Talk:Abdel Adrian

PLEASE NOTE: This character does not appear in the games (He is in the games but doesn't actually "appear")
There's always someone editing or commenting to the effect that Adrian somehow appears in the games. He does not. The player character is entirely customised by the player, and still couldn't be like the protagonist of the novels, because in the games they have lived most of their lives so far in Candlekeep, but in the novel Adrian has been going around the world or whatever part of it as a mercenary before Gorion summons him back to Candlekeep so that they can escape it together. (Don't worry, the rest makes even less sense.)

The fact that some berk put a protagonist called "Abdel" in the Tales of the Sword Coast save (blasphemy!) doesn't change this, nor does it give him official statistics.

Now, last time someone edited to the effect that they knew what Adrian's alignment and class were in the third edition rules. I was so skeptical about that I just deleted it, but if you've actually got them, you can put them back with proper reference to the third-edition source you had. Ville V. Kokko 07:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To those who think Abdel's not in the game. He is actually in both Baldur's gate games. There's an Abdel in the Tales of the Sword Coast mission save and he's also in vanilla and expansion Baldur's gate 2 as a premade fighter. Fact is there's an Abdel in all the games, so you can't just ignore his existence. The PC in the games should also be referred to as "Abdel".

Abdel's not in the game. There's simply a pre-made default fighter who has the name. Why should the PC in the games be referred to as Abdel because of that? Naming the PC "Gorion's Ward" or "Baalspawn" do the job just like with how in all the rest of Bioware's games, the protagonists are named by their titles rather than any default pre-made names. Keep in mind that recent Bioware games have "pre-made default" protagonists too (i.e John Shepard, Garrett Hawke) but these are for people who can't be bothered to customize their character and Abdel was that for Baldur's Gate's expansion and sequel. He may be canon for the novel but he's not for the games. --86.21.101.169 14:55, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

Tiefling?
Would it be fair to call Abdel Adrian a tiefling rather than a human? I know the way he's presented in the games (as the player) and in the books is a human (or elf/dwarf/gnome/etc) but by the definition of tiefling presented in the FRCS (3e) the mortal progeny of evil gods are tieflings. Would he, therefore, be considered a tiefling - simply not the kind with horns and a tail and the like?

I'm interested in hearing what others have to say on this. Niirfa-sa 07:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He's not a native outsider, so he fails the test. Besides, I think it would be a stretch, since in the book and game they classify him as a human.  13:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that he goes by human - but let's face it, Bhaalspawn aren't human/elven/draconic/etc - they just look that way. They're demigods. As for whether or not he's a native outsider - do we know that he isn't? I haven't read the books, BTW, I'm just looking at it objectively and to me he seems to be as much a tiefling as any spawn of the Mulhorandi gods.

I understand that the details aren't covered very well regarding Bhaalspawn. But who's to say that Abdel and the others aren't partially composed of the prime essence? Niirfa-sa 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bhaalspawn aren't "demigods", because that's a level of divine power, and they're mortals unless one were to specifically ascend. And they are technically whatever race they're given, as they have its properties (under 2nd ed rules), not a tiefling's. (I'm looking at the games. The novels obviously don't say much on this.)


 * Now, if the sources actually said that "the progeny of evil gods are tieflings by definition", I'd say that could be mentioned under Bhaalspawn ("Bhaalspawn weren't considered tieflings, but according to 3rd edition rules, they would also be classified such"), but it doesn't quite say that in the 3rd edition FRCS; it merely implies that that is the case with some offspring (probably not first-generation, either) of some Mulhorandi deities. And if they were demigods, they certainly wouldn't be tieflings. Tieflings have so much mortal blood that they're not even half-fiends anymore. Bhaalspawn are both more ordinary than them (in that they count as their "other" race for most purposes) and less so (in that Bhaal's essence is in them and can have some quite spectacular effects eventually). Ville V. Kokko 04:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He is Bhaalspawn. He isn't demigod, tiefling, or any other of those.  Bhaalspawn were designed with a specific purpose.  If I may, "There can be only one".  They are supposed to fight their way to the top, absorbing eachother's power until they are powerful enough to ascend.  Obviously they don't HAVE to kill and absorb ALL other Bhaalspawn because you have a bunch that survive, and a bunch that were bound to have been killed by others.  Either way, though, that's what it boils down to.  Bhaalspawn are a class of being unto themselves.  Humans, elves, dwarves, etc., don't generally spontaneously gain the ability to heal wounds or whatever.

