Should I make SoD canon in my mind...or not?

Arthas

Hello,
I'm going to start an EET playthrough pretty soon, but I admit I'm really really undecided if I should install or not SoD. That is because SoD has no real effect on BG2, but the premises being set on SOD are way too heavy compared to TOTSC or any other quest mod.

So it's like if you start watching Game of Thrones and from one day some important characters just disappear from one season to another without any explanation and without any reference to what happened in the past.

Now, is there any way to make the thought of SoD being "canon" possible? I appreciated many things about SoD, but when it comes to the story department it left me with a clear bad taste in my mouth and I don't know how to reconcile what happens there and BG2 + ToB.

ThacoBell

SoD IS canon. What problems did you have with the story?

bob_veng

@Arthas

that's not how canon works. you can create your version or reinterpretation of the events but that's exactly the opposite of canon.

there's also the notion of 'headcanon' but that means filling the gaps in the story, or imagining things that happened before or after, not things that are contrary to canon. that's just non-canon

the story of SoD is simple and logical, and there's no need to reconcile anything

the only problematic thing is that some of the followers leave you when it doesn't seem completely believable. but it's done to enforce the preexisting canon (canon party) so it's not a specific SoD thing

have in mind that i'm not saying that the SoD is artistically great, or even good, but it's hard to deny that it functions as a chapter in the whole saga

Raduziel

Well, the lack of references to SoD in BG2 is a narrative problem, but so is the lack of references to BG1.

I'll repeat what @ThacoBell said: SoD is canon.

And it is your mind, you can do with it whatever pleases you.

Permidion_Stark

Well, there is canon and then there is canon.

The way I look at it, SoD might be canon for the Enhanced Editions but it's not canon for the original saga. I quite enjoy parts of SoD as a standalone game but I don't think it provides a good link between BG1 and BG2 and I don't regard it as being any more 'canon' than a fan-made mod.

dunbar

Is canon 'objective' (if something isn't written by the original author/writers then it can't be canon) or 'subjective' (written by someone else with the same style, mindset and integrity of the original writer then it can be considered canon)?

Edit: Or just plain greedy, like the truly awful fourth book in the Millenium series written after Stieg Larrson's death.

Permidion_Stark

@dunbar Given those choices I would argue that it is 'objective'. For example, I don't regard any of the new NPCs added in the Enhanced Editions as being canon. I find their presence in the game intrusive and I think they should have been made available as optional content rather than as an integral part of the game.

The new NPCs feature heavily in SoD, which means that whilst it might work as a continuation of BG:EE it makes no sense as a continuation of BG1. Therefore, for me at least, SoD can never be canon because it features characters who should never have been imposed on the original saga in the first place.

ThacoBell

Some people really can't see through their nostalgia goggles, can they?

AstroBryGuy

Permidion_Stark said:

@dunbar Given those choices I would argue that it is 'objective'. For example, I don't regard any of the new NPCs added in the Enhanced Editions as being canon. I find their presence in the game intrusive and I think they should have been made available as optional content rather than as an integral part of the game.

The new NPCs feature heavily in SoD, which means that whilst it might work as a continuation of BG:EE it makes no sense as a continuation of BG1. Therefore, for me at least, SoD can never be canon because it features characters who should never have been imposed on the original saga in the first place.

The presence of Trent Oster and Cameron Tofer as Beamdog founders and original members of the Bioware development team (Tofer was the creator of Minsc as well as the photo model for Garrick) would be an argument for SoD being "objective canon".

Also, WotC made Neera canon in the Legends of Baldur's Gate comics.

When Minsc was revived from stone form, he mistook Delina for Neera.

In your own playthroughs, make whatever you want your own "canon".

AstroBryGuy

Raduziel said:

Well, the lack of references to SoD in BG2 is a narrative problem, but so is the lack of references to BG1.

I'll repeat what @ThacoBell said: SoD is canon.

And it is your mind, you can do with it whatever pleases you.

I remember Rasaad and Neera referring to Bridgefort in BG2.

Permidion_Stark

ThacoBell said:

Some people really can't see through their nostalgia goggles, can they?

That's not really an argument is it? It's just a snide comment.

I really like the BG Enhanced Editions except for the new NPCs. The problem with them is that they are very different from the original NPCs (not so much in terms of character but in the way they are implemented) and they are impossible to avoid. If you don't like Kivan you can walk past him but the only way to avoid Neera is to steer clear of most of Beregost.

I thought the point of the Enhanced Editions was going to be to make it easier for us to mod our games not to have someone else's mods imposed on us.

