Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit www.planescape.com to purchase and check for details. Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition Official Soundtrack is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

How does Sarevok actually intend to ascend to godhood?

135

Comments

  • ArunsunArunsun Member Posts: 1,336

    No, you're just arguing for who you like most (and to who was most well developed) and equating it to who was objectively the most apt villain of the three.

    Coolness of villain ≠ competence of villain. Sarevok was supremely incompetent (easily the least competent of the three), while Amelyssan's brilliance is so great that it was actually lost on the community.

    She's the "power behind the curtain," the ultimate manipulator, hidden in plain sight the entire time (even disguises her alignment), and plots cunningly against everyone.

    I could feel this way IF there was more interaction with Amelyssan. But in ToB it feels like you are mind controlled by her even if you say "no I refuse to do that". Her presence is like:
    "Go there kill that"
    "But I don't want to"
    "I don't care just do it"
    "ok"
    Repeat a couple of times and then
    "Ahahahah I was the villain all along ahahah"
    "Oh I really couldn't guess I never would've done what you asked me"

    She just feels like a low-tier justification and interlude between two epic fights.
    UnderstandMouseMagic
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 3,423
    "Amelyssan's brilliance is so great that it was actually lost on the community.

    She's the "power behind the curtain," the ultimate manipulator, hidden in plain sight the entire time (even disguises her alignment), and plots cunningly against everyone. "

    It wasn't lost. It was never written.
    ArunsunUnderstandMouseMagic
  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946
    We have to be fair to the developpers about what they did in ToB.
    In the end the protagonist has to end up at the Throne, do the final battle, survive and make the choice about what to do with the essence.
    Whether Melissan manipulates the PC to do her tasks or not matters little, whether you follow the *fate you cannot escape* matters little. Because the only other option is to say *no*, end the game and forget it.
    This is how games work, you go to the next level/challenge/task. The story supports it but there is a red thread you follow. The story could have been enriched, but it would have lead to the same outcome.
    You can argue that Melissan is so masterful that she does everything hidden well and just pops out of the box as the big surprise in the end. There are better examples (even in the game) how a manipulator and traitor can be made a more interesting antagonist.
    johntyl
  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 125
    ThacoBell said:


    It wasn't lost. It was never written.

    Translation: "It had to happen in front of my face or it didn't happen."
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 318

    For instance Foebane, how can you resist?

    Can resist because don't take bastard sword proficiency. :smiley:
    johntylmf2112
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,371

    ThacoBell said:


    It wasn't lost. It was never written.

    Translation: "It had to happen in front of my face or it didn't happen."
    Well no it didn't, as we are discussing a work of fiction rather than a real life event where it is possible things proceed independant of our knowledge.

    That's kind of how it works when it comes to fiction.

    Otherwise books would be very short, a simple outline of characters and setting then "the end" as all the inbetween "could" have happened so there's no need for anyone to bother writing it down as the "reader" can make it up for themselves.

    I think all the authors would be delighted with your approach. No boring work to tell the story the reader gets to do that themselves and they pick up the royalties.


    ThacoBell
  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 125
    No, the story itself was fleshed out enough. Amelyssan herself didn't need to be. Many such stories exist, where character X meets character Y early on, and character Y is never mentioned again... until the closing chapters, where they are revealed to be someone of paramount importance (be it good or ill).

    The fact that Amelyssan was so pivotal to ToB underlines her utter subtle brilliance in maneuvering the players in the game for her own ends. No posturing, no villain's expose, no grandstanding. Just her own brilliance and quiet schemes. It's a fine art, really. You either get it or you don't, and sadly, most people don't.
  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946

    No, the story itself was fleshed out enough. Amelyssan herself didn't need to be. Many such stories exist, where character X meets character Y early on, and character Y is never mentioned again... until the closing chapters, where they are revealed to be someone of paramount importance (be it good or ill).

    The fact that Amelyssan was so pivotal to ToB underlines her utter subtle brilliance in maneuvering the players in the game for her own ends. No posturing, no villain's expose, no grandstanding. Just her own brilliance and quiet schemes. It's a fine art, really. You either get it or you don't, and sadly, most people don't.

