Bioware's decisions Good or Bad

[Raven_Song]

The idea behind this thread developed from a debate me and Coot almost got going in another thread (we got a little off topic) about whether Bioware's decisions in implementing certain features in BG2 were necessarily good or bad.

I suggested ...

Bioware, rightly or wrongly, selected the characters they liked, or mistakenly thought the gamers liked, best and went for it.

Coot suggested that

At the time the 'classic party' was considered the party with Imoen, Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc and Dynaheir. Especially the first three were placed in the storyline in such a way that you could hardly miss them, especially in your first run through the game. So Bioware figured that the partymembers-most-likely-to-be in-your-party-in-the-beginning-of-SoA would be them.

Feeling flippant and argumentative

Really?

While I can appreciate Minsc and Dynaheir (well Dynaheir anyway) and begrudginly the thieving skills of the "Heya it's me" parasite. (Although even on my first run through I ditched her as qucikly as possible, thank Tymora for Safana)

But Jaheira and Khalid? An average fighter and a rather substandard multi-class (below average as both a fighter and healer) Druids weren't particularly great in the first game, and Jaheira ain't a great druid. You'd have to play a cleric or rely on a great number of potions.

While you can't miss them they are quite easy to lose, even on your first run through. Imoen doesn't do so well against a bear armed with nothing but a single dart. And unfortunately for Jaheira and Khalid I sided with Xzar and Montaron even though I was playing a Chaotic Good Bard, while I didn't miss the Harper harpy's nagging, it felt sorry for Khalid so my bard penned an ode in his honour entitled "Death, sweet release for the hen-pecked)

I realize those three were placed early but so were Xzar and Montaron and there were plenty of characters you could (if you deviate from the beaten path a bit) pick up before you finally get Dynaheir (Garrick, Kaigan, Kivan, Safana, Branwen, Ajantis)

Apparently they also figured that:-

Players took a good aligned-party, and would continue to play a good aligned party as demonstrated by the shameful lack of evil NPC's.

Despite really only catering for good aligned parties the only options available for ultimately rescuing the parasite involve

Spoiler

working with evil organizations, would a lawful good paladin work for either thieves or vampires? [end spoiler]

Players are as irrestibaly attracted as members of the clergy as they seem to be, also if male your beloved will be of elven extraction:
Aerie (Elf Cleric/Mage) Anomen (Fighter/Cleric) Jaheira (Half-Elf Fighter/Druid) Viconia (Elf Cleric)

Jaheira would be druid enough for anybody and so there was no need to develop Cernd (a similar argument can be made for Minsc/Valygar, Imoen/Nalia)

To the romance comment I'd add that all players are apparently heterosexual and are only into generic fantasies, the virgin (Aerie), the whore (Viconia), the older-woman (Jaheira), the handsome but vain and arrogant knight (Anomen)

At which point Fable said

I'm almost inclined to let this thread go off in the direction it's taken--almost. Why don't you guys start a new thread with your different subject, and continue your discussion? It's interesting.

So here's the therad, what do others think was Bioware right in its assumptions?

Also I would like to state that although I seem to be doing nothing but complain I really do like the game (honest), its only because I like it so much I feel a little short changed by some aspects of it.

[dj_venom]

Well yes. Imoen, your long-time friend, and you can't just abandon her, so she stays with you. Also you are greiving over the loss of Gorien, so Jaheria and Khalid are a link to him. Also, as a new player, you wouldn't know about killing off a pair, so you'd keep both. Then being new, you wouldn't want to tarry, so you'd head off to Nashkel ASAP. Now at this point, when you reach Nashkell, you normally have one spot free, so you'll pick up Minsc when you meet him. Well, suddenly you meet Dynahier, and Minsc wants her in too. Now, you want to keep Minsc, so hey, chuck her into the mix. At this point, the party is full, has a Priest, Mage, Thief and fighters, everything you need. Now you don't like to change around the parties, so you will most likely keep them.

Now in the real game, I didn't go any of these except Minsc and even him I eventually discarded.

But the point is, these characters were also most likely to stay with you, because they had nothing else to do. Jaheria and Khalid were happy (if you can call it that) being together, so they might as well stay with you as they promised. Imoen is all alone, so she's defintely staying. And Minsc just has to protect Dynahier, who is more than happy there. So they all are loyal, whereas other characters have ambitions and storylines.

