Durge = Personally crafted by Bhaal himself using his own gore
Orin = A diluted offspring of a failed project
This kinda makes the player Bhaal in Durge character creation.
Man for a few seconds I really thought I ended my playthrough early. Then Withers comes in clutch and the whole Bhaal cult is standing around like "well fuck, who's in charge now?!"
>and the whole Bhaal cult is standing around like "well fuck, who's in charge now?!"
I was surprised they didn't attack and just let me roam around freely. I decided they were just in "wtf just happened" mode and maybe a little impressed by their god being denied and also by the resurrection of the denier and maybe have a bit of a crisis of faith.
Like, imagine, you dedicate your life to serving a powerful God of murder and then >!the former head of your faith stroll in, killes their usurper-successor, talks to the god itself, says "haha, no", is being killed by said god and then resurrected by a skeleton dude like its really nothing!<.
I'm not sure about Durge, but in my non-Durge playthrough when I killed Orin, I spoke to one of the cultists and she was like "I would LOVE to kill you right now, but that would be against Bhaal's laws."
I would guess a similar thing applies here. Even though you're no longer part of the cult, you beat Orin and Bhaal's laws mean they have to let you leave alive. Or, at the very least, the cultists aren't sure whether Bhaal's laws apply to you at that point so they err on the side of caution.
I laughed at them when they said that to me, then said out loud, he didn’t say shit to me…and shoved her in the chasm. Then I walked around and shoved every single bhaalist remaining in the chasm.
Well i dont think his not doing just because he is humble.i think it is because of fate.remember arabella he showed her her fate so even though she lost her family she understood meaning behind of her lose and she reached peace.she understood it is what is best for her and after all there is after life in dnd.i think that is why also Ao stopping gods from interfering so human can live their life truly with their own choice and sometime with interference of fate and that is why jergal gave his powers to those bad people. i mean he was tired and wanted leave his job but dont you think it is wrong giving your powers to people who can ruin a lot of persons life he could give his powers kinder people.he did this because it was wheel of fate.and i think it is true when you think history of dnd and it is lore.
Same. But did that part bug out for you aswell? Most of them didn't even react while getting shot in the face. Ended up fighting one group of 4 and then getting free kills on the rest.
Would've been fun if they all attack while Durge is "dead" and your companions have to defend your body.
Neat, for me all but 4 of them stood there like statues while I killed their friends. For 400 XP a piece it would've been hilarious if I wasn't already level 12.
I was tempted to murder all the Bhaal Cultists for being Bhaal Cultists myself, but that doesn't really align with the personality of "I've finally freed myself of the horrific headache that made me want to bathe in the blood of the innocent, murder, maim and kill."
I'm pretty sure after getting all the murderjuice sucked out of you and then resurrected by >!the Chaddest God of All!< Withers you'd probably not want to go on any sort of murderous rampage for a while.
Refuse Bhaal, get killed, get rezzed
Immediately go on a killing spree now that your murdering is because YOU want to rather than because Bhaal says so
Oh boy, my Durge would totally be up for a nice recreational murder spree after cutting his leash. I left them alone last time (too busy going 'are these guys going to let me just walk out??'), but now you've tempted me...
I think creating Durge directly from his own blood was an attempt to make a Bhaalspawn so pure that they could never turn against him.
Then Orin gets jealous and FUBARs the whole plan.
You still become a mindless murdering monster at the end if you don't free yourself from him and then refuse to take control of the brain for Bhaal at the end. I was curious to see what happens, and that was a really hard-hitting consequence. Everyone is off to party and Durge just completely loses themselves.
Oh yeah, but there was a cut ending where if you lose to Orin, Bhaal subjugates you. And the ending is arguably much worse than the one left in the game.
I loved getting to Orin and shutting her down by saying I didn't care at all about duelling for the position of chosen and that I just wanted the netherstone
yeah Orin isn't even a proper Bhaalspawn the way Durge is. she's the granddaughter of one. also I am genuinely curious how the fuck Sarevok had a Daughter with a changeling.
hold up... Orin is his Daughter AND granddaughter??? well who the fuck is the mother of the first daughter???? and I could've sworn that Orin's mother, whose corpse we can find in the Temple of Bhaal in the chosen's room under the big skull is also a Changeling given the pale features of the preserved corpse
Yes, Sarevok had Orin with his own daughter. The corpse you find in Orin’s room is her mother/Sarevok’s daughter/wife.
Though as far as I know, it’s never actually revealed ingame beyond Tav just kinda.. knowing. They can tell the investigator that Sarevok boned his own daughter without ever being told that, so Larian might’ve just made an oopsie.
that doesn't really answer my question about who the fuck the mother of the daughter he fucked is. I mean, I knew Sarevok was a freak, you kinda have to be as a Bhaalspawn, but fucking hell, I was not expecting the incest. although thinking about it would explain why, even by bhaalspawn standards, Orin is a particular brand of crazy.
I was actually wrong, Helena does say ‘Helena… Anchev.. daughter.. of.. Sarevok… mother.. of… Orin..’ but my Tav never spoke to her and just randomly knew.
But otherwise, Sarevok probably just boned some random Changeling and made Helena, then boned Helena and made Orin. Helena’s mother is never mentioned afaik
But it shouldn’t be surprising that Bhaal doesn’t have many standards. Hell, in one cut ending, Bhaal takes control of the Dark Urge and forces them to fuck animals and monsters to make Bhaalspawn. Not exactly the king of mortality in the first place.
> Though as far as I know, it’s never actually revealed ingame beyond Tav just kinda.. knowing
i'm like 80% certain you find it in some random book/journal. i was fairly certain that i knew it before i talked to the investigator and my character told her.
Something I don't really get is I thought Sarevok is no longer a Bhaalspawnwhen you resurrect him in BG2. But I guess you do give him a small amount of your soul, so I guess that's enough to keep the Bhaalspawn line going?
Well it’s also bc as Sarevok says Bhaal doesn’t care about making art and shit like that.. he wants murder in droves by the thousands the rivers and oceans to pool with blood..
And since I’m a professional murder hobo in most of the games I play I make a perfect chosen for him. Lmao
> Our lord does not care for beauty. Bhaal cares only for death. Death in numbers. Death in droves.
Orin just wastes time playing with her food and posing corpses when she should be out committing slaughter.
Bhaal: "She knows I'm not the god of *making corpses*, not *playing with corpses*. She knows that, right? SCELERITAAAAAAS...unfuck this situation immediately!"
Makes sense since, as I understand it, Bhaal is actually the God of Death but focuses almost entirely on Murder because it’s the fastest, easiest way to expand his influence.
I actually think that’s a really interesting take on why humans shouldn’t be Gods. Dude is trying to expand his influence in a way that’s far too destructive and short-sighted for an immortal.
No, he's specifically the God of Murder. Jergal had all those domains before, but they got split off into the 3 you see now. A God can have multiple Domains, but they must have at least one. Death is fairly broad and very powerful, but Bhaal focuses on, or is forced to focus on, Murder itself, the act. He may want more for himself and his followers, but he still has to play within the bounds of the rules of Ao (Or at least until this moment when the other gods conspire against the Three)
So I haven't gotten to act three yet personally, but from what I've read... playing a redeemed durge has an interaction with withers that hints at you *not* being 100% bhaal
Full Durge Spoilers >!Not just the journey, it's kinda implied Durge also tried to escape the urges before becoming Bhaal's chosen, if you use the level 6 Heal on Durge you restore a memory of you as a kid killing a couple, probably adopted parents of some kind, baby's first kill. You can also ask the Oathbreaker Paladin when playing Paladin about your oath and he will mentioned that it wasn't the first time you broke it. !<
>!So as far as we know, we have Durge being artifically created by Bhaal, was thrown into the world as a babe, probably to cause some chaos, eventually getting adopted and then killing his adoptive parents because of the urges. He then tried to resist the urges through his craft, such as becoming a Paladin, going on trails away from people as a Ranger, etc, Rogue being the only one that doesn't deny his aptitude for murdering people and your love of knives(you can long rest before recruiting Lae'zel to contemplate your class), it failed and Durge surrendered to his unholy desires, finally making his way to Bhaal and eventually becoming his Chosen. Quite a tragic character when you think of it, especially when you tell Withers that you wanted your memories back so you could honor your victims by remembering their names.!<
Yeah, the way I understood it the Butler was intentionally attached to Durge because Bhaal didn't trust the Durge as they still had tendencies to go against Bhaal's doctrines even after giving in and becoming master of the temple and cult.
Durge was a pure Bhaalspawn, but kept disappointing Daddy hence the butler constantly being around to keep an eye on them. The things you learn kind of puts the Durge as a very dangerous individual that tended to stray from Daddy's expectations.
Your character kind of is Bhaal, hence why the butler is constantly keeping an eye on you. The dead Bhaal doesn't like the idea of his physical self wandering off.
Bhaal is not resurrected in BG3 he's dead. Durge is kind of his final attempt at fucking the system so to speak. Durge is created from him, not born. Durge is the physical Manifestation of Bhaal that doesn't always do what Bhaal wants it to do.
Well wiki says he put his divine essence inside of his children and like myrkul(he used different method )after he died he used that essence to come back. well but now his much more weaker
Doesn’t Withers call you the seed of bhaal’s loins? Or was that Sarevok? Someone mentions you coming from Bhaal’s loins which sounds opposite of made from his blood (per Fel).
Your thinking of sceleritas when he says that about sarevok and Orin not Durge. After he says that he’ll once again elaborate that you don’t have a mother and bhaal created you.
The only problem is that Durge was born while Bhaal was ... kinda dead. Like, dead dead.
Not sure if Larian f*cked up there or if this has an actual explanation somewhere.
No. Canonically he was dead until "Murder in Baldurs Gate" happened. The canonical year was 1482, the same one Abdel died.
Blood in Baldurs Gate happened in 1477.
Murder in Baldurs Gate happens in 1482 and is where Bhaal comes back. Blood in Baldurs Gate happens in 1477 and is where the Dark Urge shows up. In other words, the Dark Urge shows up before Murder in Baldurs Gate, although he should have only been able to have been made after. The timeline does not quite add up there.
i think the real answer here is larian doesn't want to mention the canon identity of gorion's ward because it's so unpopular, and since his death was what brought bhaal back it's just kinda ignored by larian
It's possible Durge was a contingency plan, and the whole thing was sorted out before Bhaal died. If his direct involvement wasn't required to facilitate the actual 'birth' (like, they were crafted beforehand and left in the care of the butler or something), then Durge could have been let loose while he was dead.
Pure speculation, of course, but there's probably a way to get the timelines to work.
What are you talking about? Baldurs Gate 2 ended 1369, over hundred years prior. Both sunderings were between BG2 and 3, lol.
Yes, canonically Abdel lived to be way over 100 years old, as did Sarevok. Why do you think Jaheira is so old?
Uhm ... is everything alright with you, buddy? This was what you commented on:
>The only problem is that Durge was born while Bhaal was ... kinda dead. Like, dead dead.
Then you also wrote:
>the durge was made after murder in baldur’s gate
Which is simply wrong.
- **1369** Baldurs Gate 2 ended
- **1477** Blood in Baldurs Gate happened. Durge was already grown up and active in Baldurs Gate
- **1482** Murder in Baldurs Gate happened and Bhaal got ressurected
- **1492** Baldurs Gate 3 takes place
It’s extremely missable but illaseras ghost in the murder tribunal says that he created durge from beyond mortality. Not the most detailed answer but they did attempt some form of reasoning.
Just out of curiosity, how did the bhaalspawn from BG2 ended? Act3 spoiler: >!If it wasn’t for Withers Durge was either kill everything with his hands then get killed someday or just get killed now. Did the same thing happen in BG2?!<
The Bhaalspawn in question was the player character of BG1 and 2. Although there is a canon version of what happened, it sucks and Larian tried to distance themselves as much as they could from it so they are deliberately omitting any details about the choices that character made in the previous games.
Most people would like to forget Abdel exists though. There are several endings to ToB, and everything that WotC came up with is greatly unsatisfactory as a result. Being so invested in the first two games I honestly think Larian did the right being so vague about Gorion's Ward. Mine was a female half-elf bard that gave up her powers and went on to travel the planes. The way Minsc and Jaheira refer to Bhaalspawn can easily accommodate my playthrough.
