Talk:List of Baldur's Gate characters

[On Korgan] "...probably even better than Minsc, save for the low Intelligence attribute..." And Minsc's is high? --Anshelm &#39;77 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers?
What would you guys classify as a "spoiler?" I want to know this so that I can know what types of information to add to the page regarding the characters, without spoiling anything. (And also what types of information to remove.) Would one regard Imoen's "unveiling" as a Bhaalspawn to be a spoiler for example? It's supposed to be a game secret, but it seems hinted at throughout and isn't too surprising. Any guidelines? -- Solberg 14:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg
 * I don't think there's any guidelines, I haven't been following any anyways. We could put a spoiler tag at the top, and a small disclaimer about spoilers? Poulsen 14:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would work. Thanks by the way for your reply on another question.  -- Solberg 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

Xan merger
I don't think Xan is sufficiently notable to warrant his own article, despite the amount of text that is actually in said article. I believe his article can be sufficiently summarised here in one short section. I have proposed a merger based on this and will carry it out if there are no objections within the next week. -- Lewis 23:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are also a bunch of other Baldur's Gate characters with their own articles which could probably do with merging into this one:
 * Aerie (Baldur's Gate)
 * Montaron
 * Minsc (which I wouldn't support merging, he is notable enough imo)
 * Thalantyr
 * Dynaheir
 * Sarevok (possibly notable enough)
 * Xzar
 * Biff the Understudy
 * Jon Irenicus (possibly notable enough?)
 * Adalon
 * Bodhi (Baldur's Gate)
 * Edwin Odesseiron
 * Firkraag
 * Lilarcor if we feel it's a 'character', otherwise into the main article?
 * Melissan
 * Solaufein
 * Imoen

Anyone have opinions on merging that lot? If no-one objects, I'll go and add merge tags later to the ones I haven't noted as possibly-notable. Note that some of these are definitely non-notable characters, often with just a paragraph or two, so if you object, do say what in particular you're objecting to.. --Fuzzie (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, those should all be merged too. Maybe leave minsc and irenicus as they seem to have quite of lot of (pointless?) info in them, but the other certainly have no notability outside of the game, the articles on Adalon and Lilarcor are just ridiculous and should be sumamrised accordingly. --Lewis 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As a part of a merger, I propose splitting the article into List of Baldur's Gate II characters, now that each game has its own article. Poulsen 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To eloborate on my last comment, I think it would be a shame to butcher all the existing individual articles. When merging, please bear in mind that many featured lists are excessively long, so there's no need to cut to the bare bones. Check out WP:FICT for guidelines on notability in fiction - I think Sarevok is a major character, and Minsc is a cultural icon (to use the WP:FICT terms) and warrant their own articles. Also, in merging non-NPCs into the mix, I recommend List of Final Fantasy VII characters as an article with a good structure of both friends and enemies. I still think this article should be split, though. Poulsen 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What should we do about characters which are in both the original game and BG2, though? --Fuzzie (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply describe their role in each game in the appropriate list. This article already has double entries on the characters from both games, so splitting this article should be nothing more than cutting it at the middle. Poulsen 14:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If every single Final Fantasy character can have their own page, why can't the BG ones? I say as long as a character was a main (party) character in either game, they deserve their own page. TotalTommyTerror 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the FF characters, they've all been in a string of games, and actually have enough information about them to make it possible to write an article longer than a few paragraphs. Poulsen 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's amusing, because so do the party characters in these games. Each character along with having a detailed in game biography is also developed characters over the game. They have as much as any FF character does, and are every bit worthy of having a page the same as any main character whose dialogue solely consists of "..." TotalTommyTerror 06:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No they don't - only five characters hold important roles in both games, with more or less "development of characters" occuring. No characters in Baldur's Gate 1 goes through any kind of development what so ever. You find this "a detailed in game biography"?:

