What mod-added recruitable NPCs offer continuous NPCs for EET?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

When party planning for EET, I know many vanilla companions are continuous throughout EET, and with NPC EE and various "BG1 NPC in BG2" mods (Quayle, Skye, etc.), this sort of continuity can be faked.

However, what about true continuous NPCs for EET introduced in mods?  For example, I know Lava's Walahnan has BG1 & BG2 components, but is he continuous on EET?  What about other NPCs?

Thankee!

[subtledoctor]

I noticed: Isra, Sirene (I think?), Brandock, Kale. I don’t think I’ve run into any others yet, though there are doubtless more. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by subtledoctor

[Endarire]

According to GitHub, Brandock is only done for BG1.

Thankee for the others!

[jastey]

Are Isra and Sirene really continuous, though? As in, do they use the same cre and scriptname throughout the game etc?

Yes, Brandock would be continuous but so far, official contents is only for BG1. There is some for SoD and BGII but it's not finished. (What there is is fully playable, though.)

Same for: Grey, Brage.

Ascalon's BReagar is continuous, but he was developed for BGT so SoD content is only basic and not from the original author (although with his agreement).

EDIT: If you also accept "faked" continuity as in, the NPC appears in BGII from the same author and remember BG1 content (sometimes when chosen the right answer upon meeting in BG2), then there would also be:

-Ajantis with BG1NPC project and my Ajantis mods (continuous story wise but not the cre/items),

-Xan from Kulyok,

-Gavin

-Kivan from Domi

-Branwen from Kulyok

-and of course the BG1NPC for SoA&ToB mod you already mentioned, although the author did not write for the above mentioned NPCs for BG1NPC.

[jmerry]

Since I have a copy of Isra lying around, I can check her status...

Distributed as separate mods for BG1 and BG2. Her SoD content is that she leaves the party after the starting dungeon, for good reason, and is unavailable for the rest of the campaign. Her CRE is rh#isra in BG1, with script name rh#isra. For BG2, her CRE files are rh#isr and rh#isr25, and her script name is rh#Isra2.

So, that fits as "faked" continuity. Same author, has dialogue options that reference BG1, different CREs, different script names, and you have to install the two mods separately even if you're installing onto EET.

[subtledoctor]

Oh sorry, I guess I didn’t understand the question. 

TBH is there any particular virtue to a “true” continuous NPC? If Breagar is the only one… in my current install his interactions were positively annoying. He was in Chateau Irenicus for some reason, even though he was not in my party at the end of BG1 or in SoD. And he forced dialogue, and there was no dialogue option for something like “I don’t know who you are, and in this particular run I don’t want to. (No offense!)” The only response option is “ah yes, now I remember you, and I remember how we spent lots of tine together and overcame great challenges together and developed a strong bond,” even though that just wasn’t true. It removed player agency, and left a slightly bad impression.

(I added Wahlanan to my party immediately before scrapping my old install… he may suffer a similar problem, though my recollection is weak, apologies if I’m mistaken about it.)

The not-truly-continuous BG2 mods I’ve played with for BG1 NPCs - Yeslick, Branwen, Kivan, Xan, Isra, Sirene - all respect player agency by letting you ‘remember’ i.e. define, or possibly redefine, your history. (The old Kivan mod actually has dialogue options that kind of support the existence of SoD! Kind of.) These mods do it better IMO.

Sorry, that was long-winded. tl;dr: is there some benefit to “true continuous” NPCs that I’m not aware of?

Edited March 24, 2023 by subtledoctor

[jastey]

True conrinuity means same stats (tomes!!) and spells and maybe items and no immersion breaking reply options that sound like the NPC suffered from memory loss.

Breagar's problem is that I thought it's to the player's comfort that he doesn't have to be in the party in SoD (camp is sufficient) but will still appear in BGII. If he appears although you did not solve his BG1 quest with him than it's bad scripting that I should check so he really only appears for a new game or if he travelled with the party. Although I do wonder: I thought I restricted his appearance to whether he fought with the PC against Sarevok.

[subtledoctor]

3 hours ago, jastey said:

True conrinuity means same stats (tomes!!) and spells and maybe items and no immersion breaking reply options that sound like the NPC suffered from memory loss.

Breagar's problem is that I thought it's to the player's comfort that he doesn't have to be in the party in SoD (camp is sufficient) but will still appear in BGII. If he appears although you did not solve his BG1 quest with him than it's bad scripting that I should check so he really only appears for a new game or if he travelled with the party. Although I do wonder: I thought I restricted his appearance to whether he fought with the PC against Sarevok.

Ah, I see. He definitely showed up in Chateau Irenicus in my last EET game even though I only adventured with him very briefly in the BG1 portion. (EDIT - or maybe not at all? Maybe that was the problem.) I did the first part of his BG2 quest, and I was like "What is this axe you're talking about?? What happened to your arm??" It was a bit confusing. Well, not confusing, it only appeared to make incorrect assumptions about what I had done earlier in my game. (Also, neither here nor there, but the skill required to disarm traps in that place is tweaked a bit too high IMHO.)

Breagar also appeared, and gave the same dialogue assuming we had adventured together in BG1, in my current EET game in which I started a new campaign directly in SoA. That could be intended behavior or not, but just FYI I guess.

For me, I don't care if there are dialogue response options that don't fit what happened earlier in my game, as long as there are also response options that do fit what happened earlier. But then again I very much realize that my taste may differ from that of most people! So it's not necessarily something wrong with the mods.

Aside from dialogue, consistent spells and stats is a good point, I had forgotten about that.

Edited March 24, 2023 by subtledoctor

[jastey]

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

For me, I don't care if there are dialogue response options that don't fit what happened earlier in my game, as long as there are also response options that do fit what happened earlier. But then again I very much realize that my taste may differ from that of most people! So it's not necessarily something wrong with the mods.

I usually code m NPCs so they appear for a new BGII game, too. But if the mod doesn't have content for the case that the PC didn't witness the NPC's story in Bg1 (or never met them before), then that's not covered. It's the same for Ajantis in BGII. There is no "we never travelled together" option because the mod doesn't have content for this option. I'm not really sure how to deal with this with regard to not annoy players who just installed the mod to have more NPC choices but don't want to assume they travelled together in BG1.

Ajantis BGII in EET at least considers whether he was in the group in BG1 or not. If not, he won't appear in BGII in an EET install. Also, not if he died but wasn't in party at the end of the game.

[subtledoctor]

22 minutes ago, jastey said:

Ajantis in BGII. There is no "we never travelled together" option because the mod doesn't have content for this option.

Isn't there a conversation with Imoen where the player can be like:

1. Yeah I was engaged to be married to Ajantis
2. Ajantis was our companion for a few advantures
3. I don't even know that guy

I like that sort of thing. It lets the player set the tone for what they expect out of the NPCs they meet.

[jastey]

27 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Isn't there a conversation with Imoen where the player can be like:

Not for a continuous EET game it shouldn't. The detection should go automatically. For a new BGII game yes.