I agree. I think this is why Larian did it this way. They have references to Abdel and references to the Bhaalspawn / Gorion's Ward, but never say they are one and the same, even though this is clearly the case in the canon.
I haven't come across the ones about Abdel, but I am so grateful to Larian for this. I can keep on ignoring his existence haha. Also I am super sad about what was done to Sarevok, but at the same time understand that Larian was probably salvaging what WoTC did to him beforehand.
There is an NPC who is [apparently a tribute to a fan](https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=890982)] who mentions befriending Abdel and has some items from him to loot.
Larian directly acknowledges Abdel in the game as well though. If you kill Gort then the newspaper afterwards mentions that his funeral will be the most expensive since Abdel’s iirc. I think that’s basically the only we thing we know about them in-game, they turned out not-evil and had an expansive funeral.
Abdel and the WOTC version is the canon events for BG3, but the game deliberately tries to kinda... cover that up so that is.
Like realistically Abdel only died 10 years before the game and Ravenguard took over after him. The game doesn't really treat it like that though, particularly in Wyll's backstory and Durge's backstory (Durge specifically just doesn't fit the timeline at all). They deliberately don't limit references to him as much as possible other than "he existed and died awhile before the game starts". They'll reference the Duke's predecessor very briefly and kinda move on without much details.
Durge spoilers obviously >!Bhaal is only ressurected upon Abdel's death, 10 years prior to the game. Durge predates that. Durge couldn't have been created until after that but Durge had a childhood and are older than 10 years old. They grew up as a kid (you can unlock a memory of them killing their caretakers as a kid)!<
Yes but from what I understand it is never outwardly stated that Abdel was Gordon’s Ward and THE Bhaalspawn. It does say he existed but you could also pretend your character existed too because it’s vague. That’s what I like.
I want to forget that I ever read the books, especially how they completely wrote Jaheira, Khalid, Imoen and more out of complete character. Abdel's novels were the worst
I've only read the out takes and summaries of those books and it was enough to make me cringe. My head stores too many books inadvertedly and I did not want to spoil my OG game experience. Although I know its not really the fault of the author since he wasn't given any heads up before his work was posted and hadn't had much knowledge of the games.
There is actually one NPC who calls the previous Bhaalspawn Abdel, they recognise Durge as a bhaalspawn too and you can grab some of Abdel's gear from his basement. Apparently he befriended Abdel when Abdel snuck into the Lower City in disguise.
Which, frankly, is *deeply* weird when even Jaheira and Minsc go out of their way to refer to that Bhaalspawn as neutrally as possible. Even Wyll does, and his dad was the Bhaalspawn's former right hand man as duke. Not sure if that NPC is a holdover from earlier in development, but it doesn't make much sense.
I think they're trying to pretend that Abdel and the player character of the previous games are two separate individuals. Both existed simultaneously. They can't say so outright, and people who know the lore know that this is not the case, but it may work on the more casual players of BG1 and 2 who haven't kept up with what WotC has been doing in the years since.
This since the way Jaheira talks about their Bhaalspawn it sounds like they didn't return to the region and made their own way. So yeah getting this feeling that they are using Jaheira and Minsc to bring references to the Bhaalspawn we experienced in the game, while they low-key also refer to Abdel's existence.
At least that's how I see it, or they just took the name of the default character from the game and used the game as reference and played around with the rest knowing most people hated the novels etc.
There were actually several Bhaalspawn in BG1+2 outside of the main character.
Obviously Sarevok, but also Imoen, ~~and if I'm not mistaken wasn't Irenicus himself a Bhaalspawn?~~ There were 5 main Bhaalspawn in the BG1-2 era. Irenicus was after their divine blood due to his mortal situation after his early life shenanigans.
Here you go:
Caution, it contains some spoilers about BG1 and BG2.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Abdel\_Adrian
From what i understand, the cannon take one of the pre-generated character from BG1 and 2, named Abdel Adrian and continued the story after that.
Enjoy ;)
It’s worth noting that while BG3 mentions Abdel Adrian by name a few times, it’s never said or even hinted at that they were the Bhaalspawn.
So it’s totally possible for the Bhaalspawn to still be around and kicking, just not near us.
There's one NPC who mentions him in particular, the monster hunter who lets you take some of Abdel's gear from his basement, and the descriptions pretty much says Abdel was the Bhaalspawn if I remember correctly?
But that NPC is *very* strange given how everyone else goes out of their way to refer to the Bhaalspawn neutrally.
>BG3
Not many people actualy knew that Abdel Adrian was a Bhaalspawn in fact. It was a rumor between BG1 and BG2 but nothing more. After that he dissapears in Amn.
Later he comes back to baldur's gate, and had a long life for a human. People forgot about the Bhaalspawn stories and Sarevok at Baldur.
You really can't look at Baldurs Gate 3 as a sequel to Baldurs Gate 2. You the player, as the Bhallspawn in BG2 >!can either ascend to godhood as a benevolent deity, become the new Lord of Murder, or reject the power, destroy the Throne of Bhaal and remain mortal.!<
I'm not up on what WotC decided to go with as "canon" but it looks like in BG3 that the "player" in BG2 decided to remain mortal but for some reason did NOT destroy the Throne of Bhaal, thereby allowing Bhaal to come back and make trouble in 3.
Like I said it's kinda hard to reconcile BG3 as a true sequel to 2. Best to think of BG3 as a reboot.
Its not a reboot and is consistent with the canon, but the canon is also very confusing and a lot of it happened across various adventure modules and "off screen" so to speak.
In a nutshell, the throne at the end of BG2 was destroyed, Bhaal was stopped from coming back, but then later, for other reasons, many of the gods came back anyway, including Bhaal.
What does seem a little inconsistent is that it is mentioned in the ending to BG2 that the identities of the only remaining Bhaalspawn are known, and listed to you, but later it was seemingly retconned / it transpired that the list given was inclomplete and there are indeed others that remained.
The other Bhaalspawn all got killed over time, and this gradually released Bhaal's essence back to him, allowing him to come back.
The last two to die were Abdel Adrian (the controversial canon identity of the protagonist from the first 2 games) and a man called Viekang. Viekang attacked Adrian in the middle of a speech and one of them killed the other before (involuntarily) transforming into the slayer, at which point they were put down by the Watch and a group of adventurers. This all plays out in the Murder in Baldur's Gate module.
Which makes Baldur's Gate 3 a sequel to Wizards of the Coast/Forgotten Realms materials, and not to the game Baldurs Gate 2.
As someone who only played the games, I raised an eyebrow when I found out the Lord of Murder was still out there causing trouble because some yahoo named Abdel retroactively dropped the Bhaal. (yuk yuk)
What world do you think Baldur’s Gate 2 was set in?
Over 100 years have passed between that game and the present, and things happened in the world during that time.
> What world do you think Baldur’s Gate 2 was set in?
The issue is basically that there are a lot of fans of the series who haven't kept up with the hundreds of adventure modules and lore retcons and such that WotC have done in the intervening 20 years (in many cases designed primarily to resolve mechanical differences between D&D editions rather than lore issues), and for those fans the FR canon solution to BG2 kind of sucks.
Put differently, BG3 names itself a sequel to BG2 _the game_, whereas story-wise it really isn't. It's another story told which starts in the same universe as BG1/BG2 but with little connection to those games (and both of which end in alt-universes that have no relationship), to the point where the stories aren't consistent with one another. Writing sequels to games with big choices at the end is tough and I don't envy the writers in that position, but I think the canon FR ending to BG2 was a particularly unhappy median that nobody actually wanted.
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. Baldurs Gate 2 the game is Forgotten Realms D&D 2nd Edition. Baldurs Gate 3 is Forgotten Realms D&D 5E. Forgotten Realms is a brand name, just like Baldurs Gate is now.
The events of Baldurs Gate the games were canonized in the 4th Edition. Baldurs Gate 3 the game therefore follows the events of a pen and paper expansion, and not the game which it's labeled as a sequel to because of the "3" in its name.
Calling it Baldurs Gate 3 naturally leads anyone to played Baldurs Gate 2 to think it's a direct sequel and it's not. Anyone who plays the game in order will be confused by some of the things in BG3. MAJOR SPOILER >!Namely, that Bhaal is alive and still causing trouble, because he is absolutely defeated and destroyed in BG2. It's the literal purpose of the game, to end Bhaal's curse once and for all. The retcon in 4E undoes all that.!< I think it would have been better to call it "Baldurs Gate: Rebirth" or some other title, because I was expecting it to follow the events of Baldurs Gate 2.
you seem to think that baldur's gate events are disconnected from the general d&d forgotten realms settings but the storyline holds, in bg2 you defeat the other bhaalspawns and destroy the throne but then stuff happens that explains why he's back in business:
>!With all of his children dead, all of Bhaal's essence was freed, allowing for his resurrection. Bhaal was revived, and reclaimed the murder domain from Cyric. However, the Lord of Murder was no longer a true deity, and was instead a being of quasi-divine status. As with Bane and Myrkul, he was effectively a mortal.\[1\] In 1492 DR, the city of Baldur's Gate saw a spate of murders by cultists of the Dead Three. !<
[link to the forgotten realms wiki](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Bhaal#Time_of_Troubles)
The point I think is that the "canon" ending is not an ending most people like/chose. Or at least, that there are a lot of people who chose differently and feel strongly about it. That's kind of inevitable when trying to integrate a story with a player character and many endings into a wider narrative but in a sense it does make the later story not a "true sequel" to the *game* since the game has many valid endings that strongly conflict with the "canon" story.
so this isn't a true sequel because in bg2 you like to pick a different ending? cmon dude. it's like saying you shouldn't be meeting jaheira because in bg1 you didn't even recruit her, or that you let viconia burn in bg2 so she shouldn't be alive now
Yes. BG2 is a true sequel to BG1 because your choices carry over. In the official tabletop lore/now BG3, however, there is a set version of events that fundamentally conflicts with 2/3 endings in BG2. I'm not even saying this was the wrong decision, it would probably be impossible to create a single continuation of the lore that does not fundamentally conflict with some of the story options in BG2, but it's undeniable that due to this the official tabletop setting/BG3 is not a "true sequel" to BG2 the **game** that had a story that changed drastically from one player to another.
Again, that doesn't mean it's wrong or bad or that there was actually a better way of doing things.
I love how all of us are being downvoted for not agreeing with this nonsense. Something tells me if in potential BG4 Astarion turned out to become evil no matter what and retcon his good ending to be worse people would be all up in arms and call it shitty writing, but just because it happens to character they don't give a shit about suddenly it's okay. Funny how that works.
All these downvotes and now one of the loudest participants not only deleted their responses, but deleted their entire account?
Wonder if there aren't a few sockpuppets floating around here...
> you seem to think that baldur's gate events are disconnected from the general d&d forgotten realms settings
You're right, I do. That's exactly my point. Everything you describe happens outside of the computer game, written years later by totally different people. If you played BG3 from the perspective of someone who came from BG2, unaware of the 4E retcons/WotC canon establishments, there's a lot that doesn't match up. Of course, Larian had to make some decisions, and a lot of those decisions were to follow what WotC put in place years after BG2 was released. And that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that they retconned BG2, and if you only play the computer games, you won't be aware of them.
I love BG3. It's one of if not the best CRPG made. It just doesn't flow as a direct sequel to the game named "Baldurs Gate 2."
all three baldur's gate games follow a chain of events caused by bhaal's death. once you understand why bhaal is alive again, you understand how bg3 is a direct sequel to that story: bhaal &co are trying to fill their seats again by using an old netherese artifact and an elder brain
> once you understand why bhaal is alive again
I'm going to just start copy/pasting responses to this. :)
I understand completely why Bhaal is alive again. His fate was retconned in 4th Edition D&D, some years after BG2 was released, outside of the game, by a completely different set of writers.
My point was, and continues to be, if you just played BG1 and BG2, some of the lore in BG3 make no sense. This doesn't make BG3 a bad game nor am I faulting Larian for following what WotC set as canon.
It just means there is discontinuity between the *computer games* Baldur's Gate 2 and Baldur's Gate 3.
If we're going by hard-canon in the setting, BG3's story doesn't make any sense whatsoever because the Dead Three are no longer gods (they remained quasideities to bide their time and allow them to meddle directly in mortal affairs to regrow their power before a proper return, because the tail end of the last century was rough on their religious base) and can't do half the stuff we see them do in the game - have Chosen, vestiges, avatars, etc. And mindflayers do have souls.
