Bhaal Spawn (3.5 era question) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Bhaal Spawn (3.5 era question)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
dmd
May 01, 2009 12:45:14 Obviously Bhaal has been dead for a long time.

However, in the (I think it was Baldur's gate video games) he returned as a villain who was attempting to return to godhood through his use of the seeds he planted in the Bhaal spawn. Never played the game but I think this was the plot.

I don't think this was considered canon (not that I care) but do any of the 3.0/3.5 books discuss these Bhaal spawn? I am sure someone asked this question at some point in the past so I apologize if the question is redundant.

Thanks.

DMD
#2
lord_karsus
May 01, 2009 13:15:02 -The Bhaalspawn are indeed canon, with the inclusion of them in the Baldur's Gate novelization, aptly titled Baldur's Gate. The Bhaalspawn template was included in DRAGON magazine 288, which would make it 3e.
#3
dmd
May 01, 2009 13:58:15 Thanks LK, luckily I own that issue. :D
#4
zanan
May 01, 2009 18:57:43 One of the WotSQ Dragons (302, 312 or 322) includes the Deathstalker of Bhaal Prestige Class and it much like Lost Empires of Faerûn mentions the possibility, that people may still follow and receive spells from even a dead god like him.
#5
lord_karsus
May 01, 2009 22:03:41 -Issue 322.
#6
dmd
May 01, 2009 22:34:53 Nice, I own that issue too.
#7
markustay63
May 03, 2009 12:24:34 There is just something so wrong with the title of this thread.
#8
JudgeDookie
May 03, 2009 14:54:23
Nice, I own that issue too.

Then what the hell are you here for? Go read or something.
#9
dmd
May 03, 2009 21:39:10 Dookie, I have too much crap to remember where everything is, why read through 50 supplements when I have human indexes here to reference and tell me where things are?
#10
dmd
May 03, 2009 21:40:10 Is it the Bhaal part or the 3.5 part that disturbs you Markus?
#11
lord_karsus
May 03, 2009 22:44:13 -Yeah, I didn't get it either.
#12
leiril
May 05, 2009 6:04:13 I always wanted to know how the story ended in the novels, does someone know more about that? I do not have them and the reviews I have read so far indicate that I won't like them. But it would be interesting to know if it ends like the game or what the differences are. Does this Abdullawhatever become the new god of murder or does he kiss his daddy goodbye and let him float in the astral sea 'till the end of time?
#13
meldread
May 05, 2009 6:34:28 From my understanding it was very much based off the video game, and the main character rejected Bhaal's essence.... basically ending the same as the video game if you choose to live a mortal life.
#14
Stigger
May 05, 2009 6:44:45 Except for it supposedly kills off most of coolest NPCs... bleh.
#15
dmd
May 05, 2009 12:19:47 Not sure about the video game though at some point I would be interested in playing it.

For my next campaign I am running Age of Worms in the Realms and the revisions written by Eric Boyd put an interesting twist on the plot that involves Bhaal. So I am going to have one of my players be a Bhaal Spawn which he will learn over the course of the adventure path (I added my own revisions). The interesting thing will be when the characters has to confront his mother who basically had him so he could be sacrificed to Bhaal. Good times.... :D
#16
markustay63
May 05, 2009 15:29:41
Is it the Bhaal part or the 3.5 part that disturbs you Markus?

It's the name 'Bhaal Spawn' that just puts gross images in my head.

I don't know who came up with that name, but they have a decidely warped sense of humour.

As for 3.5e.... why in the world would I be offended by the bestest set of RPG rules ever created? :D

EDIT: I can't wait for Diablo III to come out, so I can fight Baal again.
#17
dmd
May 05, 2009 21:34:34 Ah ok.

I have to admit that I really did enjoy 2ed as well, I think I like the choices that 3.0/3.5 provides a bit better though. I throw out a lot of combat rules that slow things down too so that helps speed up things for 3.5 as well.

I have not tried 4E, I would be willing to play in a game (if I had time) but I would not sink more money into a new edition. Especially when I have a good 10-20 years of gaming products from 3.5 edition.
#18
markustay63
May 05, 2009 23:12:45 I'm tinkering with 3e again (I always tinker with the rules), and I think I'd like to add 'Kits' back in - that was one of the things I really liked about 2e. I use whatever I like from every edition.

I think I'm going to wind-up with some sort of weird Hybrid... again.
#19
dmd
May 07, 2009 16:14:43 I think the kits were hit or miss. Some of them were well done some not so much. The Cleric guide stands out to me as poor while I always thought the Wizards was the best, that or the Elves guide, that was pretty good.