Finally, by keeping it like this, they saved themselves much work, and also, opened up several future encounters, such as meeting Coran, or Edwin's vital quests, which would not work if he was already in your party.

[VonDondu]

When Bioware chose Imoen, Jaheira, and Minsc, I think the main force behind their decision was which NPCs they liked the most and which NPCs fit their story ideas the best. Only Imoen could be a fellow child of Bhaal, so she was a natural choice. The characters that your foster father Gorion told you to trust were also natural choices to be traveling companions, and if the designers decided they wanted a plot involving Harpers, there was no other choice. On the other hand, there was no "good" reason to choose Minsc except for the fact that he was one of the most popular NPCs among players because he's so much fun, and I'm sure he was one of the designers' favorites, too.

The designers couldn't write a separate subplot for all 25 BG1 NPCs. It wouldn't make any sense for your character to meet all of them in Athkatla. "We just happened to be here" or "we followed you" just doesn't work. Sixteen NPCs from BG1 make an appearance in BG2, and in my opinion, that's hard to believe.

When the designers decided who would not appear in BG2, I reckon they first culled the ones who didn't interest them. What kind of subplot could you write for Xan, Shar Teel, or Eldoth and Skie? I can't think of any reason why I would want to write a new story for them, so perhaps the designers felt the same way. Branwen got her revenge on Tranzig (if you bothered to keep her), Yeslick got his revenge on the Iron Throne (if you bothered to keep him), and Kivan got his revenge on Tazok (if you bothered to keep him). Maybe the designers just didn't have anything else to say about those characters, whether their abilities were cool or not. The designers undeoubtedly preferred to start with new characters, like Aerie, Anomen, and Nalia. A lot of players thought those three characters were annoying, but I think that's because they said too much. Branwen, Yeslick, and Kivan said very little (much of which was annoying). I figure if they talked as much as Aerie, Anomen, and Nalia, they would be just as annoying.

In my opinion, the returning NPCs have good stories. Viconia and Edwin are greeted with widespread approval from players. And most of the new NPCs are so well-made, most players have trouble choosing between them when they form their parties. Cernd, Valygar, Haer'Dalis, and Nalia seem to be the least popular. But would Quayle be any better than Jan? Would Kivan be any better than Valygar? Would Dynaheir be so much better than Nalia? Would you really play an Enchanter with a Moonblade like Xan? Would Ajantis be more interesting than Mazzy or Keldorn?

I don't think Bioware made any "mistakes" (with the possible exception of giving us Cernd). When I try to imagine "what could have been", I find that what we have is pretty good, and it's almost enough. There's enough variety in the selection of NPCs to play with several different parties, all of which have their strong points. When I look at NPCs from BG1 who didn't make the cut, I don't feel shortchanged. I eee the new stories and the new opportunities, and I have enough to keep me busy.

[Raven_Song]

Time to play devil's advocate

DJ-Venom

Jaheria and Khalid were happy (if you can call it that) being together, so they might as well stay with you as they promised. Imoen is all alone, so she's defintely staying. And Minsc just has to protect Dynahier, who is more than happy there. So they all are loyal, whereas other characters have ambitions and storylines.

Why would Imoen being alone automatically precule her in a group? The other characters having storylines and ambitions could be seen as making them more interesting, more rounded characters and in a way more believable. I don't believe that anybody would be that loyal given the tremendous risk to their lives (or maybe I'm just to cynical)

Finally, by keeping it like this, they saved themselves much work, and also, opened up several future encounters, such as meeting Coran, or Edwin's vital quests, which would not work if he was already in your party.

Ok I'm with you in that they saved themselves some work (and rightly so), but wouldn't it have been just as easy to start you with a set of completely new characters. Is it conceivable that Jaheira and Khalid would still be following you, surely the Harpers would have found something for Jaheira to do other than babysitting? Similarly Dynaheir had some sort of mission so she and Minsc would be heading back to Rashemaar.


