Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

I hope there will be no references at all to Abdel Adrian

24

Comments

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    @Lemernis "I much preferred it when in FR canon they simply referenced the protagonist of BG/SoA/ToB as "Gorion's Ward" and left it at that! I hope BG III retcons it to that."

    I wouldn't count on it. With Larian talking about moving away from the story of BG 1 and 2, and talking about how P&P modules are not only canon to the new game, but also a straight up rpequel to it. The game canon is at best being ignored, and at worst, actively being obscured.

    megamike15typo_tilly
  • SjerrieSjerrie Member Posts: 1,203
    @_Connacht_ that is a great idea. Could even weave it into the tutorial or style it like the actual PC's character generation.

    Lemernistypo_tilly
  • InconnuInconnu Member Posts: 99
    My headcanon is that Abdel is simply a farty old mercenary that ran into Charname at some point after ToB (or heard details of their travels from a surviving companion) and decided to usurp their identity when Charname disappeared from the public arena. Bhaal respawning was complete coincidence (or simply caused by people finally talking about him again). :p

    Much as I love the return of the setting in Murder, so little of it makes sense or completely invalidates the games - i.e. the only reason anyone cares about this setting in the first place. Viekang as the villain? Seriously? The guy who explode-teleports and that you can actually help in the game suddenly decides to romp on over and rebirth Bhaal like 100 years later for no discernible reason other than to be a dick?

    Points for game canon: Minsc is back, bald, and mentions Neera - whom only existed in the EE games. Doesn't say anything about crusty Abdel.

    Sjerrie
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited July 2019
    Unless I understood it incorrectly Swen Vincke of Larian stated that they picked the "Canon ending of WOTC" for bg2 in 24.05. So.... Abdel Adrian is a thing.
    https://art19.com/shows/kotaku-splitscreen/episodes/1f188c51-4594-42d9-a255-7d2f528ad8bc/embed?theme=dark-blue"

  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,302
    PsicoVic wrote: »
    Unless I understood it incorrectly Swen Vincke of Larian stated that they picked the "Canon ending of WOTC" for bg2 in 24.05. So.... Abdel Adrian is a thing.
    https://art19.com/shows/kotaku-splitscreen/episodes/1f188c51-4594-42d9-a255-7d2f528ad8bc/embed?theme=dark-blue"

    Both Sven and Mike Mearles have also said that Murder in Baldur's Gate is a prequel to BG3.

    ThacoBell
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    So, Abdel dies at baldurs gate and his bro Viekang is the Slayer? Well, at least he is dead.

    Sjerrie
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    Like I (and others) said before:
    The *name* is canon. I agree that using it reminds parts of the BG fandom of the novels, but the novels are not canon. Easiest example: Minsc in the comics looks absolutly nothing like he did in books.

    The module needed a description for the story so he got one, but DMs where not bound to it.

    On top of that, it is equaly possible that Viekang got killed and Abdel became the slayer.

    Stop acting like WotC has loudly proclaimed that the novels are the absolute canon.

    Also, of course Murder in Baldurs Gate is a prequel to BG3 - because it is a distant sequel to BG2.


    About WotC doing nothing good with the D&D licence:
    D&D 3 & 3,5 (which I personally don't like but is beloved enough by a lot of people)
    D&D 5 (which is, as far as I know) pretty popular.

    D&D 4 is not really popular, but I personally think the hate it gets is overblown.

    None of the games have much to do with WotC, they just hold the licence of it.
    On top of that, if I remember corectly, Beamdog hat to phone in to Wizards regulary because Wizards is rather protective of their systems and canon.
    Do they sometimes make bad decisions? Sure, everyone does. Does that mean that everything they did with the licence is bad? Ehm, no. Most of it was good as far as I know.



    About Larian: NO ONE likes the novels (including the authors apparently) so why would Larian put in camoes of something they probably either don't know or don't like?
    Like I said above, the WotC canon goes into so few details that it is easy to make allusion towards Gorions Ward without breaking official canon OR personal canon.
    The only thing that is set in stone is that no Bhaalspawn became divine - but that this could not be a canonical ending was obvious to BioWare when they made the game because the 3rd edition Pantheon of Ferûn hat no new god that was a Bhaalspawn.