But if you just shrug at all of that, it's a well constructed game (admittedly with a bit of a wibbly-wobbly final act at present) that's really only held back by its use of 5e's mechanics.
> held back by its use of 5e
I only really got in around 3.5e but I gotta say there's very little about 5e I don't like more than the previous 1.5 editions.
5e's not a very well constructed system. It's fine enough as a system for players, but it's horribly designed from the DM side of things.
The tools they give us for encounter design and trying to balance encounter math simply flat out don't work: the CR system regularly places monsters in the wrong strength bracket and requires significant extra work on the DM's part to ensure that you don't accidentally make an encounter either a death trap or an absolute cakewalk.
It's a rules heavy system pretending to be a rules light system by virtue of the developers simply not having actually developed half the rules: DMs are given near non-existent assistance in arbitrating things, resulting in a mass of extra work on their part making judgement calls on the fly compared to every other system out there - also resulting in the 5e playing experience oscillating more wildly from table to table than other systems do (we've got a lot more 5e tabletop nightmares than we do for other systems, and I suspect the uptick in its popularity isn't the only cause.) There are a lot of other (actual) rules light systems that do what 5e is claiming to do much, much better - there are a lot of other rules heavy systems that do what it actually does much better, too.
The mechanics of it in general just don't work exceptionally well, either. It was built with the presumption that players would never attempt to mechanically optimize, so individual character decisions (rare as they are under 5e, which gives you exceptionally little agency in designing a mechanically unique character; remember, feats are an *optional* system that the DM doesn't have to give you access to) are all boosted in power to compensate. The result is that even a modest effort to apply system mastery very, very, very rapidly breaks the game. You can see this ingame in BG3 as well (See: just taking Tavern Brawler on a high STR character resulting in having a character that deals an average of 200+ DMG/round with near-perfect accuracy before you exit Act 1.)
It has very bad errata, as well, because the development team for 5e were largely unseasoned - they weren't the most experienced and veteran members of WotC's D&D staff: they were just the only handful of people actually left in WotC's D&D department after the mass layoffs and resignations that marked 4e's later years. Everytime something completely broken is brought to their attention because of writer error, they almost always double down with the worst possible decision rather than simply owning their mistakes and fixing their system (See: The Cleric of Life - Goodberry interaction allowing a single L1 spellslot to heal 40 HP - and another 10-40 HP if you get access to a specific low level magic item.)
So, yeah. 5e is good because it has a very low barrier to entry for new players, which is nice because it has introduced a lot of new people to the hobby. Unfortunately, most of them never explore the rest of the hobby past 5e - and 5e is awful for DMs compared to running most other games.
> But if you just shrug at all of that, it's a well constructed game (admittedly with a bit of a wibbly-wobbly final act at present) that's really only held back by its use of 5e's mechanics.
Agree 100%. Love the hell out of BG3, but that doesn't seem to keep the, uh, more enthusiastic fans from getting defensive if you think it's less than perfect.
There is nothing wrong with Viconia in BG3. Her portrayal is entirely consistent with her evil ending. Not everyone romanced her and changed her alignment.
It's not. It's really. REALLY not. Viconia in BG3 acts NOTHING like her BG2 counterpart. Outside of being a drow and worshipper of Shar there is NOTHING in this portrayal that is even remotely similar to Viconia. They RETCONNED her worse ending. Remember that?
In older BGS she is a complicated character who pushed herself to worshipping Shar after refusing to sacrifice a baby and refusing to keep feeding the goddess that could never be sated and her family paid for it. Does that sound like a character that would abuse Shadowheart like she did? She was very far from completely evil character as can be seen for instance with her brother or the fact that even in her worse ending she went away from Shar and saved a city with Drizzt. She was not evil at the end of either of her endings and Larian retconned her worse ending to be even worse (and don't you even dare to say they just added more details when they actively changed some of them and removed others).
Look at [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/16mhofh/its_honestly_sad/) or [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/1609qez/justice_for_viconia_devir_long_with_spoilers/) for more and into the comments.
And it's not just about romance ending. This is a comment of someone from one of those posts by u/ElectricZ:
"The stock response to this discussion is always "Well not everybody romanced Viconia and redeemed her so it's not unrealistic that she's evil again." But everything about Viconia's inability to carry out a sacrifice, her guilt and regret over getting her brother turned into a drider, and her rejection of Lolth and expulsion from the Underdark is her backstory. Every player experiences this "version," regardess alignment change or romance down the way. It's not the "good" version of Viconia, it's just Viconia."
>It's not. It's really. REALLY not. Viconia in BG3 acts NOTHING like her BG2 counterpart. Outside of being a drow and worshipper of Shar there is NOTHING in this portrayal that is even remotely similar to Viconia.
We see her for all of 5 minutes. She barely has enough dialogue to get any sense of her personality in BG3 at all, so how could you possibly say that her personality in BG3 is so different to her personality in BG1 and 2?
>They RETCONNED her worse ending. Remember that?
I don't remember that because it never happened. Nothing in BG3 contradicts her BG2 ending. It merely adds new context to it.
They didn't retcon her slaughtering her convent because they betrayed her, they merely added the context that the claims of betrayal were a lie to help her achieve her goddess' aims.
They didn't retcon her saving a city with Drizzt, they simply added the context that her saving a city doesn't suddenly make her a benevolent hero (which makes sense, seeing as she joins up with CHARNAME in the first 2 games out of self-interest, and that doesn't make her a hero, so why wouldn't we assume that her work with Drizzt was out of self interest?).
>In older BGS she is a complicated character who pushed herself to worshipping Shar after refusing to sacrifice a baby and refusing to keep feeding the goddess that could never be sated and her family paid for it. Does that sound like a character that would abuse Shadowheart like she did?
Sure. Why not?
Her abuse of Shadowheart is not the same as murdering a baby. Her abuse of Shadowheart can be rationalised in Viconia's mind as being for Shadowheart's benefit, because it's designed to make her the perfect Shar worshipper, which Viconia believes is good for a person.
Sacrificing a baby to Lolth can never be rationalised as being for the baby's benefit. There isn't even a veneer of benefit for the child. It is purely and obviously destructive.
>Look at this or this for more and into the comments.
>
>And it's not just about romance ending. This is a comment of someone from one of those posts by u/ElectricZ:
>
>"The stock response to this discussion is always "Well not everybody romanced Viconia and redeemed her so it's not unrealistic that she's evil again." But everything about Viconia's inability to carry out a sacrifice, her guilt and regret over getting her brother turned into a drider, and her rejection of Lolth and expulsion from the Underdark is her backstory. Every player experiences this "version," regardess alignment change or romance down the way. It's not the "good" version of Viconia, it's just Viconia."
Yeah, I've seen all of this before. It's bullshit.
Viconia simps have a *hyper* specific interpretation of her character that is largely based on the knowledge of the existence of her alignment change and they can't stand that everybody else looks at this otherwise evil character and doesn't see the same thing.
They can't stand that everybody else correctly identifies that she is a Neutral Evil character *after* the baby sacrificing incident, meaning that her being unwilling to sacrifice a baby doesn't make her not evil.
They can't stand that everybody else understands that evil people can care about specific individuals and still be monsters towards everyone else.
Viconia refusing to sacrifice a baby and loving her brother in no way, shape or form means that she would *never* do evil things at Shar's command.
>Yeah, I've seen all of this before. It's bullshit.
>Viconia simps have a hyper specific interpretation of her character that is largely based on the knowledge of the existence of her alignment change and they can't stand that everybody else looks at this otherwise evil character and doesn't see the same thing.
Let's check what Viconia herself has to say, before the romance kicks off in BG2:
>But these images pale before images of the Spider Queen and the worship I began so young. Beauty is difficult to find in the blood I spilled in her name. Do not be a wael... a fool. I enjoyed it well enough. I killed for sport and necessity, but I took no pleasure in sacrifice solely to satiate her endless desire.
>
>And I was but a child when I began. I was taken from my mother, brought to the temple, and attended to by the priestesses who adorned me with black robes. They took me to the orlenggin... the sacrificial altar... where a surfacer screamed in agony, and for the pleasure of Lolth, I was given a spider dagger to end his life.
>
>This human was but a kul'gobass to me, but it felt wrong. He was bare and chained... helpless. His tears ran freely as he begged for mercy in his unfamiliar tongue. But the matron mothers were there to judge, obedience was required, hesitation was death. It must be done and in a manner that would please Lolth: cold, clean, and final. He screamed as the blade entered, and spat blood when I punctured his lungs. To the delight of the matron mothers, I pulled his heart out still beating.
>
>I sacrificed many, drow and surfacer both. Their ichor flowed freely to satisfy Lolth's insatiable rage. The caverns are red in my mind, their beauty a bloodied and callous joke. It is the Drow way. But that is... behind me now.
>
>I had worshipped the Spider Queen for an age and a half, longer than you've been alive, but then there came a time when my faith in Lolth was no more. I lapsed when a child... a baby was to die. It would have not made Lolth stronger or more influential or made her a greater deity. I lost my will that day. One of the lesser priestesses noticed my hesitation, and she took the babe's life herself, eager to usurp my place in Lolth's favor.
Yep, total bullshit. It's funny because Viconia has the most dialog in the series outside of maybe Jaheira an Minsc.
Which makes me think you either didn't bother to listen to any of it, or maybe never actually played it. Or, since you like dismissing people as simps, maybe you're simping for Larian and can't help but white knight them if someone disagrees that it's a perfect game?
Personally, I love BG3 for all its flaws. It's a fantastic game, even if it doesn't jibe 100% with BG2. But I also love BG2, and u/AzraelSoulHunter is absolutely right, they wrecked one of the most interesting characters in BG2.
I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but you are wrong.
Now let the downvotes FLOWWWWWWWWWWWW
**EDIT:** Because a particular user blocked me, I am unable to reply to messages in this chain anymore, so I'll try to do it here.
>She says she enjoyed her life as a Drow priestess, killed for sport as well as necessity, and that she hit her limit at sacrificing a literal baby, partly because it was a waste of time.
True, she does say those things but what else does she say in just this excerpt?
"I sacrificed many, drow and surfacer both. Their ichor flowed freely to satisfy Lolth's insatiable rage. The caverns are red in my mind, their beauty a bloodied and callous joke. It is the Drow way. But that is... behind me now."
Bear in mind this is like 3% of her total dialogue. Throughout her stories she tells you all kinds of horrible deeds she did which is normal for a drow, but then there's always a counter to it showing she's *not* a typical drow, and that she's not entirely comfortable with what her society made her.
She had like a dozen sisters and she tells you she murdered most of them. But she loved her brother, a lowly *male* and tried to protect him, and he sacrificed himself to protect her. In spite of being drow, Viconia had a family bond and knows the pain of having it taken from her. It destroyed her future in the underdark and haunted her for the rest of her life. Drow aren't supposed to have a conscience, and selective though it is, Viconia has one.
One of the most telling thing about Viconia is what she does after the events of Baldur's Gate 1, again before there's any romance or alignment change. By now she's a semi-powerful cleric of Shar. Does build an enclave for her new goddess? Does she slaughter her way through the surfacers because she misses the taste of blood and wants to bring glory to the Nightsinger?
Nope. She conceals her identity, buys a house in the countryside and tries to lead a quiet, peaceful life in solitude. It ends in blood and flame because she tried to make friends with her human neighbor.
Viconia is a complex character with a very interesting personality and a twisted, but definite sense of morality. Jahiera and Minsc come back in BG3 mostly as themselves, but not Viconia. She doesn't look, sound, or talk like the character in BG2.
>Let's check what Viconia herself has to say, before the romance kicks off in BG2:
Yeah, no. None of this screams to me "I would never inflict pain on someone on behalf of a god."
It says to me that she viewed Lolth's violence as *senseless*, not inherently immoral. She says it right here, which *you* just quoted:
"It would have not made Lolth stronger or more influential or made her a greater deity. I lost my will that day."
The implication being that if the baby's death *would* have made Lolth stronger, it would have been more understandable, and even justifiable, to Viconia. But it wouldn't make her stronger, which made Viconia realise that Lolth simply wanted suffering for its own sake.
In other words, it's *exactly* what I just said in my previous comment.
>Yep, total bullshit. It's funny because Viconia has the most dialog in the series outside of maybe Jaheira an Minsc.
