I think the stuff about the connection between the thieves and Irenicus is likely what we missed out on. If you think about it really the whole reason for the guild war never seems to add up in the game. Bodhi may as well have lay low, and brought weaker prey over for Irenicus to play with so they never made enemies of the thieves to begin with. My guess in the original story was that Irenicus promised them a great payment for kidnapping charname but reneged or summing. And also that Imoen was not a Bhaalspawn originally, but merely bait to ensure you came to Spellhold. But the world may never know. ^^
In my headcanon I explained this as Irenicus needing to drain energy levels, a la an undead, to power the release and transfer of the Bhaalspawn's soul. Going after the shadow thieves meant there were lots of levels available (fewer xp needed for a thief to level), he wasn't angering a god by going after clerics, he wasn't drawing attention from he cowled wizards by going after mages, and fighter types are often in the order of the radiant heart or the city guards. Who is going to complain about thieves' guild members disappearing? Put all that together and the shadow thieves are an obvious target.
@tbone1 Interesting viewpoint. Especially with the lvl draing, although he might could have used an alternate form of lvl drain as well I suppose. In-grained as it is in vamps there could be differences in the two methods though of course.
I often think that even with all that happened to Big I, he still has enough of that upper class superior elven viewpoint that he wouldn't stoop so low as to become a nasty ol 'undead'. Godhood now, that's more worthy in his eyes probably.
As an aside, I like the vamp in SoD's reference to Athkatla and the 'Time of the Gathering'.
As to without Immy, not sure, I am sure they could have come up with a different line of reasoning if needed. But then again, if she was a late addition, maybe that was the best at the time and was needed.
I don't know though, torture to the extreme in Mr. Big's dungeon would be enough to go after him regardless of some lil sis, for me. Maybe even with a nice hot poker in hand as well, carried out of that place and kept special, just for him.
My question has always been as to WHY Imoen survives death and can be raised but CHARNAME cannot. Now I get CHARNAME, as I imagine the Bhaalspawn essence returns to Bhaal or wherever. But if Imoen is the same at the start of BG, I've always thought, in order to be consistent, she should suffer in the same respect.
I think people in baldurs gate either get knocked out (grey portrait), or killed (chunked). Kind of like the -10 hp rule of later editions, people are not immortal and so they become unable to help themselves if they're too injured.
My question has always been as to WHY Imoen survives death and can be raised but CHARNAME cannot. Now I get CHARNAME, as I imagine the Bhaalspawn essence returns to Bhaal or wherever. But if Imoen is the same at the start of BG, I've always thought, in order to be consistent, she should suffer in the same respect.
I think people in baldurs gate either get knocked out (grey portrait), or killed (chunked). Kind of like the -10 hp rule of later editions, people are not immortal and so they become unable to help themselves if they're too injured.
Actually I am not exactly sure of the figure but the rule to determine whether a character is chunked or juste dead is pretty much the same.
My question has always been as to WHY Imoen survives death and can be raised but CHARNAME cannot. Now I get CHARNAME, as I imagine the Bhaalspawn essence returns to Bhaal or wherever. But if Imoen is the same at the start of BG, I've always thought, in order to be consistent, she should suffer in the same respect.
I think people in baldurs gate either get knocked out (grey portrait), or killed (chunked). Kind of like the -10 hp rule of later editions, people are not immortal and so they become unable to help themselves if they're too injured.
Thats one reason I find 'good' parties a little weird. I mean if their was the possibility you'd at least think they would have the common courtesy of dragging my butt to the temple, or raising me on the spot if it WAS possible to raise CHARNAME. More evil parties ok, I imagine it goes something like, "your hurt bad right, you cant move, your sure, well, I guess you aint needin those sneakers any more, are ya". hehheh.
So I just go with all Bhaalspawn should not be able to be raised theory, esp. lil miss Immy.
Imoen can be raised from the dead in BG1 because the devs hadn't decided to make her a Bhaalspawn yet. You're absolutely right that, lore-wise, this should not have been possible (and was addressed in Shadows of Amn by having her leave the party if she drops to 0 hit points).
