Jump to content

SoD Issues (SoD end-game spoilers!)


Ulb

Recommended Posts

Another continuity issue with SoD I guess. This one seems a bit harder to solve..

edit: end-game SoD spoilers:

 

 

With Belhifet being the “end boss” for both SoD and IWD, playing IWD-In-EET after SoD makes absolutely no sense anymore. After all you have already killed him for good.

 

Doing IWD first would still cause some issues with the timing of the SoD plot I assume.

 

 

Does IWD-In-EET already have a solution for this?

 

*Edit* I've made it more clear in the title that the whole thread contains SoD spoilers since half the thread is sitll full of them and at this point it seems to make little sense to try to put it all behind spoiler tags.

Link to comment

Another continuity issue with SoD I guess. This one seems a bit harder to solve..

 

With Belhifet being the “end boss” for both SoD and IWD, playing IWD-In-EET after SoD makes absolutely no sense anymore. After all you have already killed him for good.

 

Doing IWD first would still cause some issues with the timing of the SoD plot I assume.

 

Does IWD-In-EET already have a solution for this?

This has been discussed in the IWD thread on this forum a few weeks back. Again, K4thos argued that this could be solved by modders instead of EET.

 

For my Sandrah mod I have included both issues since this mod really aims for a continuous storyline (of the mod itself and of the Bhaalspawn story)

 

I have added this, however it is part of my mod, not a general feature:

 

1. You get access to IWD after you cleared the Nashkel Mine and solved Brage quest in Nashkel (a delegate from Easthaven at the FAI provides you with these conditions, you need to qualify as adventurer to get the map to IWD). IWD contains a continuation of the Brage plot as well as a meeting with some "Koveras", plus some Sandrah related addons. All of this is no longer accessible after your return from Candlekeep (Chapter8).

2. For Skie - you will receive the soultaker dagger from Valen when she invits you to meet her mistress Bodhi (it is a gift to show PC it is worth dealing with the vampire/also a hint to her connection with Irenicus) Your cleric will be able to release Skie from the dagger at one of the Athkatla temples. Skie will babble about the events in her typical way, afterwards agrees to contact the Jysstevs, who are related to her family. She returns home and settles things there for you - when you travel to Baldur's Gate you will no longer be hunted (although your hero bonus is gone), you will be a normal visitor and the town can be used again for any mod's new content.

 

 

 

This is what I have developped and tested so far - I just need K4thos information how he closes BG in EET so my final Global("SanSodSkie","Global",6) can trigger the re-opening. (Maybe it is just to open the bridge with the BG1 code and RevealAreaOnMap("bg0300")?)

 

PS - I have chosen this approach since the events are all controlled by globals, so if some other mod provides this feature, the scripts can read those globals and prevent duplication in the game (i.e. any of it only triggers when my mod needs it and no other mod has provided it yet).

Link to comment

Sounds good, looks like your mod is going to be almost a mandatory addition for everyone playing EET with all the stuff it covers now. :)

 

With that said, I feel like those issues are so intrinsic to the whole EET project that it they might warrant a direct EET(Tweaks) fix component.

I'm thinking the easiest fix that could be implemented with IWD-In-EET directly could just rename SoD's Belhifet. The actual name shouldn't be in more than maybe 3 dialogues and I don't see a reason why SoD's plot needs the devil to be Belhifet. The hints we get in the Irenicus cut-scene are so vague they would probably work with someone else as well. A simple rather none-invasive solution that would solve all conflicts between IWD and SoD.

Link to comment

I've edited your post to add spoiler marks, so those who didn't play SoD but follow this board don't get spoiled.


Yeah, that's the part that I hate about the expansion. From the unlimited amount of possible enemies they chose the exact same guy from IWD :( Whole travel to hell and killing such powerful enemy with less than 500k XP seems off to me. I have no idea how to resolve this plot issue for IWD-in-EET mod. If we come up with idea to do it in reasonable way than it won't be an optional tweak but part of the main package.

 

Link to comment

 

If we come up with idea to do it in reasonable way than it won't be an optional tweak but part of the main package.

 

I take it you don't consider just replacing Belhifet(SoD) with another devil as a reasonable solution then?

At least in my quick play-through there was very little exposition regarding him.

 

There was actually only that one sequence between Irenicus and Evil-Priest-Guy that mentioned “a broken fiend” and then nothing until the very end.

 

Sure, for players familiar with IWD "Belhifet" means something but to the characters in game the exact identity of the demon fiend seems to be more or less inconsequential.

 

There are only 6 dialogue files that contain his name and 30 hits in total that would need to be patched,

As long as Beamdog doesn't release any new content that references back to the SoD end plot I don't see this causing any issues at all.

 

So it might be good enough of a solution to include it into IWD-In-EET itself.

 

The only other solution I see is the one Roxxanne is using.