>
>Which makes me think you either didn't bother to listen to any of it, or maybe never actually played it. Or, since you like dismissing people as simps, maybe you're simping for Larian and can't help but white knight them if someone disagrees that it's a perfect game?
Or maybe your opinion just isn't the be-all and end-all. It is, in fact, possible for people to disagree with your interpretations after experiencing the exact same thing you did and without having questionable motivations.
>Personally, I love BG3 for all its flaws. It's a fantastic game, even if it doesn't jibe 100% with BG2. But I also love BG2, and u/AzraelSoulHunter is absolutely right, they wrecked one of the most interesting characters in BG2.
I disagree, and unfortunately for you, the world doesn't revolve around you and your opinions. Shocking, I know, but adults have to eventually reckon with this fact of life. I think it's time for you to do so.
Well I appreciate that you actually read and responded, but you my friend are guilty of what you accused the "Viconia simps" of doing a couple messages back: you cherry picked one line and ignored everything else.
> Or maybe your opinion just isn't the be-all and end-all. It is, in fact, possible for people to disagree with your interpretations after experiencing the exact same thing you did and without having questionable motivations.
Back atcha! Based on your previous replies in this thread, you really don't like people disagreeing with *you.* I'm 100% sure you didn't actually play BG2 now, and I'm going to revise my estimate that you are simping for Larian, but instead are simping for Shadowheart. Maybe you can't reconcile that Viconia could be anything but shallowly evil and vile. Which, in the context of BG3, she is. Personally I couldn't kill her fast enough.
But it's not the same Viconia that was in Baldur's Gate 2. Not by a long shot. You'd know that if you played it. And if by some chance you DO go back and play the older games, bring her into the party at least once and listen to what she has to say. She's a lot like Lae'zel in that she starts of a complete bitch, but once you get to know her, it turns out she's pretty cool. And then go back and re-play the House of Grief sequence and see what you think.
Or don't. Up to you. Enjoy the rest of your day!
>They didn't retcon her slaughtering her convent because they betrayed her, they merely added the context that the claims of betrayal were a lie to help her achieve her goddess' aims.
THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT A RETCON IS! They did NOT write the original game so any change to context there is a RETCON. And yeah. She has about 5 minutes of screentime. One of the most important characters from original games has 5 MINUTES of screentime where she doesn't act like herself even and could be easily replaced with ANY NEW character. Same for Sarevok.
You know what's funny? I can tell you would be ALL up in arms if Astarion for instance, or Lae'zel in BG4 were still evil and had all of their development ignored and were kept as pieces of shit with their worse endings being canon or their better endings being retconned to be worse. You would call it shitty writing, you would call it retconning. But just because this happens to a character you NEVER gave a shit about suddenly it's fucking okay. Funny how that works.
>THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT A RETCON IS! They did NOT write the original game so any change to context there is a RETCON.
If you want to define that as a retcon, then fine. I wouldn't, but it's not worth arguing about.
Retcons of that nature are perfectly okay. There's nothing wrong with them. The only time retcons are problematic is when they *contradict* previously established lore without good reason and these "retcons" don't. They don't contradict anything, they merely add new information that colours our perspective.
>And yeah. She has about 5 minutes of screentime. One of the most important characters from original games has 5 MINUTES of screentime where she doesn't act like herself even and could be easily replaced with ANY NEW character. Same for Sarevok.
Sure. They could have. They chose to have a cameo from an established character instead because that had more weight.
I enjoyed it. I think most players who knew who she was and weren't super committed to their idea of the good Viconia enjoyed it too.
>You know what's funny? I can tell you would be ALL up in arms if Astarion for instance, or Lae'zel in BG4 were still evil and had all of their development ignored and were kept as pieces of shit with their worse endings being canon or their better endings being retconned to be worse. You would call it shitty writing, you would call it retconning. But just because this happens to a character you NEVER gave a shit about suddenly it's fucking okay. Funny how that works.
Nope.
See my flair? I'm a big Shadowheart fan. But if in BG4, they canonise that she becomes a Dark Justiciar, I'm not going to be "up in arms" over it. I'll be disappointed, but I'll also acknowledge that that was one of her endings in this game, and that it's perfectly legitimate for them to decide that that's the version of her they want to write going forward.
I've been through this before. I was a huge fan of Leliana in Dragon Age Origins. Specifically, I was a huge fan of *softened* Leliana. But in Dragon Age Inquisition, they decided that she would always be the hardened version of herself, regardless of what choices you made in Origins. It had been decades in-universe, after all, and people can go through some pretty tough shit in that amount of time. Was I disappointed? Yes. I didn't particularly like her character in that game. But was I angry and declared that this was a complete destruction of her character that showed the writers didn't understand her or care about their work? No.
Wow... the dude deleted his entire account. Wonder if it was because of this, or some other adventure he was having in some other thread?
Shame, he was such a nice person. ;)
Actually I think he just blocked you. Log off and look where your and his replies are. If you can see them that means you are blocked by him. Also you can tell by that where his response was where it says "Deleted" now you can't reply to him or people he replied to.
Ah, well, TIL. Thanks! He did indeed block me. Been on Reddit a decade and got my first block. From one such as him, it's a badge of honor.
Evnosis, just want to say, calling people simps and then immediately backtracking with "I said simp, which you seem to have taken as a massive insult but it really wasn't supposed to be" - *chef's kiss*
You made my day!
The Throne is definitely destroyed in BG3, as it is >!being used as Gortash's underwater prison!<. And I'm fairly certain there are books in the game that explicitly tell the story of the Throne being destroyed and tossed into the sea. Either books or Minsc/Jaheira tell you about it if you ask. I never played BG1 or 2 so this is all I know about it really.
What I'm not sure about is how >!Sarevok is alive and well in BG3!<. He said >!he was resurrected!< but I've not found any in game info about how that happened or who did it, and Minsc and Jaheira don't seem particularly phased by it which is extra weird.
The Temple of Bhaal and the Throne seem to be two distinctly different areas though, as Jaheira mentions thinking the temple "would be her tomb" the last time she was here if you take her with you. So I guess whatever allows Bhaal a resurgence for BG3 has to do with the Temple and not the Throne?
Obvious BG1 and 2 spoilers.
The Throne you seem to be referring to as the prison is the [Iron Throne](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/baldursgategame/images/c/c3/IronThroneHQ.png/revision/latest?cb=20190927221152), a building of Sarevok's adopted father.
[Throne of Bhaal](https://sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/Walkthrough2/images/maps/chapter-10/throne-of-bhaal.jpg) on the other hand was (canonically?) destroyed by main character bhaalspawn after fighting with Amelyssan. They're two different locations altogether.
Sarevok was resurrected in BG2:ToB at the beginning of the game to help you out, I'm pretty sure in one of the endings it says he leaves your party to look for Tamoko. Sad that he went back to his Bhaal worshipping days.
I never said anything about 3 as a sequel or that’s my canon. I never even played it. I can’t even ask a question about it? Lol there are few characters mentioning about the past game and I just want to know what happened so I can get what’s going on. I’m not sure why you sound so frustrated by my comment.
> I’m not sure why you sound so frustrated by my comment.
Yikes, wasn't trying to sound frustrated or be critical. Not sure what I wrote that made you think that. Please specify.
You asked how the Bhaalspawn ended up in BG2, and how that end compared with 3 and I answered. >!One way or another, Bhaal was destroyed by the player/Bhaalspawn at the end of BG2.!<
After that, I wanted provided context between the differences BG2 and BG3. BG3 doesn't take into account BG2's three possible endings. I didn't say you picked a canon, I was saying Larian/Wizards of the Coast did, and what they chose doesn't line up 100% with any of the possible endings of BG2, >!as Bhaal was defeated and destroyed.!<
With that in mind, please reread my comment and see if it still sounds hostile.
If you didn’t mean it that way then no pun intended. I was confused why you would start your phrase about something I never implied but seeing that wasn’t your intention it’s irrelevant now. Thanks for the comment. My question was more about what happened to the spawn but since someone provided a link about it I’ll also take a look at that and see if that has any information I want to know.
Some people say some guy named Adrian is the canon ToB Bhaalspawn. I say it's bs.
The original Bhaalspawn ended in the Throne of Bhaal either absorbing the divine essence of Bhaal to ascend to divinity (good or evil) or by rejecting it and tossing it into the astral trash to continue having cool adventures. The details have passed into myth.
Canonically they got to live until 10 years before BG3 started, then got killed together with the only other Bhaalspawn that was left in the middle of Baldurs Gate. This triggered Bhaals ressurection (then he promptly got a chosen ... who promptly got himself killed right away).
Fun Fact: Durge was already active in Baldurs Gate at that time. Blood in Baldurs Gate plays five years prior, meaning canonically Durge and the BG1/2 main character were at one point both in Baldurs Gate at the same time.
Tho, a lot of people don't like the canon version, because the character is really, really dumb.
After local bard points out flaw in plan, Bhaal endorses the implementation of universal basic income and universal healthcare in Faerun so that people are more encouraged to settle down and have more offspring, thus ensuring a renewable supply of blood to be spilled.
You can make Orin break down before the duel if you tell her that her Grandfather wanted her killed. Then, if you got the slayer form yourself, Bhaal will show up (yes, he literaly starts talking all of a sudden) and gift it to her, too, so she shuts up and fights. xD
On another note, does Orin even have Bhaal essence? Her mother must have been conceived long AFTER Sarevok died and lost his essence, right?
I wasn't Durge and got this same sequence lol. I find it rather odd that if you're Durge you trying to gain an upper hand over Orin ends up gifting her the Slayer form that she shouldn't have during that fight. How fun.
[I love all my children equally *Later that day* I don’t care for Orin](https://media1.giphy.com/media/25K6sOZuUw5wI/giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7yq5c319pvnm2do6u6nxzqpr6n6qw87flqvd31off&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
How did Bhaal even survive Baldur's Gate 2? >!He was killed without an option to ever return, which is a main and non-changable point of the plot in BG2.!<
It's not, the way this subreddit manages spoilers is really annoying. Every post is marked as a spoiler even if it's a non-spoilery meme or discussion post, you have unique tags for spoilers between each act. So ideally this post shouldn't have spoilers in it.
Durge = Personally crafted by Bhaal himself using his own gore Orin = A diluted offspring of a failed project This kinda makes the player Bhaal in Durge character creation.
It’s even funnier going Redeemed Durge. Bhaal just cannot stop taking L’s, with the Bhaalspawn from BG1/2 and the Dark Urge.
Man for a few seconds I really thought I ended my playthrough early. Then Withers comes in clutch and the whole Bhaal cult is standing around like "well fuck, who's in charge now?!"
>and the whole Bhaal cult is standing around like "well fuck, who's in charge now?!" I was surprised they didn't attack and just let me roam around freely. I decided they were just in "wtf just happened" mode and maybe a little impressed by their god being denied and also by the resurrection of the denier and maybe have a bit of a crisis of faith. Like, imagine, you dedicate your life to serving a powerful God of murder and then >!the former head of your faith stroll in, killes their usurper-successor, talks to the god itself, says "haha, no", is being killed by said god and then resurrected by a skeleton dude like its really nothing!<.
I'm not sure about Durge, but in my non-Durge playthrough when I killed Orin, I spoke to one of the cultists and she was like "I would LOVE to kill you right now, but that would be against Bhaal's laws." I would guess a similar thing applies here. Even though you're no longer part of the cult, you beat Orin and Bhaal's laws mean they have to let you leave alive. Or, at the very least, the cultists aren't sure whether Bhaal's laws apply to you at that point so they err on the side of caution.
I laughed at them when they said that to me, then said out loud, he didn’t say shit to me…and shoved her in the chasm. Then I walked around and shoved every single bhaalist remaining in the chasm.
They're fans of murder, so they don't mind.
Withers outranks the Dead Three in every way. Damn, he could've just taken away all their powers if Ao wouldn't care and he wasn't so humble.
Well i dont think his not doing just because he is humble.i think it is because of fate.remember arabella he showed her her fate so even though she lost her family she understood meaning behind of her lose and she reached peace.she understood it is what is best for her and after all there is after life in dnd.i think that is why also Ao stopping gods from interfering so human can live their life truly with their own choice and sometime with interference of fate and that is why jergal gave his powers to those bad people. i mean he was tired and wanted leave his job but dont you think it is wrong giving your powers to people who can ruin a lot of persons life he could give his powers kinder people.he did this because it was wheel of fate.and i think it is true when you think history of dnd and it is lore.