If you like Neera, Dorn and Rasaad fine but I can see no reason why they coulnd't have been introduced as optional content.

ThacoBell

They aren't different from the original. The ONLY reason they stand out at all, is because they weren't in the original. They fit in very very well amonst the original npcs. So yes, nostalgia is an argument.

AstroBryGuy

Permidion_Stark said:

ThacoBell said:

Some people really can't see through their nostalgia goggles, can they?

That's not really an argument is it? It's just a snide comment.

I really like the BG Enhanced Editions except for the new NPCs. The problem with them is that they are very different from the original NPCs (not so much in terms of character but in the way they are implemented) and they are impossible to avoid. If you don't like Kivan you can walk past him but the only way to avoid Neera is to steer clear of most of Beregost.

I thought the point of the Enhanced Editions was going to be to make it easier for us to mod our games not to have someone else's mods imposed on us.

If you like Neera, Dorn and Rasaad fine but I can see no reason why they coulnd't have been introduced as optional content.

Neera's introduction is handled the same as Viconia's or Alora's. (i.e., they see you and initiate dialog with you)

Raduziel

AstroBryGuy said:

Raduziel said:

Well, the lack of references to SoD in BG2 is a narrative problem, but so is the lack of references to BG1.

I'll repeat what @ThacoBell said: SoD is canon.

And it is your mind, you can do with it whatever pleases you.

I remember Rasaad and Neera referring to Bridgefort in BG2.

That completely passed me by. Very good move from Beamdog, then.

Permidion_Stark

ThacoBell said:

They aren't different from the original. The ONLY reason they stand out at all, is because they weren't in the original. They fit in very very well amonst the original npcs. So yes, nostalgia is an argument.

They seem very different to me - they are given far more voiced dialogue and that makes them stand out from the original NPCs. As I said, it is not the characters themselves but the way they are implemented that makes them feel intrusive to me.

All I am arguing is that it would have been be better to have given people a choice over how they wanted to mod their game. Choice is good.

Grond0

Permidion_Stark said:

All I am arguing is that it would have been be better to have given people a choice over how they wanted to mod their game.

You don't need to recruit any of them anyway, so you've already got that choice. The only thing that annoys me about their implementation is that the cut-scenes associated with the new content can't be skipped - unlike the cut-scenes for the old content. That seems to me to be an unnecessary way for Beamdog to draw attention to the bits they've added.

Kilivitz

Considering SoD was developed by the current holders of the Baldur's Gate license and released under the Wizards of the Coast/Dungeons & Dragons labels, it's as canon as it gets.

With that said...

ThacoBell said:

Some people really can't see through their nostalgia goggles, can they?

Criticism of the EEs does not necessarily mean "nostalgia goggles." A better argument is needed.

ThacoBell said:

They aren't different from the original. The ONLY reason they stand out at all, is because they weren't in the original. They fit in very very well amonst the original npcs. So yes, nostalgia is an argument.

...and this ain't it. It would take an obtuse point of view to deny that the implementation of the new NPCs is seamless with the original content. I'm not even discussing whether the implementation itself is good or bad - I'm just saying it's objectively, undeniably different.

AstroBryGuy said:

Neera's introduction is handled the same as Viconia's or Alora's. (i.e., they see you and initiate dialog with you)

You're pointing out the similarities while ommiting the differences: Neera's dialogue, regardless of your answer, will trigger a fight that you can't avoid (unless you run, I suppose). No other joinable NPC (not even Viconia) forces you to defend yourself after refusing to fight.

Then there's Rasaad, placed at the entrance to Nashkel, flailing around and shouting "I will show you justice" every few seconds or so. Again, no other BG1 NPC tries this hard not to be ignored (except, maybe, for the guy in the carnival trying to sell you the scroll to set Branwen free - he's not impossible to miss, though)

Then there's Dorn, who's indeed just standing there, in the middle of the Friendly Arm Inn, a location that's at the very least debatable considering his character. Talking to him will trigger a waylay that leads to a cutscene and get another unavoidable combat (which, of course, is unmissable because it happens on your way to the Nashkel Mines).

There are a few other details, such as making some of the most attractive new items (gem bag, elven chain, girdle of 19 STR) tied to their new quests, which by the way are gigantic compared to the ones given out by any of the original companions. You also can't start them without the new NPCs (also unique to the EEs). You can drop them after the new areas are placed on the map, which will
make them show up as "ghosts" during dialogue that involves them.

Then there are the (fully-voiced) banters. And the interjections. And the proto-romances. All of which is grossly inconsistent with the original game.

