Sorry guys for the upcoming long and maybe unrelated post, but I just find Blackheifer's posts utterly amusing, they brought me smile and I can't help myself. I think they could be used as examples for "how not to argue" and might give us some insights.

(Apologize to the moderators first, if you find this post inappropriate, you can remove it or suggest me to remove it, but please don't lock this thread for I want others to have a peaceful place to discuss.)



Let's start from their first post, shall we?

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
If you talk to Minsc he tells you that Viconia left the camp after she was caught trying to steal and dissect Boo. At least, that was his interpretation of what she was doing. This more or less fits with dialogue from Bg1/2 and Viconia's established personality traits. She is cruel. She is a loner. She is alone.

After this was when she likely founded the temple in Waterdeep, and yet she didn't form any strong bonds with any of her fellow Shar worshippers, or at least not enough to disobey Shar when she was asked to kill them. So she further isolated herself and then was given new orders. Again, she is alone.

And she has been that way for the last 100 years. She only has Shar. Whatever she might have been/or grown to become ended when her path diverged from the original Bhaalspawn. Shar likely orchestrated this - it's how she works.

Viconia wants to die. I killed her out of mercy having assessed what she has been through. She can now enjoy oblivion. I think the cruelest thing you can do is to let her live. I understand people "spare her" out of "nostalgia" which is a selfish thing to do.

Happiness was never in the cards for Viconia. In the established lore she failed to overcome her own cruelty, which tracks. The Bg2 writers were humoring you by making a narrow and almost impossible path to her redemption, but I don't see that actually happening. She had been too long under Lolth's shadow - if she had chosen Eliastree things would have been very different, but she chose a Goddess almost as cruel and manipulative as Lolth.

Sarevok is a shadow of what he once was. Nobody who dies comes back the same, and Sarevok spent a long time in his Father's realm - The Throne of Blood in Gehenna. He is brought back but without his Bhaalspawn blood driving him, but with the memory of what he was and can never be again.

He has become like a parent that lives vicariously through his offspring. He is Orin's father and Grandfather. Not even going to get into the level of degeneracy it takes to behave that way.

Not to mention he is basically overseeing the Murder Tribunal now - the Bhallist equivalent of a "desk job"

Sarevok is a middle manager, a has been. This is what losing looks like.

I think Rahaya's description for this one was quite fitting: "Thermian Paradox". For people who don't know what that is, "a ‘Thermian Argument' is one that replies to criticism of a text with an in-universe justification for why the thing happens in the text, ignoring the actual argument in order to defend the text." Sequel A invents element B to make plot C happen, except element B never existed and directly contradicts the lore, then one person tries to defend plot C by using element B. Basically, "sequel A makes sense, because sequel A says it makes sense."

Many writers have twisted previous characters to make their cheap new stories happen, some even have done many times, such as WotC. Though I'll give another, more specific and famous example: how Neil Druckmann portrayed Joel in TLOU2. We all know Joel was beaten to death by a golf club in TLOU2—the plot C. But why? Because he and Tommy, two most experienced survivalists, easily gave out their names and settlement location to a bunch of armed strangers, in a zombie post apocalypse world where people would kill for a bag of potatoes—the element B. Therefore, Joel and Tommy were now foolish and clumsy.

Now, imagine when fans of TLOU1 argue that Joel and Tommy were never like that, a person tries to defend TLOU2 by saying no, Joel and Tommy were always foolish and clumsy. Why? Because element B, they gave out their crucial informations to strangers. Why they gave out their crucial informations to strangers, then? Oh, because they were foolish and clumsy. You see the problem here? The arguement now becomes a loop, ignoring the fact that the real fool was Neil Druckmann. (Btw, arguements like this are most welcomed by WotC, the king of cheap retcons.)

So allow me to change some words, "in the established lore", no, "in retcons the writer made up, plus some of my own fanfic". Now that's more suitable.




But let's move on, it was Blackheifer's later posts that brought me most joy. When someone disagreed with their headcanons, they suddenly became ultra defensive

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
To be read in Jay Brittons' "Upper Class Twit" Voice.

My goodness, how dare they not consult you before writing Viconia into the story, what with all your published novels and your clear and deep understanding of writing. Truly a loss for all of us I am sure.

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
I think she was too many young boys first sexual video game experience and they never got over it. Probably spent years writing steamy fanfiction about it all - ruining all those socks your dear mother bought you.

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Your just one of those people that thinks that critical analysis is the same as hate. So sad.

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Look, this is some more complex stuff so if english isn't your first language I don't want to be overly harsh about your lack of comprehension.

This is called "Ad hominem", a rhetorical fallacy "where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself", which is just one step away from literal name callings like "people who disagree with me are all arrogant and uneducated". Well, I have nothing else to say besides friends, don't be like Blackheifer, you will not only make yourself appear rude, but also invalid your own points.