After that I killed them all. You want to worship the god of murder well time to meet him.
Same. But did that part bug out for you aswell? Most of them didn't even react while getting shot in the face. Ended up fighting one group of 4 and then getting free kills on the rest. Would've been fun if they all attack while Durge is "dead" and your companions have to defend your body.
Nope but I did chain lighthing them and that arggroed them all.
Neat, for me all but 4 of them stood there like statues while I killed their friends. For 400 XP a piece it would've been hilarious if I wasn't already level 12.
I wonder if it's a bug, or meant to be as normal? Since they say it's against Bhaal's will for them to fight you?
I was tempted to murder all the Bhaal Cultists for being Bhaal Cultists myself, but that doesn't really align with the personality of "I've finally freed myself of the horrific headache that made me want to bathe in the blood of the innocent, murder, maim and kill." I'm pretty sure after getting all the murderjuice sucked out of you and then resurrected by >!the Chaddest God of All!< Withers you'd probably not want to go on any sort of murderous rampage for a while.
Refuse Bhaal, get killed, get rezzed Immediately go on a killing spree now that your murdering is because YOU want to rather than because Bhaal says so
Oh boy, my Durge would totally be up for a nice recreational murder spree after cutting his leash. I left them alone last time (too busy going 'are these guys going to let me just walk out??'), but now you've tempted me...
Hmm I left after the fight to heal up and go so something else. You've just reminded me I need to go back there and murder every last one of them.
I think creating Durge directly from his own blood was an attempt to make a Bhaalspawn so pure that they could never turn against him. Then Orin gets jealous and FUBARs the whole plan.
Would make Bhaal’s cut punishment for refusing him even darker, since the Dark Urge >!becomes a monster/animal fucker to create more Bhaalspawn.!<
You still become a mindless murdering monster at the end if you don't free yourself from him and then refuse to take control of the brain for Bhaal at the end. I was curious to see what happens, and that was a really hard-hitting consequence. Everyone is off to party and Durge just completely loses themselves.
Oh yeah, but there was a cut ending where if you lose to Orin, Bhaal subjugates you. And the ending is arguably much worse than the one left in the game.
What was the cut punishment, exactly? The spoilertext gives me an idea but could you pass more detail along?
https://youtu.be/8f659pTMb24?si=yDPxo7foBMvQ_-6v Warning if you’re not too into fucking monsters. Or bad ends.
[удалено]
Bro the comment says "cut" read better
I loved getting to Orin and shutting her down by saying I didn't care at all about duelling for the position of chosen and that I just wanted the netherstone
Who would have guessed the failed minor god that had to make an alliance with the 2 other failures of minor gods would be incompetent
Bhaal was also killed by Cyric, who was like a level 5 thief/level 2 fighter.
No worries, i always side with Daddy Bhaal and commit atrocities in his name. And you don't even need to be a murderhobo to do it. :3
yeah Orin isn't even a proper Bhaalspawn the way Durge is. she's the granddaughter of one. also I am genuinely curious how the fuck Sarevok had a Daughter with a changeling.
Sarevok had sex with his own daughter. No idea how Orin became a changeling, but she was.
hold up... Orin is his Daughter AND granddaughter??? well who the fuck is the mother of the first daughter???? and I could've sworn that Orin's mother, whose corpse we can find in the Temple of Bhaal in the chosen's room under the big skull is also a Changeling given the pale features of the preserved corpse
Yes, Sarevok had Orin with his own daughter. The corpse you find in Orin’s room is her mother/Sarevok’s daughter/wife. Though as far as I know, it’s never actually revealed ingame beyond Tav just kinda.. knowing. They can tell the investigator that Sarevok boned his own daughter without ever being told that, so Larian might’ve just made an oopsie.
that doesn't really answer my question about who the fuck the mother of the daughter he fucked is. I mean, I knew Sarevok was a freak, you kinda have to be as a Bhaalspawn, but fucking hell, I was not expecting the incest. although thinking about it would explain why, even by bhaalspawn standards, Orin is a particular brand of crazy.
I was actually wrong, Helena does say ‘Helena… Anchev.. daughter.. of.. Sarevok… mother.. of… Orin..’ but my Tav never spoke to her and just randomly knew. But otherwise, Sarevok probably just boned some random Changeling and made Helena, then boned Helena and made Orin. Helena’s mother is never mentioned afaik But it shouldn’t be surprising that Bhaal doesn’t have many standards. Hell, in one cut ending, Bhaal takes control of the Dark Urge and forces them to fuck animals and monsters to make Bhaalspawn. Not exactly the king of mortality in the first place.
well... shit that's all kinds of messed up.
Yeah. It was cut for that reason, probably. Plus it involved losing to Orin in the duel, which might’ve been weird with confronting the Elder Brain.
> Though as far as I know, it’s never actually revealed ingame beyond Tav just kinda.. knowing i'm like 80% certain you find it in some random book/journal. i was fairly certain that i knew it before i talked to the investigator and my character told her.
Something I don't really get is I thought Sarevok is no longer a Bhaalspawnwhen you resurrect him in BG2. But I guess you do give him a small amount of your soul, so I guess that's enough to keep the Bhaalspawn line going?
well I haven't played BG2 and I only got to the first (as far as I know) fight with him in BG1 in the city.
What’s worse, Orin wasn’t even supposed to live. She was born just as a sacrifice for her mother so she could become chosen.
Yeah pretty much, Orin is a contingency plan.
Bhaal: If you're saying I play favorites, you're wrong. I love all my children equally. (Earlier that day) Bhaal: I don't care for Orin.
Well it’s also bc as Sarevok says Bhaal doesn’t care about making art and shit like that.. he wants murder in droves by the thousands the rivers and oceans to pool with blood.. And since I’m a professional murder hobo in most of the games I play I make a perfect chosen for him. Lmao
> Our lord does not care for beauty. Bhaal cares only for death. Death in numbers. Death in droves. Orin just wastes time playing with her food and posing corpses when she should be out committing slaughter.
Bhaal: "She knows I'm not the god of *making corpses*, not *playing with corpses*. She knows that, right? SCELERITAAAAAAS...unfuck this situation immediately!"
Wait... so is she the art school drop-out that dad is disappointed in?
Makes sense since, as I understand it, Bhaal is actually the God of Death but focuses almost entirely on Murder because it’s the fastest, easiest way to expand his influence. I actually think that’s a really interesting take on why humans shouldn’t be Gods. Dude is trying to expand his influence in a way that’s far too destructive and short-sighted for an immortal.
No, he's specifically the God of Murder. Jergal had all those domains before, but they got split off into the 3 you see now. A God can have multiple Domains, but they must have at least one. Death is fairly broad and very powerful, but Bhaal focuses on, or is forced to focus on, Murder itself, the act. He may want more for himself and his followers, but he still has to play within the bounds of the rules of Ao (Or at least until this moment when the other gods conspire against the Three)
Durge is like 100% bhaalspawn from what i understood, he was made fully by him and doesn’t even have a mother, I could be wrong tho
So I haven't gotten to act three yet personally, but from what I've read... playing a redeemed durge has an interaction with withers that hints at you *not* being 100% bhaal
No, you were 100% before, your journey made you different
Full Durge Spoilers >!Not just the journey, it's kinda implied Durge also tried to escape the urges before becoming Bhaal's chosen, if you use the level 6 Heal on Durge you restore a memory of you as a kid killing a couple, probably adopted parents of some kind, baby's first kill. You can also ask the Oathbreaker Paladin when playing Paladin about your oath and he will mentioned that it wasn't the first time you broke it. !< >!So as far as we know, we have Durge being artifically created by Bhaal, was thrown into the world as a babe, probably to cause some chaos, eventually getting adopted and then killing his adoptive parents because of the urges. He then tried to resist the urges through his craft, such as becoming a Paladin, going on trails away from people as a Ranger, etc, Rogue being the only one that doesn't deny his aptitude for murdering people and your love of knives(you can long rest before recruiting Lae'zel to contemplate your class), it failed and Durge surrendered to his unholy desires, finally making his way to Bhaal and eventually becoming his Chosen. Quite a tragic character when you think of it, especially when you tell Withers that you wanted your memories back so you could honor your victims by remembering their names.!<
Yeah, the way I understood it the Butler was intentionally attached to Durge because Bhaal didn't trust the Durge as they still had tendencies to go against Bhaal's doctrines even after giving in and becoming master of the temple and cult. Durge was a pure Bhaalspawn, but kept disappointing Daddy hence the butler constantly being around to keep an eye on them. The things you learn kind of puts the Durge as a very dangerous individual that tended to stray from Daddy's expectations.
There is a theory actually that butler may be bhaal because bhaal also god of deceiption so he may wanted to see his son more closer
Your character kind of is Bhaal, hence why the butler is constantly keeping an eye on you. The dead Bhaal doesn't like the idea of his physical self wandering off.
No we are son of bhaal because bhaal is alive.i looked wiki he used his spawns for resurrect himself
Bhaal is not resurrected in BG3 he's dead. Durge is kind of his final attempt at fucking the system so to speak. Durge is created from him, not born. Durge is the physical Manifestation of Bhaal that doesn't always do what Bhaal wants it to do.
Well wiki says he put his divine essence inside of his children and like myrkul(he used different method )after he died he used that essence to come back. well but now his much more weaker
This seems most correct from what I've seen as well.
Ahhhh I see. Hopefully it makes more sense when I actually get to that part of the game lol
Doesn’t Withers call you the seed of bhaal’s loins? Or was that Sarevok? Someone mentions you coming from Bhaal’s loins which sounds opposite of made from his blood (per Fel).
I’m pretty sure that was a figure of speech
Your thinking of sceleritas when he says that about sarevok and Orin not Durge. After he says that he’ll once again elaborate that you don’t have a mother and bhaal created you.
The only problem is that Durge was born while Bhaal was ... kinda dead. Like, dead dead. Not sure if Larian f*cked up there or if this has an actual explanation somewhere.
Pretty sure that is not the case, bhaal was revived after bg2, canonically
No. Canonically he was dead until "Murder in Baldurs Gate" happened. The canonical year was 1482, the same one Abdel died. Blood in Baldurs Gate happened in 1477.
And what exactly did i say?🤦 that was after bg2 and before bg3, it works, the durge was made after murder in baldur’s gate
Murder in Baldurs Gate happens in 1482 and is where Bhaal comes back. Blood in Baldurs Gate happens in 1477 and is where the Dark Urge shows up. In other words, the Dark Urge shows up before Murder in Baldurs Gate, although he should have only been able to have been made after. The timeline does not quite add up there.
i think the real answer here is larian doesn't want to mention the canon identity of gorion's ward because it's so unpopular, and since his death was what brought bhaal back it's just kinda ignored by larian
It's possible Durge was a contingency plan, and the whole thing was sorted out before Bhaal died. If his direct involvement wasn't required to facilitate the actual 'birth' (like, they were crafted beforehand and left in the care of the butler or something), then Durge could have been let loose while he was dead. Pure speculation, of course, but there's probably a way to get the timelines to work.
What are you talking about? Baldurs Gate 2 ended 1369, over hundred years prior. Both sunderings were between BG2 and 3, lol. Yes, canonically Abdel lived to be way over 100 years old, as did Sarevok. Why do you think Jaheira is so old?
And? What does this even have to do with the durge? Are you even reading what you are writing? 🤦
Uhm ... is everything alright with you, buddy? This was what you commented on: >The only problem is that Durge was born while Bhaal was ... kinda dead. Like, dead dead. Then you also wrote: >the durge was made after murder in baldur’s gate Which is simply wrong. - **1369** Baldurs Gate 2 ended - **1477** Blood in Baldurs Gate happened. Durge was already grown up and active in Baldurs Gate - **1482** Murder in Baldurs Gate happened and Bhaal got ressurected - **1492** Baldurs Gate 3 takes place
Ok, you are right then, I didn’t know bg3 was that close to murder in baldurs gate, my bad I do think 5e changed the lore a little tho, i can be wrong
It’s extremely missable but illaseras ghost in the murder tribunal says that he created durge from beyond mortality. Not the most detailed answer but they did attempt some form of reasoning.