    The games did not exist in a vacuum. They where always part of the Forgotten Realms and of the canon of the realms. Demanding that the canon of the Realms is to be ignored means demanding that the licence is to be thrown out of the window, because the story of Ferûn *is* the backbone of Baldurs Gate 1+2.

    scriverFenrirWolfganger
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited July 2019
    No, we are suggesting that bg3 history is based in bg1, bg2 & Tob story. Like any other 3rd installment of any videogame franchise ever made.
    There are dozens of examples of this and several ways to do it.

    ThacoBell
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    Baldurs Gate 1&2 is -and always was- based on the Forgotten Realms, set in the Forgotten Realms and part of the Forgotten Realms.
    The History of the game is part of the history of the realms (mostly vague, so that people can put in their own headcanon).

    Baldurs Gate is *not* its own franchise, it is part of the D&D franchise.
    That is the meaning of the phrase "Forgotten Realms" on the original cover of BG1. It is not meant to be its own franchise. The constraints of being a D&D port are the reason BioWare switched over to Dragon Age..

    BG1+2 are not videogames that happen to be inspired by D&Ds Forgotten Realms.
    They are D&D videogames, an adaption of the Forgotten Realms.
    BGs story is part of Ferûns history and vice versa. You can not divede those parts.


    Also, as I mentioned before, you have a canon ending of BG1 -mostly in your party. One partymember *needs* to stay with you for the game as she is fundamental for BG2.
    Before SoD, BG2 was already ignoring most of your playthrough in the first place, so why is having BG3 ignoring the possibility of ascension such a sacrilege?

    SkatanscriverFenrirWolfganger
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited July 2019
    First, I do not really care about the world itself, I understand that they will use the Forgotten Realms setting created and shaped by WOTC for years, and it is fantastic. Also, I expect the adaptations and new interpretations of the world that Larian will create and apply in-game ( the thing about the mind flayers as a race of misunderstood monsters looks nice)
    I also do not care about all the plots in Murder in Baldur's gate, it would be cool to have some background story and references in the game.
    If they (for example) suddenly claim that Baldur's gate city 100 years later looks like a Taiwanese suburb with Pikachus? Well, if you sell me a (very) good reason for that and the setting gives us gamers some interesting choices, I can buy it. But...

    I understand that you have to deal with WOTC and they want to sell his modules, figurines, and stuff, but I simply do not find attractive the idea of a forced background for my former main character, because it severs the bond with previous games. I played for months, I cherished my characters, I had several options to shape the future of that character. Now they feed me with a spoon this:

    The fact that Abdel Adrian the baalspawn is a human male mercenary with a life span of more than 100 years and refused divinity . ¿Could be more cliché? ¿or boring?. This was your character, like it or not. Just like that. Novels or not. You had dozens of options but now they give you this. It is established by Wotc. He is defined as that in "Murder in bg".

    I will never identify myself with that person. He is foreign to me.

    It is a possibility. Of many. Could be nice for many people. Not to me. And if you do not like it, bad luck... because they stole your ability to shape the story. The story you already played.

    Even if I liked the character himself, IMHO in the game industry of 2019 The fact that they force a mandatory background in your former MC (you had freedom before) is lazy, reductionist, coercive and frankly a little unrespectful with the people that played the franchise. Most franchises seek some continuity, from Dao and mass effect to Poe, Trails of... , Fire emblem, Uncharted, Walking dead, Devil may cry, Knights of the old republic... could be listing games till tomorrow evening.

    I can understand that you need some common ground that you can use to create your modules for your tabletop game franchise, so you need a fixed character to be "the baalspawn". But why do you shove your Abdel Adrian down my throat in the videogame too?
    Plenty of people will never see BG3 as a simulator of D&D5e. They do not know D&D. They do not want to know about D&D. They will see the game as the third installment of the BG series. It is called BG3, you know, not Murder in Baldur's gate II or D&D5e simulator I.
    Yeah, I know, the figurines and modules and booster packs and rulebooks of WotC do not sell themselves.

