Myrkul symbol in the beginning

[aaargh]

It's on the wall.

Guess we know the who the villain is.

[aaargh]

They want you think it's Ilsensine, but ho ho.

[rgb651]

But look at the video. There is lots of illithids in the air and also there is a giant cthulhu

[Vamo]

isnt Myrkul super dead? even for a god of death?

[annatar3]

Originally posted by rgb651:

But look at the video. There is lots of illithids in the air and also there is a giant cthulhu

Thats illithids battleship from Spelljammer

[Mighty Biscuit]

Originally posted by Vamo:

isnt Myrkul super dead? even for a god of death?

Myrkul is cannonically sorta dead. Any god in Forgotten Realms who still has people think about them -as- a god retains the powers of a god. In Myrkul's case, he was barely alive in 3.5 and 4e's Faerun, but if a powerful cult of Myrkul were to arise, so would Myrkul.

A god only dies when they are forgotten entirely.

[Thamior Silberdrache]

Originally posted by Mighty Biscuit:

Originally posted by Vamo:

isnt Myrkul super dead? even for a god of death?

Myrkul is cannonically sorta dead. Any god in Forgotten Realms who still has people think about them -as- a god retains the powers of a god. In Myrkul's case, he was barely alive in 3.5 and 4e's Faerun, but if a powerful cult of Myrkul were to arise, so would Myrkul.

A god only dies when they are forgotten entirely.

You never played Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer? There you happen to find the remains of the dead god Myrkul, (somewhere near about 2/3 of the game) and yes, due to some remaining believers, he is still alive somehow. If you really didn't play the game, I don't want to spoiler that epic moment, but let's say: That's not necessarily the case any longer after the meeting.

[Khas]

Myrkul is no longer dead.

"15th century
While many were converted to the worship of Cyric, there were several minor shrines of Myrkul that survived through the Spellplague and past the Second Sundering. Following this cataclysmic event, the Lord of the Dead was restored as one of the gods of domain, sharing aspects of his domain ironically enough with Jergal, in service of Kelemvor, despite the opposing viewpoints of their faithful"

Source Sword Coast Adventure Guide p32.

[Thamior Silberdrache]

Interesting. Ok, although Neverwinter Nights 2 was made with support from Wizards of the Coast, they of course don't need to stick to any possible outcome from any D&D based PC games when writing their canon.
Still, we don't exactly now when Baldur's Gate 3 takes place, but Baldur's Gate 2 plays during the time of Cyrics rulership (while NWN2 plays later, under Kelemvor, but obviously before Myrkul's restoration), so I think Myrkul should still be dead in BG2. At least if the game has at least something to do, apart from the name, with the original Baalspawn series...

[Mighty Biscuit]

Originally posted by Thamior Silberdrache:

Interesting. Ok, although Neverwinter Nights 2 was made with support from Wizards of the Coast, they of course don't need to stick to any possible outcome from any D&D based PC games when writing their canon.
Still, we don't exactly now when Baldur's Gate 3 takes place, but Baldur's Gate 2 plays during the time of Cyrics rulership (while NWN2 plays later, under Kelemvor, but obviously before Myrkul's restoration), so I think Myrkul should still be dead in BG2. At least if the game has at least something to do, apart from the name, with the original Baalspawn series...

We do know when, It takes place after the upcoming Module Descent to Avernum, which is somewhere around 1491 CE.

[Thamior Silberdrache]

Oh, I just looked some facts up and it seems that there are more problems between the canon and the games. Baldur's Gate starts in the year 1368. I din't find out how much time exactly is supposed to lie between the first part and the second, but I think it's safe to assume that BG2: ToB takes place at least in 1369. But: In ToB you are threatened by Cyric that you shouldn't trie to challenge him. According to the canon, Kelemvor becomes god and dethrones Cyric in 1368, so Cyric shouldn't be the one worried about Bhaals return.
Still, if your information about BG3 taking place around 1491 that means there are more then 120 years between the Bhaalspawn plot and BG3. Although the name "Baldur's Gate" has been used befor for games that didn't have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn at all, they never intended to be a real succesor to the original games. I am very curious how they want to write a story that justifies the "3" in the name of the game. Although I am quite sure the game is going to have great mechanics (many Larian games have), I am still not so sure about the story. But a return of Myrkul at least would mean the fight for the domain of the god of death as a common element...