Possible re-canonisation?
Well, What if someone wrote a new novelisation of the game, with better parties, better endings, better writing, as a better author and of course, a btter protagonist! (Abdel Adrian seems like if Athans pressed *recommend* all the time in BG1 and then used the most stupid names at hand...)

My Idea of a main char could actually work well (won't tell ya, it can be stolen), well, he is deeper than Adrian's hack-and-slash personality. smarter, and is following the game more!!!

Group idea:

Main character Imoen (of course) Jaheira and Khalid (Gorion tells ya to find them) Minsc and Dynaheir (Bg2 presumes you had them)(Don't forget Boo, unless that's what the readers would shout, hehe...)
 * Not a bad idea necessarily, but purely speculative (and doesn't really belong here). Actually, to throw my own gratuitous idea in I always have thought BG could make a pretty good movie if done right.Niirfa-sa 10:54, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you'r right, but both a book and a movie following it would be better, This and the start of this discussion about canonisation was my first messages (sorry if this is spam, just figuring out how this page works, I will delete all identical stuff over this, thanks for having patience with a noob..., /Lawisendro, how do I have my name show???)

A question about the pc in BG
How much did Gorion allow you to go outside the keep, I am writing a novel about the game and my charcter is thinking of the memories he had in Candlekeep and with Gorion, how much did he leave the keep?

((I know this is not the best place to post this, but Abdel is the main char (Sadly) and I thought it would work out))

Lawisendro 18:23, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

The main character does not leave the keep at all. --Cliffracerslayer 10:24, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Straighten things up, shall we?
Some words that may be good to know:

Tiefling: Tieflings are human-based planetouched, native outsiders that are infused with the touch of the fiendish planes, most often through descent from fiends — demons, devils, evil deities, and others who have bred with humans.[2] Tieflings are known for their cunning and personal allure, which makes them excellent deceivers as well as inspiring leaders when prejudices are laid aside.[3] Although their evil ancestors may be many generations removed, the taint lingers. Unlike half-fiends, tieflings are not predisposed to evil alignments and vary in alignment nearly as widely as full humans, though tieflings are certainly devious.[4] The celestial counterparts of tieflings are called aasimar.

(Right, he's not a tiefling, nor is he an aasimar)

Demigod: Demigods, also known as Exarchs are considered the first rung on the ladder of the gods. As gods, they are immortal and capable of granting spells to the clerics of the roughly 300 to 3,000 worshippers that typically pray to a deity of such power.

Due to their very natures, demigods represent a very narrow and restricted ideal or aspect of existence. This means only a certain group of mortals will consider the demigod suitable for worship, until either the ideals that the demigod embodies become more popular or the demigod is given or takes the portfolios of other deities.

(neither a demigod...)

BHAALSPAWN: Bhaalspawn is the name given to the mortal offspring of the now dead god Bhaal. It is said that Bhaal foresaw his death during the Time of Troubles and came to Toril before the climactic event, mating with females of almost any species, not all of them humanoid. Like Bane, he would attempt to use these offspring to bring himself back to life. Alaundo made a prophecy about the Bhaalspawn that foretold the great destruction they would bring.

(Right... that's it, eh? Bhaalspawn, a special race, got it?)