    Surely I will play BG3, probably I will enjoy it, but It would be another game in another world. I really prefer if they simply do not give me information about what happened to the hero of Baldur's gate. It would be easier than have to suffer that man. I do not find it a sacrilege, It´s just that I will never like that person.

    Edit: typos, stuff.

    Post edited by PsicoVic on
    ThacoBellBelgarathMTH
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,302
    What I think Larian and WotC will do with the BG3 story is to tie it in directly to Bhaal which includes his plot to resurrect himself via the Bhaalspawn he sowed... But extends beyond the Bhaalspawn wars, Abdel Adrian, Viekang, and so on. That's all part of a bigger plot that Bhaal is working on, now as a mortal demi-power walking Faerun with the other two members of the Dead Three.

    I'm beginning to suspect that there will still be Bhaalspawn and/or their descendants in this story. Not that the PC will be either. But that they will exist in this tale. Just a hunch that obviously may be dead wrong, of course.

    But my main point is that the grand plan extends beyond Gorion's Ward, and for this story there really does just need to have been a figure that served that purpose... here Abdel Adrian... but specifically who it is actually doesn't matter that much to the bigger plan that Bhaal has.

    JuliusBorisovPsicoVicFenrirWolfganger
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    Bhaal working on plans? The dude was stone cold dead for all of BG.

  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    edited July 2019
    According to every Ferûn campaign book: No God is truly dead. Moander is (since 3E) the most deadish, but even he is not fully dead and can return.
    Also, Bhaal forsaw his death and created a (absurdly complicated) plan for his ressurection.
    Dying didn't really hinder him there..

    FenrirWolfganger
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,302
    edited July 2019
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Bhaal working on plans? The dude was stone cold dead for all of BG.

    Maybe we should define "dead" in a bit more outside of the box way. Bhaal's "essence" or life force or divine spark, etc., is split up among his mortal progeny. The Bhaal essence that Abdel Adrian had after ToB, he chose to keep stored in his body, per Murder in Baldur's Gate.

    FenrirWolfganger
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,608
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Bhaal working on plans? The dude was stone cold dead for all of BG.

    he along with Myrkul came back in 5th edition. not sure about bane.

    FenrirWolfganger
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    megamike15 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Bhaal working on plans? The dude was stone cold dead for all of BG.

    he along with Myrkul came back in 5th edition. not sure about bane.

    Bane didn't come back in the 5th edition, he came back in the 3rd. ^^
    They are called the dead three because they suck at being bad :D

    In case you where wondering how they returned:

    Bane (God of Tyranny):
    He had a half demon son named Iyachtu Xvim who he sealed beneath Zenthil Keep. Cyric destroying the keep freed him and he took the place of his deceased father. One day every cleric of Xvim had the same dream: Xvims body breaking apart and revealing Bane within.

    Bhaal (God of Murder):
    He had a long list of children who where supposed to kill each other off. After "winning" the Bhaalwars, Gorions Ward refused godhood and Bhaalsessence was mostly sealed away. After the 100 years another surviver of the Bhaalwars named Viekang -the guy who teleported away everytime he was threatened- suddenly appeared in Baldurs Gate and attacked Gorions Ward. The survivor of the battle transformed into the avatar of Bhaal. While the avatar was put down, it was a certain sign for Bhaals return.

    Myrkuls ressurection is not explaned. He had created an artifact with his essence but it is unsure if that has anything to do with that. But he is back and is now basicly the grim reaper of Ferûn.
    Back when he was alive the last time he loved to appear at funerals just to remind the mourners that he will come for them too, so that is probably how we know that he is back.

    FenrirWolfganger
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    edited July 2019
    @Arcanis @megamike15 I'm not talking about P&P, I'm talking about Baldur's Gate. The game that is SUPPOSEDLY getting a sequel. Bhaal is explcitly murdered and needs to be "resurrected". He is not making plans, he is dead and waiting for his high priestess to resurrect him. Which can't happen now because she has also been whacked. But that would require the new game to have anthing remotely resembling respect for the original story.