VonDondu (oops just nearly posted this as VonDooDo)

Only Imoen could be a fellow child of Bhaal, so she was a natural choice. The characters that your foster father Gorion told you to trust were also natural choices to be traveling companions, and if the designers decided they wanted a plot involving Harpers, there was no other choice.

Why only Imoen? Why not Tiax, Safana or Edwin? Meny of the NPC's backgrounds were equally mysterious. Jaheira isn't the only Harper in Faerun - why not somebody new?

The designers couldn't write a separate subplot for all 25 BG1 NPCs.

I appreciate that point and in fact made a similar one in the previous thread.

Sixteen NPCs from BG1 make an appearance in BG2, and in my opinion, that's hard to believe.

Again agree, (although I still tend to Alora and Kivan through mods, and to be honest I'd probably add Eldoth and Skie if I could because I never really played them)

In my opinion, the returning NPCs have good stories. Viconia and Edwin are greeted with widespread approval from players.

Don't have any problem with Edwin and Viconia (as without them the only evil character would be Korgan)

And most of the new NPCs are so well-made, most players have trouble choosing between them when they form their parties. Cernd, Valygar, Haer'Dalis, and Nalia seem to be the least popular.

Strangely I rather like Cernd, Valygar and Nalia (I'm beginning to think I have some unconcious need to be awkward)

But would Quayle be any better than Jan? Would Kivan be any better than Valygar? Would Dynaheir be so much better than Nalia? Would you really play an Enchanter with a Moonblade like Xan? Would Ajantis be more interesting than Mazzy or Keldorn?

I'm not really saying that they would, I think I felt that bioware should have either inclued all of the old NPC's and made them all joinable or started completely afresh with new NPC's and perhaps given Jaheira, Imoen etc. cameos (as Coran, Safana, and others do) rather than forcing me to accept their preferences. And Ajantis would never be more interesting and preferable to Mazzy.

I don't think Bioware made any "mistakes" (with the possible exception of giving us Cernd).

I feel sorry for Cernd, if Bioware had little interest in develping his character they shouldn't have bothered including him in the first place.

There's enough variety in the selection of NPCs to play with several different parties, all of which have their strong points.

Good parties yes, but ... evil parties?

When I look at NPCs from BG1 who didn't make the cut, I don't feel shortchanged. I eee the new stories and the new opportunities, and I have enough to keep me busy.

I only feel short changed in that I'm forced to care about Imoen, Jaheira and Minsc can be left to slowly starve death but at some point I have to go and rescue Imoen. (I say at some point because I've never actually got round to doing it yet as you say there are enough other newoportunities to kepp me busy)

[Ravager]

Why only Imoen? Why not Tiax, Safana or Edwin? Meny of the NPC's backgrounds were equally mysterious. Jaheira isn't the only Harper in Faerun - why not somebody new?

For the purposes of the story, Imoen grows up like a sister to the protaganist and people can probably identify with her. It makes sense that if Gorion rescues the PC from the Bhaal cult, that he would have rescued other people like Imoen too.

With Jaheira/Khalid and Dynaheir/Minsc I think the designers did well to split them up (by killing characters off I know). In BGI you were either forced to have both, leave both or kill one off permanently.

[Raven_Song]

For the purposes of the story, Imoen grows up like a sister to the protaganist and people can probably identify with her. It makes sense that if Gorion rescues the PC from the Bhaal cult, that he would have rescued other people like Imoen too.

But the protagonist/story are ultimately shaped by the player, there is no guarantee that the player will have the same brotherly affection for Imoen's character as Bioware seem to. As opopsed to a sister I see her more of the irritating little cousin your parents force you to play with.

Could you expand a bit more on the "people can probably identify with her" - in what way.

[CFM]

[QUOTE=Raven_Song]Could you expand a bit more on the "people can probably identify with her" - in what way.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he means Imoen is the stereotypical "little sister"?

When I played thru BG2, whenever "I need to find Jon Irenicus because" would come up, I seem to recall always having multiple dialogue options, more or less along these lines:

...because I have to find Immy (my identifiable stereotypical little sister).
-or-
...because Jon tortured me, and he must pay (maybe for Dynaheir, for those who really liked her ).
-or-
...because there's something wrong with me (the Child of Bhall thing), and Jon has answers.
-or-
...because I'm God-potential, and Jon knows how to unleash my power that I deserve to wield.

