Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Pre-Release Thread [EARLY ACCESS RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Joseph Stalin]

Yeah, but "A Murder in Baldur's Gate" completely breaks the events of the games, since CHARNAME, if he chooses to remain a mortal, loses his Bhaal Essence, whilst the adventure module states that he remained mortal AND kept it, as did all the other Bhaalspawn (and presumably their children, since we know for sure it carries over).

Sven said: "Bhaal and maybe a couple of other guys are still around. What’s gonna happen with that? You’re gonna discover when you play BG3", so the question would be: can Baalspawns keep the Essence of Bhaal if Bhaal is back?

Was Hercules supernatural while Zeus was around? I imagine all Forgotten Realms demigods retain a plethora of powers and special traits regardless of the status of their divine parent. Granted, with Bhall back, the Bhaalspawn might not be AS unique as they used to be.

The essence of Bhaal is within you until you die. Also, it can be replicated via having children.

Unfortunately, this is where the retartedness of "A Murder in Baldur's Gate" comes into play, directly stating that Abdel Adrian and Viekang were the last one. Now, you need to take into account the following:

1. Bhaalspawn seem to be biologically immortal, or at least very long lived.
2. They can have children.
3. The children also receive Bhaal's essence, making them Bhaalspawn.
4. There is nothing that can allow a third party to "detect" Bhaal's essence - that was the whole point.

To realise just how stupid that idea was.

 

[Xamenos]

Yeah, but "A Murder in Baldur's Gate" completely breaks the events of the games, since CHARNAME, if he chooses to remain a mortal, loses his Bhaal Essence, whilst the adventure module states that he remained mortal AND kept it, as did all the other Bhaalspawn (and presumably their children, since we know for sure it carries over).

Sven said: "Bhaal and maybe a couple of other guys are still around. What’s gonna happen with that? You’re gonna discover when you play BG3", so the question would be: can Baalspawns keep the Essence of Bhaal if Bhaal is back?

Was Hercules supernatural while Zeus was around? I imagine all Forgotten Realms demigods retain a plethora of powers and special traits regardless of the status of their divine parent. Granted, with Bhall back, the Bhaalspawn might not be AS unique as they used to be.

Theoretically, Bhaal being back means no more Bhaalspawn remain. That was his resurrection plan, after all. Of course, Wizards isn't that concerned about petty details like that. They certainly didn't let them get in the way when they decided to bring back every single dead god for 5e.

 

[Harthwain]

Was Hercules supernatural while Zeus was around? I imagine all Forgotten Realms demigods retain a plethora of powers and special traits regardless of the status of their divine parent. Granted, with Bhaal back, the Bhaalspawn might not be AS unique as they used to be.

That's the problem - we don't know the exact mechanism here. We can only assume that BG3 tries to be somewhat coherent with what we know so far (otherwise everything is pointless), hence my question.

Baldur's Gate II intro says only that "[...] One such deity foresaw his own death as he walked the land before the Cataclysm. He left the score of mortal offspring, intended to be the fuel for his rebirth. That god was Bhaal, Lord of Murder, and you are one of his children". But "the fuel for his rebirth" is very vague.

Baldur's Gate wiki states this: "Once all the pieces of his divine essence had been collected, he left it to his most trusted deathstalker, Amelyssan, to perform the correct rites to bring about his resurrection and help him regain his power". This would indicate that no Bhaalspawns are around. If I recall correctly the player can either decide to become a god or he just gives the essence away.

The latter suggests that refusing godhood causes Bhaal to be resurrected. The former is that the player becomes a new Bhaal (but the only way for this to make sense would be by some kind of fusion, a'la Arthas and Lich King in Warcraft III: Frozen Throne).

 

[Prime Junta]

It's set 100 years later because that is the CURRENT_YEAR in the 5e Forgotten Realms. You can't draw any other conclusions from that.

Which is pretty silly, come to think of it. Weren't the original BG games rather disconnected from the Forgotten Realms CURRENT_YEAR, whatever it was back then?

Nothing ever changes in the Forgotten Realms so the point is really moot.

The divine roster tends to be on the active side of things.

One god leaves the scene, another steps into its shoes. Nothing changes.

 

[Joseph Stalin]

It's set 100 years later because that is the CURRENT_YEAR in the 5e Forgotten Realms. You can't draw any other conclusions from that.

Which is pretty silly, come to think of it. Weren't the original BG games rather disconnected from the Forgotten Realms CURRENT_YEAR, whatever it was back then?