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @Lemernis "I much preferred it when in FR canon they simply referenced the protagonist of BG/SoA/ToB as "Gorion's Ward" and left it at that! I hope BG III retcons it to that."

    I wouldn't count on it. With Larian talking about moving away from the story of BG 1 and 2, and talking about how P&P modules are not only canon to the new game, but also a straight up rpequel to it. The game canon is at best being ignored, and at worst, actively being obscured.

    Why must everything I love be resurrected and defiled

    ThacoBellFenrirWolfganger
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    @ThacoBell
    ...But Baldurs Gate is an adaption of p&p..
    It is right in the title..

    Stop pretending Baldurs Gate is a standalone IP and accept that it *always* was part of the Forgotten Realms. Why do you utterly refuse to accept that?
    Why do you insist in seeing Baldurs Gate as something completly removed from the Forgotten Realms?

    It *advertised* itself by being part of the Forgotten Worlds and now it is no longer be allowed to be that?
    I *honestly* fail to understand your reasoning in this. It just baffles me...

    megamike15scriverDJKajuru
  • _Connacht__Connacht_ Member Posts: 154
    edited July 2019
    Arcanis wrote: »
    Baldurs Gate 1&2 is -and always was- based on the Forgotten Realms, set in the Forgotten Realms and part of the Forgotten Realms.
    The History of the game is part of the history of the realms (mostly vague, so that people can put in their own headcanon).

    Baldurs Gate is *not* its own franchise, it is part of the D&D franchise.
    That is the meaning of the phrase "Forgotten Realms" on the original cover of BG1. It is not meant to be its own franchise. The constraints of being a D&D port are the reason BioWare switched over to Dragon Age..

    BG1+2 are not videogames that happen to be inspired by D&Ds Forgotten Realms.
    They are D&D videogames, an adaption of the Forgotten Realms.
    BGs story is part of Ferûns history and vice versa. You can not divede those parts.


    Also, as I mentioned before, you have a canon ending of BG1 -mostly in your party. One partymember *needs* to stay with you for the game as she is fundamental for BG2.
    Before SoD, BG2 was already ignoring most of your playthrough in the first place, so why is having BG3 ignoring the possibility of ascension such a sacrilege?

    I was reflecting about this, I'm not sure that canonicity is set in stone when we talk about franchises that tell fantasy stories.
    As a precedent, I think of superheroes franchises. They came in all tastes with side stories, spin offs, alternative universes, reboots, even blatant contradictions sometimes.
    Who is the canon Spiderman, the original comic one, the Ultimate version or the MCU version? Sam Raimi's? Marc Webb's? Russos Brothers'? Is uncle May old or young?
    Which version of Thanos is "correct", the one in the original comics or the one in Infinity War and Endgame? Which is the true Civil War, the one in the comic or the one in the film?
    But they are all Marvel characters and stories, all true in their own universes.

    Who is the true Batman? The original dark hero from the 40s? The one from the TV series of the 60s? Tim Burton's Batman, Christopher Nolan's Batman or Zack Snyder's Batman? Should there be any kind of "true" or "canon" Batman? Is it canon that Batman and Superman live in the same universe, or can't we have a Batman film where there are no superpower and alien races at all? Yet it's all property of DC Comics, all equally true.

    Not talking about all the many fairy tales that had different versions back in the past centuries when they were first put on paper, depending on the writer (and which are usually very different from their Disney adaptations).

    Somebody could even write more novels about Baldur's Gate that tell very different tales about Charname and his/her mates, staying true to the game rather than inventing that crap from the 1999 novel (if somebody has the will and capacity, please do that ASAP) or going wild with fiction. Comics that include EE characters or ignore them. Cartoons for children or adults. Live action TV series where Halle Bailey plays Imoen causing people to go berserk on the internet. :P

    LottiLemernisFenrirWolfganger
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,214
    As I didn't really follow 4th Ed, how does Myrkul's return factor in with Kelemvor? Are there now two deities of death? (Or perhaps Kelemvor is the God of Death, while Myrkul is the God of Undeath?)