I recall thinking it was genius how Imoen didn't have to have anything to do with being driven to finding Irenicus... just by picking appropriate dialogue options. Am I remembering wrong?

[bipbap]

Let's keep in mind that things were done in the BG series that hadn't been done before. Romances were a new thing. So yes, maybe now, years later, we can see where they could have improved them, but I for one am impressed with how good they are considering it was the first time it was tried. 4 romances, each very different. And each one had their fans to varying degrees.

The first time I played BG1, I did the classic party, because it felt right and best. I liked having good characters, they seemed to be balanced fairly well, although I would have liked more arcane magic. And I got them early enough that I didn't want to weaken the party to take on new NPC's later on. The plotline seemed to lead you in their direction. I was surprised at how BG2 started, because I had evidently taken the classic party without realizing it.

But then I liked the idea that there were new NPC's to learn about and team up with as well as some old ones. And everyone of the BG1 NPCs are in there somewhere, not all as joinable NPCs. To me, it looked like they improved NPC in BG2. There were more you could get early, more, in depth personalities and more banter. It made a big difference, and is repeatedly mentioned as one of the better aspects of the series, even if no one liked evey one of them. But that was also new to RPGs.

[Raven_Song]

Ok Devil's advocate again

CFM

Maybe he means Imoen is the stereotypical "little sister"?

What is a stereotypical little sister, don't have one and most of my friend are wither the older sister, have brothers or are only children (which is rather strange if you come to think about it)

I recall thinking it was genius how Imoen didn't have to have anything to do with being driven to finding Irenicus...

But is it possible to find Irenicus without finding imoen whether it is your intention to find her or not?

Bipbap

Romances were a new thing. So yes, maybe now, years later, we can see where they could have improved them, but I for one am impressed with how good they are considering it was the first time it was tried. 4 romances, each very different. And each one had their fans to varying degrees.

Ok they were new. There was a degree of individualty to the female romances, and men tended to be more drawn towards on depending on the type of women they dated in reality (assuming of course they dated women). Were that many women really satisifed the Anomen romance? (The fact that the Kelsey mod is so popular suggests otherwise) And why were Bioware obsessed with priests?

And everyone of the BG1 NPCs are in there somewhere, not all as joinable NPCs.

Nope Kivan, Shar-Teel, Eldoth, Skie, Alora, Kagain and Yeslick fail even a mention
Xan and Branwen are part of the tutorial but that doesn't really count.

To me, it looked like they improved NPC in BG2. There were more you could get early, more, in depth personalities and more banter. It made a big difference, and is repeatedly mentioned as one of the better aspects of the series, even if no one liked evey one of them

Not disputing that NPC's were generally improved, and in most cases I like the new NPC's much more than the old characters (infact the only old character that made it as a recruitable NPC I genuinely like is Viconia). However in some instances the older characters were developed far more than the new ones Jaheira more than Cernd, Valygar more than Viconia, Edwin more than Nalia, which made me feel like you were still being encouraged to go with the old crowd, and that many of the new characters were window dressing. Or the old characters in a new disguise Kaigan/Korgan?

[Completely off topic this pac-man pop-up is really beginning to bug me ]

[Coot]

[QUOTE=VonDondu]But would Quayle be any better than Jan? Would Kivan be any better than Valygar? Would Dynaheir be so much better than Nalia? Would you really play an Enchanter with a Moonblade like Xan? Would Ajantis be more interesting than Mazzy or Keldorn?[/QUOTE]Those are interesting questions. I don't believe that Quayle, for instance, would necessarily be better than Jan Jansen, but I do believe he would've been written better than he was in BG1. Most NPC's in SoA were developed in much greater detail and with more depth than those in BG1. Just compare the joinable npc's in BG1 with their counterparts in BG2.
And although I absolutely and totally agree with VD about being happy with the game the way it is, I do, on occasion, wonder what kind of drama Kivan would have brought to SoA or if Xan would have been even more hilarious or what kind of storyline Eldoth and Skie would have had.