"When asked about his past, AJANTIS announces that he is a squire-paladin of the Most Noble Order of the Radiant Heart, and that he enforces the power and discipline of Helm. He belongs to the noble family of Ilvastarr in Waterdeep, and has studied swordplay under such luminaries as Myrmith Splendon. His skill and devotion apparently brought him to the attention of the paladin Keldorn, one of the most respected of the order, who decided to take Ajantis under his wing as a squire. Recently Ajantis has asked for the honor of becoming a full-fledged member of the order. To accomplish this he has traveled to the Sword Coast, in order to help curtail the increased humanoid activity in the region. If he succeeds in his quest the order will vote on his eligibility for membership. He seems utterly devoted to his mission."
 * How are you gonna build an entire article from that cliche? Finally, take a look at the List of Final Fantasy characters before claiming that every FF character has their own article. Poulsen 07:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be that the following characters are notable enough: Any further thoughts? Gamesmaster 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Minsc, due to out-of-game references
 * Imoen, who is in both games and plays a major part in the second one.
 * Jaheira, Edwin and possibly Viconia, as they can play big parts in both games, rather than just one.
 * Sarevok, as he's the major antagonist in BG1.
 * Irenicus and Bodhi, as they're the major antagonists in BG2.

give Imoen her own article back!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.126.12 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PC vs NPC
Minsc, jaheira and the others are not NPCs but PCs. They are playable characters and are not only there to give you hints or what not. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_character for the definition. I suggest we remove them from the list and add a list of playable charactersBragador 16:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice that the Player character article cites no sources at all in establishing these definitions. Listed in the "Sources" section of this article, the Baldur's Gate II manual cites, page 30, "a list of all the NPCs that may join your party throughout the game", and goes on to name the NPCs listed in this article under section "Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn NPCs", and noone else. So, NPCs they are. Poulsen 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, citing wikipedia articles is no good, as they are by no means authoritative, but should on the contrary be build on authoritative sources, which the Player character article is not. Also, the NPC acronym might be "non-player character" as well as "non-playing (playable) character". When you have one protagonist in Baldur's Gate, the "player character", as the focus of the story, then a party member becomes a "non-player character", while he is indeed not a "non-playable character". Poulsen 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, then I'll refer you to the source of the word. Check out the books of dungeons and dragons #st edition and see for yourself that an NPC is a character not played by one of the player. Hence the definition that a NPC is not under the control of a player. So yes, the Baldur's gate booklet is actually both right and wrong. If you don't have the character in your team it is an NPC but if it joins it is a PC. In a situation like that it is always better to say the characters are playable instead of saying they are "NPCs" since players can think they can't be controlled. So these are actually PCs and not NPCs. Bragador 17:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The DnD rules aren't gospel in the case of computer games, simply because they are computer games, and not tabletop. The BG manuals all point out that BG is by no means 100% DnD. The Baldur's Gate II manual isn't "wrong" - it is the source closest to the subject, and should not be ignored without notice. That you think some definition is better than the other doesn't stand up to the actual makers of the game. Wouldn't the best thing be to explain these things in the actual article? That they are both PC and NPC in different definitions of the terms, that Bioware refers to them as NPCs, and why this is so? Poulsen 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, saying that the dnd books aren't "gospel" since the rules aren't the same is not a good comparison since we are talking about semantic and not gameplay. Also I pointed you to the books of the first edition since they pretty much constructed the whole rpg genre in the 70s. But yes, adding a couple of sentences to explain that the NPCs can become player characters would make a lot of sense. Bragador 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok so I read the first part of the articly and if you forget what you know about the game, it doesn't say you can actually control the characters. Saying that NPCs will help form your group is problematic since it implies they will always act on their own. The thing I disagree the most though is "while others are not recognizable as NPCs, as they, initially, merely set up quests for the player to complete." But that doesn't affect the definition at all since they precisely ARE non-player characters. Your thoughts ? Bragador 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about this for an opening paragraph?:
 * Baldur's Gate NPCs are non-player characters (NPCs) who will help the player form a group to take on the Baldur's Gate series of computer games. The NPCs are recruited alongside a player-generated protagonist character. When included in the protagonist's group, the NPCs become playable characters who are directly controlled by the player.
 * And continue from there. The sentence "while others are not recognizable as NPCs, as they, initially, merely set up quests for the player to complete" is in no way used to make PC >< NPC definitions, it is included to explain why the article is a spoiler in itself. Read the entire second paragraph of the lead section, it is all about spoilers, and not PC >< NPC. About the DnD rules, I haven't played tabletop DnD myself, but it is my impression that you cannot singlehandedly gain control over six different party members in tabletop, like you can in Baldur's Gate. Therefore it is very much about gameplay too - the DnD rules don't define "a character that isn't the player, but that the player can control and manipulate at his will", as they don't exist and there isn't a single, all-important "protagonist" in tabletop, like the makers of Baldur's Gate have had to deal with. So I would say there are many gameplay issues, and that the semantics stem from defining the game mechanics, which are here adapted by BioWare. Poulsen 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I like it better that way. Let's try to make it simpler : Baldur's Gate NPCs are non-player characters (NPCs) who will help the player form a group to take on the Baldur's Gate series of computer games. The NPCs recruited become playable characters directly controlled by the player.
 * As for the DnD rules, you can indeed roleplay more than one character.Bragador 19:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Guide?
I was noticing that it is listed where the characters can be found. Is this too much information, or does this fall in with the "Spoiler Warning". It seems like a game guide to me. Anyone agree?