Imoen can be raised from the dead in BG1 because the devs hadn't decided to make her a Bhaalspawn yet. You're absolutely right that, lore-wise, this should not have been possible (and was addressed in Shadows of Amn by having her leave the party if she drops to 0 hit points).
I would not mind that ability of Imoen in the opening dungeon for CHARNAME myself, esp. with no reload style. I mean even if it meant having to go find another party somewhere I'd go for that.
Immy's ability to be raised just seems super powerful is a sense, even being an afterthought to BG1.
On another note.
Hmm, an interesting Bhaalspawn HLA would be to make them be able to draw upon the lifeforce of an NPC to get an immediate Heal of some sort, right at deaths's door, getting the choice of WHO it was of course, as an added bonus, hehheh. Course the other might have to be chunked process of healing. Something to that effect. Might result in some 'fallen' Paladins n Rangers though, thinking about the ramifications of that act. So maybe the 'choice' to do that would be better (now that would be hardcore playin rangers and paladins that way, to say no thanks to that.).
My question has always been as to WHY Imoen survives death and can be raised but CHARNAME cannot. Now I get CHARNAME, as I imagine the Bhaalspawn essence returns to Bhaal or wherever. But if Imoen is the same at the start of BG, I've always thought, in order to be consistent, she should suffer in the same respect.
I think people in baldurs gate either get knocked out (grey portrait), or killed (chunked). Kind of like the -10 hp rule of later editions, people are not immortal and so they become unable to help themselves if they're too injured.
Thats one reason I find 'good' parties a little weird. I mean if their was the possibility you'd at least think they would have the common courtesy of dragging my butt to the temple, or raising me on the spot if it WAS possible to raise CHARNAME. More evil parties ok, I imagine it goes something like, "your hurt bad right, you cant move, your sure, well, I guess you aint needin those sneakers any more, are ya". hehheh.
So I just go with all Bhaalspawn should not be able to be raised theory, esp. lil miss Immy.
I think the canon is that Bhaalspawn *can* be raised, (I mean, you do raise Sarevok), it's just that when they die they lose Bhaal's essence so after they're raised they're no longer Bhaalspawn. So when you die, even if you're not permanently dead, the saga (and therefore the game) is still over for you.
Imoen can be raised from the dead in BG1 because the devs hadn't decided to make her a Bhaalspawn yet. You're absolutely right that, lore-wise, this should not have been possible (and was addressed in Shadows of Amn by having her leave the party if she drops to 0 hit points).
The "leaves the party when she's at 1 HP" doesn't address the issue, it's just to prevent the next cutscene from making no sense. After you recruit her in Spellhold, she can die and be raised just like usual.
(If you want to say that she doesn't have her essence at that point so she can't lose it by dying, it just pushes the problem back; in ToB, after recovering her essence and beginning to develop her Bhaalspawn powers, she can still die and be raised without losing all those new powers.)
Basically, Imoen is a giant walking plot hole, which is what happens when you throw out everything you'd been planning and shove a storyline into the game immediately before shipping.
A lot of people prefer having Imoen around than the alternative though, myself included. Besides, another Aerith/Aeris would have been too cliche at the time the game was released.
And it's not like it's a BG2-specific problem though, D&D in general suffers from this problem with how there's really no rhyme or reason about who gets to come back from the dead (if we have to be completely faithful to the setting, then there's a decent chance your companions are not coming back whenever they die). You could say people have had plenty of experience giving the plot some breathing room consistency-wise when it comes to games set in the Forgotten Realms.
I hate to sound like a dullard, but who is/was Aerith/Aeris?
she was a party member in ff7 who died during the first 3rd of the game and is the most well known jprg character death even tho there were many before her.
they already puled the aerith situation with yoshimo so either way they were going to do it.
Uhhh sure, I guess, if you're RPing being his best friend or something.
Aerith/Aeris is a character from FF7. Around the time the BG series was released, the Final Fantasy games were popular enough that they helped define cRPGs. Think Diablo on consoles.
