Have to agree with Hickory - they've taken some ideas from the games and made them canon - that's not the same as saying the games are canon. They'd have to make everything from the games canon for the games to be canon - and that would include killing Tamoko and convincing her to leave. So is she Schrodinger's NPC? Among other things.
Every playthrough is a little/lot different.

What they've done is taken the same basic story - made some choices - and made that canon.

Then where did Corran, Neera, in-game Minsc come from? Game Minsc is canon now. And by extension his in-game exploits. Since those are mentioned in recent official products. Dynaheir is mentioned too, actually. None of these are in the novels.

It is you who are ignoring things, mate.

What happened here is that WOTC did a kind of retconn with BG, in order to cash in on Minsc's popularity.

It is, as you say, stupid as hell. I never disputed that. Since they also stuffed that rotten Neera character into the mix, they are working with Beamdog on "changing the canon". Beamdog has been talking about making BG3 for quite awhile now. BG3 is their main goal. WOTC pushing game-Minsc into all kinds of products lately speaks volumes. He is going to be in BG3. Mark my words.

Seen Beamdog employees (Julius + others) pushing a narrative that the games are canon as well.

One thing is very clear though. The BG novels are being completely ignored by WOTC these days. None of their products support the novesl, but they are supporting the games.


Which is what I have been saying. They have moved away from the novels, and moved a lot more towards the games. They don't put anything in official products unless it is canon. Corran, Neera, Minsc, Dynaheir etc are in\mentioned in official products now. They were only in the games before, not in the novels.

Now you have your head firmly in the sand.

Why is Corran, Neera, Dynaheir and Minsc in official products when they weren't in the novels? Those characters were only in the games. You keep avoiding the question.

Baldur's Gate novelization[edit]
Minsc is a supporting character in the 2000 novelization of Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn by Philip Athans. He is depicted as a well-built man with LONG RED HAIR, a patchy ORANGE BEARD, and a jagged scar along the right side of his head. He is no longer a warrior, and is physically smaller than the novel's protagonist, Abdel. In contrast, Boo is unchanged, and is still referred to by Minsc as his miniature giant space hamster. Held prisoner alongside Abdel at the start of the novel, Minsc is set free and accompanies Abdel until they reach an inn, where he decides to work. Abdel repeatedly shows discomfort for his presence, using Minsc's employment as an excuse to leave him behind and steal his sword, though he later returns for his help in securing travel aboard a ship. After Abdel returns to kill his employers, Minsc realizes the inn will close permanently; he and Boo leave to find another place to work.[12]

Yeah....that certainly looks like this guy http://blog.obsidianportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10563154_740826702630049_1899667446939467044_n.jpg doesn't it?

No Dynaheir in the novelization either. Yet in all of the new official products that features Minsc, Dynaheir is mentioned. What is also mentioned is that Minsc was involved with saving Baldur's Gate from Sarevok....That bit is NOT in the novelization either.

That's bloody rich coming from somebody who just can't get the concept (and keeps ignoring it) that this is about the BG computer RPG games, NOT about comics. From somebody who just doesn't get the concept that a such a game simply cannot be canon. Until you get your head around that, instead of continually skirting the issue, this conversation is utterly silly and pointless.

They can make a canon version of the game and go with it. A lot of games did that in the past and still do. Kotor, for example. Ultima, Might and Magic + + +. They pick one of the various endings and label it canon. They have done it with Neverwinter Nights as well.

I know it is a silly thing to do. I have never said otherwise. But guess what? WOTC did it.

The comics are canon. Keep this in mind. The Comics has BG game Minsc in them....they mention events from the games and characters from the games. It is completely moronic, of course.

Side note: Beamdog are REALLY trying to get people to buy the comics too, for whatever reason. I wonder why. Good old Julius is doing his best to market it on their forums.

https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/33178/dungeons-dragons-legends-of-baldurs-gate/p6

You are obstinately still missing the point.

Yes, you have missed, and still continue to miss the point. It's like you're deliberately blanking it out. You have not agreed with my "point" (which you refuse to get), you have only agreed that to make a CRPG canon would be stupid -- that is NOT my point. You continue (annoyingly) to say that WOTC have made Baldur's Gate the CRPG developed by Bioware and Black Isle Studios, which means all characters, locations, quests and events canon. THEY. HAVE. NOT.

Actually all the locations are canon. they were canon even before the BG games came out. Even the family names of many of the NPCs. Odesseiron, Ilvastarr etc. You can find them in the 2ed FR sourcebooks. Volo's Guide to the Sword coast etc.

WOTC has a policy about only canon material being included in official products. It has always been a thing. The Murder in Baldur's Gate module is such a product, and it features the game version of Minsc. Stuff from the BG games is also mentioned. Viekang is also in it. He is a game character as well. The comic books are official products. They feature Minsc, Corran, and Dynaheir + Neera gets mentioned. Ergo they are canon. Canon = anything in an official product.

1.Newer material trumps older material whenever the two conflict.
2.FR-specific material trumps generic D&D material whenever the two conflict.
3.Published sourcebooks, magazine articles, and D&D Insider material trumps video games.
4.Game plots left entirely up to player choice should be left ambiguous.
5.Only generic material from other campaign settings should be included.
6.Lore trumps mechanics whenever the two conflict.

That is how the official canon works. Point 4 is how it should be. Point 1 is where they messed up badly. The comics and the new sourcebooks have trumped the old BG novels. Point 3 is an issue in this case too since published sourcebooks have now included a LOT of stuff found in the BG video games.

Which brings me to this little official bit " retcon should always be considered to override any information in the source material, provided it is from a TSR or Wizards source." The BG novels have been retconed. Proof? BG game Minsc and others showing up in all kinds of OFFICIAL products lately. Nothing offocial gets published without WOTC's say so.

Back in the day what Ed Greenwood said was canon was how it was. He was clear on video games not being canon in any way. Richard Baker seems to disagree with this. Baker = one of the brilliant minds behind the 4th ed rules and the fucking over of the FR setting. Greenwood got forced out of WOTC some years back, and what he stood for when it came to canon no longer goes. But Baker, however, has been pushing for making video games canon. Hence the current MESS.

You're a lost cause. Discussion over.

You can go "lalalal it can't be real!" all you want. But WoTC and Beamdog are making the games canon. Silly as it is.