Even then, while only allowing IWD content before SoD might work in general, it would still leave us with some plot holes. (You're the guy that defeated and sent him back to hell and yet Belhifet doesn't mention that at all when you face him in SoD)

Link to comment

I've edited your post to add spoiler marks, so those who didn't play SoD but follow this board don't get spoiled.

 

 

Yeah, that's the part that I hate about the expansion. From the unlimited amount of possible enemies they chose the exact same guy from IWD :( Whole travel to hell and killing such powerful enemy with less than 500k XP seems off to me. I have no idea how to resolve this plot issue for IWD-in-EET mod. If we come up with idea to do it in reasonable way than it won't be an optional tweak but part of the main package.

 

 

 

I think Ulb's proposal is the sensitive fix for the issue, just renaming one of the end-bosses. I think it would even be far easier to do it in IWD - there is no mentioning at all of what the guy's true name is until the final scene when he reveals himself. Until that point he is referred to as either *The old enemy* or by the name of his disguise Poquelin.

 

I agree with Ulb that until someone wants to reference back to the events at a later stage, the identity of any demon is really inconsequential. (And I recall that a demon named B. appears in a number of mods in a large installation, modders used him quite freely whenever they needed a representative of his kin)

 

Link to comment

Sounds good, looks like your mod is going to be almost a mandatory addition for everyone playing EET with all the stuff it covers now. :)

 

 

I do not agree with this statement, and it ids definitely NOT my intention.

 

Fact is that as far as I know, the only mod that has a need to access Baldur's Gate City after BG1 finish is Sandrah, that is why I take care of that. And if you do not play that mod, you would not need to resolve the issue at all - as long as no other mod comes with such a requirement.

With respect to IWD, my approach is definitely not *mandatory* for the majority of players who may want just free access to the IWD extension and do not necessarily require a continuous and halfway logical plot to accompany it. The earlier discussion of this topic here on the forum has shown that tastes and expectations are divers.

And finally - just as the name implies - Sandrah mod is around an NPC of that name, so nothing of that is available for someone not having her in the party - which is a no-go limitation to see it as solution for any of the issues here. It is just one possible option how this stuff can be solved without great effort.

 

 

 

 

With that said, I feel like those issues are so intrinsic to the whole EET project that it they might warrant a direct EET(Tweaks) fix component.

I'm thinking the easiest fix that could be implemented with IWD-In-EET directly could just rename SoD's Belhifet. The actual name shouldn't be in more than maybe 3 dialogues and I don't see a reason why SoD's plot needs the devil to be Belhifet. The hints we get in the Irenicus cut-scene are so vague they would probably work with someone else as well. A simple rather none-invasive solution that would solve all conflicts between IWD and SoD.

Link to comment

With what Roxanne has said, I would think renaming him in the IWD part is the far superior solution. (I haven't played IWD and assumed the fiend's name would be much more interwoven with the story. Though I wonder to what extent his name is used in the IWD2 parts of the mod?)

 

Since EET as a whole is a project for the BG series, leaving the BG plot line (including SoD) untouched would in my opinion be more important than providing unaltered IWD content.

This is especially true with IWD-In-EET already altering the “canon lore” in other parts. (The events in IWD are supposed to take place long before the events of the BG series.)

 

Another important point: This approach would also avoid any potential conflicts with future mods that reference SoD's Belhifet. (Any IWD Belhifet references might cause minor issues with IWD-In-EET anyway since it has to change the time line so there would be no “new” conflicts.)

 

 

@Roxanne

I did not mean to sound accusatory. I merely wanted to mention that your mod seems to tackle a lot of the continuation issues/conflicts that bother me, nothing more nothing less.

Link to comment

With what Roxanne has said, I would think renaming him in the IWD part is the far superior solution. (I haven't played IWD and assumed the fiend's name would be much more interwoven with the story. Though I wonder to what extent his name is used in the IWD2 parts of the mod?)

 

Since EET as a whole is a project for the BG series, leaving the BG plot line (including SoD) untouched would in my opinion be more important than providing unaltered IWD content.

This is especially true with IWD-In-EET already altering the “canon lore” in other parts. (The events in IWD are supposed to take place long before the events of the BG series.)

 

Another important point: This approach would also avoid any potential conflicts with future mods that reference SoD's Belhifet. (Any IWD Belhifet references might cause minor issues with IWD-In-EET anyway since it has to change the time line so there would be no “new” conflicts.)

 

 

@Roxanne

I did not mean to sound accusatory. I merely wanted to mention that your mod seems to tackle a lot of the continuation issues/conflicts that bother me, nothing more nothing less.

I have not understood this as an accusation at all, I am just warning to put too much hope in an optional mod that provides continuity just for its own sake but not as a global feature for the game. You will only see any of that in the company of the respective NPC and this will only apply to a minority of players.