    You are right in many ways. We get the notion of someone pulling strings in the background all through ToB and we have the words from the stone heads. There are indications here and there, Gromnir and others. Open questions why Melissan leads all those bhaalspawns to one place. You can suspect her or Bhaal or even one of the Five - you know they will all try to betray the others. The whole thing probably would be better written if there were more clues (correct ones or misleading ones) and you could be your own detective to find the clues.
    Both interpretations make sense, either Melissan is the most quiet schemer of them all or a rabbit pulled out of the hat at last minute to avoid coding a returning Bhaal.
    The whole rushed out product ToB (this is what it was way back when it originally was released) just makes it easy to suspect the latter. It has the feeling of neglectance rather than of genius.
  • johntyljohntyl Member Posts: 382


    You are right in many ways. We get the notion of someone pulling strings in the background all through ToB and we have the words from the stone heads. There are indications here and there, Gromnir and others. Open questions why Melissan leads all those bhaalspawns to one place. You can suspect her or Bhaal or even one of the Five - you know they will all try to betray the others. The whole thing probably would be better written if there were more clues (correct ones or misleading ones) and you could be your own detective to find the clues.
    Both interpretations make sense, either Melissan is the most quiet schemer of them all or a rabbit pulled out of the hat at last minute to avoid coding a returning Bhaal.
    The whole rushed out product ToB (this is what it was way back when it originally was released) just makes it easy to suspect the latter. It has the feeling of neglectance rather than of genius.

    Going back to the words from the stone heads:




    Who exactly does "Bhaal's Servant deceived" here refer to? Melissan/Amelyssan, considering she's a Bhaalist priestess and thus Bhaal's servant. But the question now is: who is she deceived by? Bhaal? Could it be that Amelyssan was ultimately deceived by Bhaal even though she thinks she is the one who deceives Bhaal? I'm really confused here.

    But then we are told that there is a "hidden traitor" lurking in our midst. Which we do in the end discover is Amelyssan herself. Which then goes back to the question who exactly is the stone head referring to in its mention of 'Bhaal's Servant'?
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,371
    "Bhaal's servant deceived, Five led down a false path"

    It's the servant who is doing the decieving.
    Take the comma out and substitute a "the".

    They were going for "ye olden English" and a quasi poetic approach.

    They have form, Dynaheir is no accident.

    johntyl
  • johntyljohntyl Member Posts: 382

    "Bhaal's servant deceived, Five led down a false path"

    It's the servant who is doing the decieving.
    Take the comma out and substitute a "the".

    They were going for "ye olden English" and a quasi poetic approach.

    They have form, Dynaheir is no accident.

    Still, even olden English has to take fundamental grammar seriously.

    "Bhaal's servant deceived" here seems to imply the servant is being the one deceived: using the passive voice here suggests the subject is acted upon by another agent or an unknown something.
  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 125
    edited July 12

    "The whole rushed out product ToB (this is what it was way back when it originally was released) just makes it easy to suspect the latter. It has the feeling of neglectance rather than of genius."

    We are viewing this differently. I am just looking at the product as presented to us. In other words, I am viewing things from Protagonist's perspective, as you go through the game. I am not viewing the game as a game (ie, production quality, time constraints, etc).

    So as the game presents things to us, Amelyssan is the perfect schemer. As people, of course we know there are various factors for this or that which can be taken into account, but as characters we look at what was actually presented.
  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946
    johntyl said:

    "Bhaal's servant deceived, Five led down a false path"

    It's the servant who is doing the decieving.
    Take the comma out and substitute a "the".

    They were going for "ye olden English" and a quasi poetic approach.

    They have form, Dynaheir is no accident.

    Still, even olden English has to take fundamental grammar seriously.

    "Bhaal's servant deceived" here seems to imply the servant is being the one deceived: using the passive voice here suggests the subject is acted upon by another agent or an unknown something.
    Wasn't bhaal's servant deceived in the end? Amelyssan could never win, Alaundo's prophesy and whoever gave it to the legacy of Candlekeep has stated that from the beginning. She was deceived to believe she could alter a srory that was written long before Bhaal even started his plan. Neither she nor her god was to ever claim the Throne of Bhaal but it was always to be one of his spawns. Bhaal and Amelyssan unknowingly did everything to let the prophesy come true. The real traitor or puller of strings is not even showing his(her) face during the trilogy. Melissan *thought* she was the mastermind but finally she was just another pawn in someone else's game.
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,371
    johntyl said:

    "Bhaal's servant deceived, Five led down a false path"

    It's the servant who is doing the decieving.
    Take the comma out and substitute a "the".

    They were going for "ye olden English" and a quasi poetic approach.

    They have form, Dynaheir is no accident.

    Still, even olden English has to take fundamental grammar seriously.