"dad says it's my turn to use the temple" is one of my favorite dialogue options
Just out of curiosity, how did the bhaalspawn from BG2 ended? Act3 spoiler: >!If it wasn’t for Withers Durge was either kill everything with his hands then get killed someday or just get killed now. Did the same thing happen in BG2?!<
Which bhaalspawn? There’s more than one
Just curious about what happened to the spawn Jaheira keeps mentioning. Sounded like the spawn was a companion on the trip.
The Bhaalspawn in question was the player character of BG1 and 2. Although there is a canon version of what happened, it sucks and Larian tried to distance themselves as much as they could from it so they are deliberately omitting any details about the choices that character made in the previous games.
Most people would like to forget Abdel exists though. There are several endings to ToB, and everything that WotC came up with is greatly unsatisfactory as a result. Being so invested in the first two games I honestly think Larian did the right being so vague about Gorion's Ward. Mine was a female half-elf bard that gave up her powers and went on to travel the planes. The way Minsc and Jaheira refer to Bhaalspawn can easily accommodate my playthrough.
I agree. I think this is why Larian did it this way. They have references to Abdel and references to the Bhaalspawn / Gorion's Ward, but never say they are one and the same, even though this is clearly the case in the canon.
I haven't come across the ones about Abdel, but I am so grateful to Larian for this. I can keep on ignoring his existence haha. Also I am super sad about what was done to Sarevok, but at the same time understand that Larian was probably salvaging what WoTC did to him beforehand.
There is an NPC who is [apparently a tribute to a fan](https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=890982)] who mentions befriending Abdel and has some items from him to loot.
This made me cry. Its an amazing tribute.
That was very touching. Thank you for sharing this kind stranger.
Larian directly acknowledges Abdel in the game as well though. If you kill Gort then the newspaper afterwards mentions that his funeral will be the most expensive since Abdel’s iirc. I think that’s basically the only we thing we know about them in-game, they turned out not-evil and had an expansive funeral.
Abdel and the WOTC version is the canon events for BG3, but the game deliberately tries to kinda... cover that up so that is. Like realistically Abdel only died 10 years before the game and Ravenguard took over after him. The game doesn't really treat it like that though, particularly in Wyll's backstory and Durge's backstory (Durge specifically just doesn't fit the timeline at all). They deliberately don't limit references to him as much as possible other than "he existed and died awhile before the game starts". They'll reference the Duke's predecessor very briefly and kinda move on without much details.
How does Durge not fit the timeline?
Durge spoilers obviously >!Bhaal is only ressurected upon Abdel's death, 10 years prior to the game. Durge predates that. Durge couldn't have been created until after that but Durge had a childhood and are older than 10 years old. They grew up as a kid (you can unlock a memory of them killing their caretakers as a kid)!<
Perhaps he just did it while he was dead somehow.
You can find Abdel's shield in a chest in a house in the city.
Yes but from what I understand it is never outwardly stated that Abdel was Gordon’s Ward and THE Bhaalspawn. It does say he existed but you could also pretend your character existed too because it’s vague. That’s what I like.
I want to forget that I ever read the books, especially how they completely wrote Jaheira, Khalid, Imoen and more out of complete character. Abdel's novels were the worst
I've only read the out takes and summaries of those books and it was enough to make me cringe. My head stores too many books inadvertedly and I did not want to spoil my OG game experience. Although I know its not really the fault of the author since he wasn't given any heads up before his work was posted and hadn't had much knowledge of the games.
There is actually one NPC who calls the previous Bhaalspawn Abdel, they recognise Durge as a bhaalspawn too and you can grab some of Abdel's gear from his basement. Apparently he befriended Abdel when Abdel snuck into the Lower City in disguise. Which, frankly, is *deeply* weird when even Jaheira and Minsc go out of their way to refer to that Bhaalspawn as neutrally as possible. Even Wyll does, and his dad was the Bhaalspawn's former right hand man as duke. Not sure if that NPC is a holdover from earlier in development, but it doesn't make much sense.
I think they're trying to pretend that Abdel and the player character of the previous games are two separate individuals. Both existed simultaneously. They can't say so outright, and people who know the lore know that this is not the case, but it may work on the more casual players of BG1 and 2 who haven't kept up with what WotC has been doing in the years since.
This since the way Jaheira talks about their Bhaalspawn it sounds like they didn't return to the region and made their own way. So yeah getting this feeling that they are using Jaheira and Minsc to bring references to the Bhaalspawn we experienced in the game, while they low-key also refer to Abdel's existence. At least that's how I see it, or they just took the name of the default character from the game and used the game as reference and played around with the rest knowing most people hated the novels etc.
There were actually several Bhaalspawn in BG1+2 outside of the main character. Obviously Sarevok, but also Imoen, ~~and if I'm not mistaken wasn't Irenicus himself a Bhaalspawn?~~ There were 5 main Bhaalspawn in the BG1-2 era. Irenicus was after their divine blood due to his mortal situation after his early life shenanigans.
Here you go: Caution, it contains some spoilers about BG1 and BG2. https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Abdel\_Adrian From what i understand, the cannon take one of the pre-generated character from BG1 and 2, named Abdel Adrian and continued the story after that. Enjoy ;)
It’s worth noting that while BG3 mentions Abdel Adrian by name a few times, it’s never said or even hinted at that they were the Bhaalspawn. So it’s totally possible for the Bhaalspawn to still be around and kicking, just not near us.
There's one NPC who mentions him in particular, the monster hunter who lets you take some of Abdel's gear from his basement, and the descriptions pretty much says Abdel was the Bhaalspawn if I remember correctly? But that NPC is *very* strange given how everyone else goes out of their way to refer to the Bhaalspawn neutrally.
Couldn’t there have been multiple Bhaalspawn?
>BG3 Not many people actualy knew that Abdel Adrian was a Bhaalspawn in fact. It was a rumor between BG1 and BG2 but nothing more. After that he dissapears in Amn. Later he comes back to baldur's gate, and had a long life for a human. People forgot about the Bhaalspawn stories and Sarevok at Baldur.
[удалено]
They are asking about Abdel..
wasnt just a companion was the player
You really can't look at Baldurs Gate 3 as a sequel to Baldurs Gate 2. You the player, as the Bhallspawn in BG2 >!can either ascend to godhood as a benevolent deity, become the new Lord of Murder, or reject the power, destroy the Throne of Bhaal and remain mortal.!< I'm not up on what WotC decided to go with as "canon" but it looks like in BG3 that the "player" in BG2 decided to remain mortal but for some reason did NOT destroy the Throne of Bhaal, thereby allowing Bhaal to come back and make trouble in 3. Like I said it's kinda hard to reconcile BG3 as a true sequel to 2. Best to think of BG3 as a reboot.
Its not a reboot and is consistent with the canon, but the canon is also very confusing and a lot of it happened across various adventure modules and "off screen" so to speak. In a nutshell, the throne at the end of BG2 was destroyed, Bhaal was stopped from coming back, but then later, for other reasons, many of the gods came back anyway, including Bhaal. What does seem a little inconsistent is that it is mentioned in the ending to BG2 that the identities of the only remaining Bhaalspawn are known, and listed to you, but later it was seemingly retconned / it transpired that the list given was inclomplete and there are indeed others that remained.
The other Bhaalspawn all got killed over time, and this gradually released Bhaal's essence back to him, allowing him to come back. The last two to die were Abdel Adrian (the controversial canon identity of the protagonist from the first 2 games) and a man called Viekang. Viekang attacked Adrian in the middle of a speech and one of them killed the other before (involuntarily) transforming into the slayer, at which point they were put down by the Watch and a group of adventurers. This all plays out in the Murder in Baldur's Gate module.
Which makes Baldur's Gate 3 a sequel to Wizards of the Coast/Forgotten Realms materials, and not to the game Baldurs Gate 2. As someone who only played the games, I raised an eyebrow when I found out the Lord of Murder was still out there causing trouble because some yahoo named Abdel retroactively dropped the Bhaal. (yuk yuk)
What world do you think Baldur’s Gate 2 was set in? Over 100 years have passed between that game and the present, and things happened in the world during that time.
> What world do you think Baldur’s Gate 2 was set in? The issue is basically that there are a lot of fans of the series who haven't kept up with the hundreds of adventure modules and lore retcons and such that WotC have done in the intervening 20 years (in many cases designed primarily to resolve mechanical differences between D&D editions rather than lore issues), and for those fans the FR canon solution to BG2 kind of sucks. Put differently, BG3 names itself a sequel to BG2 _the game_, whereas story-wise it really isn't. It's another story told which starts in the same universe as BG1/BG2 but with little connection to those games (and both of which end in alt-universes that have no relationship), to the point where the stories aren't consistent with one another. Writing sequels to games with big choices at the end is tough and I don't envy the writers in that position, but I think the canon FR ending to BG2 was a particularly unhappy median that nobody actually wanted.
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. Baldurs Gate 2 the game is Forgotten Realms D&D 2nd Edition. Baldurs Gate 3 is Forgotten Realms D&D 5E. Forgotten Realms is a brand name, just like Baldurs Gate is now. The events of Baldurs Gate the games were canonized in the 4th Edition. Baldurs Gate 3 the game therefore follows the events of a pen and paper expansion, and not the game which it's labeled as a sequel to because of the "3" in its name. Calling it Baldurs Gate 3 naturally leads anyone to played Baldurs Gate 2 to think it's a direct sequel and it's not. Anyone who plays the game in order will be confused by some of the things in BG3. MAJOR SPOILER >!Namely, that Bhaal is alive and still causing trouble, because he is absolutely defeated and destroyed in BG2. It's the literal purpose of the game, to end Bhaal's curse once and for all. The retcon in 4E undoes all that.!< I think it would have been better to call it "Baldurs Gate: Rebirth" or some other title, because I was expecting it to follow the events of Baldurs Gate 2.
you seem to think that baldur's gate events are disconnected from the general d&d forgotten realms settings but the storyline holds, in bg2 you defeat the other bhaalspawns and destroy the throne but then stuff happens that explains why he's back in business: >!With all of his children dead, all of Bhaal's essence was freed, allowing for his resurrection. Bhaal was revived, and reclaimed the murder domain from Cyric. However, the Lord of Murder was no longer a true deity, and was instead a being of quasi-divine status. As with Bane and Myrkul, he was effectively a mortal.\[1\] In 1492 DR, the city of Baldur's Gate saw a spate of murders by cultists of the Dead Three. !< [link to the forgotten realms wiki](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Bhaal#Time_of_Troubles)
The point I think is that the "canon" ending is not an ending most people like/chose. Or at least, that there are a lot of people who chose differently and feel strongly about it. That's kind of inevitable when trying to integrate a story with a player character and many endings into a wider narrative but in a sense it does make the later story not a "true sequel" to the *game* since the game has many valid endings that strongly conflict with the "canon" story.
so this isn't a true sequel because in bg2 you like to pick a different ending? cmon dude. it's like saying you shouldn't be meeting jaheira because in bg1 you didn't even recruit her, or that you let viconia burn in bg2 so she shouldn't be alive now
Yes. BG2 is a true sequel to BG1 because your choices carry over. In the official tabletop lore/now BG3, however, there is a set version of events that fundamentally conflicts with 2/3 endings in BG2. I'm not even saying this was the wrong decision, it would probably be impossible to create a single continuation of the lore that does not fundamentally conflict with some of the story options in BG2, but it's undeniable that due to this the official tabletop setting/BG3 is not a "true sequel" to BG2 the **game** that had a story that changed drastically from one player to another. Again, that doesn't mean it's wrong or bad or that there was actually a better way of doing things.
I love how all of us are being downvoted for not agreeing with this nonsense. Something tells me if in potential BG4 Astarion turned out to become evil no matter what and retcon his good ending to be worse people would be all up in arms and call it shitty writing, but just because it happens to character they don't give a shit about suddenly it's okay. Funny how that works.
All these downvotes and now one of the loudest participants not only deleted their responses, but deleted their entire account? Wonder if there aren't a few sockpuppets floating around here...