And before anyone points out that Beamdog couldn't expand upon the original content and was also required to tie new areas/quests to new NPCs: maybe don't put them in instead? Was the original content not enough?

And doesn't it raise a red flag when WotC puts all sorts of restrictions in order to ensure the original text/NPCs are preserved? How does that translate into "since we can't change original content, let's eclipse it instead"? Hell, even the promotional material for BG:EE is all about Neera/Dorn/Rasaad.

In the end, BG:EE ends up feeling more like it's about showcasing Beamdog's new content on the back of a classic game than about restoring and preserving said classic game to a new generation of players. Even if their intentions weren't so insidious (and I don't believe they were, for what it's worth) well, it's just not very good game design, is it?

And since I'm already on full rant mode, can we stop using this...

AstroBryGuy said:

The presence of Trent Oster and Cameron Tofer as Beamdog founders and original members of the Bioware development team (Tofer was the creator of Minsc as well as the photo model for Garrick)

...as an argument for the legitimacy of whatever boneheaded decision Beamdog makes regarding the BG series? Yes, Oster and Tofer were part of the original development team. The first is credited under "modeling" and the latter under "additional programming." None of them were either lead designer or head writer. They are not to BG as Chris Avellone is to PS:T or even as Oster himself is to NWN.

Arthas

I harshly criticize it because even a kid of 12 years old could make the story. Am I exagerating? I've made cringe content too but I had 12 years old when I did that and still it was better than what I've seen.

There are some good things about Sod, namely encounters, the quest C&C, but it all proves ultimately useless due to how derailed the story is and how silly it is.

You don't even feel the weight of what you've done in Sod inside Baldur's gate 2 and people talk about the same being about BG1. But sorry, it was not I that claimed that SoD would be the bridge between these two games. A bridge that is actually floating separated by the other two parts; and when you talk about how things are certainly bad, you are going to get criticized hashly.

It doesn't matter that Trent or whoever else worked on BG when it was made. That doesn't mean that you can't notice the glaring differences between the quality of the two, to the point that you could claim to be amatorial content. And even if you do claim it as such, not even this definition would be correct to name it, simply because the content feels like a sore thumb.

Try to compare Totsc and SoD, then tell me SoD is better. To this day, Totsc Durlag's tower is actually claimed to be one of the best dungeon that was ever made (and I hate it, but I can definitely see why people think it this way), while nothing will ever be claimed to be "great" for SoD, at best it will be ok.

None of the strong points of Sod makes me objectively say, that could have been there from the beginning and I wouldn't have noticed

Add on top of that, that I think it is even worse than ToB. At least ToB reach Sod silliness only in the end, where Balthazar, even if you are legal good with 20 reputation and behaving as a saint won't join you.

But a simple mod fixed it, because people actually truly cared.

While some words defending on a game that is actually objectively bad won't do anything.

Time ago there was even a discussion on how to fix the npcs, and no one of the developers cared enough to actually chime in and show that the game is a work of love.

I'm sorry, but I can't consider SoD canon and I won't consider the EE canon too.

I was just looking for a rationale discussion about why it should be canon and the best justification was that the game was made by the two people that worked there (as if it was enough).


An edit: there is only one way SoD's story can work. If you play a chaotic stupid character.

Arctodus

@Kilivitz You make plenty of legitimate criticism here, from where I stand.

Personally, I believe that the problems related to the content introduced by the EEs stem from an initial design conundrum. Since the curating of old games is not a well developped market even now, I think that at the time Beamdog went a bit overboard on the presentation of their content because they thought it was a good marketing strategy. "Why buy an old game if there's no new content? They will only buy the games if they have new content along with it, otherwise it's gonna fail." It was probably their line of thinking and why they decided to put emphasis on their content from the get go. With insight, it probably was not that good of a design idea, because they didn't need that to make the curation project legitimate. However, it's much easier to say when time has passed and your not starting a business depending on the success of the initial project.

Also, I personally don't mind that they went farther in character development (interjections, banters, ...) in BG1EE with their npcs. BD had to decide if they would follow the BG1 or BG2 character development for their npcs and they decided to go for the BG2 way, which is to me a good idea. BG2 was praised for it's extended character development for good reasons. If you're gonna put new npcs in the game, you might as well present them in a more fleshed out way. The barebone character development of the BG1 npcs is, to me, a limitation (that can be compensated with mods). It does make the BD npcs stand out more, which in consequence make them clash with the rest of the cast. However, you can't argue that it's at least a justifiable design decision, given that they had the time and resources to do so. Whether you like the new content or not (which is another matter entirely), having more fleshed out npcs is to me a good thing. In a perfect world, the original BG1 npcs should have more character development, not the BD npcs less.