Article edits to reflect MiBG more?
Going on the backstory we're given for Abdel in Murder in Baldur's Gate, it seems like THAT Abdel is still a different one than THIS Abdel from the novels. Or, at the very least, if it's the same character, they just retconned some aspects of it to fit closer to the game (and make him less of a crappy individual). The way I've heard it before, rule of thumb is that new lore trumps old lore, so maybe some updates/adjustments need made to the article to make it a little more...favorable? Daft inquisitor (talk) 04:28, August 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * This, combined with the 5e appearances of Minsc, seem to me to indicate that the Baldur's Gate novels are being mostly disregarded by Wizards. I think the easiest way to solve the discrepancy is to merge this article with Gorion's Ward and disregard the novels, adding only details that are corroborated in later works. The issue with that solution is it would conflict with this wiki's canon policy. I think it's the most elegant way to approach the mess of Baldur's Gate canon, however. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 06:48, August 5, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone. I've taken the liberty of writing directly to Wizards of the Coast asking a simple question: who is the canon Bhaalspawn of the events of both games - the CHARNAME from the games themselves; Abdel Adrian from the novels; the one from the adventure modules; a mixture of all three? Here's the answer I've received;


 * "Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast Customer Support. Unfortunately we do not have exact details for what would be considered canon in regards these characters and stories."


 * So no, the bastard from the novels is not the canon Bhaalspawn. Please edit the page.


 * 37.7.173.137 11:44, March 22, 2020 (UTC)Auraculum


 * While I don't see how Wizards' response answers the question in one form or another, I am personally planning a project to work on this article, and those surrounding the Baldur's Gate games. Right now I'm trying to find the best way to approach a significant rewrite of the article. Please stay tuned for more! Ruf (talk) 13:28, March 22, 2020 (UTC)

Merge
I am proposing that we merge this article with Gorion's Ward. Here is my rationale and ideas on how I plan to change the pages: I look forward to any opinions or thoughts anyone has about this proposed move. I've discussed this with a few other editors to get an idea of how to best move forward with this project. It's definitely one that I have been wanting to work on for quite some time. Ruf (talk) 12:17, June 12, 2020 (UTC)
 * Abdel Adrian is the canonical Bhaalspawn that solved the Iron crisis, bested Jon Irenicus and defeated the other Bhaalspawn. This information has been stated in the Murder in Baldur's Gate and The Grand History of the Realms sourcebook, and I believe in one of the Legends of Baldur's Gate comics.
 * I will primarily be using the aforementioned sources for non-timeline information. I will be treating the main, unchangeable story points presented in the video games as canon with as little ambiguous information as possible.
 * I intend on treating the Baldur's Gate (novel)s as a spinoff and do not plan on including information from these sources. They are highly inaccurate in a number of ways and seem to have been disregarded by developers. Mr. Athans has spoken to some regrets he had about the final product. They will be mentioned in the appendix.
 * I do not plan on using information from Dragon magazine 262 as that information is seemingly based on the novel version of the character.
 * These articles, like many of those related to the Baldur's Gate series are long overdue for a style/content change that removes out-of-universe language and does not include speculative information about in-game choices.
 * This all seems very reasonable to me. It is clear that elements of the novels have made their way into canon (the name "Abdel Adrian" being one such case), and at the same time it is equally clear that the majority of the content from the novels has been disregarded. In fact, the Baldur's Gate novels are among the very few D&D novels that have not been digitized and made available in an ebook format (although, curiously, two of them have been turned into audiobooks). In this matter, it seems the license holder agrees (in a weakly communicated sort of way) that the novels should remain buried in the past.
 * I am in general agreement about the "unchangeable story" guiding how we approach these articles (both for Baldur's Gate and other video games). It could be worth outlining exactly what those unchangeable beats are, however. Can we say Abdel Adrian cleared out Durlag's Tower and went to Werewolf Island, for example? Those are the primary content pieces in Tales of the Sword Coast, so it seems reasonable that these events took place. At the same time, the quests are not (to my knowledge) corroborated anywhere else. They are also, per definition, side quests, albeit large and detailed ones. Those are only examples, mind. Creating some sort of documentation of what is "unchangeable" could be useful in guiding the current effort as well as future work on these articles. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 12:44, June 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that Abdel Adrian was considered the canonical protagonist of the events in the Baldur's Gate games. Generally computer games are considered canonical unless they are contradicted or revised with other publications like the Baldur's Gate novel, Dragon magazine 262 and 5th edition material like Murder in Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus. All these publications combine to reaffirm that Abdel Adrian is the canonical protagonist (at least retroactively) and that the discrepencies in the game compared to later publications are should be revised. This is also compounded by the general policy that because games are not fixed stories and have highly subjective experiences depending on player choices and character customisation that the events are only tenuously accepted as canon until something else confirms or denies the portrayal in games.