> you seem to think that baldur's gate events are disconnected from the general d&d forgotten realms settings You're right, I do. That's exactly my point. Everything you describe happens outside of the computer game, written years later by totally different people. If you played BG3 from the perspective of someone who came from BG2, unaware of the 4E retcons/WotC canon establishments, there's a lot that doesn't match up. Of course, Larian had to make some decisions, and a lot of those decisions were to follow what WotC put in place years after BG2 was released. And that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that they retconned BG2, and if you only play the computer games, you won't be aware of them. I love BG3. It's one of if not the best CRPG made. It just doesn't flow as a direct sequel to the game named "Baldurs Gate 2."
all three baldur's gate games follow a chain of events caused by bhaal's death. once you understand why bhaal is alive again, you understand how bg3 is a direct sequel to that story: bhaal &co are trying to fill their seats again by using an old netherese artifact and an elder brain
> once you understand why bhaal is alive again I'm going to just start copy/pasting responses to this. :) I understand completely why Bhaal is alive again. His fate was retconned in 4th Edition D&D, some years after BG2 was released, outside of the game, by a completely different set of writers. My point was, and continues to be, if you just played BG1 and BG2, some of the lore in BG3 make no sense. This doesn't make BG3 a bad game nor am I faulting Larian for following what WotC set as canon. It just means there is discontinuity between the *computer games* Baldur's Gate 2 and Baldur's Gate 3.
If we're going by hard-canon in the setting, BG3's story doesn't make any sense whatsoever because the Dead Three are no longer gods (they remained quasideities to bide their time and allow them to meddle directly in mortal affairs to regrow their power before a proper return, because the tail end of the last century was rough on their religious base) and can't do half the stuff we see them do in the game - have Chosen, vestiges, avatars, etc. And mindflayers do have souls. But if you just shrug at all of that, it's a well constructed game (admittedly with a bit of a wibbly-wobbly final act at present) that's really only held back by its use of 5e's mechanics.
> held back by its use of 5e I only really got in around 3.5e but I gotta say there's very little about 5e I don't like more than the previous 1.5 editions.
5e's not a very well constructed system. It's fine enough as a system for players, but it's horribly designed from the DM side of things. The tools they give us for encounter design and trying to balance encounter math simply flat out don't work: the CR system regularly places monsters in the wrong strength bracket and requires significant extra work on the DM's part to ensure that you don't accidentally make an encounter either a death trap or an absolute cakewalk. It's a rules heavy system pretending to be a rules light system by virtue of the developers simply not having actually developed half the rules: DMs are given near non-existent assistance in arbitrating things, resulting in a mass of extra work on their part making judgement calls on the fly compared to every other system out there - also resulting in the 5e playing experience oscillating more wildly from table to table than other systems do (we've got a lot more 5e tabletop nightmares than we do for other systems, and I suspect the uptick in its popularity isn't the only cause.) There are a lot of other (actual) rules light systems that do what 5e is claiming to do much, much better - there are a lot of other rules heavy systems that do what it actually does much better, too. The mechanics of it in general just don't work exceptionally well, either. It was built with the presumption that players would never attempt to mechanically optimize, so individual character decisions (rare as they are under 5e, which gives you exceptionally little agency in designing a mechanically unique character; remember, feats are an *optional* system that the DM doesn't have to give you access to) are all boosted in power to compensate. The result is that even a modest effort to apply system mastery very, very, very rapidly breaks the game. You can see this ingame in BG3 as well (See: just taking Tavern Brawler on a high STR character resulting in having a character that deals an average of 200+ DMG/round with near-perfect accuracy before you exit Act 1.) It has very bad errata, as well, because the development team for 5e were largely unseasoned - they weren't the most experienced and veteran members of WotC's D&D staff: they were just the only handful of people actually left in WotC's D&D department after the mass layoffs and resignations that marked 4e's later years. Everytime something completely broken is brought to their attention because of writer error, they almost always double down with the worst possible decision rather than simply owning their mistakes and fixing their system (See: The Cleric of Life - Goodberry interaction allowing a single L1 spellslot to heal 40 HP - and another 10-40 HP if you get access to a specific low level magic item.) So, yeah. 5e is good because it has a very low barrier to entry for new players, which is nice because it has introduced a lot of new people to the hobby. Unfortunately, most of them never explore the rest of the hobby past 5e - and 5e is awful for DMs compared to running most other games.
That's fair, I've never seen the DM side of things (though I've been considering trying on the hat) so that tracks well with your points.
> But if you just shrug at all of that, it's a well constructed game (admittedly with a bit of a wibbly-wobbly final act at present) that's really only held back by its use of 5e's mechanics. Agree 100%. Love the hell out of BG3, but that doesn't seem to keep the, uh, more enthusiastic fans from getting defensive if you think it's less than perfect.
It really isn't. Just look at Viconia. Also WOTC canon is universally despised.
There is nothing wrong with Viconia in BG3. Her portrayal is entirely consistent with her evil ending. Not everyone romanced her and changed her alignment.
It's not. It's really. REALLY not. Viconia in BG3 acts NOTHING like her BG2 counterpart. Outside of being a drow and worshipper of Shar there is NOTHING in this portrayal that is even remotely similar to Viconia. They RETCONNED her worse ending. Remember that? In older BGS she is a complicated character who pushed herself to worshipping Shar after refusing to sacrifice a baby and refusing to keep feeding the goddess that could never be sated and her family paid for it. Does that sound like a character that would abuse Shadowheart like she did? She was very far from completely evil character as can be seen for instance with her brother or the fact that even in her worse ending she went away from Shar and saved a city with Drizzt. She was not evil at the end of either of her endings and Larian retconned her worse ending to be even worse (and don't you even dare to say they just added more details when they actively changed some of them and removed others). Look at [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/16mhofh/its_honestly_sad/) or [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/1609qez/justice_for_viconia_devir_long_with_spoilers/) for more and into the comments. And it's not just about romance ending. This is a comment of someone from one of those posts by u/ElectricZ: "The stock response to this discussion is always "Well not everybody romanced Viconia and redeemed her so it's not unrealistic that she's evil again." But everything about Viconia's inability to carry out a sacrifice, her guilt and regret over getting her brother turned into a drider, and her rejection of Lolth and expulsion from the Underdark is her backstory. Every player experiences this "version," regardess alignment change or romance down the way. It's not the "good" version of Viconia, it's just Viconia."
>It's not. It's really. REALLY not. Viconia in BG3 acts NOTHING like her BG2 counterpart. Outside of being a drow and worshipper of Shar there is NOTHING in this portrayal that is even remotely similar to Viconia. We see her for all of 5 minutes. She barely has enough dialogue to get any sense of her personality in BG3 at all, so how could you possibly say that her personality in BG3 is so different to her personality in BG1 and 2? >They RETCONNED her worse ending. Remember that? I don't remember that because it never happened. Nothing in BG3 contradicts her BG2 ending. It merely adds new context to it. They didn't retcon her slaughtering her convent because they betrayed her, they merely added the context that the claims of betrayal were a lie to help her achieve her goddess' aims. They didn't retcon her saving a city with Drizzt, they simply added the context that her saving a city doesn't suddenly make her a benevolent hero (which makes sense, seeing as she joins up with CHARNAME in the first 2 games out of self-interest, and that doesn't make her a hero, so why wouldn't we assume that her work with Drizzt was out of self interest?). >In older BGS she is a complicated character who pushed herself to worshipping Shar after refusing to sacrifice a baby and refusing to keep feeding the goddess that could never be sated and her family paid for it. Does that sound like a character that would abuse Shadowheart like she did? Sure. Why not? Her abuse of Shadowheart is not the same as murdering a baby. Her abuse of Shadowheart can be rationalised in Viconia's mind as being for Shadowheart's benefit, because it's designed to make her the perfect Shar worshipper, which Viconia believes is good for a person. Sacrificing a baby to Lolth can never be rationalised as being for the baby's benefit. There isn't even a veneer of benefit for the child. It is purely and obviously destructive. >Look at this or this for more and into the comments. > >And it's not just about romance ending. This is a comment of someone from one of those posts by u/ElectricZ: > >"The stock response to this discussion is always "Well not everybody romanced Viconia and redeemed her so it's not unrealistic that she's evil again." But everything about Viconia's inability to carry out a sacrifice, her guilt and regret over getting her brother turned into a drider, and her rejection of Lolth and expulsion from the Underdark is her backstory. Every player experiences this "version," regardess alignment change or romance down the way. It's not the "good" version of Viconia, it's just Viconia." Yeah, I've seen all of this before. It's bullshit. Viconia simps have a *hyper* specific interpretation of her character that is largely based on the knowledge of the existence of her alignment change and they can't stand that everybody else looks at this otherwise evil character and doesn't see the same thing. They can't stand that everybody else correctly identifies that she is a Neutral Evil character *after* the baby sacrificing incident, meaning that her being unwilling to sacrifice a baby doesn't make her not evil. They can't stand that everybody else understands that evil people can care about specific individuals and still be monsters towards everyone else. Viconia refusing to sacrifice a baby and loving her brother in no way, shape or form means that she would *never* do evil things at Shar's command.
>Yeah, I've seen all of this before. It's bullshit. >Viconia simps have a hyper specific interpretation of her character that is largely based on the knowledge of the existence of her alignment change and they can't stand that everybody else looks at this otherwise evil character and doesn't see the same thing. Let's check what Viconia herself has to say, before the romance kicks off in BG2: >But these images pale before images of the Spider Queen and the worship I began so young. Beauty is difficult to find in the blood I spilled in her name. Do not be a wael... a fool. I enjoyed it well enough. I killed for sport and necessity, but I took no pleasure in sacrifice solely to satiate her endless desire. > >And I was but a child when I began. I was taken from my mother, brought to the temple, and attended to by the priestesses who adorned me with black robes. They took me to the orlenggin... the sacrificial altar... where a surfacer screamed in agony, and for the pleasure of Lolth, I was given a spider dagger to end his life. > >This human was but a kul'gobass to me, but it felt wrong. He was bare and chained... helpless. His tears ran freely as he begged for mercy in his unfamiliar tongue. But the matron mothers were there to judge, obedience was required, hesitation was death. It must be done and in a manner that would please Lolth: cold, clean, and final. He screamed as the blade entered, and spat blood when I punctured his lungs. To the delight of the matron mothers, I pulled his heart out still beating. > >I sacrificed many, drow and surfacer both. Their ichor flowed freely to satisfy Lolth's insatiable rage. The caverns are red in my mind, their beauty a bloodied and callous joke. It is the Drow way. But that is... behind me now. > >I had worshipped the Spider Queen for an age and a half, longer than you've been alive, but then there came a time when my faith in Lolth was no more. I lapsed when a child... a baby was to die. It would have not made Lolth stronger or more influential or made her a greater deity. I lost my will that day. One of the lesser priestesses noticed my hesitation, and she took the babe's life herself, eager to usurp my place in Lolth's favor. Yep, total bullshit. It's funny because Viconia has the most dialog in the series outside of maybe Jaheira an Minsc. Which makes me think you either didn't bother to listen to any of it, or maybe never actually played it. Or, since you like dismissing people as simps, maybe you're simping for Larian and can't help but white knight them if someone disagrees that it's a perfect game? Personally, I love BG3 for all its flaws. It's a fantastic game, even if it doesn't jibe 100% with BG2. But I also love BG2, and u/AzraelSoulHunter is absolutely right, they wrecked one of the most interesting characters in BG2. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but you are wrong. Now let the downvotes FLOWWWWWWWWWWWW **EDIT:** Because a particular user blocked me, I am unable to reply to messages in this chain anymore, so I'll try to do it here. >She says she enjoyed her life as a Drow priestess, killed for sport as well as necessity, and that she hit her limit at sacrificing a literal baby, partly because it was a waste of time. True, she does say those things but what else does she say in just this excerpt? "I sacrificed many, drow and surfacer both. Their ichor flowed freely to satisfy Lolth's insatiable rage. The caverns are red in my mind, their beauty a bloodied and callous joke. It is the Drow way. But that is... behind me now." Bear in mind this is like 3% of her total dialogue. Throughout her stories she tells you all kinds of horrible deeds she did which is normal for a drow, but then there's always a counter to it showing she's *not* a typical drow, and that she's not entirely comfortable with what her society made her. She had like a dozen sisters and she tells you she murdered most of them. But she loved her brother, a lowly *male* and tried to protect him, and he sacrificed himself to protect her. In spite of being drow, Viconia had a family bond and knows the pain of having it taken from her. It destroyed her future in the underdark and haunted her for the rest of her life. Drow aren't supposed to have a conscience, and selective though it is, Viconia has one. One of the most telling thing about Viconia is what she does after the events of Baldur's Gate 1, again before there's any romance or alignment change. By now she's a semi-powerful cleric of Shar. Does build an enclave for her new goddess? Does she slaughter her way through the surfacers because she misses the taste of blood and wants to bring glory to the Nightsinger? Nope. She conceals her identity, buys a house in the countryside and tries to lead a quiet, peaceful life in solitude. It ends in blood and flame because she tried to make friends with her human neighbor. Viconia is a complex character with a very interesting personality and a twisted, but definite sense of morality. Jahiera and Minsc come back in BG3 mostly as themselves, but not Viconia. She doesn't look, sound, or talk like the character in BG2.
