Skip to content

SPOILERS: SoD Ending & that evil mage: end battle? (plus idea for that open-end item at endplay)

I must give it to the writing team: I thought the bridging of original BG to BG2 was really well done.

I had no inkling of Caylar's motives before playing through, and tend to think her youthful "arrogance" had not been quenched, yet when there is a hell to pay... One does not maybe have luxury of asking "OK, you claim to be righteous yet would weigh one individual above others, how's that, really???"

Those whom have not played yet BG2, do not read on.


Since all of those whom shall have paid BG2 know they start off as prisoners of that evil mage (Irenicus) - I would have actually liked to have a confrontation with him, personally, which I shall lose.

It could be a cut-scene, like Sarevok killing Gorion.

Or, it could be an unwinnable fight - minus story mode, where you just flee upfront maybe. Painful and true that, so I'd be fine, and just all hyped up to launch BG2 to settle that score!

As a variation, I think it would add motivation if your bravery (success or whatnot) in that fight would lead into Irenucus taking trophies that would be exported to BG2.

I know Irenicus wins the round, it would be bit of "anti Caylar-arrogance" to rub it in my face - but surely Irenicus would be the trophy taking type. Especially if brave and foolish opponents are concerned.

Your ultimate price: restore Skie, if you fight well enough. Soultaker as trophy flaunted by Irenicus.
[Deleted User]

Comments

  • lunarlunar Member Posts: 3,460
    It could have been like the opening bar fight of Black Pits 2. Instead of the Winged's 'trap' spells there may be no save no resist sleep spells being tossed around.
  • Diogenes42Diogenes42 Member Posts: 597
    Hello friends. I think it was a good idea overall to not use an in-game fight. One some level I think most players would still think "if I just did X I could totally win" no matter what. Plus I've seen some of the crazy stuff some people manage with their character. While its very annoying getting captured in a cutscene, its a kind of annoying that people can understand. There's the setup just before with the sleeping gas(?) so its not beyond the pale either. The least bad option anyway.
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861

    Hello friends. I think it was a good idea overall to not use an in-game fight. One some level I think most players would still think "if I just did X I could totally win" no matter what. Plus I've seen some of the crazy stuff some people manage with their character.

    BG2 with Biff the Understudy all the way... Now, that's a little unsettling thought, eh! :-p
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861

    Wow, a post with nothing but a spoiler bar in it looks weird, so I'm adding this just because the aesthetic of the thing as it stands is kind of disturbing me.

    Appreciate your views, Andrew - thx! It's interesting reading, and food for thought.

    I would guess I have a strong personal fondness for dastardly and overpowering villains, because it enhances the sense of conflict in a given campaign, our evil mage being a very long time favorite, not least because of excellent voice acting.

    Another big favorite in this way would be Arl Howe in DA:Origins, as I tend to favour the human noble origins, and his exceedingly villainous treachery makes the whole campaign feel very personal, upping the ante in the final confrontation. Not to mention that Tim Curry must really relish playing baddies as he is really superb as our friend Rendon. "Your father would be proud. I, however, want you dead more than ever!"

    I do appreciate though that for most players it probably would be a bit frustrating in view that BG2 sets the stage hero being in a bad fix, and taking on the hooded man is hard enough even at end of BG2 original campaign. (I find)

    I'd perso would have just loved the expansion to end with that encounter as the assumption always is to import to BG2 and turn the tables in fullness of time. Very tall odds would actually work nicely too. But my compliments on that story device - I thought it was quite excellent in bridging the two games.

  • Diogenes42Diogenes42 Member Posts: 597
    It would be extremely cool and good if the transition was handled by Khalid slipping on a banana peel and crashing into the party, knocking them into one of those net traps like in a cartoon.
    TStael
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    Lol, that would rather be like Khalid, would it not?