    "Bhaal's servant deceived" here seems to imply the servant is being the one deceived: using the passive voice here suggests the subject is acted upon by another agent or an unknown something.
    It's not really a bad use of grammar, I suppose a full stop after "decieved" might have made it clearer?
    But then if it were referring to the servant being deceived it should have had a "was" between servant and deceived.

    If you just take "Bhaal's servant deceived" it's ambiguous, are they the deceiver or the one being deceived? You only understand what the heads were saying at the end. Pretty much the case with prophecies, they tend to never spit it out clearly.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 3,423
    @PaulaMigrate "Wasn't bhaal's servant deceived in the end? Amelyssan could never win, Alaundo's prophesy and whoever gave it to the legacy of Candlekeep has stated that from the beginning. She was deceived to believe she could alter a srory that was written long before Bhaal even started his plan. Neither she nor her god was to ever claim the Throne of Bhaal but it was always to be one of his spawns."

    Wow, that makes Melissan even dumber.
  • johntyljohntyl Member Posts: 382


    If you just take "Bhaal's servant deceived" it's ambiguous, are they the deceiver or the one being deceived? You only understand what the heads were saying at the end. Pretty much the case with prophecies, they tend to never spit it out clearly.

    If we want to get down to the technicality of grammar, shouldn't it be "Bhaal's Servant DECEIVES" and not "DECEIVED" if Bhaal's Servant (in this case Amelyssan) is the one doing the deceiving. The present tense deceives means the act of deceiving is still ongoing which is true at the time Charname converses with the stonehead.

    But choosing "Deceived" over "Deceives" could mean two things grammatically:
    1) Past tense: the act of deceiving has happened already; it's in the past. But we know that's not true as Melissan will deceive the Five and Charname as the game progresses.

    2) Past participle of the verb "Deceive" which becomes the adjective here to describe the noun: for eg. I deceive Peter, therefore --> Deceived Peter OR Peter deceived.

    Looking at the context of that stanza, it only makes sense if it's option 2.
  • johntyljohntyl Member Posts: 382

    "The real traitor or puller of strings is not even showing his(her) face during the trilogy. Melissan *thought* she was the mastermind but finally she was just another pawn in someone else's game.

    That might be a possible scenario if we interpret, literally, the words of the Forest Spirit. But who is that "puller of strings" who could deceive even Bhaal?
  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946
    johntyl said:

    "The real traitor or puller of strings is not even showing his(her) face during the trilogy. Melissan *thought* she was the mastermind but finally she was just another pawn in someone else's game.

    That might be a possible scenario if we interpret, literally, the words of the Forest Spirit. But who is that "puller of strings" who could deceive even Bhaal?
    Somebody who knows Bhaal and Amelyssan from the time when the plan was born, somebody who was around and involved when Bhaal fell...somebody who put an extra line into the prophesy...somebody who does not care if the next god of murder is Bhaal or Amelyssan or protagonist, because there will be never another god or goddess of murder again...somebody who wants to turn the essence and legacy of Bhaal into something else, something new...etc.
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,371
    johntyl said:


    If you just take "Bhaal's servant deceived" it's ambiguous, are they the deceiver or the one being deceived? You only understand what the heads were saying at the end. Pretty much the case with prophecies, they tend to never spit it out clearly.

    If we want to get down to the technicality of grammar, shouldn't it be "Bhaal's Servant DECEIVES" and not "DECEIVED" if Bhaal's Servant (in this case Amelyssan) is the one doing the deceiving. The present tense deceives means the act of deceiving is still ongoing which is true at the time Charname converses with the stonehead.

    But choosing "Deceived" over "Deceives" could mean two things grammatically:
    1) Past tense: the act of deceiving has happened already; it's in the past. But we know that's not true as Melissan will deceive the Five and Charname as the game progresses.

    2) Past participle of the verb "Deceive" which becomes the adjective here to describe the noun: for eg. I deceive Peter, therefore --> Deceived Peter OR Peter deceived.

    Looking at the context of that stanza, it only makes sense if it's option 2.
    The first place you arrive at is Saradush.
    The plan has already been formulated and is already taking place.
    So past tense is correct.
    Charname is not part of that plan that originated before they arrived on the scene.


    ""Bhaal's servant deceived, Five led down a false path"

    The five have been decieved and they have been led down a false path.

    How can that not be put in the past tense? They are following that path, the act of them starting on that path is in the past.

  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946
    edited July 12

    johntyl said:


    If you just take "Bhaal's servant deceived" it's ambiguous, are they the deceiver or the one being deceived? You only understand what the heads were saying at the end. Pretty much the case with prophecies, they tend to never spit it out clearly.

