I meant that Larian is the DM and maybe we (as players) could just accept that this is THEIR version of the world
Ah yeah, that is more than fair enough - a lot of the source material by WOTC exists in Baldur's Gate of course, but if they say that Baldur's Gate is set in it's own universe, that is perfectly acceptable.
To answer your question, yes but not because of the DM. It was because another player suddenly started to spew lore about how the DM is wrong and that this character is ACTUALLY and WOULD NEVER etc. When I DM I have decided to either stay away from any established settings because some people just can't help themselves, or if the group REALLY insists I have them swear they understand that characters / events / timelines are fine in the universe they are playing in, no matter what any other sources / established lore says. Personally I have more fun with my own little setting where people don't expect me to be loremaster of both my own game and everything else that is considered canon in the setting.
Well, here's the thing - when it comes to storytelling and presenting, you have to have setups and payoffs. Take Boromir from the Fellowship of the Ring for example.
He is set up to be a courageous, well-respected and much loved leader of the Gondorians. His key trait boils down to duty - he has a duty to his father, Gondor and to the Fellowship, to Frodo. However, that duty goes both ways, and the One Ring exploits that. As the Fellowship travels, there are moments where it's clearly shown that Boromir is not being trustworthy when he's close to the ring - and the battle with the Uruk-Hai towards the tail end of the Fellowship, and Boromir's consequent death, is the result of that corruption. Note that there are many others that could possibly be tempted by the Ring, but the key difference between the rest of the Fellowship and Boromir is that Boromir's insecurity in his duty is very, VERY easily exploitable, while others, who would certainly get corrupted over time would need to spend much more time in the Ring's influence. It's a build-up with a brilliant payoff, cause and effect. If you remove the scenes with Boromir and the Ring before the battle with the Uruk-Hai, it comes off as if the plot just decided that Boromir needs to be evil for some time - and it also ruins Boromir's final acts and words to Aragorn as he bleeds out, as that redemption is simply never earned.
This is what I mean when it's important to make sure that the story is consistent, that there is setup and payoff - the universe might be the DM-s playground, but provide the wrong toys and tools and no one will be interested. I of course don't mean to criticise the way you enjoy playing your DnD sessions, but when it comes to assessing quality and creating an immersive story, you can't break and bend the rules as you want on a whim. (And to be extra clear: You can of course create a universe where the Mind Flayers are all benevolent or something like that. But it has to be very clear that this story is set in it's own universe, and it's also important that the writer/storyteller puts in the work to establish the rules of this new world)
"Canon" is imo a slippery term, Zerubbabel wrote: "1. Information on previously existing locations, characters, and events that occur in BG3 are now considered canon enough to rewrite all related wiki pages. Until it is retconned, BG3 is quasi-gospel to the lore."
I really don't think that a wiki (maintained by users and not WOTC) making edits makes things canon. As far as I know, whenever WOTC references some licensed RPG they only take the BIG THINGS and make them cannon. An adventurer of unknown sex, uncertain profession, forgotten class and many times even uncertain alignment. Abdel is more of an exception. Baldur's Gate novels have very little to do with the videogames. The videogames gave so much freedom of action it's impossible to make one "canon" ending unless you take away all meaningful choices made by players, unless you go ahead and say "well it's a multiverse, ALL of the endings are canon in one universe or another".
Even if we assume that the books have nothing to do with the games (which is fundamentally untrue), given that there is already 3 numbered Baldur's Gate titles with a continuing story, a canon by Larian exists. Clearly a lot of the good outcomes happened, so a throughline can be established. The books, as long as they are tied to the game and extend on the main plot instead of telling it's own, completely separate tale within that universe, do matter unfortunately. And I will say this - telling a story in multiple media outlets is plain and simply retarded. You can't make up for certain mistakes or establish a timeline and / or rules in a medium that no one is actually going to interact with as your main audience is already in the video gaming world. So, for example - Bhaal was killed is a definitive statement that we can make when it comes to canon.
(Sidenote: it'd be so freakin cool if Larian had a tool like Bioware where you can import saves from previous games to play using that continuity - while at the same time, simply hitting "new game" with default settings is what is considered canon ultimately. Think of it like an "Extended Universe" that still has to make sense storywriting wise, but of course not canon when it comes to continuing Baldur's Gate.)
About Balduran's age - come on, we're in the Forgotten Realms. There are SO MANY ways of staying alive as an adventurer, it's actually ridiculous to even consider this. Time spent in Astral Plane? Being a druid / monk? Taking a chill Imprisonment pill? (To be honest, why didn't Ansur just cast Imprisonment on Balduran until a cure could be found? oh no now I'M doing it!). Anyway, my point is - age is such a non-issue. Jaheira had a Ritual in her hidey-hole, I wonder if that would do it. Or if it's just a really complicated ritual of applying aloe vera every day to your face for 100 years and your wrinkles will disappear.
Cool, show it to me that it happened, establish that this is something that people have access to and employ. It's not that much of a commonality as many people in the universe die of old age. I'll bring up Lord of the Rings again as another example for this.
Bilbo Baggings is a hobbit that seemingly hasn't aged one bit ever since he returned from his adventures. At 118 years old, he still looks like he's in his 30s or 40s, despite the fact that he should be weak, frail and all grey since forever. This "preserving" effect was because he carried the One Ring with him. When he threw the ring away in his home and went on another adventure, the next time we see him with Frodo again (which was only a couple of weeks IIRC), Bilbo is already showing signs of aging. And by the time we see him at the end of Return of the King (and as far as I'm aware, the time difference between Gandalf arriving to Bilbo's birthday and Frodo meeting with Bilbo again was about 2-3 years), he has aged extremely.
You can say that "there are ways to prevent aging" but it has to actually be employed as a tool instead of assuming, especially when it's a limited resource.
And I'll say this as well - it's not that incredibly immersion breaking to see someone live way past their natural life cycle (of which by the way, previous commenters pieced together why that is very likely possible). But as I said before in this thread, the more holes the audience have to fill in, the more work the audience does for the writer, the story's quality worsens. It's a snowball effect.