    Since I suffered his disappearing act myself due to a little bug, this would also explain how he ended back with us anyway... :-)
  • jimw884jimw884 Member Posts: 24
    TStael said:

    I must give it to the writing team: I thought the bridging of original BG to BG2 was really well done.

    I had no inkling of Caylar's motives before playing through, and tend to think her youthful "arrogance" had not been quenched, yet when there is a hell to pay... One does not maybe have luxury of asking "OK, you claim to be righteous yet would weigh one individual above others, how's that, really???"

    Those whom have not played yet BG2, do not read on.


    Since all of those whom shall have paid BG2 know they start off as prisoners of that evil mage (Irenicus) - I would have actually liked to have a confrontation with him, personally, which I shall lose.

    It could be a cut-scene, like Sarevok killing Gorion.

    Or, it could be an unwinnable fight - minus story mode, where you just flee upfront maybe. Painful and true that, so I'd be fine, and just all hyped up to launch BG2 to settle that score!

    As a variation, I think it would add motivation if your bravery (success or whatnot) in that fight would lead into Irenucus taking trophies that would be exported to BG2.

    I know Irenicus wins the round, it would be bit of "anti Caylar-arrogance" to rub it in my face - but surely Irenicus would be the trophy taking type. Especially if brave and foolish opponents are concerned.

    Your ultimate price: restore Skie, if you fight well enough. Soultaker as trophy flaunted by Irenicus.

    I'll sorta second this. I'm fine with the hooded man not doing anything personally, but I'd probably have preferred in an engine scene where you can try to fight your assailants and fail. Just imagine, battle starts with Dynaheir instantly getting backstabbed and killed. Then you realize you're surrounded by a bunch of assassins, probably with synchronized attacks. I would imagine that people willing to take a contract out on you, especially after you've literally come back from the nine hells are either insane or crazy prepared. Or maybe geased as the hooded man likes to do.

    Anyway, an prepared and overwhelming force would still be able to take you out with the element of surprise, especially considering that you're probably tired and hungry not only from the jailtime but traveling for a bit. I mean, even at level 8-9 you can get overwhelmed by mooks in the basement of dragonspear during the scouting quest so it's not out of the realm of possibility that you would lose to attrition.
    TStael
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    jimw884 said:


    I'll sorta second this. I'm fine with the hooded man not doing anything personally, but I'd probably have preferred in an engine scene where you can try to fight your assailants and fail. Just imagine, battle starts with Dynaheir instantly getting backstabbed and killed. Then you realize you're surrounded by a bunch of assassins, probably with synchronized attacks.

    I mean, even at level 8-9 you can get overwhelmed by mooks in the basement of dragonspear during the scouting quest so it's not out of the realm of possibility that you would lose to attrition.

    Actually, your scenario would explain the attrition of characters start of BG2, vs who was alive in BG - neat thinking!

    I certainly had to relaod or drop difficulty on occasion - I though my swashbuckler class was particularly ill suiting for that duel business for example due to lack of back-stab multiplier for damage output - so my party at least could plausibly be overpowered. Such painful defeat and seeing those comrades killed would in my case be just increase motivation in going after the hooded feller in BG2.
  • jimw884jimw884 Member Posts: 24
    If I had even the slightest idea of how to code/script/mod I'd probably set about doing this myself.
  • ValamirCleaverValamirCleaver Member Posts: 184

    A cut-scene would take control away from the player, which could be frustrating if the party responded in a way the player would consider out of character.

    How could someone be of this frame of mind, but not have a problem with what transpires in SoD between the end of the fight with the Big Bad and the ending cinematic of SoD? If I tried to claim that the SoD ending of SoD "only" irritated me would be a huge understatement.

    I thought SoD was a very good until the end of the final battle with the Big Bad and after that for me it plummeted into the toilet. I felt as though CHARNAME was railroaded into pure DM fiat without a possibility to change or otherwise directly interact with the situation after the fact because the game ends very shortly after you regain full control over CHARNAME. I even reloaded a previous save to see if it was possible to use the command console to avoid the exact situation, but no matter what you do the same end result still happens.

