They could just as well use puppets and slaves to do their grunt work, which the charname party can kill in scores, while remaining in the background and pulling the strings. Who knows, so there's not much to be gained from broad speculation. We just have to wait until more info is released to see what they have in mind.
And killing mindflayers was already done in droves in NVN. My drunk dwarf chunked a decent amount while rampaging half berzerk through their city in the Underdark. Well, actually my character wasn't drunk, it was me drinking and driving, which made my MP buddy a bit surprised when I suddenly launched my character into a fervor seldom seen before and started chucking at everything I saw, missing out one probably a good deal of quests and lore.
They could just as well use puppets and slaves to do their grunt work, which the charname party can kill in scores, while remaining in the background and pulling the strings. Who knows, so there's not much to be gained from broad speculation. We just have to wait until more info is released to see what they have in mind.
Agreed. While I am not exactly fond of the idea to follow Murder in Baldur's Gate I still liked most of Larian's games so I'm not giving up on BG3 just yet, Illithids or no Illithids.
And killing mindflayers was already done in droves in NVN. My drunk dwarf chunked a decent amount while rampaging half berzerk through their city in the Underdark.
Hordes of the Underdark was an epic level campaign so this isn't too bad. Not ideal sure but then again the Underdark section in BG2 also throws at the player a unreasonable amount of them...
I guess their usual MO is harder to translate into a video game than in a PnP module.
Yep, my money is on the Dead Three. And Bhaal in particular so that his machinations in this story trace back to the Time of Troubles and the Bhaalspawn he sired. And therefore BG1 and 2.
Bhaal will be mortal, and killable. Although presumably it would be about as difficult as killing Elminster.
I would actually appreciate it if the story forces an uneasy (well, for good characters) alliance with Bhaal. Like maybe he is actually trying to keep the fabric of the universe stable after that Spellplague and Second Sundering. Not out of altruism of course.
I guess I'm imagining Bhaal would be something like Sarevok in BG2 except much, much more of a wild card. Obviously he can't be trusted. But maybe he's ironically doing the best thing for the world even if he's evil and doing it for ultimately evil reasons. Sort of like you have to help him, basically. Once the victory is achieved to keep the world intact, the party won't be powerful enough to fight him when he's in the catbird seat and shows his true colors. (BG3 is L1-13 right?) But that could serve as the setup for BG4.
In the final analysis Bhaal has always been the real enemy in this whole saga, it what I'm on about here.
@Lemernis Nah, Bhaal was a complete non-entity in the series. His INSTINCT TO MURDER was the big antagonist of the series. The divine essence spread across all his offspring that pushes them to violence and murder. BG is a very introspective story of nature vs. nurture, and its various antagonists all mirror that in different ways. To reduce this down to "Look its Bhaal! Get him!" is to completely miss the themes of the series.
Bhaal is responsible for everything that happens but in the games' timeframe he isn't involved actively in any of it anymore - he just waits to reap the benefits.
Sarevok's resentment towards Rieltar was growing and Winski appeared just at the right moment to give him the initial push, all because he (Winski) felt he wasn't special enough and wanted to reach metaphorical immortality.
Nobody knows exactly why or how Bodhi convinced Irenicus to tap in the Tree of Life but neither that scheme or Ellesime's sheer stupidity had anything to do with Bhaal. The whole affair is nothing but a coincidence.
Melissan technically follows Bhaal's instructions so this is the closest he has to a direct intervention but ultimately he's so powerless at this point he can't prevent her to backstab him, which really hammers the point that ToB was her doing, and hers alone.
Now Bhaal's essence *is* him, in a manner of speaking (dead gods are still sentient and I don't think any god in the setting was ever fully destroyed) and you could argue he does intervene directly by corrupting his progeny. But even then, the three main antagonists have other factors behind their actions. Except Melissan I suppose, who's really just power-hungry.
Basically he has a large influence on the plot but more as an abstract entity than as a character.
I think Baal draws a certain type of people to him. To win his favor you have to make a "villain" journey that leads you to a path of blood and destruction, so in the end, you became an evil entity.
They said that MiBG is a prequel, so I suppose they could address this in BG: people lured by the call of power that eventually corrupt his body and soul to win the favor of Baal, only to become his puppets.
I guess it's a fair point that Bhaal arguably isn't some sort of ultimate the puppet-master because after all he is dead as a thinking mind during the events after his slaying by Cyric, and continues only as a murderous force or essence that can overtake creatures.
I said it mainly because at some point during the Time of Troubles Bhaal gained the ability to see into the future. He at least foresaw his own death. I forget exactly about how he got that ability. Note that since he is killed during the ToT, it must have taken some time to go about the land siring his "mortal progeny."