Aerith/Aeris' death was unique because of its pointlessness plot-wise. The game builds her up to be some kind of critical character in the same way BG2 gives you plenty of options to establish Imoen as the equivalent of a little sister and your last surviving family. And then she dies, purely for emotional value and to give you a good reason to keep going after the bad guy.
they already puled the aerith situation with yoshimo so either way they were going to do it.
Uhhh sure, I guess, if you're RPing being his best friend or something.
Aerith/Aeris is a character from FF7. Around the time the BG series was released, the Final Fantasy games were popular enough that they helped define cRPGs. Think Diablo on consoles.
Aerith/Aeris' death was unique because of its pointlessness plot-wise. The game builds her up to be some kind of critical character in the same way BG2 gives you plenty of options to establish Imoen as the equivalent of a little sister and your last surviving family. And then she dies, purely for emotional value and to give you a good reason to keep going after the bad guy.
It was very well done, too.
It also acts as a convient blind for the REAL plot twist of the game. One that I don't think I've ever seen another game do.
Yoshimo is a poor Aeris standin. You can choose not to take him. He can die (even permanently) before you get to that pivotal point. And he betrays you where Aeris does not.
Imoen Dieing in spellhold however would have been a copy of it (including the kidnapping). And may have played a part along with the playtesters complaints about her death why they decided to keep Imoen around. They may have not wanted the comparisons to another popular game that came out within a couple years before I think it was. Game release times from way back then blur a little bit for me honestly. There were so many and I played so much stuff. (I had the free time to do that kind of thing back then).
As for Bhaalspawn being res'd. What somebody said about them no longer being Bhaalspawn is true for the lore. But also when BG1 came out. I remember dev's saying on the original forums that there were issues with making the mainchar res'able in the same fashion that the npc's were that they weren't able to overcome for release. And BG2 is of course built in some core respects on BG1 even though they wisely advanced things as well to keep the game fresh and up to date for it's time. So even if they could fix those issues they may have simply decided not to so as to not change the game too drastically.
Considering how late into development the desicion to keep Imoen was, not much could have been changed. I imagine the main story beats would have exactly the same, with perhaps the possibility of Yoshimo being redeemed to prevent losing too many NPCs. Nalia's sidequests are hinted to have had more to them at one point, and her remarkable similarity to Imoen means she was probably intended to be Imoen's replacement and get more content as a result.
All I know is Yoshimo would stick with you and Imoen wouldn't and that would make me a very happy man.
Thank God for mods!
Yoshimo is the best neutral-aligned fighter in the trilogy. My first run with him I'd dual-classed him and they killed him off before I ever unlocked his thief levels again and I was pretty mad about it.
I think the canon is that Bhaalspawn *can* be raised, (I mean, you do raise Sarevok), it's just that when they die they lose Bhaal's essence so after they're raised they're no longer Bhaalspawn. So when you die, even if you're not permanently dead, the saga (and therefore the game) is still over for you.
Still, there is a conversation in ToB between Sarevok and Imoen, where Sarevok is mocking Imoen, saying that the party probably had to resurrect her lots of times. And later, if you choose to embracing your heritage, and become a god, the Solar requires Imoen to give away her divine essence. Meaning she actually kept it, even after being resurrected.
Still, there is a conversation in ToB between Sarevok and Imoen, where Sarevok is mocking Imoen, saying that the party probably had to resurrect her lots of times. And later, if you choose to embracing your heritage, and become a god, the Solar requires Imoen to give away her divine essence. Meaning she actually kept it, even after being resurrected.
Never became a god (I mean, the god of MURDER? C'mon!) so I did not know that. Thanks for posting.
Still, there is a conversation in ToB between Sarevok and Imoen, where Sarevok is mocking Imoen, saying that the party probably had to resurrect her lots of times. And later, if you choose to embracing your heritage, and become a god, the Solar requires Imoen to give away her divine essence. Meaning she actually kept it, even after being resurrected.
Never became a god (I mean, the god of MURDER? C'mon!) so I did not know that. Thanks for posting.