I always liked specialty priests from Second edition. I don't think PrC's did a good job replacing them. I always thought about tinkering but I usually have addition by subtraction, I like systems to move faster not slower. Though I did add some Parry rules from Dragon magazine that I fiddled with and I like them.
#20
Stigger
May 07, 2009 16:17:06 Yeah, I missed the Specialty Priests myself... despite its faults mechanically, 2e had some of the coolest damned ideas thus far.
#21
markustay63
May 07, 2009 22:51:23 I think the reason why I loved the 2e era (not the rules so much) was that it worked the same way my mind does - just throw every at it - good and bad - and see what sticks.

There was greatness in 2e, and a whole lotta schlock as well, but we had the choice of what to use. You know what they say; one man's garbage is another man's treasure. If not for all of its funky, broken rules and options, I don't think we could have ever gotten 3e, which was just the fixed version of 2e.

Of coure, 3e nearly became 2e all over again toward the end. I'm sure the same will happen with 5e as well. It's the nature of the beast.

Customers cry for more lore and options, and then cry all over again when it becomes too much for them. We have no-one but ourselves to blame for this mess, because we keep buying whatever they shovel at us.
#22
maskedone
May 07, 2009 22:59:13 2E had really cool toys but I loathed the core system. 3.x has a tolerable basic system but nerfed the toys and 4E needs a new name. It might be a decent ruleset (I forgive much for putting rituals in the core rules, not enough to balance matters but still a great deal) in some ways but it is not Dungeons and Dragons.
#23
rinonalyrna_fathomlin
May 08, 2009 12:22:39
Not sure about the video game though at some point I would be interested in playing it.

I highly recommend playing the BG series for it's own sake, not just to learn the lore. They are wonderful games, and IMO very "Realmish."
#24
leiril
May 09, 2009 8:30:48
I highly recommend playing the BG series for it's own sake, not just to learn the lore. They are wonderful games, and IMO very "Realmish."

And they even work with Win Vista But it would still be better to have XP, because there may be some strange looking artifacts around transparent objects. Why the hack have I bought my Dell with Vista.