    If we want to get down to the technicality of grammar, shouldn't it be "Bhaal's Servant DECEIVES" and not "DECEIVED" if Bhaal's Servant (in this case Amelyssan) is the one doing the deceiving. The present tense deceives means the act of deceiving is still ongoing which is true at the time Charname converses with the stonehead.

    But choosing "Deceived" over "Deceives" could mean two things grammatically:
    1) Past tense: the act of deceiving has happened already; it's in the past. But we know that's not true as Melissan will deceive the Five and Charname as the game progresses.

    2) Past participle of the verb "Deceive" which becomes the adjective here to describe the noun: for eg. I deceive Peter, therefore --> Deceived Peter OR Peter deceived.

    Looking at the context of that stanza, it only makes sense if it's option 2.
    The first place you arrive at is Saradush.
    The plan has already been formulated and is already taking place.
    So past tense is correct.
    Charname is not part of that plan that originated before they arrived on the scene.


    ""Bhaal's servant deceived, Five led down a false path"

    The five have been decieved and they have been led down a false path.

    How can that not be put in the past tense? They are following that path, the act of them starting on that path is in the past.

    Add to this that Melissan is not the only false player on the Five. Balthazar also is a *traitor in their midst* he betrayed Melissan by joining her course with the intend to spoil it. So all the while Melissan thinks she pulls all the strings while she is unaware of all the opposition and deceit around her.
    So she went and marked some cards that somebody else had already marked and deals them out while some players have their own marked cards hidden in their sleeves...ToB is a far better story than appears at first glance.
    johntyl
  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 125
    ThacoBell said:

    @PaulaMigrate "Wasn't bhaal's servant deceived in the end? Amelyssan could never win, Alaundo's prophesy and whoever gave it to the legacy of Candlekeep has stated that from the beginning. She was deceived to believe she could alter a srory that was written long before Bhaal even started his plan. Neither she nor her god was to ever claim the Throne of Bhaal but it was always to be one of his spawns."

    Wow, that makes Melissan even dumber.

    #fanboyalert

    Amelyssan's brilliance has clearly gone over your head. Stop struggling.
  • johntyljohntyl Member Posts: 382

    johntyl said:

    "The real traitor or puller of strings is not even showing his(her) face during the trilogy. Melissan *thought* she was the mastermind but finally she was just another pawn in someone else's game.

    That might be a possible scenario if we interpret, literally, the words of the Forest Spirit. But who is that "puller of strings" who could deceive even Bhaal?
    Somebody who knows Bhaal and Amelyssan from the time when the plan was born, somebody who was around and involved when Bhaal fell...somebody who put an extra line into the prophesy...somebody who does not care if the next god of murder is Bhaal or Amelyssan or protagonist, because there will be never another god or goddess of murder again...somebody who wants to turn the essence and legacy of Bhaal into something else, something new...etc.
    Is that from some mod or are you basing it from known facts in the game?
  • johntyljohntyl Member Posts: 382


    The first place you arrive at is Saradush.
    The plan has already been formulated and is already taking place.
    So past tense is correct.
    Charname is not part of that plan that originated before they arrived on the scene.


    ""Bhaal's servant deceived, Five led down a false path"

    The five have been decieved and they have been led down a false path.

    How can that not be put in the past tense? They are following that path, the act of them starting on that path is in the past.

    I think we differ in our interpretation of what makes an act a present or past tense.

    From my perspective, Melissan is still actively deceiving the Five and Charname. The act of deceiving has not finished - she continues to sow discord, whisper untruths, plot and scheme: all these continue to unravel as the game progresses. Yes, she has deceived them but that is not finished. She continues to deceive and thus the act of deceiving is still present.
  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946
    edited July 13
    johntyl said:

    johntyl said:

    "The real traitor or puller of strings is not even showing his(her) face during the trilogy. Melissan *thought* she was the mastermind but finally she was just another pawn in someone else's game.

