Just finished second run. A few more plotholes (or "bugs"?) BIG SPOILERS
helmo1977
Member Posts: 364
So I have finished a solo run. I did more things than in my first run and, consequently, I have run into more plotholes. Or perhaps they are "bugs" (things that were forgotten). The thing is that, when exploring the underground river caverns, the warrens and the castle basement, I discover the thruth about Haphernaan. However, when de Lancie asks me what I have discovered, I have no option to tell him about it. On top of that, it strucks me that, when meeting Caelar in Dead Mans Pass, there is no option to tell her about all that. Just visiting Haphernaans quarters should be enough to know that guy wasnt up to anything good (not to talk that Haphernaan hadnt been discovered yet. In a world where Truesight allows you to see through disguises, Haphernaans should have been discovered as a devil a long time ago).
I have felt forced into the path the writers wanted me to take. I had no option to side with Caelar (nobody thought that helping Caelar to bring all the souls back from Hell was a good and noble deed?). When you get to meet Caelar, in Dead Mans Pass, you probably know what is the true Caelars aim. You know that simply helping her to open the portal would stop the meatgrinder, even if freeing the Hells souls can be seen as something impossible (as if becoming a god was easier...). But writers dont let you to take that path. It is a path that makes perfect sense for many characters.
There should have been alternative paths OR a different story. Because the current one, even if it is OK, leaves several important plotholes and railroads you into paths you dont want/like. Everytime Caelar rants about you not wanting to join her I thought: "hey, tell the writers, not me¡"
I have felt forced into the path the writers wanted me to take. I had no option to side with Caelar (nobody thought that helping Caelar to bring all the souls back from Hell was a good and noble deed?). When you get to meet Caelar, in Dead Mans Pass, you probably know what is the true Caelars aim. You know that simply helping her to open the portal would stop the meatgrinder, even if freeing the Hells souls can be seen as something impossible (as if becoming a god was easier...). But writers dont let you to take that path. It is a path that makes perfect sense for many characters.
There should have been alternative paths OR a different story. Because the current one, even if it is OK, leaves several important plotholes and railroads you into paths you dont want/like. Everytime Caelar rants about you not wanting to join her I thought: "hey, tell the writers, not me¡"
5
Comments
As to Haphernaans intentions and the meeting with Caelar at the Crossing: Yes, I second that this is a plot hole. I sneaked into the castle with the ogre-driven lift, witnessed him talking to his evil master, even talked to the ghost in there (forgot his name) and then run the hell out of there. So, I knew the dark scheme, I knew that even Caelar was tricked, but I couldn't play out this knowledge, which was quite frustrating as it spoiled the gaming experience. I played the confrontation with Caelar and the whole battle feeling a huge, blinking sign saying "oversight error" over my head.
I have more suggestions:
EDIT: Ophyllis and the gold. The sword I got from him was a normal +2 long sword. I would have liked the chance to confront one specific person with this, and I actually expected it after the journal entry. Did I miss the possibility to confront the crusader who killed him?
-Who is uncle Aoun (sp?)? After all the chaos his nice's love for him caused, at least give me an extended dialogue option to ask him about his connection to Caelar and what he thinks about all this. (If this was available, I didn't see it).
-My PC was paladin and she didn't want to escape the prison, as she wouldn't run from a trial. The game design gave me no chance, or at least I didn't try as it seemed to be one-dimensional.
-Seeing that the mysterious thief who freed the PC in prison killed all the guards, my paladin PC nearly break down, crying. Again, no chance but to move on as the game was designed. At least give me a chance to confront Imoen with that! Also, an explanation who that thief was and how Imoen came to know him would be nice.
-All the PC's gear laying on the table in FF Headquarters, I mean - really? It was nice, of course, but since all is lost soon anyway, so why? This was screaming bad design in a moment I was discontented with the game events, anyway.
I could go on about how the ending disturbs continuity with BGII but I guess that's for another topic.
This is yet another example of how the expansion sucks. Limited storytelling. It would have been a lot more fun if they had written something new and not had to reel everything back to BG2. Kind of how Tales of the Sword Coast was just a neat little adventure with an interesting story and mystery behind it. That would have worked out a lot smoother.
Drizzt was an easter egg for people accustomed to the canon of D&D. Not knowing him makes him just another encounter you could like or not like. SoD evolves around the rescue of this uncle. It would be nice for people like me to understand his meaning while playing the game. It didn't even occur to me that he could be canon and someone important. Not knowing D&D lore shouldn't disqualify me from having a full game experience.
Of course it's nice to get all the gear back. But would they lie on the table right next to the cell? I am not complaining about getting the gear back. I am complaining about tha way it was done, making it look like "the player needs all the gear back, but we don't want to spend more time on that, so let's just dumb it onto the table".