Nothing ever changes in the Forgotten Realms so the point is really moot.

The divine roster tends to be on the active side of things.

One god leaves the scene, another steps into its shoes. Nothing changes.

The Planescape setting has long ago established that gods cannot be REALLY killed. It's more akin to a coma for them.

 

[Storyfag]

Was Hercules supernatural while Zeus was around? I imagine all Forgotten Realms demigods retain a plethora of powers and special traits regardless of the status of their divine parent. Granted, with Bhaal back, the Bhaalspawn might not be AS unique as they used to be.

That's the problem - we don't know the exact mechanism here. We can only assume that BG3 tries to be somewhat coherent with what we know so far (otherwise everything is pointless), hence my question.

Baldur's Gate II intro says only that "[...] One such deity foresaw his own death as he walked the land before the Cataclysm. He left the score of mortal offspring, intended to be the fuel for his rebirth. That god was Bhaal, Lord of Murder, and you are one of his children". But "the fuel for his rebirth" is very vague.

Baldur's Gate wiki states this: "Once all the pieces of his divine essence had been collected, he left it to his most trusted deathstalker, Amelyssan, to perform the correct rites to bring about his resurrection and help him regain his power". This would indicate that no Bhaalspawns are around. If I recall correctly the player can either decide to become a god or he just gives the essence away.

The latter suggests that refusing godhood causes Bhaal to be resurrected. The former is that the player becomes a new Bhaal (but the only way for this to make sense would be by some kind of fusion, a'la Arthas and Lich King in Warcraft III: Frozen Throne).

To complicate matters, 3rd edition has Bane following a similar plan - but with merely one child, albeit much stronger. Xvim was born of Bane and a demoness and immediately ascended to (very minor) godhood himself, even while Bane was still alive. Only years after having fallen, Bane consumed Xvim from within and re-emerged.

 

[Xamenos]

We can only assume that BG3 tries to be somewhat coherent with what we know so far

Heh

Baldur's Gate II intro says only that "[...] One such deity foresaw his own death as he walked the land before the Cataclysm. He left the score of mortal offspring, intended to be the fuel for his rebirth. That god was Bhaal, Lord of Murder and you are one of his children". But "the fuel to his rebirth" is very vague.

I don't see how it could be any clearer. Fuel needs to be burned to provide heat. And Bhaal's children all needed to die for him to come back. That was his plan.

Baldur's Gate wiki states this: "Once all the pieces of his divine essence had been collected, he left it to his most trusted deathstalker, Amelyssan, to perform the correct rites to bring about his resurrection and help him regain his power". This would indicate that no Bhaalspawns are around. If I recall correctly the player can either decide to become a god or he just gives the essence away. The latter suggests that refusing godhood causes Bhaal to be resurrected. The former is that the player becomes a new Bhaal (by some kind of fusion, a'la Arthas and Lich King in Warcraft III: Frozen Throne)?

Refusing godhood caused the essence to be dispersed, Bhaal's resurrection forever out of reach through this means, and the last Bhaalspawn a mere mortal. Accepting godhood does not mean a fusion, but the ascension of a new god using Bhaal's power but not his "soul".

This was what the old Baldur's Gate games explained. Murder in Baldur's Gate stupidly retconned all this, replacing it with stupidity.

To complicate matters, 3rd edition has Bane following a similar plan - but with merely one child, albeit much stronger. Xvim was born of Bane and a demoness and immediately ascended to (very minor) godhood himself, even while Bane was still alive. Only years after having fallen, Bane consumed Xvim from within and re-emerged.

This wasn't Bane's sole plan, just the only one it worked. It was for the best, Iyachtu Xvim was a disappointing deity.

 

[Spectacle]

Looking for consistency in Forgotten Realms lore is a fool's errand. Only what's actually described in the module/game you're currently playing should be taken as real, and only in the context of that module.

 

[Dodo1610]

I thought all Bhaalspawns died/killed each other and Bhaal was reborn, why should there be new Bhaalspawns?

 

[Xamenos]

Looking for consistency in Forgotten Realms lore is a fool's errand. Only what's actually described in the module/game you're currently playing should be taken as real, and only in the context of that module.

It is perfectly consistent if you are willing to throw out every piece of lore from 5e, 4e and some from 3e.

I thought all Bhaalspawns died/killed each other and Bhaal was reborn, why should there be new Bhaalspawns?

Wizards wants money.