    Here's the sequence: 1.) Victorious Final Battle against Big Bad 2.) Diabolus ex Machina 3.) Extremely limited control of CHARNAME 4.) Full control of CHARNAME followed seconds later by 5.) Ending Cinematic
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiabolusExMachina

    No, I'm not exaggerating, it's that abrupt. I feel as though it might as well have been a totally non-interactive cut-scene because I felt as though nothing I was permitted to do made any difference. I understand that CHARNAME has to be captured by Irenicus, but between the defeat of the Big Bad and the ending cinematic all sense of player agency is removed, you're forced into a humiliation conga line. For me it would have been a much better game if it had just abruptly ended right after the final battle against the Big Bad.
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumiliationConga
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    edited April 2016



    Here's the sequence: 1.) Victorious Final Battle against Big Bad 2.) Diabolus ex Machina 3.) Extremely limited control of CHARNAME 4.) Full control of CHARNAME followed seconds later by 5.) Ending Cinematic
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiabolusExMachina

    No, I'm not exaggerating, it's that abrupt. I feel as though it might as well have been a totally non-interactive cut-scene because I felt as though nothing I was permitted to do made any difference. I

    Interesting perspective, even if I almost feel that for you, end cinematics can do but wrong, because per default we are there to see them, not partake.

    Out of curiosity, do you prefer BioWare style "post-ending slide show" better? Where impact of certain aspect of your campaign decisions are revealed?

    I'm pretty tolerant of it either way, even if I confess that after the first time play-through I have changed my final decision for Orzimmar in DA:O, even though in-game it is to me, perso, much less satisfactory!

    I took the end sequence as fairly fitting, if not maybe glorious for a half-godling, which firstly was Hooded Man's scheming ability to play powers that be. And that the player CHAR no longer fully owns his persona, because of his/her deeds and descendance. Also, if you riddled the door-keeper devil (Thrix) - did he not tell you this upfront?

    Murder, he said - and specifically NOT destiny.


    So trash as the hero might, being pushed to your inevitable fate was to me pretty good storytelling!

    I just take that evil mage for a gloating, trophy taking type type - I'd love to have had a 200-to-1 (or even impossible) battle with him, just to be goaded unto BG2.


    Edit: auto-spelling sometimes be damned. Correct "decadence" to "descendance".
    Post edited by TStael on
  • PurudayaPurudaya Member Posts: 816
    edited April 2016
    I had no problem with the end sequence being a cutscene, although I wish the narrator hadn't ended it so abruptly.
    ("...your view fades into darkness." --> instant credit screen)
    Needs one more closing line, maybe?

    Also: while it was great that the game explains the BGII starting party, I found the explanation a little wanting. If you're playing an evil character that helped Edwin kill Dynaheir in BGI, it just doesn't make sense for her and Minsc to come to your aid or for any of the characters to refer to you as "friend."

    I love Imoen, but I feel like Jaheira and Khalid should be the ones to have organized the party - they were trusted friends of Gorion and are probably the only characters who would hold out hope for you regardless of your roleplaying path. Minsc and Dynaheir could then be explained because *they* recruited them, not because they came out of a sense of loyalty to you.

    I can see Jaheira and Khalid getting together a party of people who may or may not have reason to hate you better than I can Imoen. If not, it just seems like there should be a better explanation than friendship or loyalty.

    Finally, can CHARNAME have an option to address the love interest's absence from the default party when he meets him/her in BG2? In fact, there are probably quite a few SoD references that almost have to be added to BGII, such as
    Irenicus getting you framed for Skie's murder. It's a pretty big deal and seems like it needs come up at some point.


    Ammar
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,295
    Agree about Skie.

    The soultaker dagger seems like a very classical sequel hook, though. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a small expansion to BG 2 as well. Maybe again something taking place in between SoA and ToB.