Given that he was able to glimpse into the future, I just wonder just how far he was able to see. Did his look into the future also show him that the ending of BG1 (foiled resurrection) was actually not a failure, i.e., because he saw beyond that to the events of Murder in Baldur's Gate where he is finally resurrected?
He was partying hard with Amaunator, but they finally have to go back to work for 5e.
He started givin` powers again to his followers. Had a worklist one kilometer long.
Now the former god of murder returns... with a hangover. Dark times ahead...
I think Bhaal is an implicit aspect of the trilogy, and while he is never himself the ultimate villain, he is the means by which the villains all seek to do their villainy.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was how the 3rd game works: Some villainy that relates to something Bhaal wants or something Bhaal did. Ultimately, the villains will probably have their own objective.
I said it mainly because at some point during the Time of Troubles Bhaal gained the ability to see into the future. He at least foresaw his own death. I forget exactly about how he got that ability. Note that since he is killed during the ToT, it must have taken some time to go about the land siring his "mortal progeny."
Given that he was able to glimpse into the future, I just wonder just how far he was able to see. Did his look into the future also show him that the ending of BG1 (foiled resurrection) was actually not a failure, i.e., because he saw beyond that to the events of Murder in Baldur's Gate where he is finally resurrected?
I always saw it like B-man was able to foresee his own death simply because he was the god of Death. Not the dead, or the afterlife. Just that one short moment.
So I don't think he gained any vast powers of precognition or would have been able to know anything about the future beyond that.
Or maybe he just learned of Alaundo's prophecy and that was all he knew.
I always saw it like B-man was able to foresee his own death simply because he was the god of Death. Not the dead, or the afterlife. Just that one short moment.
So I don't think he gained any vast powers of precognition or would have been able to know anything about the future beyond that.
Or maybe he just learned of Alaundo's prophecy and that was all he knew.
Is he the god of death? Or murder? He's part of the "dead three", but I dont know if that means he shares that portfolio (This is an honest question. Maybe since he was going to be murdered, he could foresee his own murder because he was the god of murder?).
I always saw it like B-man was able to foresee his own death simply because he was the god of Death. Not the dead, or the afterlife. Just that one short moment.
So I don't think he gained any vast powers of precognition or would have been able to know anything about the future beyond that.
Or maybe he just learned of Alaundo's prophecy and that was all he knew.
Is he the god of death? Or murder? He's part of the "dead three", but I dont know if that means he shares that portfolio (This is an honest question. Maybe since he was going to be murdered, he could foresee his own murder because he was the god of murder?).
From "History of the Dead Three", where it's depicted on how they divided OG Jergal's portfolio:
When Malar returned from chasing the skulls, he found that the trio had just finished a game of knucklebones.
Bane cried out triumphantly, "As winner, I choose to rule for all eternity as the ultimate tyrant. I can induce hatred and strife at my whim, and all will bow down before me while in my kingdom."
Myrkul, who had won second place, declared, "But I choose the dead, and by doing so I truly win, because all you are lord over, Bane, will eventually be mine. All things must die - even gods."
Bhaal, who finished third, demurred, "I choose death, and it is by my hand that all that you rule Lord Bane will eventually pass to Lord Myrkul. Both of you must pay honor to me and obey my wishes, since I can destroy your kingdom, Bane, by murdering your subjects, and I can starve your kingdom, Myrkul, by staying my hand."
Edit: Bhaal was a smart cookie for choosing "death", as in both the act of dying and the act of taking a life, i.e. dealing out death, i.e. murder. Not sure whether the latter was a hobby of his before his ascension, but it got him that nickname afterward.
From "History of the Dead Three", where it's depicted on how they divided OG Jergal's portfolio:
When Malar returned from chasing the skulls, he found that the trio had just finished a game of knucklebones.
Bane cried out triumphantly, "As winner, I choose to rule for all eternity as the ultimate tyrant. I can induce hatred and strife at my whim, and all will bow down before me while in my kingdom."
Myrkul, who had won second place, declared, "But I choose the dead, and by doing so I truly win, because all you are lord over, Bane, will eventually be mine. All things must die - even gods."
Bhaal, who finished third, demurred, "I choose death, and it is by my hand that all that you rule Lord Bane will eventually pass to Lord Myrkul. Both of you must pay honor to me and obey my wishes, since I can destroy your kingdom, Bane, by murdering your subjects, and I can starve your kingdom, Myrkul, by staying my hand."
Edit: Bhaal was a smart cookie for choosing "death", as in both the act of dying and the act of taking a life, i.e. dealing out death, i.e. murder. Not sure whether the latter was a hobby of his before his ascension, but it got him that nickname afterward.
