Yes, I wouldn't disagree with any of that. That's what I was getting at, really - if one is going to take a high-handed, dismissive, and disrespectful attitude, and to imagine that one's own subjective opinions represent "insight", while others' opinions are "bad taste", well, then we're going to have problems. And if I turn it around, perhaps I can draw attention to the problem.
My criticism about what I consider "silly" is of course my own opinion, and I don't expect to convert the disbelievers. I do think it's fine to discuss these things in the context of a game one is interested in, and the studio might be interested to know which way their audience leans on these things.
My view about D&D, is that the lore technically connects all the campaign settings, and the real world itself. So, in a sense, it's impossible for anything to be considered lore-unfriendly. But, I think that misses the point. We're talking here about the Baldur's Gate games, which were very much set in the fairly grounded version of Forgotten Realms - a pseudo medieval Europe with, well, dungeons and dragons. I'd say that was also fairly representative of the Forgotten Realms campaigns of that era, and it's the style that I find very immersive. The possibilities for all sorts of wackiness were there, but the point is they weren't indulged too much in those games. I find, that in the current era, there is more of tendency to embrace all the outlandish possibilities more enthusiastically.
In theory, we could have a lore-compliant Baldur's Gate game that pops over to another dimension for some phaser gun battles, then moves to contemporary America for a spot of NASCAR racing and Monster Energy drinks. Some might find that that highly imaginative and fun, but I would not enjoy that at all. So the question isn't about what *could* be possible in the DnD universe, but which version of all the possibilities we will actually get.