    Could serve as a good reason to push back the HLAs back one million XP or so - at least with mages I disliked getting HLAs and level 9 spells at the same time.
    PurudayaKrotos
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    Purudaya said:

    I had no problem with the end sequence being a cutscene, although I wish the narrator hadn't ended it so abruptly. Needs one more closing line, maybe?

    Also: while it was great that the game explains the BGII starting party, I found the explanation a little wanting. If you're playing an evil character that helped Edwin kill Dynaheir in BGI, it just doesn't make sense for her and Minsc to come to your aid or for any of the characters to refer to you as "friend."

    I can see Jaheira and Khalid getting together a party of people who may or may not have reason to hate you better than I can Imoen. If not, it just seems like there should be a better explanation than friendship or loyalty.

    Finally, can CHARNAME have an option to address the love interest's absence from the default party when he meets him/her in BG2? In fact, there are probably quite a few SoD references that almost have to be added to BGII, such as

    Irenicus getting you framed for Skie's murder. It's a pretty big deal and seems like it needs come up at some point.


    Or just ominous silence for a few seconds...

    From my view, best would be to patch so that if you kill Dynaheir, she and Minsc simply do not show up as optional NPCs, actually, but good point!

    On the other hand, in view that Jaheira and Khalid had been back-scene players all along, as we learned during campaign, they certainly might as well be coordinating Imo and rest of the old party members, resurrecting Dynaheir and convincing her to forgive and forget.

    I am understanding that not every continuity issue can be addressed with limited resources, but romances certainly should.

    As to the open-end item, a quest around it in BG2 would certainly be great - I'd be ok for paid DLC if need be - but I think it can just be made as an end-cinematic, where one goes to hell (existing one) and other comes back to light (the big story twist in SoD).
    Purudaya
  • PurudayaPurudaya Member Posts: 816
    Ammar said:

    Agree about Skie.

    The soultaker dagger seems like a very classical sequel hook, though. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a small expansion to BG 2 as well. Maybe again something taking place in between SoA and ToB.

    Could serve as a good reason to push back the HLAs back one million XP or so - at least with mages I disliked getting HLAs and level 9 spells at the same time.
    They hired David Gaider, the former design director who also wrote the Ascension mod. I would be very surprised if we didn't get something for SoA/Tob. Fingers crossed after this "controversy" nightmare.
  • illathidillathid Member Posts: 320

    A cut-scene would take control away from the player, which could be frustrating if the party responded in a way the player would consider out of character.

    How could someone be of this frame of mind, but not have a problem with what transpires in SoD between the end of the fight with the Big Bad and the ending cinematic of SoD? If I tried to claim that the SoD ending of SoD "only" irritated me would be a huge understatement.

    I thought SoD was a very good until the end of the final battle with the Big Bad and after that for me it plummeted into the toilet. I felt as though CHARNAME was railroaded into pure DM fiat without a possibility to change or otherwise directly interact with the situation after the fact because the game ends very shortly after you regain full control over CHARNAME. I even reloaded a previous save to see if it was possible to use the command console to avoid the exact situation, but no matter what you do the same end result still happens.

    Here's the sequence: 1.) Victorious Final Battle against Big Bad 2.) Diabolus ex Machina 3.) Extremely limited control of CHARNAME 4.) Full control of CHARNAME followed seconds later by 5.) Ending Cinematic
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiabolusExMachina

    No, I'm not exaggerating, it's that abrupt. I feel as though it might as well have been a totally non-interactive cut-scene because I felt as though nothing I was permitted to do made any difference. I understand that CHARNAME has to be captured by Irenicus, but between the defeat of the Big Bad and the ending cinematic all sense of player agency is removed, you're forced into a humiliation conga line. For me it would have been a much better game if it had just abruptly ended right after the final battle against the Big Bad.
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumiliationConga
    Saw you post this in another thread too. I thought the trial sequence worked well. You could argue for your innocence or not, based on what you did in SoD.