[Coot]

[QUOTE=Raven_Song] Players are as irrestibaly attracted as members of the clergy as they seem to be, also if male your beloved will be of elven extraction:
Aerie (Elf Cleric/Mage) Anomen (Fighter/Cleric) Jaheira (Half-Elf Fighter/Druid) Viconia (Elf Cleric)[/size][/QUOTE]I've often wondered about that - the clergypart anyway.
I think it must have to do with the healing abilities. I figure Bioware figured that having your npc love interest repeatedly casting healing spells on you would create some sort of pseudo-intimacy. Anybody have (other) theories about that?
Also, slightly off-topic but still having to do with good or bad decisions: one much debated - and critisized - decision from Bioware was to exclude some (or rather, most) races from the romance options. Does anybody know exactly why that decision was taken? At one time I figured maybe they thought having romantic relations with Dwarves and Halflings would be too kinky, but then again, Aerie can be romanced by Gnomes.

[CFM]

Total agreement with everything in Bipbap's post. And I too used the "classic" party without realizing.

I see it as this:
-Bioware created a game engine to 1) simulate D&D and 2) allow the player to play thru an in-depth story containing in-depth characters.
-They had x amount of time to do BG2.
-In that timeframe, they figured they could finish 16 in-depth NPCs (quests, banter, romances, etc).
-They picked 16 NPCs that inspired them the most (how else should they have picked?), and got the game done.

Because this engine can pull off such in-depth characterization, many will wish certain NPCs were chosen or not chosen. If Tiax was your sibling instead of Imoen, this would be the same topic, just opposite.

This game promotes "personal preference" to a much higher level than most games. Thus the debates.

I've never heard of a game with so many opposite opinions. Not right or wrong, just opposite. I'll read how worthless Haer'Dalis is, and then I'll read how great he is. Half everybody thinks Jan Jansen is funny, half think he is annoying. On and on. (It appears that even Cernd has fans!)

And this is where I say Bioware succeeded. If the NPC's were just a bunch of cardboard characters, then opinions would not be so varied. No one would care. Check out that thread titled "Keldorn vs Sarevok: who's better?" A gazillion different opinions, and they are all right.

Decisions good or bad? Personally, I never cared which 16 in-depth NPCs were picked. Just that 16 NPCs were in-depth.

The only tragedy I see here... BG2 should have sparked a trend in RPGs.

[Raven_Song]

Also, slightly off-topic but still having to do with good or bad decisions: one much debated - and critisized - decision from Bioware was to exclude some (or rather, most) races from the romance options. Does anybody know exactly why that decision was taken? At one time I figured maybe they thought having romantic relations with Dwarves and Halflings would be too kinky, but then again, Aerie can be romanced by Gnomes.

It's not really off topic as the idea of this thread was to encourage people to express what they thought of all Bioware's decisions - good or bad - not just the ones I mentioned. (If anyone can think of a thread title that reflects this feel free to change it! )

You raise a good point. Why are elves considered a romantic potential but not a halfling? I've never played one so I'm not sure but are half-orcs able to engage in the romances?

Personally out of all of the female characters my favourite is Mazzy (I'm also fond of Nalia but that's beside the point) so if I had to choose to romance any of them it would be her (but alas shes not elven nor a priest). There is also a Nalia mod in progress in which she will romance dwarves (so if you like playing dwarves and Nalia your sorted)

Thankfully there are two Mazzy romance mods in the works!

Now back to being deliberately argumentative

And this is where I say Bioware succeeded. If the NPC's were just a bunch of cardboard characters, then opinions would not be so varied. No one would care. Check out that thread titled "Keldorn vs Sarevok: who's better?"

True, I never really questioned that the game/Bioware weren't succesful, just the choices they made. Even with the aspects I'm less than satisified with its still probably one of the best games I've played (and there's mods to address the bits I'm not so fond of). Oh and the answer to that thread is Sarevok, Boo says so.

-They picked 16 NPCs that inspired them the most (how else should they have picked?), and got the game done.

I still can't help but feel theat Bioware weren't particularly inspired by Cernd.

This game promotes "personal preference" to a much higher level than most games. Thus the debates.

As long as your good aligned and romantically inclined toward priests D )

(It appears that even Cernd has fans!)