I don't absolve BD from any criticism though, far from it. For instance, I don't understand why they haven't change the way Neera's encounter triggers in the recent patches. It could be something like : if you say you're not interested to help her, she just go away without dragging you into a fight, à la Viconia. There's just no downside to this type of implementation. The way things are now, since I don't like Neera, there's a whole area in Beregost that I just stay away from. That's just not good. However, on the positive side, you can see that they learned from their experience, which the release of PSTEE exemplify. No big backlash happened then, for good reasons - even though more that one people complained about the fact that PSTEE offer no new content. I guess these criticisms cannot be avoided one way or another in the classic game curating business.

As for the OP, I personally consider SoD canon. As other people said, it objectively is canon, because it has the WotC stamp on it, but I also personally consider it an integral part of the saga from now on. I do honestly find the whole reason for this war silly, but I don't really care. I guess that's because I'm not THAT concerned by the story in gaming. If it makes general sense and the game is fun, I'm in. In SoD, you got a war on your hand and must face it. Good enough for me. But it's a personal opinion, so I can totally understand and respect people who would be put off because they don't relate to the story.

On the other end, I cannot not see the strength SoD has. The game is more reactive to your choices than BG1 and BG2 combined : you decisions actually have consequences on how the event unfolds. The new items are interesting, useful AND balanced, which is no mere feat. (Again, they learned from their experience : let just say that the horror the Stupify Mace was in v1.3 is NOT an example of good item design). The fights in SoD are on a greater scale and generally more interesting than in BG1; you actually fight against kitted enemy, which is something that was lacking in BG2, where kits were actually introduced. At the end of the day, when I play SoD, I have fun. And that's good enough for me. Thus, I accept its status as canon.

UnderstandMouseMagic

It's not canon for me and never will be. I can't even play it through nowadays, and I've tried, God knows I've tried.

Mind you, IMO, nothing about a RPG where the charname has choices should ever be considered "canon".

The word/description is used as an argument "winner" by people whose enjoyment of the game aligns with the choices made for them by the writers. It's a false claim to legitamacy that their choices are the "correct" ones.

And it's all so illogical, Imoen is "canon" yet we all know she was stuck in the game late in BG to solve a problem (getting to the FAI), and was killed in BG2 until the audience objected.
So when or what or how is the criterior for "canon" decided?

SOD in particular has this problem, can't get the original voice actors the characters disappear, manage to get a famous one last minute, bugger up the whole game (and affect the whole saga) incorporating them.

It's all utterly meaningless to label anything "canon".

Grond0

UnderstandMouseMagic said:

It's all utterly meaningless to label anything "canon".

I agree with that. The term was originally used in relation to the bible to distinguish between works that were officially recognized by the church and those that were not. That process caused a lot of argument - and that's still the case now when the term's applied to fictional works like Star Trek or Baldur's Gate .

As the term relates to official recognition it's certainly reasonable to say that SoD must be canon as the material is approved by the license holders to that fictional universe. However, there's also some merit to the argument that the existing license holders are so far removed from the original creators of BG that SoD should be considered canon in its own fictional universe rather than in the BG universe.

Whatever your view of that argument, however, I agree with @UnderstandMouseMagic that it's pretty meaningless. If you enjoy the content in SoD then play it; if you don't enjoy the content don't play it - and in either case don't let your views about whether it's canon or not change what you enjoy ...

ThacoBell

Me being a douche, nothing to see here, move along.

Neverused

I played the originals like once before finding the EEs, so I highly doubt I have a nostalgia bias. And I’m glad Beamdog tried stuff, cuz that led to some pretty great characters like M’khinn, and a bit of extra exploration of Minsc’s and Dynaheir’s dynamics. But they also definitely missed the mark with a lot of NPCs. Neera, especially in SoD, is flat out irritating and it’s about something I literally couldn’t care less about. Rasaad doesn’t even HAVE a personal quest or any growth that I’m aware of in SoD. I could go on, snd I have before, but there’s definitely room between “Beamdog can do no wrong” and “Beamdog can do no right.”

Reconciling it with BG2 and ToB... not too difficult, I guess, since CHARNAME’s already having memory issues with Imoen, of all people, at the beginning of SoA. News of Sarevok’s takedown didn’t make it to Amn, so I’m not too surprised the crusade wouldn’t have either. News apparently travels slowly in the Realms.