When I read parts of Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast during the last months I even wondered how much of the game correlates with the lore of the Realms. Many places and how they "look" and "feel" seems to have been taken directly out of a Volo Guide.
#25
faraer
May 09, 2009 14:53:52 Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast was the Baldur's Gate designers' main reference, yes.
#26
lord_karsus
May 10, 2009 11:46:24 -If only things worked out like that, more. It's nice reading a book, and finding a brand new locale, but I don't like that when, after finding this new locale, I say, "WTF? Where the hell is this? Cybertron?"
#27
Stigger
May 10, 2009 12:07:48 Its a floating city over the ruins of Lantan where Dr. Golem has his secret lair...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 dmd May 01, 2009 12:45:14	Obviously Bhaal has been dead for a long time. However, in the (I think it was Baldur's gate video games) he returned as a villain who was attempting to return to godhood through his use of the seeds he planted in the Bhaal spawn. Never played the game but I think this was the plot. I don't think this was considered canon (not that I care) but do any of the 3.0/3.5 books discuss these Bhaal spawn? I am sure someone asked this question at some point in the past so I apologize if the question is redundant. Thanks. DMD
#2 lord_karsus May 01, 2009 13:15:02	-The Bhaalspawn are indeed canon, with the inclusion of them in the Baldur's Gate novelization, aptly titled Baldur's Gate. The Bhaalspawn template was included in DRAGON magazine 288, which would make it 3e.
#3 dmd May 01, 2009 13:58:15	Thanks LK, luckily I own that issue. :D
#4 zanan May 01, 2009 18:57:43	One of the WotSQ Dragons (302, 312 or 322) includes the Deathstalker of Bhaal Prestige Class and it much like Lost Empires of Faerûn mentions the possibility, that people may still follow and receive spells from even a dead god like him.
#5 lord_karsus May 01, 2009 22:03:41	-Issue 322.
#6 dmd May 01, 2009 22:34:53	Nice, I own that issue too.
#7 markustay63 May 03, 2009 12:24:34	There is just something so wrong with the title of this thread.
#8 JudgeDookie May 03, 2009 14:54:23	Nice, I own that issue too. Then what the hell are you here for? Go read or something.
#9 dmd May 03, 2009 21:39:10	Dookie, I have too much crap to remember where everything is, why read through 50 supplements when I have human indexes here to reference and tell me where things are?
#10 dmd May 03, 2009 21:40:10	Is it the Bhaal part or the 3.5 part that disturbs you Markus?
#11 lord_karsus May 03, 2009 22:44:13	-Yeah, I didn't get it either.
#12 leiril May 05, 2009 6:04:13	I always wanted to know how the story ended in the novels, does someone know more about that? I do not have them and the reviews I have read so far indicate that I won't like them. But it would be interesting to know if it ends like the game or what the differences are. Does this Abdullawhatever become the new god of murder or does he kiss his daddy goodbye and let him float in the astral sea 'till the end of time?
#13 meldread May 05, 2009 6:34:28	From my understanding it was very much based off the video game, and the main character rejected Bhaal's essence.... basically ending the same as the video game if you choose to live a mortal life.
#14 Stigger May 05, 2009 6:44:45	Except for it supposedly kills off most of coolest NPCs... bleh.
#15 dmd May 05, 2009 12:19:47	Not sure about the video game though at some point I would be interested in playing it. For my next campaign I am running Age of Worms in the Realms and the revisions written by Eric Boyd put an interesting twist on the plot that involves Bhaal. So I am going to have one of my players be a Bhaal Spawn which he will learn over the course of the adventure path (I added my own revisions). The interesting thing will be when the characters has to confront his mother who basically had him so he could be sacrificed to Bhaal. Good times.... :D
#16 markustay63 May 05, 2009 15:29:41	Is it the Bhaal part or the 3.5 part that disturbs you Markus? It's the name 'Bhaal Spawn' that just puts gross images in my head. I don't know who came up with that name, but they have a decidely warped sense of humour. As for 3.5e.... why in the world would I be offended by the bestest set of RPG rules ever created? :D EDIT: I can't wait for Diablo III to come out, so I can fight Baal again.
#17 dmd May 05, 2009 21:34:34	Ah ok. I have to admit that I really did enjoy 2ed as well, I think I like the choices that 3.0/3.5 provides a bit better though. I throw out a lot of combat rules that slow things down too so that helps speed up things for 3.5 as well. I have not tried 4E, I would be willing to play in a game (if I had time) but I would not sink more money into a new edition. Especially when I have a good 10-20 years of gaming products from 3.5 edition.
#18 markustay63 May 05, 2009 23:12:45	I'm tinkering with 3e again (I always tinker with the rules), and I think I'd like to add 'Kits' back in - that was one of the things I really liked about 2e. I use whatever I like from every edition. I think I'm going to wind-up with some sort of weird Hybrid... again.
#19 dmd May 07, 2009 16:14:43	I think the kits were hit or miss. Some of them were well done some not so much. The Cleric guide stands out to me as poor while I always thought the Wizards was the best, that or the Elves guide, that was pretty good. I always liked specialty priests from Second edition. I don't think PrC's did a good job replacing them. I always thought about tinkering but I usually have addition by subtraction, I like systems to move faster not slower. Though I did add some Parry rules from Dragon magazine that I fiddled with and I like them.
#20 Stigger May 07, 2009 16:17:06	Yeah, I missed the Specialty Priests myself... despite its faults mechanically, 2e had some of the coolest damned ideas thus far.
#21 markustay63 May 07, 2009 22:51:23	I think the reason why I loved the 2e era (not the rules so much) was that it worked the same way my mind does - just throw every at it - good and bad - and see what sticks. There was greatness in 2e, and a whole lotta schlock as well, but we had the choice of what to use. You know what they say; one man's garbage is another man's treasure. If not for all of its funky, broken rules and options, I don't think we could have ever gotten 3e, which was just the fixed version of 2e. Of coure, 3e nearly became 2e all over again toward the end. I'm sure the same will happen with 5e as well. It's the nature of the beast. Customers cry for more lore and options, and then cry all over again when it becomes too much for them. We have no-one but ourselves to blame for this mess, because we keep buying whatever they shovel at us.
#22 maskedone May 07, 2009 22:59:13	2E had really cool toys but I loathed the core system. 3.x has a tolerable basic system but nerfed the toys and 4E needs a new name. It might be a decent ruleset (I forgive much for putting rituals in the core rules, not enough to balance matters but still a great deal) in some ways but it is not Dungeons and Dragons.
#23 rinonalyrna_fathomlin May 08, 2009 12:22:39	Not sure about the video game though at some point I would be interested in playing it. I highly recommend playing the BG series for it's own sake, not just to learn the lore. They are wonderful games, and IMO very "Realmish."
#24 leiril May 09, 2009 8:30:48	I highly recommend playing the BG series for it's own sake, not just to learn the lore. They are wonderful games, and IMO very "Realmish." And they even work with Win Vista But it would still be better to have XP, because there may be some strange looking artifacts around transparent objects. Why the hack have I bought my Dell with Vista. When I read parts of Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast during the last months I even wondered how much of the game correlates with the lore of the Realms. Many places and how they "look" and "feel" seems to have been taken directly out of a Volo Guide.
#25 faraer May 09, 2009 14:53:52	Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast was the Baldur's Gate designers' main reference, yes.
#26 lord_karsus May 10, 2009 11:46:24	-If only things worked out like that, more. It's nice reading a book, and finding a brand new locale, but I don't like that when, after finding this new locale, I say, "WTF? Where the hell is this? Cybertron?"
#27 Stigger May 10, 2009 12:07:48	Its a floating city over the ruins of Lantan where Dr. Golem has his secret lair...