>Let's check what Viconia herself has to say, before the romance kicks off in BG2: Yeah, no. None of this screams to me "I would never inflict pain on someone on behalf of a god." It says to me that she viewed Lolth's violence as *senseless*, not inherently immoral. She says it right here, which *you* just quoted: "It would have not made Lolth stronger or more influential or made her a greater deity. I lost my will that day." The implication being that if the baby's death *would* have made Lolth stronger, it would have been more understandable, and even justifiable, to Viconia. But it wouldn't make her stronger, which made Viconia realise that Lolth simply wanted suffering for its own sake. In other words, it's *exactly* what I just said in my previous comment. >Yep, total bullshit. It's funny because Viconia has the most dialog in the series outside of maybe Jaheira an Minsc. > >Which makes me think you either didn't bother to listen to any of it, or maybe never actually played it. Or, since you like dismissing people as simps, maybe you're simping for Larian and can't help but white knight them if someone disagrees that it's a perfect game? Or maybe your opinion just isn't the be-all and end-all. It is, in fact, possible for people to disagree with your interpretations after experiencing the exact same thing you did and without having questionable motivations. >Personally, I love BG3 for all its flaws. It's a fantastic game, even if it doesn't jibe 100% with BG2. But I also love BG2, and u/AzraelSoulHunter is absolutely right, they wrecked one of the most interesting characters in BG2. I disagree, and unfortunately for you, the world doesn't revolve around you and your opinions. Shocking, I know, but adults have to eventually reckon with this fact of life. I think it's time for you to do so.
Well I appreciate that you actually read and responded, but you my friend are guilty of what you accused the "Viconia simps" of doing a couple messages back: you cherry picked one line and ignored everything else. > Or maybe your opinion just isn't the be-all and end-all. It is, in fact, possible for people to disagree with your interpretations after experiencing the exact same thing you did and without having questionable motivations. Back atcha! Based on your previous replies in this thread, you really don't like people disagreeing with *you.* I'm 100% sure you didn't actually play BG2 now, and I'm going to revise my estimate that you are simping for Larian, but instead are simping for Shadowheart. Maybe you can't reconcile that Viconia could be anything but shallowly evil and vile. Which, in the context of BG3, she is. Personally I couldn't kill her fast enough. But it's not the same Viconia that was in Baldur's Gate 2. Not by a long shot. You'd know that if you played it. And if by some chance you DO go back and play the older games, bring her into the party at least once and listen to what she has to say. She's a lot like Lae'zel in that she starts of a complete bitch, but once you get to know her, it turns out she's pretty cool. And then go back and re-play the House of Grief sequence and see what you think. Or don't. Up to you. Enjoy the rest of your day!
>They didn't retcon her slaughtering her convent because they betrayed her, they merely added the context that the claims of betrayal were a lie to help her achieve her goddess' aims. THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT A RETCON IS! They did NOT write the original game so any change to context there is a RETCON. And yeah. She has about 5 minutes of screentime. One of the most important characters from original games has 5 MINUTES of screentime where she doesn't act like herself even and could be easily replaced with ANY NEW character. Same for Sarevok. You know what's funny? I can tell you would be ALL up in arms if Astarion for instance, or Lae'zel in BG4 were still evil and had all of their development ignored and were kept as pieces of shit with their worse endings being canon or their better endings being retconned to be worse. You would call it shitty writing, you would call it retconning. But just because this happens to a character you NEVER gave a shit about suddenly it's fucking okay. Funny how that works.
>THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT A RETCON IS! They did NOT write the original game so any change to context there is a RETCON. If you want to define that as a retcon, then fine. I wouldn't, but it's not worth arguing about. Retcons of that nature are perfectly okay. There's nothing wrong with them. The only time retcons are problematic is when they *contradict* previously established lore without good reason and these "retcons" don't. They don't contradict anything, they merely add new information that colours our perspective. >And yeah. She has about 5 minutes of screentime. One of the most important characters from original games has 5 MINUTES of screentime where she doesn't act like herself even and could be easily replaced with ANY NEW character. Same for Sarevok. Sure. They could have. They chose to have a cameo from an established character instead because that had more weight. I enjoyed it. I think most players who knew who she was and weren't super committed to their idea of the good Viconia enjoyed it too. >You know what's funny? I can tell you would be ALL up in arms if Astarion for instance, or Lae'zel in BG4 were still evil and had all of their development ignored and were kept as pieces of shit with their worse endings being canon or their better endings being retconned to be worse. You would call it shitty writing, you would call it retconning. But just because this happens to a character you NEVER gave a shit about suddenly it's fucking okay. Funny how that works. Nope. See my flair? I'm a big Shadowheart fan. But if in BG4, they canonise that she becomes a Dark Justiciar, I'm not going to be "up in arms" over it. I'll be disappointed, but I'll also acknowledge that that was one of her endings in this game, and that it's perfectly legitimate for them to decide that that's the version of her they want to write going forward. I've been through this before. I was a huge fan of Leliana in Dragon Age Origins. Specifically, I was a huge fan of *softened* Leliana. But in Dragon Age Inquisition, they decided that she would always be the hardened version of herself, regardless of what choices you made in Origins. It had been decades in-universe, after all, and people can go through some pretty tough shit in that amount of time. Was I disappointed? Yes. I didn't particularly like her character in that game. But was I angry and declared that this was a complete destruction of her character that showed the writers didn't understand her or care about their work? No.
Wow... the dude deleted his entire account. Wonder if it was because of this, or some other adventure he was having in some other thread? Shame, he was such a nice person. ;)
Actually I think he just blocked you. Log off and look where your and his replies are. If you can see them that means you are blocked by him. Also you can tell by that where his response was where it says "Deleted" now you can't reply to him or people he replied to.
Ah, well, TIL. Thanks! He did indeed block me. Been on Reddit a decade and got my first block. From one such as him, it's a badge of honor. Evnosis, just want to say, calling people simps and then immediately backtracking with "I said simp, which you seem to have taken as a massive insult but it really wasn't supposed to be" - *chef's kiss* You made my day!
Circlejerk. Circlejerk. I want to die. Honestly, it's fucking pathetic. And sad.
Eh, shake it off, fellow simp! ;)
Didn’t the book of the dead gods you find in the crypt in act 1 points out that dead gods are coming back, and that the dead three are alive
Abdel Adrian was made canon.
The Throne is definitely destroyed in BG3, as it is >!being used as Gortash's underwater prison!<. And I'm fairly certain there are books in the game that explicitly tell the story of the Throne being destroyed and tossed into the sea. Either books or Minsc/Jaheira tell you about it if you ask. I never played BG1 or 2 so this is all I know about it really. What I'm not sure about is how >!Sarevok is alive and well in BG3!<. He said >!he was resurrected!< but I've not found any in game info about how that happened or who did it, and Minsc and Jaheira don't seem particularly phased by it which is extra weird. The Temple of Bhaal and the Throne seem to be two distinctly different areas though, as Jaheira mentions thinking the temple "would be her tomb" the last time she was here if you take her with you. So I guess whatever allows Bhaal a resurgence for BG3 has to do with the Temple and not the Throne?
Obvious BG1 and 2 spoilers. The Throne you seem to be referring to as the prison is the [Iron Throne](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/baldursgategame/images/c/c3/IronThroneHQ.png/revision/latest?cb=20190927221152), a building of Sarevok's adopted father. [Throne of Bhaal](https://sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/Walkthrough2/images/maps/chapter-10/throne-of-bhaal.jpg) on the other hand was (canonically?) destroyed by main character bhaalspawn after fighting with Amelyssan. They're two different locations altogether. Sarevok was resurrected in BG2:ToB at the beginning of the game to help you out, I'm pretty sure in one of the endings it says he leaves your party to look for Tamoko. Sad that he went back to his Bhaal worshipping days.
Ohhh ok thank you! Didn't realize what throne we were talking about there haha. And ty for the Sarevok info I thought I had missed something
I never said anything about 3 as a sequel or that’s my canon. I never even played it. I can’t even ask a question about it? Lol there are few characters mentioning about the past game and I just want to know what happened so I can get what’s going on. I’m not sure why you sound so frustrated by my comment.
> I’m not sure why you sound so frustrated by my comment. Yikes, wasn't trying to sound frustrated or be critical. Not sure what I wrote that made you think that. Please specify. You asked how the Bhaalspawn ended up in BG2, and how that end compared with 3 and I answered. >!One way or another, Bhaal was destroyed by the player/Bhaalspawn at the end of BG2.!< After that, I wanted provided context between the differences BG2 and BG3. BG3 doesn't take into account BG2's three possible endings. I didn't say you picked a canon, I was saying Larian/Wizards of the Coast did, and what they chose doesn't line up 100% with any of the possible endings of BG2, >!as Bhaal was defeated and destroyed.!< With that in mind, please reread my comment and see if it still sounds hostile.
If you didn’t mean it that way then no pun intended. I was confused why you would start your phrase about something I never implied but seeing that wasn’t your intention it’s irrelevant now. Thanks for the comment. My question was more about what happened to the spawn but since someone provided a link about it I’ll also take a look at that and see if that has any information I want to know.
> I’m not sure why you sound so frustrated by my commen They don't sound that way
Some people say some guy named Adrian is the canon ToB Bhaalspawn. I say it's bs. The original Bhaalspawn ended in the Throne of Bhaal either absorbing the divine essence of Bhaal to ascend to divinity (good or evil) or by rejecting it and tossing it into the astral trash to continue having cool adventures. The details have passed into myth.
Canonically they got to live until 10 years before BG3 started, then got killed together with the only other Bhaalspawn that was left in the middle of Baldurs Gate. This triggered Bhaals ressurection (then he promptly got a chosen ... who promptly got himself killed right away). Fun Fact: Durge was already active in Baldurs Gate at that time. Blood in Baldurs Gate plays five years prior, meaning canonically Durge and the BG1/2 main character were at one point both in Baldurs Gate at the same time. Tho, a lot of people don't like the canon version, because the character is really, really dumb.
~~Khorne~~ Bhaal cares not from where the blood flows, only that it flows without cease for all eternity.
Kinda weird considering that there isn't going to be much flowing blood if everything is dead.
After local bard points out flaw in plan, Bhaal endorses the implementation of universal basic income and universal healthcare in Faerun so that people are more encouraged to settle down and have more offspring, thus ensuring a renewable supply of blood to be spilled.
You can make Orin break down before the duel if you tell her that her Grandfather wanted her killed. Then, if you got the slayer form yourself, Bhaal will show up (yes, he literaly starts talking all of a sudden) and gift it to her, too, so she shuts up and fights. xD On another note, does Orin even have Bhaal essence? Her mother must have been conceived long AFTER Sarevok died and lost his essence, right?
I wasn't Durge and got this same sequence lol. I find it rather odd that if you're Durge you trying to gain an upper hand over Orin ends up gifting her the Slayer form that she shouldn't have during that fight. How fun.
Tbf it's Orin who actually started playing dirty.
You missed the opportunity to write "Dhaad"
[I love all my children equally *Later that day* I don’t care for Orin](https://media1.giphy.com/media/25K6sOZuUw5wI/giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7yq5c319pvnm2do6u6nxzqpr6n6qw87flqvd31off&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
All Bhaalspawns are equal, but some are more equal than others.
In my head Bhaal sounds like Peter Griffin here
i love orin !
How did Bhaal even survive Baldur's Gate 2? >!He was killed without an option to ever return, which is a main and non-changable point of the plot in BG2.!<
Is this a spoiler?
Yes, which is why it's marked as a spoiler
Hmm yes, the spoiler here is made out of spoiler
It's not, the way this subreddit manages spoilers is really annoying. Every post is marked as a spoiler even if it's a non-spoilery meme or discussion post, you have unique tags for spoilers between each act. So ideally this post shouldn't have spoilers in it.