Gotcha. I was being too literal. He's the "Lord of Murder", but his portfolio is Death more broadly and not something niche like "murder".
One can also say that Death is the neutral part of his portfolio, neither good nor evil (not speaking of alignments here, just lower case letter concepts). It's Bhaal's evil that twists it into Murder, the same way Jergal's and Myrkul's evil twisted "the Dead" into an oppressive, extortionate dominion in contrast to Kelemvor's rule as a harsh but fair judge and a protector of the dead.
Had Bhaal had a less evil mind he might instead had served as a Charon-like deity, a guide of the dead to their afterlife, or even somebody who guards the newly departed souls to the City of the Dead against the fiends that prey on them.
I dunno, if I forsaw horrible plot retcons in the future, I'd probably be glad to be dead.
He decided to sit out 4e and wait until 5e to return, lol!
Yeah he stumbled right into the crappy retcon.
Ah, I wasn’t sure if you were referring to the changes in 4e or 5e. But “retcon” would suggest 5e, I see now what you’re saying.
Yeah I’m kind of with you (? I think) on WoC acting like the cataclysmic events in 4e never happened.
I like that the world is restabilizing, though, because that sets the stage for there to be some fragility to the recovery, which could be (and I hope will be) threatened by the schemes of the Dead Three.
@Lemernis More like I'm ticked off that WotC decided that everything worked for in BG means absolutely nothing now. After 3 games of trying t bury Bhaal's legacy, its now, "Haha no. That meant absolutely nothing." Bhaal should have remained gone.
@Lemernis More like I'm ticked off that WotC decided that everything worked for in BG means absolutely nothing now. After 3 games of trying t bury Bhaal's legacy, its now, "Haha no. That meant absolutely nothing." Bhaal should have remained gone.
Okay, gotcha.
I thought you were referring to something else. A lot of fans of FR lost their minds over the Spellplague and Second Sundering in 4e which decimated the Faerun we came to love in the first 3 editions. There was so much outcry over it that WotC did in effect retcon with 5e, restoring it in many ways to 2e. Or so I am told via articles and videos on the subject. I haven’t bought a FRCS since 3rd edition.
So it doesn’t sit well with you that Bhaal was able to make it back into existence? Because Bhaal exists more than just for the BG games, right? In tabletop play, etc.
Comments
And killing mindflayers was already done in droves in NVN. My drunk dwarf chunked a decent amount while rampaging half berzerk through their city in the Underdark. Well, actually my character wasn't drunk, it was me drinking and driving, which made my MP buddy a bit surprised when I suddenly launched my character into a fervor seldom seen before and started chucking at everything I saw, missing out one probably a good deal of quests and lore.
Hordes of the Underdark was an epic level campaign so this isn't too bad. Not ideal sure but then again the Underdark section in BG2 also throws at the player a unreasonable amount of them...
I guess their usual MO is harder to translate into a video game than in a PnP module.
Probably the real antagonists will be Baal and the Dead Three (Do not mistake them for the Gibberlings Three).
They aren't the same?
Bhaal will be mortal, and killable. Although presumably it would be about as difficult as killing Elminster.
I would actually appreciate it if the story forces an uneasy (well, for good characters) alliance with Bhaal. Like maybe he is actually trying to keep the fabric of the universe stable after that Spellplague and Second Sundering. Not out of altruism of course.
I guess I'm imagining Bhaal would be something like Sarevok in BG2 except much, much more of a wild card. Obviously he can't be trusted. But maybe he's ironically doing the best thing for the world even if he's evil and doing it for ultimately evil reasons. Sort of like you have to help him, basically. Once the victory is achieved to keep the world intact, the party won't be powerful enough to fight him when he's in the catbird seat and shows his true colors. (BG3 is L1-13 right?) But that could serve as the setup for BG4.
In the final analysis Bhaal has always been the real enemy in this whole saga, it what I'm on about here.
Sarevok's resentment towards Rieltar was growing and Winski appeared just at the right moment to give him the initial push, all because he (Winski) felt he wasn't special enough and wanted to reach metaphorical immortality.
Nobody knows exactly why or how Bodhi convinced Irenicus to tap in the Tree of Life but neither that scheme or Ellesime's sheer stupidity had anything to do with Bhaal. The whole affair is nothing but a coincidence.
Melissan technically follows Bhaal's instructions so this is the closest he has to a direct intervention but ultimately he's so powerless at this point he can't prevent her to backstab him, which really hammers the point that ToB was her doing, and hers alone.
Now Bhaal's essence *is* him, in a manner of speaking (dead gods are still sentient and I don't think any god in the setting was ever fully destroyed) and you could argue he does intervene directly by corrupting his progeny. But even then, the three main antagonists have other factors behind their actions. Except Melissan I suppose, who's really just power-hungry.
