Talk:Imoen

Now as far as I know this can all be cited as canon info. Thank you. DrizztTheSlayer 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the bit that said Imoen was a fighter because I'm not so sure. She's not a barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, wizard or illusionist either. I think we need to try to find a more fighting class, like maybe a prestige class or other class (there are hundreds of classes out there; she must fit in one of them). DrizztTheSlayer 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If the novel doesn't explicitly state or otherwise make clear her class in that medium I dont think we need to go out of our way to list one for her. Either that or use the game classes. Johnnyriot999 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to adding the BG computer game images, I went ahead a removed the "novel" character box since there is no supporting information for any of the info. I figure that if anyone can find supporting evidence for a "novel" character box it can always be added later. --Ebakunin 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * She doesn't have any skills there. She doesn't need to be good at anything because she's not the great and powerful Mary S- uh, I mean Abdel. Heck, Jaheira is described as a druid warrior in the novels, and she doesn't do anything but scream and forgive his cheating on her, either. Mind you, even Adrian isn't capable in any way; Athans can't even write that when he tries.
 * Uh, anyway. Yeah. Ville V. Kokko 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Character descriptions
This concerns all the Baldur's Gate party NPC articles.

I'm mostly indifferent to these character descriptions being added to the articles, but just slightly in disagreement. The information in them has already been largely incorporated into the article itself in most cases (usually by me), combined with other information from elsewhere, and now it just gets repetitive. So there is that slight drawback. On the other hand, I don't see anything to speak of to be gained from adding these things. I'm inclined to just remove them from where the article has properly explained the details already. What do others think? Ville V. Kokko 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)