 * My suggestion would be to merge the articles but with the assumption that events in the game were carried out by Abdel Adrian and if there are sources that differ from the game then they take precedent. If there are conflicts between publications then we can always refer to these in notes explaining any reasoning for choosing one over another. However this is by still keeping in mind that game canon doesn't trump published works. So certain uncontested side missions or game events would work fine as attributed to Abdel Adrian but game events or choices that are explictly mentioned in other published lore should side with the publications view.--Eli the Tanner (talk) 13:32, June 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * That's how I see it too Eli, though I do not plan on counting the novels as "sources that (may) differ from the game". Essentially those will be disregarded.


 * To Ir'revrykal's point, let me draw up a few lists of "essential" plot points, major expansion plot points, and major side quests to look at how they will be included or otherwise. Ruf (talk) 13:53, June 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we mostly agree except with regards to the novel. I don't see any ground to disregard it because it is not a popular book. If there are contradictions arising from it then we can address that by checking other, more recent or authoritative, sources. On what grounds are we disregarding a published source (even if it not a well written story compared to the game)? If there are grounds then we can call out those instances of divergence with notes too. No need to omit the book from the article, especially at that is where the concept and main outline of Abdel Adrian's character originally came from. Additionally by omitting the book in its entirety it also, like you noted, omits other supporting sources (like Dragon 262) too.--Eli the Tanner (talk) 14:04, June 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * The issues with the novels are less about their quality or reception, rather how they do not line up with the events and characters introduced in the game, particularly the protagonist.


 * As the novels begin, Abdel Adrian is a world-weary mercenary that has traveled all across west Faerûn whereas in the game the protagonist lived a sheltered life in Candlekeep. In the novels Minsc is a meager red-headed bartender in contrast to his appearances in all other Realms media. The novels make a number of other divergences that may be too many to list heh. I am comfortable omitting information from Dragon 262 - there may be some background information that does not conflict with the games. Ruf (talk) 15:06, June 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * Differences between the sources are fine, the wiki has a long-established history of reconciling these after all. Things like Adbel Adrian's relationship with Gorion can be left as ambiguous with a note attached. Other aspects like minsc appearance or background are more easily cleared up with newer sources like Murder in Baldur's Gate, the Legend's of Baldur's Gate comics, and countless other depiction of the beloved ranger. Essentially what I am proposing is that we don't need to omit things from the novel (and associated sources), except where we can show ambiguity or a better source. We don't need to make any exceptions as the current policy for conflicting sources takes account of this.


 * If there are specific contradictions from the novel, etc. you need help reconciling then there are lots of loremasters here who can do a bit of digging to help and/or we can look at making a note of the contradiction in the article. The canonical nature of games is often a tricky to weigh against published lore but it better to add information when things don't make sense rather than delete. Otherwise people further down the line may well try and add the novel info (because they see it missing or because policy falls on the side of published lore) and it becomes a back and forth of deletions.


 * An example of this process might be: Youn find information from the game you want to add, however you notice it is directly contradicted by novel info. You then check to see if there are any other sources that support the game or the novel more. If they weigh on the side of the game then it is fine to update, however if the other sources are not conclusive or don't comment on the matter then ordinarily the novel would be considered the 'higher' canon and kept. However if you are still unhappy with this and think the game information deserves precendence in this instance, or should at least be included somehow, then this can be called out in the article as ambigious (there are lots of unreliable narrators in the realms e.g. volo, elminster, etc.). Alternatively a discussion can be had and and a note added explaining why we are taking a certain percepective. Drizzt Do'Urden is a good example of an article with a number of contrary sources between books, games, and adventures. Notes are added, where possible to explain these but generally we still hold that Drizzt's appearances in the Baldur's Gate series and games like Demon Stone are do not trump other sources unless we can explain how or back it up.--Eli the Tanner (talk) 16:45, June 12, 2020 (UTC)