We are a small but growing less sane by the minute number

The only tragedy I see here... man, BG2 should have sparked a trend in RPGs.

Yes Icewind Dale II could have been so much more (sigh)

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=Coot]although I absolutely and totally agree with VD about being happy with the game the way it is, I do, on occasion, wonder what kind of drama Kivan would have brought to SoA...[/QUOTE]
He'd say "don't bother me" every time you tried to talk to him. Kivan was "cool" in BG1 because he was a powerful character; but his personality and his personal storyline were only as interesting as your own imagination allowed them to be. When I hear people talk about how "cool" he is, I wonder what they're imagining.

BTW, when I suggested that giving us Cernd was a mistake, I didn't mean that Cernd was poorly developed or uninteresting. I think he was very well-developed; the problem is that it's embarrassing to deal with him. He doesn't belong in an heroic party or an evil party, and if he's supposed to represent Druidic values, then I don't want a Druid in my party.

When I said that Nalia and Haer'Dalis are among the least popular NPCs, I didn't mean that they are poorly developed. The problem with Nalia is that she says too much rather than too little. Perhaps you can argue that Valygar could have been a better character, just because we know that a lot of his original material was cut. But a lack of dialogue isn't really his problem; the problem is that he's glum and his personality is stiff, just like some well-developed people I know in real life. Do we really need more dialogue from him if it's the same as the existing dialogue?

A lot of people don't understand Haer'Dalis, but that doesn't make him a bad character. He just doesn't "fit in" with some people's parties. But if you want a party member who is odd, whimsical, and playful, he's a good choice.

[Rhûn]

It was personally a disappointment for me not to have Kivan in BG2, I never played a party without him. Sometimes I'd play an Elven Ranger and we'd be matching brothers in our green Ankheg platemails. However, the Kivan mod sufficiently makes up for his absence entirely for me. Hooray for modding!

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=Coot]I've often wondered about that - the clergypart anyway.
I think it must have to do with the healing abilities. I figure Bioware figured that having your npc love interest repeatedly casting healing spells on you would create some sort of pseudo-intimacy. Anybody have (other) theories about that? [/QUOTE]


Lord knows it is an interesting coincidence, but I never really gave much thought to the fact that all romanceable characters were clerics in some way, same with elves for dudes, except that maybe they'd be easier to write for. Though Anomen is annoying and I can't stand him I thought his character was at least well developed. People say the dialogues and actual romance were not terribly well done but the concept behind him, an arrogant do-gooder with self-confidence problems looking to make a name for himself, was realistic. He was intended to be a paladin of sorts, to go along with the aforementioned character, but in order for the whole "initiation into an order of knights" he couldn't be a Paladin yet; what makes better sense than to make him a Fighter w/ cleric powers (which, in essence, is what a paladin is)?

Jaheira was a natural choice for a romance if you whack Khalid's wussy character (which they wanted to do I guess... maybe they were sick of him too), because she was one of the supposed "original party" that we've been arguing about and apparently has known the protagonist for years. She started off a druid, she remained a druid; coincidence I believe.

Viconia, appearing in BG1, was a Cleric in that game and remained one in BG2. As for her being a romance, she was another natural choice as the most likely romance for evil characters, was probably fun to write dialogue for, and aptly filled the role Raven Song mentioned as The Whore. I'm just guessing here of course, but as the developers came up with the romance and decided on Jaheira as a possible one or Aerie, they needed a bad girl. The fact that she's also a drow, who are a very popular race, pleased the fanboys out there who had wanted to be able to play a drow: they must have had a heart attack when they realized they could romance one! Another Cleric by necessity (from an earlier game) and another coincidence.

Aerie? She's the puzzler. Maybe Bioware just wanted to create a character for players who wanted to have all their spellcasting in one not-so-winged package. She aptly fits Raven's "Good girl" role (they had to have been considering this as they develpoed the romances), and making her a cleric just makes her even more goody-goody. If you consider her character and her sadness at the loss of her wings, maybe that naturally pushed her in the direction of a healer; after the damage she suffered, she wants to help others.

In conclusion, if any of the above makes any sense, I consider the healing nature of all of the romance characters coincidence, brought upon either by the story developed for that character or their role in a previous game.