 

K4thos, if you don't like this as a base implementation it would probably be a good addition to EET Tweaks? (Assuming EET Tweaks will also cover IWD-In-EET content)

I have looked at IDW1 for the name and it is used exactly twice (and not even in important context)

- the name of the final incarnation of the end boss (all you need to do is rename it in the cre)

- in the scene when the priest appears to sacrifice himself ...without giving B. much attention he rushes by....

That is all - so the name for mod contents could be just about anything.

 

With respect to IWD2 it may not even be the best of ideas to have the same opponent here. Like Ulb already pointed out, the relation between IWD1 and IWD2 no longer existts when both are optional mods (side quests) for BG. Having the same boss can even lead to inconsistencies depending on how a player choses to incorporate the mods into the gameplay.

I have not yet completely given up my idea to connect IWD2 in some way to the bhaalspawn saga (I have done it already for IWD1 and HoW now, as an option accessible with Sandrah, so nothing canonical). My idea is that the sire in IWD2 may turn out to be some other familiar creature named B.

Link to comment

This is what needs to be done in IWD1 + HOW to solve the end boss problem, preferrably it should be done by the IWD into EET import mod

  • COPY_EXISTING ~Belhif.cre~ ~override~

SAY NAME1 ~Orlex~
SAY NAME2 ~Orlex~

 

  • In Deverard.dlg state 36 replace

~[slightly in awe, almost ignoring Belhifet and the party]Jerrod's Stone. I—have never seen it.~

With
~[slightly in awe, almost ignoring Orlex and the party]Jerrod's Stone. I—have never seen it.

 

  • In Tower.2da replace

As for the vanquished demon, Belhifet... defeated on the Prime, he was banished back to the depths of hell where he languished for a period of a hundred years,

with

As for the vanquished demon, Orlex... defeated on the Prime, he was banished back to the depths of hell where he languished for a period of a hundred years,

 

And this would fix it all.

Link to comment

I'm still amazed how little references there are to his name. Thanks for doing the research on this Roxanne.

 

With a quick google research and my limited understanding of D&D and its time-line I think the new name you picked would fit pretty well.

 

As for IWD2 would you say it can remain unchanged?

Link to comment

This is what needs to be done in IWD1 + HOW to solve the end boss problem, preferrably it should be done by the IWD into EET import mod

  • COPY_EXISTING ~Belhif.cre~ ~override~

SAY NAME1 ~Orlex~

SAY NAME2 ~Orlex~

 

  • In Deverard.dlg state 36 replace

~[slightly in awe, almost ignoring Belhifet and the party]Jerrod's Stone. I—have never seen it.~

With

~[slightly in awe, almost ignoring Orlex and the party]Jerrod's Stone. I—have never seen it.

 

  • In Tower.2da replace

As for the vanquished demon, Belhifet... defeated on the Prime, he was banished back to the depths of hell where he languished for a period of a hundred years,

with

As for the vanquished demon, Orlex... defeated on the Prime, he was banished back to the depths of hell where he languished for a period of a hundred years,

 

And this would fix it all.

No it doesn't. This approach does not account for the audible VOs or movies that mention Belhifet by name. tower.WBM is one such example.

 

From what I have seen and read, the content of these games (including the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series) have more or less become canon content for the Realms over the years. This means that Belhifet is the established, canon villain for this Icewind Dale campaign during this time, and may be referenced by name by any number of other sources, books, mods, material, etc. that has been woven into the established lore of the Forgotten Realms universe and timeline. If this material conflicts with new content from SoD, I believe it should be SoD that is changed (even if it is a bit harder to implement). It seems fundamentally wrong to me to up and change THE antagonist of the Icewind Dale story after having been part of the canon lore of the Realms for over 15 years.

 

If the name of the antagonist must be changed in either IWD or SoD, I would very much prefer it be changed in SoD. If SoD uses the name "Belhifet" in VOs and movies like IWD does (I'm not sure since I haven't played SoD yet), this makes the name nearly impossible to change in either game without losing content. If this is the case, my suggestion is to change the name of the character in SoD to something slightly different but that would be pronounced essential the same way: such as changing "Belhifet" to "Belhefet". That way you could argue that they were not the same character for continuity's sake, but no audio assets would be invalidated.

Link to comment

AFAK SoD does not go against canon in any way, shape or form. Belhifet being there is perfectly fine and only conflicts with IWD-In-EET because IWD-In-EET does break canon lore.

 

The only justification for any IWD content in BG without breaking canon is.. time travel, which is not used.

 

This brings me back to the point I made earlier in this thread: IWD-In-EET is already breaking FR canon so altering this none-canon content further is far superior to altering SoD content (which is canon conform).

 

 

Your suggestion about using a similar sounding name is interesting though. Depending on how many voiced lines there are this might be a good course of action. Alternatively one could just “omit” those voiced lines assuming it's only a few.

 

Since this seems to be a polarizing topic it might be best to offer one or more of these solutions as a Tweaks component and leave the base mod “as is”.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...