Basically he has a large influence on the plot but more as an abstract entity than as a character.
They said that MiBG is a prequel, so I suppose they could address this in BG: people lured by the call of power that eventually corrupt his body and soul to win the favor of Baal, only to become his puppets.
I said it mainly because at some point during the Time of Troubles Bhaal gained the ability to see into the future. He at least foresaw his own death. I forget exactly about how he got that ability. Note that since he is killed during the ToT, it must have taken some time to go about the land siring his "mortal progeny."
Given that he was able to glimpse into the future, I just wonder just how far he was able to see. Did his look into the future also show him that the ending of BG1 (foiled resurrection) was actually not a failure, i.e., because he saw beyond that to the events of Murder in Baldur's Gate where he is finally resurrected?
He decided to sit out 4e and wait until 5e to return, lol!
He started givin` powers again to his followers. Had a worklist one kilometer long.
Now the former god of murder returns... with a hangover. Dark times ahead...
Yeah he stumbled right into the crappy retcon.
We get it. No need to repeat yourself.
I think Bhaal is an implicit aspect of the trilogy, and while he is never himself the ultimate villain, he is the means by which the villains all seek to do their villainy.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was how the 3rd game works: Some villainy that relates to something Bhaal wants or something Bhaal did. Ultimately, the villains will probably have their own objective.
I'm not repeating myself anymore than Lemernis. Is my opinion really that offensive to you?
sure he is set up to be the ultimate final bosss but then he gets betrayed by his own priestess and kicked back up stairs where he belongs.
I always saw it like B-man was able to foresee his own death simply because he was the god of Death. Not the dead, or the afterlife. Just that one short moment.
So I don't think he gained any vast powers of precognition or would have been able to know anything about the future beyond that.
Or maybe he just learned of Alaundo's prophecy and that was all he knew.
I am not offended. Just tired of re-reading the exact same post.
But apparently I'm the only one where that's a problem.
I didnt say that. That said, you were the one who most obviously repeated themselves while trying to troll.
Is he the god of death? Or murder? He's part of the "dead three", but I dont know if that means he shares that portfolio (This is an honest question. Maybe since he was going to be murdered, he could foresee his own murder because he was the god of murder?).
From "History of the Dead Three", where it's depicted on how they divided OG Jergal's portfolio:
When Malar returned from chasing the skulls, he found that the trio had just finished a game of knucklebones.
Bane cried out triumphantly, "As winner, I choose to rule for all eternity as the ultimate tyrant. I can induce hatred and strife at my whim, and all will bow down before me while in my kingdom."
Myrkul, who had won second place, declared, "But I choose the dead, and by doing so I truly win, because all you are lord over, Bane, will eventually be mine. All things must die - even gods."
Bhaal, who finished third, demurred, "I choose death, and it is by my hand that all that you rule Lord Bane will eventually pass to Lord Myrkul. Both of you must pay honor to me and obey my wishes, since I can destroy your kingdom, Bane, by murdering your subjects, and I can starve your kingdom, Myrkul, by staying my hand."
Edit: Bhaal was a smart cookie for choosing "death", as in both the act of dying and the act of taking a life, i.e. dealing out death, i.e. murder. Not sure whether the latter was a hobby of his before his ascension, but it got him that nickname afterward.
Gotcha. I was being too literal. He's the "Lord of Murder", but his portfolio is Death more broadly and not something niche like "murder".
Thanks for the clarification.
Had Bhaal had a less evil mind he might instead had served as a Charon-like deity, a guide of the dead to their afterlife, or even somebody who guards the newly departed souls to the City of the Dead against the fiends that prey on them.
Ah, I wasn’t sure if you were referring to the changes in 4e or 5e. But “retcon” would suggest 5e, I see now what you’re saying.
Yeah I’m kind of with you (? I think) on WoC acting like the cataclysmic events in 4e never happened.
I like that the world is restabilizing, though, because that sets the stage for there to be some fragility to the recovery, which could be (and I hope will be) threatened by the schemes of the Dead Three.
Okay, gotcha.
I thought you were referring to something else. A lot of fans of FR lost their minds over the Spellplague and Second Sundering in 4e which decimated the Faerun we came to love in the first 3 editions. There was so much outcry over it that WotC did in effect retcon with 5e, restoring it in many ways to 2e. Or so I am told via articles and videos on the subject. I haven’t bought a FRCS since 3rd edition.
So it doesn’t sit well with you that Bhaal was able to make it back into existence? Because Bhaal exists more than just for the BG games, right? In tabletop play, etc.