The elvish phenomenon? Err, I won't write another essay here, but I also believe the reasons I mentioned above for the characters being clerics applies to some extent. Jaheira was already an elf from another game, Viconia was too, and for Aerie's story to make any sense at all, she has to be an elf... Ok, I'm done.

[Raven_Song]

Jaheira was a natural choice for a romance if you whack Khalid's wussy character (which they wanted to do I guess... maybe they were sick of him too), because she was one of the supposed "original party" that we've been arguing about and apparently has known the protagonist for years. She started off a druid, she remained a druid; coincidence I believe.

I always found the idea of romancing Jaheira rather "icky" given that her role original role was of guardian and she came to be something of an aunt or older sister type-figure. Also the seeming speed with which she seems to get over Khalid is rather unsettling.

[Ravager]

[QUOTE=Raven_Song] Could you expand a bit more on the "people can probably identify with her" - in what way.[/QUOTE]

Well, there's the little sister thing as CFM said. Then there's her bubbly personality. Granted, that annoys quite a lot of people, but you should take it more as the first time you played the game through. Many people's opinion will have changed over time. She tried to help the PC from the very beginning and has a human vulnerability- so it could be seen as the PC trying to protect the Imoen character.
And if you don't want to save Imoen there's the more evil, selfish route of tracking down Irenicus either to kill him or gain the rewards granted by being a Bhaalspawn. Both lead to Spellhold and a confrontation.

[FireLighter]

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]Viconia, appearing in BG1, was a Cleric in that game and remained one in BG2. As for her being a romance, she was another natural choice as the most likely romance for evil characters, was probably fun to write dialogue for, and aptly filled the role Raven Song mentioned as The Whore. I'm just guessing here of course, but as the developers came up with the romance and decided on Jaheira as a possible one or Aerie, they needed a bad girl. The fact that she's also a drow, who are a very popular race, pleased the fanboys out there who had wanted to be able to play a drow: they must have had a heart attack when they realized they could romance one! Another Cleric by necessity (from an earlier game) and another coincidence.

Aerie? She's the puzzler. Maybe Bioware just wanted to create a character for players who wanted to have all their spellcasting in one not-so-winged package. She aptly fits Raven's "Good girl" role (they had to have been considering this as they develpoed the romances), and making her a cleric just makes her even more goody-goody. If you consider her character and her sadness at the loss of her wings, maybe that naturally pushed her in the direction of a healer; after the damage she suffered, she wants to help others.[/QUOTE]

Well, Viconia was raised in the underdark and as a female of a high ranking class, she would have been at the academy for priestesses of Lloth. Thus being a cleric/warrior type person.

Aerie is more for the people who feel the need to romance a vulnerable and easily romanceable girl. She has gone through hardship and needs someone to love in order to get over her loss (wings). She relies on the PC as a guardian/protector and as a very (VERY) good friend. She is sad by the loss of her wings and sometimes that sadness is represented as anger at jaheira for being a "selfish harpy". If you have jaheira and aerie in the party, the romance takes a turn and eventually you will have to choose because aerie confronts jaheira about her affection for you (can you say cat fight? ). She likely became a cleric because of the fact that with her loss she could have felt that if she possesed the ability she could have restored her wings and now wanders the land (in your party) to heal those who are in need.

[Caranthol]

There are some minor spoilers below. Don't read if you don't want to know.

A very interresting discussion this. In my view, Imoen, Jaheira and Khalid are a given. Dynaheir and Minsc are also good choices.

What I did not like, was what they did to Imoen. Dualclassing her at level 7 more or less forces you to be a cleric/thief if you want a solid party in BG1. Also, I don't approve of casting her as "the other" Bhaal-child. First of all, we've all had to rise her 513 times from the dead, something that should be impossible to do with children of Bhaal. They were bread to be fuel, nothing more.

A new Bhaal-child character could have begun BG2 (replacing Imoen in the starting scene) by forcing you to take a geas if he/she was to open the cells. Such a geas could then force the team to spellhold regardless of what you might think of the new NPC. Then again, why would Irenicus trust that you would come and save your sibling unless he knew about it? Well, it's all academic anyway, but that's how I would have done it.