    As for DM Fiat, that makes sense to me. You had to end SoD in a particular state or else the start of BG2 doesn't make sense. Really how else could you do it?
    TStael
  • ValamirCleaverValamirCleaver Member Posts: 184
    illathid said:

    I thought the trial sequence worked well. You could argue for your innocence or not, based on what you did in SoD.

    Nothing that CHARNAME is allowed to do meaningfully interacts, mitigates or otherwise changes the effective outcome of banishment. It does come off as a blatant sequel hook, but does Beamdog even have any remote plans for an additional interquel chronologically between CHARNAME's banishment and the party's capture in the ending cinematic???...
    As for DM Fiat, that makes sense to me. You had to end SoD in a particular state or else the start of BG2 doesn't make sense. Really how else could you do it?
    Shortly after returning to Baldur's Gate and celebrating the defeat of the Big Bad a messenger delivers a secret missive from a noble (whom could be Irenicus in disguise and not necessarily a sincere message from an actual noble) in Athkatla seeking CHARNAME's help posthaste with a greatly implied, but not outrightly stated problem. The utmost discretion is requested of CHARNAME in regards to CHARNAME's acknowledgement of the message and CHARNAME's travel in response to the missive. With this the same end result of CHARNAME (and most likely his party of companions) leaving Baldur's Gate (with the included addition of heading in the general direction of Athkatla). With this the ending cinematic does not need to be modified in any way, shape or form despite the at least the appearance of player agency.
    MiraStastny
  • illathidillathid Member Posts: 320
    edited April 2016


    Nothing that CHARNAME is allowed to do meaningfully interacts, mitigates or otherwise changes the effective outcome of banishment. It does come off as a blatant sequel hook, but does Beamdog even have any remote plans for an additional interquel chronologically between CHARNAME's banishment and the party's capture in the ending cinematic???...

    As I understand it, it would not be another interquel but would be an addition to BG2. Corwin hunting you down for the murder of Skie, or something to that effect.

    Shortly after returning to Baldur's Gate and celebrating the defeat of the Big Bad a messenger delivers a secret missive from a noble (whom could be Irenicus in disguise and not necessarily a sincere message from an actual noble) in Athkatla seeking CHARNAME's help posthaste with a greatly implied, but not outrightly stated problem. The utmost discretion is requested of CHARNAME in regards to CHARNAME's acknowledgement of the message and CHARNAME's travel in response to the missive. With this the same end result of CHARNAME (and most likely his party of companions) leaving Baldur's Gate (with the included addition of heading in the general direction of Athkatla). With this the ending cinematic does not need to be modified in any way, shape or form despite the at least the appearance of player agency.

    The problem with doing it this way is that it could go against character. More than a few of the character's I've played would've said "take a hike" to a letter like that. You need a pull that no character could reasonably refuse. Banishing you under putative murder charges does that.
  • ValamirCleaverValamirCleaver Member Posts: 184
    illathid said:

    The problem with doing it this way is that it could go against character. More than a few of the character's I've played would've said "take a hike" to a letter like that. You need a pull that no character could reasonably refuse. Banishing you under putative murder charges does that.

    I would find my proposal greatly much less egregious than being forced into a frame-up, humiliation conga line and banishment without any recourse of being allowed to interact, mitigate or otherwise change the effective outcome in any meaningfully fashion. CHARNAME is not even allowed a dialogue choice along the lines of, "I need to clear my name," before the ending cinematic.

    Even if for some reason my CHARNAME wouldn't be moved to "answer the call" to adventure and refuses, I would still find the cliche of being drugged & kidnapped less egregious than the current result of being forcefully railroaded into the current DM fiat without any chance of potentially contemplating proving my innocence.
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallToAdventure
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefusalOfTheCall
  • illathidillathid Member Posts: 320
    edited April 2016
    @ValamirCleaver
    And I think your proposal is much more egregious. But that's likely an impasse neither of us will be able to overcome.