 

[Spectacle]

Looking for consistency in Forgotten Realms lore is a fool's errand. Only what's actually described in the module/game you're currently playing should be taken as real, and only in the context of that module.

It is perfectly consistent if you are willing to throw out every piece of lore from 5e, 4e and some from 3e.

LOL, no it's not, it wasn't even consistent back in 2e days. It's definitely gotten more inconsistent over time as they add more stuff, but not really edition related.

 

[Xamenos]

Looking for consistency in Forgotten Realms lore is a fool's errand. Only what's actually described in the module/game you're currently playing should be taken as real, and only in the context of that module.

It is perfectly consistent if you are willing to throw out every piece of lore from 5e, 4e and some from 3e.

LOL, no it's not, it wasn't even consistent back in 2e days. It's definitely gotten more inconsistent over time as they add more stuff, but not really edition related.

Can you name some of those 2e inconsistencies? Serious question, it's not impossible I've forgotten something over the years.

 

[Gargaune]

The Planescape setting has long ago established that gods cannot be REALLY killed. It's more akin to a coma for them.

Doesn't this get contradicted by MotB to a certain extent?

Spoiler

In as much as, following the Time of Troubles, gods are fueled by worship, Myrkul outright states that your devouring what's left of him would only send him in a bit of a timeout, but that he will reform by virtue of Akachi's curse still "acting" in his name. But if, at the finale, you end the curse, Kelemvor states that Myrkul will come to fade away into oblivion at last.

Looking for consistency in Forgotten Realms lore is a fool's errand. Only what's actually described in the module/game you're currently playing should be taken as real, and only in the context of that module.

It is perfectly consistent if you are willing to throw out every piece of lore from 5e, 4e and some from 3e.

I don't know about that, I read a couple of novels from the 2E/3E era and I seem to remember running into various inconsistencies, particularly where afterlife and cosmology are concerned. Unfortunately, the best approach for a videogame developer is probably to embrace the DM tradition of house-ruling the crap out of the setting to ensure their own campaign is internally consistent, rather than struggling to tie up all those loose ends, especially in 5E. Not to be confused with outright discarding established canon, but some retconning is probably required.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Joseph Stalin]

The Planescape setting has long ago established that gods cannot be REALLY killed. It's more akin to a coma for them.

Doesn't this get contradicted by MotB to a certain extent?

Spoiler

In as much as, following the Time of Troubles, gods are fueled by worship, Myrkul outright states that your devouring what's left of him would only send him in a bit of a timeout, but that he will reform by virtue of Akachi's curse still "acting" in his name. But if, at the finale, you end the curse, Kelemvor states that Myrkul will come to fade away into oblivion at last.

Looking for consistency in Forgotten Realms lore is a fool's errand. Only what's actually described in the module/game you're currently playing should be taken as real, and only in the context of that module.

It is perfectly consistent if you are willing to throw out every piece of lore from 5e, 4e and some from 3e.

I don't know about that, I read a couple of novels from the 2E/3E era and I seem to remember running into various inconsistencies, particularly where afterlife and cosmology are concerned. Unfortunately, the best approach for a videogame developer is probably to embrace the DM tradition of house-ruling the crap out of the setting to ensure their own campaign is internally consistent, rather than struggling to tie up all those loose ends, especially in 5E. Not to be confused with outright discarding established canon, but some retconning is probably required.

This is why the Sword Coast was chosen as a setting in the first place. Nothing of any importance was happening in that part of Faerun.

 

[Roguey]

Doesn't this get contradicted by MotB to a certain extent?

Myrkul's back again so it doesn't matter.

 

[Harthwain]

Heh

I know, I know...

Refusing godhood caused the essence to be dispersed, Bhaal's resurrection forever out of reach through this means, and the last Bhaalspawn a mere mortal. Accepting godhood does not mean a fusion, but the ascension of a new god using Bhaal's power but not his "soul".

This was what the old Baldur's Gate games explained. Murder in Baldur's Gate stupidly retconned all this, replacing it with stupidity.

I found some quotes from the official mouths on Murder in Baldur's Gate:

Baldur’s Gate III takes place in the modern 5th Edition D&D timeline and will follow the events of Baldur’s Gate: Descent into Avernus [...] It builds on the material and storylines from Baldur’s Gate (1997) and Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn (2000). Murder in Baldur's Gate [...] is a launching point for Larian’s story, and in the events in that adventure result in Bhaal, the God of Murder, returning. You do not play as the main character from Baldur Gate’s II, and Larian and Wizards aren’t saying if you’re a Bhaalspawn or not.

