amn is run by individuals who care more about their agendas and money, meaning they don't care much about what goes on in a foreign land like Baldur's Gate unless it threatens their interests. And from what I've read from D&D sourcebooks mentioning Amn, the Council of Six's primary interest is money. How does one Bhaalspawn threaten that?

rapsam2003

BladeDancer said:

Faerun has no "countries"

Um, what?! There are many kingdoms, principalities, republics, etc. There are tons of "countries". Stop being silly. It's like someone didn't ever look at a map of Faerun.

BladeDancer said:

, and the Order of the Radiant Heart is only known to be in Atkhatla, not Maztica, not Zakhara, nowhere but Amn, and whether they like it or not, Amn is run by individuals who care more about their agendas and money, meaning they don't care much about what goes on in a foreign land like Baldur's Gate unless it threatens their interests. And from what I've read from D&D sourcebooks mentioning Amn, the Council of Six's primary interest is money. How does one Bhaalspawn threaten that?

Oh, hey...look what this link from a well-referenced Forgotten Realms lore site says http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Radiant_Heart

The Order of the Radiant Heart is a fraternity of lawful good paladins and clerics that operates throughout Faerûn.

jastey

The source @rapsam2003 linked to is my source of knowledge, I have no canon D&D book, that is why I said what I said about the Order of the Radiant Heart.

rapsam2003

@jastey, that's just fine. But I corrected you because there are well-documented sources out there.

jastey

@rapsam2003 I didn't feel corrected, but supported by your link. Don't know what sources @BladeDancer was referring to.

rapsam2003

jastey said:

@rapsam2003 I didn't feel corrected, but supported by your link. Don't know what sources @BladeDancer was referring to.

Oh, I apologize. I mixed you two up. *feels embarrassed*