Playing as a paladin: At the public hearing I chose the dialogue option not to say anything more. I thought it's paladin-like not to argue about one's own "not-guilt". Because, at that moment, it all hinted to the PC making the deathly blow, so even if my PC thought she didn't made it willingly, she was ready to account for being the hand who did it (as I indeed attacked the "slayer"). It was only in jail afterwards that The Hooded Man confronted her with memories that showed that she wasn't it.
Also, maybe I am too dumb but I didn't see this public flaming in the streets of the city as an official trial. The PC was just being returned after being catched and presented to the public. In my understanding, a real trial would have been something to happen later. You might understand my irritation that the escape was before that, and that my paladin PC was quite unhappy about how it all went.
But, if I have to talk and talk about me not being guilty in a stage where I would still have doubts about what was happening, it is bad game design I would have to go that path with a paladin PC. My opinion.
Thank you for the hint about a different ending, although I am quite shocked the endings would differ to so great extend - because it makes it even harder to combine them to one line again in BGII, if it's either escaped criminal with the whole city on your trial or escaped innocent with backup from the Dukes..
Which leads to your question about my feeling this ending disturbs continuity. Let me put it shortly:
1. Somewhere else someone phrased it: SoD shifts the question about why the canon party was in ID to the question why the BGII-canon party met with the PC after the escape. This question is not answered. They are just there "because". What made it even worse: After my PC thanked them for helping escape, Dynaheir said something that told me that she din't know it was Imoen who organized the escape, and that she disapproved. It felt like Dynaheir wasn't happy about being there, nor being informed about what was going on. Knowing that she will be killed the next moment doesn't make it better.
2. Leaving BG city as a fugitive murderer, thus, starting BGII as a fugitive murderer exiled from BG city changes the starting conditions quite a bit. The whole situation would be so much worse. Up to now, the PC could walk quite unnoticed in BGII, pursuing his foe. Now (s)he is a fugitive and murderer, there have to be follow-ups on that.
2-A. I would like to be able to address this in dialogues etc. Maybe even someone would recognise the PC from BG city.
2-B. My PC wants to have the possibility to get that dagger and clear her name.
3. It affects almost all BGII-NPC mods from NPCs also available in BG1. With the PC believed to be an escaped murderer, I would think most NPCs from BG1 would greet him/her differently. As of now, I have to play BGII with everyone saying "Oh, hi, CHARNAME! Nice to see you, what were you up to the last weeks?"
The last being the reason why the current ending hurts my understanding of continuity so much. (To phrase it bluntly, I didn't like the SoD ending. It felt forced, it felt wrong, and it didn't explain why the NPC that were there were actually there. Simply spoken: I didn't understand it.)
I want to state clearly that I welcome the Skie murderer case as another reason why the PC would pursue Irenicus (in the hopes to find the dagger and convict him as the real murderer).
But because it fits so well into the whole saga, it is so sad that there is no reference in BGII to any of these happenings yet. My hope is that BeamDog will add continuity here. (EDIT: The problem with discontinuity for all mod NPCs remains, and makes me real sad.)
EDIT: I swear that the misspelling of BeamDog was not intentional (I wrote MeanDog originally!!). That's what I'd call a Freudian slip, I have to say.
I wished they'd make a Duke Eltan ending for all cases. Having the wrong ending for my paladin PC (having to leave the city shamed and as murderer) really spoiled the experience of the game for me.
I just hope a following patch in BG2 allows us to call out Irenicus about framing us. Or hell, use it as another reason for the PC to want to hunt down Irenicus. What if your PC doesn't care all that much about what happens to Imoen? Maybe he/she wants to clear their name more than anything?
Maybe that's where your patience wears off.
As to whether the SoD ending should change how people think of you in BG2: why would it? Amn has no great love for Baldur's Gate (the city) nor would its rulers trust, or even care about, decisions the city would make except insofar as it affects Baldur's Gate's ability to wage war on its neighbors. With little migration between the two at that point in time, it's doubtful many people in Amn would be aware of what CHARNAME did, and those who did know would probably welcome CHARNAME's alleged actions as weakening a regional rival.
I do get what you're saying about not being able to tell Caelar the truth after you discover it, I thought that was frustrating too. If they had just given the dialogue option with Caelar not believing you because you were a tainted Bhaalspawn I think that would've been a bit better.
The thing I hate about railroady plots is when NPCs criticize your 'decisions', when you don't get a decision. That is BS. The game gets dangerously close to that but I don't think crosses the line.
But @gnaumiec got it right, you don't just open a portal to the nine hells without consequences, and as soon as it is open, the ones outside the room close it and guard it expecting all sorts of demons to come through.
As for the events being overlooked in BG2, I'm hopeful we'll get an expansion of some kind for that. I personally would love to rescue Caelar and save Skie.
But you're welcome to vent your frustration here, it's a public forum populated by people far more patient than me.
Amn is pretty damn far away from Baldur's Gate and most news travels by messenger.
Oh, hey...look what this link from a well-referenced Forgotten Realms lore site says http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Radiant_Heart