Actually it is said that you claim your father's power, not necessarily his portfolio. And though it's pretty hard when murder is concerned, there's more than one way to rule over a portfolio, and Jergal (Kelemvor's predecessor) wasn't the same type of "god of the Dead" Kelemvor is. While Kelemvor's pretty respectful of life but is mostly concerned with those who defy death (undead mostly), Jergal's dogma was that "Existence is but a brief aberration in an eternity of death." (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Jergal) .
Still, there is a conversation in ToB between Sarevok and Imoen, where Sarevok is mocking Imoen, saying that the party probably had to resurrect her lots of times. And later, if you choose to embracing your heritage, and become a god, the Solar requires Imoen to give away her divine essence. Meaning she actually kept it, even after being resurrected.
Never became a god (I mean, the god of MURDER? C'mon!) so I did not know that. Thanks for posting.
Actually it is said that you claim your father's power, not necessarily his portfolio. And though it's pretty hard when murder is concerned, there's more than one way to rule over a portfolio, and Jergal (Kelemvor's predecessor) wasn't the same type of "god of the Dead" Kelemvor is. While Kelemvor's pretty respectful of life but is mostly concerned with those who defy death (undead mostly), Jergal's dogma was that "Existence is but a brief aberration in an eternity of death." (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Jergal) .
Mask of the betrayer talks about the gods of death in great detail. it is an expansion for neverwinter nights 2. One of the main plot hooks is that a previous god of death was incredibly cruel, and the current one can't do anything about it because of deity politics. Various mortals and demigods in the game are quite unhappy about the situation, so unhappy that angels and demons, and liches and dragons can set their differences aside for the common cause of fighting to get their way with the current god of the dead.
Still, there is a conversation in ToB between Sarevok and Imoen, where Sarevok is mocking Imoen, saying that the party probably had to resurrect her lots of times. And later, if you choose to embracing your heritage, and become a god, the Solar requires Imoen to give away her divine essence. Meaning she actually kept it, even after being resurrected.
Never became a god (I mean, the god of MURDER? C'mon!) so I did not know that. Thanks for posting.
Actually it is said that you claim your father's power, not necessarily his portfolio. And though it's pretty hard when murder is concerned, there's more than one way to rule over a portfolio, and Jergal (Kelemvor's predecessor) wasn't the same type of "god of the Dead" Kelemvor is. While Kelemvor's pretty respectful of life but is mostly concerned with those who defy death (undead mostly), Jergal's dogma was that "Existence is but a brief aberration in an eternity of death." (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Jergal) .
So I'm older and my experiences with FR and all its incarnations be it comics, desktop, or pc are largely based in the late 80's through the release of NWN2- and very few book post 2000 and the rest PC games. I have to ask because the name is cokming from a direct source linked. Did they change the name of the god of dead that died in the Avatar trilogy (Time of Troubles) from Myrkul to Jergal? Is there a story to this if so?
On topic, (given the subject matter I will assume that I am not spoiling anything in BG2) as I have always understood it this is the Imoen situation:
added very late in the development of BG1 with the express purpose to help people that rejected Xar & Monty actually be able to survive long enough if like most, they proceeded directly to the FAI. At a certain point it is almost not possible survive if you are a mage or other extremely fragile 1st level class and alone and attempting to follow Gorion's advice/wishes. The fan based seemed to love that CHARNAME had a connection in a world of strangers and
Adding drama and depth to the story, the dev team originally had her dying in spellhold & due to very large numbers of testers they changed it and let her live, but it was too late to really add much if any new content.
So while I do not have definitive proof, i always understood that very little was changed other than absolute requirements. We might have missed out on a couple of fights and an quest or 2 and maybe a few quick rewrites of some dialog where needed was the extent of the changes for SoA. I too remember something about changes to Nalia. But I could be miss remembering fan conjecture for Bioware facts as far as what and how much changed. I am much more positive about Imoen being a very lucky NPC in both games by being added late in the 1st & deciding not to kill her off very late in development in the 2nd. That did happen in those time frames. Given that, it jus would not have been possible to have changed the story much.
