Zandilar

13/4/05

Heya,

I have some bad news, unfortunately.

The momentum for this project has left me, and unfortunately that means I won't be working on it at the moment.

This is not to say that I won't get back to it eventually.

In the meantime, if anyone is interested in writing for this project, please feel free to contact Grim Squeaker and myself, and we'll see how we can get the Viconia Romance back on track.

I'm sorry about this.

Thank you all for your support for this project.

Zandilar.

Heya,

LOL. 1369? Hmm... I was right. Seriously, though, I believe that TSR/WotC policy regarding computer games is that they're not canon. I don't have proof of that available to link right now, but I'm looking for it. I will post the results of my research either way. Give me a day or two.

Well I asked on the FR mailing list, and as of today no WotC official answered my question. The mixed bag response seems to be...

Yes, no, and maybe.

The strongest argument why not: Because the Bhaalspawn wars aren't mentioned in the timeline in FRCS, and no one has said that they are canon.

The strongest argument why so: Because no one has said they aren't canon, and most Realms novels are concidered canon to the setting. (Which would mean Philip Athan's BG1 and BG2 novels, as well as the third ToB book (which wasn't by Athans, and I can't recall the author's name right now) would be canon, not the games)

The strongest maybe: Realms novels are canon, but for some reason this seems selective since the BG novel arc, Neverwinter Nights, the Icewind Dale Trilogy, and the Threat from the Sea novel arc seem to have been largely ignored in canon.

So, I can't prove a thing!

Heya,

Actually BG1, SoA and ToB, or rather the novelizations of them, are canon BG1 and SoA are even mentioned in the official D&D timeline, and as you can see it lists 1369 for BG2.

LOL. 1369? Hmm... I was right. Seriously, though, I believe that TSR/WotC policy regarding computer games is that they're not canon. I don't have proof of that available to link right now, but I'm looking for it. I will post the results of my research either way. Give me a day or two.

As for the date, I believe to fix this problem all you need to do is edit years.2da in a text editor and change 1369 to 1370.

And then contradict your source?

Heya,

I don't mind, because you're wrong! The split is first detailed in the last ever official 2nd Edition source book (and I believe the first ever D&D-related book published by Wizards of the Coast), Cloak & Dagger,  and as you probably know, official 2E only goes up to the end of 1370.  More importantly the book specifically stats that the group was formed around the beginning of 1370 1371 is probably simply the year the Harpers actually became aware of the Tel'Teukiira's existence.

Cloak and Dagger is one FR 2nd Ed Product I really really wanted, but I have been unable to procure. I will conceed that the group may have formed before the "official split" occured.

I'm afraid you (and also, it seems, WoTC ) are also wrong about which year BG2 is set during; once again it's 1370.  Read the "Amn of today" section of Book II of the Lands of Intrigue boxed set (with 'today' being 1370), and you'll find that nearly everything it mentions up to and including the 16th of Eleasias is the news the SoA towncriers give you.

 

Of course this also means that SoA is actually supposed to take course over an entire 7 months! Starting during Hammer 1370 and finishing in the middle of Eleasias.

First of all, the Baldur's Gate saga is officially non-canon, therefore WotC has no official standing on when the BG saga occured, let alone the events of the games. It has no official mention in any Realms product, so my information concerning the date doesn't come from the FRCS or any other official Realms product. However, like pretty much all Bioware FR products, they have many of their Realms facts wrong - so it wouldn't surprise me if they got things offset by a year.

As to the exact date? I went in and checked a save right near the end of SoA, and the date in the journal was definitely Kythorn 1369, which is the middle of summer and therefore the middle of 1369 (strange Northern Hemisphere places that have summer in the middle of the year... *mutters*)

Heya,

- The Tel'Teukiira (Khelben's newly formed Harper splinter group, who're especially interested in the "prophecies of Alaundo")

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but... You're a couple of years too "early" for this split with the Harpers.

The Moonstars split away from the Harpers in The Year of the Unstrung Harp (1371 DR). BG2:SOA/TOB occurs over the summer of The Year of the Gauntlet (1369 DR). (Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, pg 271)

Heya,

Of course, the fact that Keli gets her spells at all might solve a few arguments,

Or cause more distress. The line between holy powers and blasphemous witchcraft is thin at best. But I'm not trying to start argument here, so if you guys say that it's okay, then it's okay.

 

-Meira

Actually, sorry to butt in here, but... No it's not.

Gods really don't like it when other powers impersonate them - they might not intervene directly, but they wouldn't tollerate it for long.

The fact that Keli is getting her spells is a sign of the goddess's favour. Wizards and sorcerers and their ilk just cannot cast divine spells except by way of Wish and Limited Wish (and both of those spells actually require a deity's intervention)...

Anyone casting divine spells is getting them from a power who can grant them... (Yes, very powerful demons and devils can grant spells, but they wouldn't dare to obfuscate that by pretending to be another deity - that's just asking for trouble!)

The fact that she can walk on Hallowed Ground at all, is a very good sign.