Bhaal is central to the Baldur’s Gates games. He’s one of the Dead Three, a trio of evil gods who died in the Time of Troubles (the event that brings the gods to the Forgotten Realms to walk Faerûn as mortal avatars), but he planted the seeds of his return in the Bhaalspawns, mortals who carry portions of his divinity. With The Sundering, he (and other dead gods) have returned.

“Definitely in Murder in Baldur’s Gate, Bhaal makes his influence known in the activities of the Bhaalspawn. [...]

Priest of Bhaal do get spells in D&D now. “Bhaal is listed in the Player’s Handbook. We know there are deities that are still exerting influence. You could argue that you don’t necessarily need a deity to cast divine spells. There are all sorts of shenanigans you can get into,” Mearls said. “There are gods who have faded, who are making a comeback.”

Source: https://venturebeat.com/2019/06/06/...y-takes-place-after-dds-descent-into-avernus/

A few conclussions:

1) "Gods who have faded are making a comeback".

2) Murder in Baldur's Gate is the reason Bhaal is back.

3) Murder in Baldur's Gate is "a launching point for Larian's story", while BG1 and BG2 are providing "the material and storylines". This suggests the games will be followed less strictly than the module.

 

[Gargaune]

Myrkul's back again so it doesn't matter.

Yes, well, the 5E setting is a mess. I'm running a 5E campaign but retconning to around 1374 DR as I go.

"You could argue that you don’t necessarily need a deity to cast divine spells [...],” Mearls said.

 

[Immortal]

Elminster is still a great character though! And the Drow are a fantastic piece of worldbuilding, even if they are a bit clichéd at times.

Hey, I actually don't mind a masochist society of cut throat elves that breed and kill each other all day underground worshipping a huge spider queen. It's a perfect amount of campyness for the realms.

(Still waiting for that futa lore)

However, Elminster literally offers zero value to the lore / setting. If he was just a scholar that shit talked Volo in Monster manuals.. that's one thing but he's not, he's actually a huge deus machina plot contrivance that steps into every realm changing plot line, utters some cringe "witty old man quip" causing women near and far to swoon at this wrinkly old prune - before casually destroying or undoing whatever EVUL thing happened.

It's actually confusing to me that anyone in the realms can do anything wrong without this old fart showing up.

 

[Lacrymas]

Is this the thread in which we finally realize that basically none of the Forgotten Realms novels are actually good?

 

[Saerain]

Sure. It's always been best as described in the core books and not the novels, and the more they merged the worse it all got.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

In this the thread in which we finally realize that basically none of the Forgotten Realm novels are actually good?

If civilization was able to advance as fast as this thread relapses through cycle of changing topics - humanity would have risen into galactic empire and fallen into stone age several times in a row.
I think somewhere in depths of this abyss, which called Baldur's Gate III thread someone already spelt a thought that D&D novels (and Forgotten Realms novels in particular) isn't good , but it was buried under piles and piles of retarded nonsense brought by weak willed people who can't wait to game being released before shitting on it.

Personally I wouldn't threat literature about tabletop setting as some "serious and prestigious" literature, it's more of fan fiction and since only small portion of fans capable to write somewhat decent novel - result is obvious.

Right now I trying to read Salvatore's Cleric Quintet and emphasis on "trying", because Salvatore can't stop himself from self inserting his luddite views on world. He was trying to do it in Icewind dale trilogy with Drizzt ranting about "guns bad, understanding world through logic and reason bad"
(while suffering from prejudices of medieval society that refuses to give a way to a progress, how ironic), but there wasn't much of this bullshit and reasoning of such way of thinking and it was understandable since Dirzzt is literal caveman (or caveelf?) and a ranger to addition (these guys isn't known for being smart). Cadderly on the other hand supposed to be smarter, but apparently in Slavatore's eyes servants of Deneir supposed to be even more reluctant to technological progress than even amish people and this ruins much of fun.

 

[Yosharian]

I never said any of the novels are any good

 

[Elex]

I'm guessing there was napalm all over the ground or something, like there usually is in Larian games.

Grease spell.

 

[Elex]

Sven said: "Bhaal and maybe a couple of other guys are still around. What’s gonna happen with that? You’re gonna discover when you play BG3", so the question would be: can Baalspawns keep the Essence of Bhaal if Bhaal is back?

No, and in general in 5e there is less chosen and similar entities.
Just mystra have a lot of them.