AstroBryGuy

Arctodus said:

I don't absolve BD from any criticism though, far from it. For instance, I don't understand why they haven't change the way Neera's encounter triggers in the recent patches. It could be something like : if you say you're not interested to help her, she just go away without dragging you into a fight, à la Viconia. There's just no downside to this type of implementation. The way things are now, since I don't like Neera, there's a whole area in Beregost that I just stay away from.

FYI, Beamdog marked my suggestion for improving Neera's interjection "Fixed" 2 months ago, so hopefully, it (or some other implementation) will be in v2.5 update.

TheArtisan

Just my two cents and it was actually painful for me to type this all down:

I have no issues with the implementation of Beamdog's content. I mean, sure I have major issues with the directions taken with Rasaad and Dorn's BG2 plotlines, but I'm not offended that they exist, and I literally grew up with these games. Unfortunately, the common argument is not "this character could have been done better" but "this character shouldn't exist at all". And no, asking for the EE NPCs to be written as boring and blank slate as the original non-modded BG1 NPCs is not "done better" in my book, don't even try to convince me that it is. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have a more developed character that I dislike rather than a flat character with nothing there, and I'd call the EENPCs developed, so they're okay by me.

I usually ignore these threads because I just don't understand them. They're just so alien to me. But frankly, I'm tired of seeing the first thing someone suggesting after expressing their dislike of the EENPCs being "JUST GET RID OF THEM". I just don't see any point arguing after seeing this because it shows a lack of interest in improvement or discussion, they just want it gone, and that bothers me. It bothers me that something like this needs to exist. I understand that some people want to have the old school experience with the EE engine, and that's fine, but what I don't understand is why the opinion "I don't like SoD." has to escalate to "SoD isn't canon." It just seems so pointless and spiteful to me.

ThacoBell

@Kilivitz Ugh, I'm sorry. I've had a rough week so far and I posted in frustration. If you care to, I think an in depth discussion of SoD's story with you might be fun when I'm feeling normal. Disregard my last post.

CamDawg

AstroBryGuy said:

FYI, Beamdog marked my suggestion for improving Neera's interjection "Fixed" 2 months ago, so hopefully, it (or some other implementation) will be in v2.5 update.

It is indeed.

TheArtisan

I still don’t understand why people vilify Neera’s encounter so much. I mean sure, no other party member forces an hard encounter on you and it’s great if there’s an out for it now but Tarnesh kills me far more often and he actually blocks off a fairly notable early location including access to Khalid and Jaheira and everyone seems to love it. I just feel like there’s a double standard there.

Arthas

@Artemius_I people actually posted a shittons of ideas on how to improve these npcs, but no one but you and another person went actually through to make a mod for them. If that is not a genuine disinterest on them, what is it?

megamike15

Artemius_I said:

I still don’t understand why people vilify Neera’s encounter so much. I mean sure, no other party member forces an hard encounter on you and it’s great if there’s an out for it now but Tarnesh kills me far more often and he actually blocks off a fairly notable early location including access to Khalid and Jaheira and everyone seems to love it. I just feel like there’s a double standard there.

i recently rewatched a video about the king quest remake and one of the person's problems with it was someone walking up to him and starting a conversation on his own. he called this " shut up i'm questing.'

this seems to be the exact same issue most people have with the ee npcs. even tho alot of the npcs in the original game [ mostly in 2] do it as well and i never hear people complain.

naila walks up to you.

amoean starts a conversation if you are near him

both viconia encounters start with out your consent. heck bg 2 viconia has the same issue people have with neera as it starts on a certain part of the map and the only way to avoid it is to avoid said part of the map.

this just seems hypocritical to me.

Arctodus

It's not necessarily hypocritical to dislike things about the EE npcs. I actually don't like that Nalia comes up to talk to you everytime you get near her. When I want to delay the start of her quest, I actually have to tell her off everytime I go into the Copper Coronet or sleep there. It is enervating and a pain in the ... for the same reason the start of Neera's quest is enervating. And there's a difference with Viconia's encounters : if you tell her off (BG1) or let her burn (BG2), there's no encounter. There's a difference because you have a choice.

However, to be honest, when I say enervating, I really mean minor ennoyance. If Beamdog would have stopped patching the game at 2.3, I would have been fine with the state of the Neera encounter. It's not like they throw an high level mage in there. It's not that bad, but still would have avoided that area.

However, I get what you mean @megamike15. I personally don't like Neera, but I don't mind that she exist. It's not because she's an EE npc that I dislike her, I just dislike her like, say, I dislike Anomen. What is hypocritical is to dislike the EE npcs because they're from the EEs, like @Artemius_I said. It's just a cognitive bias. However, you can totally dislike the implementation of certain encounters, whether they're from the EEs or not.