Given the Imoen situation, Twisted Rune (maybe), the slavers, pirates den, ect......It would be great to see the overall story arc and content as planned when all that was still being planned and actually added to the game. I assume all of that was lost along with all the original artwork and such was?
The story of Imoen being added & then not removed in the 2nd game is one of the cooler ones I have heard for a video game development.
"Given the Imoen situation, Twisted Rune (maybe), the slavers, pirates den, ect......It would be great to see the overall story arc and content as planned when all that was still being planned and actually added to the game. I assume all of that was lost along with all the original artwork and such was? "
Yes, that was what I was hoping for. That somebody might have some info from that very early stage.
I understand that Imoen was a late edition and therefore nothing much was changed.
But can't help wanting something extra, something planned, to compel the Charname to go to Spellhold.
I don't play with Imoen. It's hard to RP as the game stands why I would go out of my way to chase Irenicus to somewhere so dangerous. Without Imoen, would I even know about Spellhold, would I even take an interest in Galen's offer?
It's odd really that a late edition, never properly written character has ended up the main driver for the second game. I suppose that's the railroading that's talked about.
Actually it is said that you claim your father's power, not necessarily his portfolio. And though it's pretty hard when murder is concerned, there's more than one way to rule over a portfolio, and Jergal (Kelemvor's predecessor) wasn't the same type of "god of the Dead" Kelemvor is. While Kelemvor's pretty respectful of life but is mostly concerned with those who defy death (undead mostly), Jergal's dogma was that "Existence is but a brief aberration in an eternity of death." (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Jergal) .
So I'm older and my experiences with FR and all its incarnations be it comics, desktop, or pc are largely based in the late 80's through the release of NWN2- and very few book post 2000 and the rest PC games. I have to ask because the name is cokming from a direct source linked. Did they change the name of the god of dead that died in the Avatar trilogy (Time of Troubles) from Myrkul to Jergal? Is there a story to this if so?
Jergal was the oldest god of the dead and death. He lost his post to Bane+Bhaal+Mykul. Myrkul was the one who took the portfolio of death. Jergal basically just became an advisor of the 3. Myrkul then got killed in the Time of Troubles. And eventually the portfolio got to Kelemvor. With Jergal still being his advisor or seneschal or something equivalent.
Comments
I often think that even with all that happened to Big I, he still has enough of that upper class superior elven viewpoint that he wouldn't stoop so low as to become a nasty ol 'undead'. Godhood now, that's more worthy in his eyes probably.
As an aside, I like the vamp in SoD's reference to Athkatla and the 'Time of the Gathering'.
As to without Immy, not sure, I am sure they could have come up with a different line of reasoning if needed. But then again, if she was a late addition, maybe that was the best at the time and was needed.
I don't know though, torture to the extreme in Mr. Big's dungeon would be enough to go after him regardless of some lil sis, for me. Maybe even with a nice hot poker in hand as well, carried out of that place and kept special, just for him.
So I just go with all Bhaalspawn should not be able to be raised theory, esp. lil miss Immy.
Immy's ability to be raised just seems super powerful is a sense, even being an afterthought to BG1.
On another note.
Hmm, an interesting Bhaalspawn HLA would be to make them be able to draw upon the lifeforce of an NPC to get an immediate Heal of some sort, right at deaths's door, getting the choice of WHO it was of course, as an added bonus, hehheh. Course the other might have to be chunked process of healing. Something to that effect.
Might result in some 'fallen' Paladins n Rangers though, thinking about the ramifications of that act. So maybe the 'choice' to do that would be better (now that would be hardcore playin rangers and paladins that way, to say no thanks to that.).
(If you want to say that she doesn't have her essence at that point so she can't lose it by dying, it just pushes the problem back; in ToB, after recovering her essence and beginning to develop her Bhaalspawn powers, she can still die and be raised without losing all those new powers.)
Basically, Imoen is a giant walking plot hole, which is what happens when you throw out everything you'd been planning and shove a storyline into the game immediately before shipping.