    Also, wasn't Myrkul supposed to be devoured by the player in NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer? :P

    ThacoBell
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,608
    thats only if you do the evil path whitch i don't even think was canon. myrkul suffers from the same issues as bhaal coming back as in motb the true ending makes it so he should not be able to.

  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    @Zaxares
    Myrkul just returned for 5th edition.
    It isn't that clear, but here is how I understand the current situation:

    Kelemvor: God of the Dead - he judges the deceised, send them to where they belong and punishes the false and faithless.

    Jergal: Scribe of the Dead - he keeps the notes of every person, their time of death, their patron deity, other claimants to the sould of the deceased, how faithful they where towards the gods and such.

    Myrkul: God of Death - he collects the deceased souls and brings them to Kelemvors realm, he is the grim reaper, he is the enemy of all live. He doesn't administrate the dead, he ensures that death will not be cheated, that death will come to everyone nad everything.

    Kelemvor and Jergal are Lawful Neutral gods, they are more or less the beaurocraty of dying, while Myrkul is evil and is bound to the act of dying itself.

    NWN2 is either non canon .. or has something to do with the sudden and unexpected return of Myrkul..

    PsicoVicmlneveseFenrirWolfganger
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited July 2019
    I think the addition of the neutral deities "Kelemvor" and "Jergal" was good wisdom. I did not like the idea of the evil Myrkul as the god of Death in 2e. Death is neutral, Death is the great equalizer. All are equal in passing.

    Some die of natural causes some in a tragic way
    But for every single one of us a final night and day
    Without respect for the power of wealth and without respect for fame
    Death the great equalizer treats everyone as the same
    Without respect for anyone or creatures great or small
    The billionaires of the World to the Reaper's scythe do fall
    At least the one who does claim every life promotes equality
    Amongst the wealthy of the World and those in poverty
    Some live on to a ripe old age and some die in their prime
    And some even die as children they are not granted much time
    Not ageist or discriminatory in any way
    He claims the lives of the very young and those who are old and gray
    He's a true egalatarian of him one can only say
    And for each and everyone of us a final night and day.
    Francis Duggan


    Myrkul is worshipped by the undead, necromancers, cultists, undertakers... the "Evil" part of the death in D&D

    BelgarathMTHFenrirWolfganger
  • _Connacht__Connacht_ Member Posts: 154
    If Myrkul's goal is to ensure that death is not cheated and everyone will ultimately die, shouldn't he be hostile towards the whole concept of undeath and those who "cheat" death (like necromancers, liches etc.)?

    Skatan
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    Honestly, Kelemvor is the most boring of all the Forgotten Realms gods. He's a one-trick-pony with no personality to speak of. Resembling more a AI than a deity. One could even say his character is bone dry. Then again I've an issue with most of the Forgotten Realms deities... all of them are just clunky as heck. And don't get me started with this Wall of the Faithless nonsense...

    As far as death gods go, I found that Greyhawk's Wee Jas or Pathfinder's Pharasma did a much more agreeable job than Faerûn's representative(s).

  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377
    @_Connacht_ Undead tend to go and kill more living people. Also, They will die eventually..
    ...Keep in mind that this is my interpretation of information that I recall from memory here.. ^^'

    @Kamigoroshi Yes Kelemvor lacks in personality. That is actually I thing I kinda like..
    He had a personality back as mortal and kept some of that as a god. He did abondon his personality and his love for mystra after he rethought his role during a scheme of Cyric. (I read the story a long time ago, if you want I can try to find the book.)

    The Wall of Faithless is a clunky way to deal with a question that comes with the afterlife of the Realms:
    If souls go to their patron deity, what happens with the ones that have no such deity?

    But that the wall still exist does actually make sense: The gods depend for their power on prayers and they believe less people will believe in them without eternal punishment. And putting them in hell won't work either, since the lower planes are not beholden to the gods.

    To get rid of the wall you would have to change the local cosmology.. or convince AO to just abolish that thing. Remember that when Kelemvor tried to change how the afterlife worked, he weakend most gods.
    ...Why do the writers of the Forgotten Realms believe that everyone turns to atheism if you abolish the wall of the faithless? oô

    FenrirWolfganger
Sign In or Register to comment.