Ninjanity 25 Feb 2007

Coran
I notice that this article claims that Coran's abilities with the Bow ar exceed what he would be capable of under the (A)D&D ruleset. This, as far as I can see, is not true. His Dexterity grants him +3 to Hit with Ranged Weapons, as an Elf he has +1 to Hit with Bows and with Weapon Mastery [i.e. three Proficiency Slots in Bow) he has another +3 to Hit and Damage. As a Level 5 Fighter he has THAC0 16, adding on the (+7) adjustments he has an effective THAC0 9, with a Long Bow this is further reduced to 8. This is exactly the case in the game when Coran is first encountered (given that he is a Level 5 Fighter at that point), so I see no reason to suggest that he breaks the rules of the game in this regard.

Where he does break the rules of (A)D&D, so does everybody else: for instance, the number of attacks with a Bow increases by Level and through Specialisation; this is the case for all Characters, but it is not strictly allowed by the (A)D&D ruleset (at least as far as I can see, Player's Option: Combat and tactics, might have allowed it), but it is a reasonable simplification or House Rule for the Baldur's Gate series. Also, Coran gains access to Weapon Mastery prematurely and easily, but again this is simplification for the game, as it does not use the Character Points mechanic. Coran's Dexterity is, admittedly, one point above what would initially be possible, but as in the game, there are ways and means of increasing Attribute Scores; it is not inconceivable that he could have increased it before encounterng the Player Character.

--M.J.Stanham 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xan.PNG
Image:Xan.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Montaron.jpg
Image:Montaron.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anomen
Two anons (likely the same user) have added a line to Anomen's section stating that his alignment can change twice, to go to Chaotic Evil, if he manages to kill Aerie. This isn't backed up by anything in the game code (Google for it and you'll find that the only source for this factoid is this article), so I'm going to remove it again. I've already warned one of the anons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Anomen (apart from Keldorn) also reconizes Ajantis in Windspread Hills as a part of knights party. I can support it only by this: http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/baldurs-gate-ii-shadows-of-amn-9/ajantis-19431.html#post308424 but I'm quite sure Anomen can recognize Ajantis too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.44.229 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Minsc
Wasn't Misc's alignment "Chaotic Good" not "Neutral Good" in Baldursgate II? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.200.245 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, in Baldur's Gate Minsc is Neutral Good, and in Baldur's Gate II he is Chaotic Good.Mediatech492 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both should be included, and cited. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering is there any canonical explanation for Minsc's alignment change, (such as the death of Dynaheir) or is it left unexplained?Mediatech492 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)