    I was always told one of the first rules of DMing was that you never dictate a player's actions for them. You're proposal would do that for me. With the current set up, that's not the case.

    As I see it, this no different than when Sarevok sets you up for murder in Candlekeep. Did you have an issue with that too? ;)

    Also you can prove your innocence at the trial. The problem is that the issue became so politicized that public had already made up their mind. This is not that far fetched. Look at what happened with the trial of George Zimmerman after the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

    (p.s. I hope I'm not coming off as combative. I'm actually really enjoying this conversation.)
  • ValamirCleaverValamirCleaver Member Posts: 184
    illathid said:

    As I see it, this no different than when Sarevok sets you up for murder in Candlekeep. Did you have an issue with that too? ;)

    CHARNAME is allowed to proved CHARNAME's innocence & clear CHARNAME's name before the end of BG1. CHARNAME is not even close to being afforded the same before the final cinematic in SoD.
    Also you can prove your innocence at the trial. The problem is that the issue became so politicized that public had already made up their mind.
    How CHARNAME responds has no affect on the result of the trial. There is nothing CHARNAME can do to have the court publicly pronounce CHARNAME innocent.

    In my mind this would be the same a DM using an NPC to frame the PC, but not affording the PC a chance to prove the PC's innocence. If that's not an obvious example of railroading, then I don't know how else to convince you...

  • illathidillathid Member Posts: 320
    @ValamirCleaver
    So the issue for you isn't being found innocent or not, but that it wasn't publicly announced that you were innocent? The Grand Dukes (except Entar) believe that you're innocent, but consider it political suicide to say so publicly at the moment. I don't have a problem with that.

    And yeah, I'd be fine with with being in a situation where I was framed by the DM but couldn't clear my name 100% as that's a very realistic outcome. In fact, I actually had a situation like that in a game of WFRP I played back in college. Our group was accused of consorting with daemons by a witch hunter, and while we avoided the Pyre the town closed their doors to us for good. It was a really great adventure (and maybe why I like the end of SoD so much).

    Another thing I noticed, but it seems like you seem to believe that all railroading by a DM is bad as well. I disagree, I think there are more than a few ways that railroading can be effective in an RPG. And I think this is one of those instances.
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    Purudaya said:



    They hired David Gaider, the former design director who also wrote the Ascension mod. I would be very surprised if we didn't get something for SoA/Tob. Fingers crossed after this "controversy" nightmare.

    If Gaider also wrote Planescape Torment, heck, Beandog would have snagged the writer of the both best RPG titles, all around! ;-)

    But beyond - I refuse to cross my fingers. I just game away SoD and like it.

    Should it not be us BG and Beamdog fans to love SoD the best, and significantly? Unto BG3?
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861

    illathid said:

    I thought the trial sequence worked well. You could argue for your innocence or not, based on what you did in SoD.

    Nothing that CHARNAME is allowed to do meaningfully interacts, mitigates or otherwise changes the effective outcome of banishment. It does come off as a blatant sequel hook,
    As far as know it: people love Baldur's Gate! And even if they did not before, if post SoD they did - good on them. Really.
  • BeowulfBeowulf Member Posts: 236
    I just finished the game - wow what a boring useless anti climax - I felt like the last 30 minutes I was in a robot simulator waiting for the end. Very very dumb... then again I rather hated the Irenicus parts mostly too- accept for the brief intro to the wards in the cells in BG2 and when he speaks to the drow in the underdark- a t first I siad yeah it opened up to have choice in the middle but I was wrong it narrowed even more - over all it was allright but the last 25 minustes was extremely anticlimax drudgery - maybe becasue I cared nothing for the peoples opininon nor for the sullen corwin
    ValamirCleaver
  • VasculioVasculio Member Posts: 469
    I hope the Soultaker dagger makes its way to BG2EE...
    MatronaCloillathid
Sign In or Register to comment.