And it's not like it's a BG2-specific problem though, D&D in general suffers from this problem with how there's really no rhyme or reason about who gets to come back from the dead (if we have to be completely faithful to the setting, then there's a decent chance your companions are not coming back whenever they die).
You could say people have had plenty of experience giving the plot some breathing room consistency-wise when it comes to games set in the Forgotten Realms.
Aerith/Aeris is a character from FF7. Around the time the BG series was released, the Final Fantasy games were popular enough that they helped define cRPGs. Think Diablo on consoles.
Aerith/Aeris' death was unique because of its pointlessness plot-wise. The game builds her up to be some kind of critical character in the same way BG2 gives you plenty of options to establish Imoen as the equivalent of a little sister and your last surviving family.
And then she dies, purely for emotional value and to give you a good reason to keep going after the bad guy.
It was very well done, too.
Imoen Dieing in spellhold however would have been a copy of it (including the kidnapping). And may have played a part along with the playtesters complaints about her death why they decided to keep Imoen around. They may have not wanted the comparisons to another popular game that came out within a couple years before I think it was. Game release times from way back then blur a little bit for me honestly. There were so many and I played so much stuff. (I had the free time to do that kind of thing back then).
As for Bhaalspawn being res'd. What somebody said about them no longer being Bhaalspawn is true for the lore. But also when BG1 came out. I remember dev's saying on the original forums that there were issues with making the mainchar res'able in the same fashion that the npc's were that they weren't able to overcome for release. And BG2 is of course built in some core respects on BG1 even though they wisely advanced things as well to keep the game fresh and up to date for it's time. So even if they could fix those issues they may have simply decided not to so as to not change the game too drastically.
Thank God for mods!
http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=26562
On topic, (given the subject matter I will assume that I am not spoiling anything in BG2) as I have always understood it this is the Imoen situation:
added very late in the development of BG1 with the express purpose to help people that rejected Xar & Monty actually be able to survive long enough if like most, they proceeded directly to the FAI. At a certain point it is almost not possible survive if you are a mage or other extremely fragile 1st level class and alone and attempting to follow Gorion's advice/wishes. The fan based seemed to love that CHARNAME had a connection in a world of strangers and
Adding drama and depth to the story, the dev team originally had her dying in spellhold & due to very large numbers of testers they changed it and let her live, but it was too late to really add much if any new content.
So while I do not have definitive proof, i always understood that very little was changed other than absolute requirements. We might have missed out on a couple of fights and an quest or 2 and maybe a few quick rewrites of some dialog where needed was the extent of the changes for SoA. I too remember something about changes to Nalia. But I could be miss remembering fan conjecture for Bioware facts as far as what and how much changed. I am much more positive about Imoen being a very lucky NPC in both games by being added late in the 1st & deciding not to kill her off very late in development in the 2nd. That did happen in those time frames. Given that, it jus would not have been possible to have changed the story much.
Given the Imoen situation, Twisted Rune (maybe), the slavers, pirates den, ect......It would be great to see the overall story arc and content as planned when all that was still being planned and actually added to the game. I assume all of that was lost along with all the original artwork and such was?
The story of Imoen being added & then not removed in the 2nd game is one of the cooler ones I have heard for a video game development.
"Given the Imoen situation, Twisted Rune (maybe), the slavers, pirates den, ect......It would be great to see the overall story arc and content as planned when all that was still being planned and actually added to the game. I assume all of that was lost along with all the original artwork and such was? "
Yes, that was what I was hoping for. That somebody might have some info from that very early stage.
I understand that Imoen was a late edition and therefore nothing much was changed.
But can't help wanting something extra, something planned, to compel the Charname to go to Spellhold.
I don't play with Imoen. It's hard to RP as the game stands why I would go out of my way to chase Irenicus to somewhere so dangerous. Without Imoen, would I even know about Spellhold, would I even take an interest in Galen's offer?
It's odd really that a late edition, never properly written character has ended up the main driver for the second game.
I suppose that's the railroading that's talked about.