    That might be a possible scenario if we interpret, literally, the words of the Forest Spirit. But who is that "puller of strings" who could deceive even Bhaal?
    Somebody who knows Bhaal and Amelyssan from the time when the plan was born, somebody who was around and involved when Bhaal fell...somebody who put an extra line into the prophesy...somebody who does not care if the next god of murder is Bhaal or Amelyssan or protagonist, because there will be never another god or goddess of murder again...somebody who wants to turn the essence and legacy of Bhaal into something else, something new...etc.
    Is that from some mod or are you basing it from known facts in the game?
    It is logic deduction.
    Bhaal is not the only one who died in the Time of Troubles. He is not the only one who knew it beforehand and cared about his legacy. One successor of a god was actively involved in Bhaal's downfall. etc, it's all in the game.
    But, yes, there is also a mod that picks it up and kind of illustrates it, but the mod's plot is based on what is presented in the original game. (>>> EET, Time of Troubles Revisited). Still, it is just one possible interpretation but the only one I found so far within the game's scope as vanilla + mods. The mod can only be played in EET since it uses the EET function to re-visit all original game areas from ToB on backwards (e.g. Boarskyre Bridge for the final Bhaal fight). In the mod, among a lot of other content, you see how Bhaal prepares his return and sows his seed but you can also help his opponents to prepare the counter-plan. But you need to be careful with your actions as you can't do anything that directly alters the later events or you destroy your own future.
    johntyl
  • johntyljohntyl Member Posts: 382
    edited July 13

    somebody who put an extra line into the prophesy...

    I'm really interested in this extra line. Mind telling me which line is it? Thanks

  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946
    johntyl said:

    somebody who put an extra line into the prophesy...

    I'm really interested in this extra line. Mind telling me which line is it? Thanks

    First of all, I don't think that the Bhaal prophesy really was ever given to Alaundo himself. Bhaal was one of the younger gods himself, a former human who inherited part of Jergal's portfolio along with Bane and Myrkul. Alaundo was much older and prophesised this and that but not about a god of murder which didn't even exist. It is not unusual that such institutions like Alaundo and Candlekeep are later used to spread other propaganda and give it credibility through the respected name.

    The chanting of the prophesy at Candlekeep started about the time of protagonist's birth. Nothing about that was known from the times prior Ulraunt. The whole Bhaal episode had been added to Alaundo's heritage during the Time of Trouble. As said earlier, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy and planted to set the later events in motion. Bhaal foresaw his death and made preparations for his return - but he was not the only one, he had enemies who knew at least part of the plan and counteracted it. Whatever the *original* version said, the final one had the line of *good and evil spawns* and one of them becoming the successor.

    I would even go so far as to say that Ulraunt knew about the forgery as did Gorion and it's part of the reasons why Imoen's and protagonist's upbringing in Candlekeep was tolerated (see the *raven* dream of protagonist in BG1). And after all, the Harpers had worked at all times to prevent Bhaal's return.
  • karnor00karnor00 Member Posts: 646
    edited July 13
    In the end wasnt everyone deceived by Bhaal? Because 100 years later (Return to Baldurs Gate module) Abdel Adrian fought Viekang at which point there really was only one Bhaalspawn left and Bhaal was reborn.

    So maybe Melissan had it wrong after all. If she had succeeded in killing the protagonist then she may not have become a god. Perhaps Bhaal would have been immediately reborn through Viekang.
  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946
    karnor00 said:

    In the end wasnt everyone deceived by Bhaal? Because 100 years later (Return to Baldurs Gate module) Abdel Adrian fought Viekang at which point there really was only one Bhaalspawn left and Bhaal was reborn.

    So maybe Melissan had it wrong after all. If she had succeeded in killing the protagonist then she may not have become a god. Perhaps Bhaal would have been immediately reborn through Viekang.

    And another interesting thread is killed by bringing in stuff like that...
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 3,423
    @karnor00 The only canon that matters is in game canon. Everything outside gets retconned every couple years.
    Artonatbone1
  • PaulaMigratePaulaMigrate Member Posts: 946
    edited July 13
    In my current game I ended up with four surviving bhaalspawns (not counting Sarevok who had already lost the bhaal heritage) when Melissan was defeated and the Solar appeared.
    Balthazar (courtesy of Wheels of Prophesy mod)
    and the three wards of the Harpers, i.e. Imoen (Winthrop's ward), Ginnevral - female half-orc (Gorion's ward), and Elminster's ward (courtesy of Sandrah mod) - identity I will not spoil

    After I made all the decisions, two gave their part of the essence to the protagonist while one kept her part after it had been purified by the Solar (with Mystra/Eilestraee's help), as she had never given in to the Bhaal heritage even before. The protagonist used her essence to ascend as a neutral good deity.


    This is the lore of the Realms after I finished ToB this time. I currently add more to that canon in the EET sequel after ToB - the up to now unwritten story of the new goddess Ginnevral.
Sign In or Register to comment.