But wild assumptions didn't stop there, here're some other gems

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
You know what Viconia is? She is proof that boys (and some gals) will go crazy over a good pair of digital breasts and a sultry voice despite a mountain of red flags surrounding them.

Well I must admit, they got me there, I chuckled. Like what were you talking about bro? Viconia was literally several pixel color blocks in BG1, and most character portraits in BG1&2 were ugly, they were not attractive at all. That's actually a common feature of many old games, due to limitations devs couldn't make characters physically appealing, so they put extra effort into world and character building to make players care. Blackheifer claimed themselves to be a veteran player who enjoyed the old games, yet personally I find it difficult to believe for reasons above, plus they said Viccy always wanted to be killed/defeated when her origin story was literally about surviving and living her own life.

And there's more

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
She is prepubescent male lust and the arrogance of "I can fix her" writ large.

I will not repeat all my arguments in my article and replies about why it's never about "fixing" or redemption, and why Viconia&Sarevok need neither of those to act in character. Let's just humor Blackheifer a bit. Homie, you realize your logic can also be applied to Laezel, Minthara, and Shadowheart, right? The "fixing" they could get in BG3 are more than Viconia could get in BG2, and the process is easier. So what now, are they all "prepubescent male lust" as well? The devs need to rewrite the whole story? Hey, I just disagree with the decisions devs made, but you're actually hating them.

I also love how players now may be diagnosed with mental issues

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
In THIS story, letting Viconia live is not only cruel to her, but it showcases a lack of conviction on the players part to bring to justice a mass murderer. Doing anything for the sake of sentimentality is how psychopaths and sociopaths operate. Congrats on failing that "good" playthrough. Pft.

Let's not mention that "whether Viconia should be spared in the end or not" is literally a nothing burger argument nobody asked for (many players simply want to skip that part), and let's also not mention how boring it is to judge players' moral during a crpg discussion, "conviction on the players part to bring to justice a mass murderer" huh? A mass murderer like who, Laezel? Minthara? Astarion? Or Shadowheart? (Two of those are also racists btw.) So should we have a public execution in BG4, to make all our old companions answer to their crimes?




What I found most hilarious is, the serious "mature me vs immature world" vibe Blackheifer gave, and the fact they're almost everything they thought everyone else to be. They claimed to be mature and others aren't, yet they seem to be the one who could only interpret characters in a very limited, one dimensional way—"evil is evil, bad is bad", unable to see the very different context behind different kinds of evil. They claimed to be thoughtful and others are arrogant, yet they announce one character to be "young boys' first sexual video game experience" and "simpy male wank fantasy crap", ignoring the fact there're plenty female players and new players from BG3 who also think how writer portrayed old characters is ridiculous. They claimed others went after themselves instead of their arguments, yet they categorized players, judged others' moral, questioned others' ability to comprehend, while providing wrong or no evidence to support their arguments. (My fanfic is mature and superior because I said so, am I right?) They claimed others to be "prepubescent male", yet they were the one who first mentioned "digital breasts", "sultry voice" and "ruining socks", which seemed to be a...well I don't want to say "virgin way of thinking", but if I have to pick one potential virgin in this thread, I know who I would pick.

OK, now it's time for my personal favourite ("OMG, win" is a close second)

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Viconia is a liar, don't believe anything she says. She sees you as lesser and has no compunction about lying to you. She gets you to compromise your values over and over again just to "be with her" - starting with the murder of a Flaming Fist officer.

It's over guys. I guess we just have to distrust every character after they lied to us once, it's literally beyond our comprehension to distinguish what are lies and what aren't. You know who else was a Shar follower and has lied to us? Shadowheart. Maybe she was a manipulator as well. So I can't trust Viconia, I can't trust her lines, I can't trust devs of the old games, I can't even trust the story, it's all a lie. What can I trust then? Blackheifer and their fanfic? Sounds great, except there's a tiny loophole. They claimed that Viconia lied to us so we can be with her and help her achieve her evil goals, so what happened when we chose to believe her lies? She...ended the romance? Then...she left the party? And then...she made zero attempt to rejoin till the end? So...her plan only worked when players carefully chose to not believe her lies? A super smart move if you ask me. Honestly, I won't be surprised if Blackheifer was the real writer behind Viconia&Sarevok's parts in BG3, maybe a senior in WotC as well.


All right. This post is just for fun because I was really amused, not a reply to Blackheifer nor do I have the desire to speak further with them, so please don't bother to reply me. I think we should all follow Gray Ghost and the moderator's suggestion, ignore this nonsence, but also thank Blackheifer for becoming the fresh air and amusement in this thread.