Originally Posted by Rahaya
That is a non sequitur that doesn't address it being bad.

Sarevok: Saying he is 'Evil' is an Faulty Generalization that lacks nuance. His history of evil begins and ends with resentment towards Bhaal. Someone who will stab people on the train is probably not a good person. However, it would be entirely unreasonable and more importantly, fallacious to argue that someone who lobbies to change the law to benefit only them will also randomly stab people on the train because they are both Evil.

Viconia: And this is an Appeal to Ignorance, or as I like to call it, the 'Maybe There is a Wizard Behind the Curtain' argument that supposes an impossible to prove wrong conclusion by saying 'anything could happen' in a time frame. By this logic, Viconia could have shacked up with a random farmer, had 3 half-drow babies before being killed and replaced with a doppelganger because Shar was still pissed at her and I would have just as much evidence for it as you do for yours. That is why this is a logical fallacy.
I guess my bad for attempting to explain a reason for something being the way it is to someone that sounded extremely upset about why it is how it is. Whether that reason is sufficient is wholly subjective, I wasn't trying to say it was qualitatively "not bad" but rather lay out the likely path taken to the result we have. Because retcon or not, character assassination is a phrase with an actual meaning which does not match what happened here. Retcon does, and as you can see I'm not arguing that it wasn't a retcon.

Speaking of lacking nuance, wow that is a very reductive way of summarizing Sarevok. Yes I'm sure Minthara's evil also begins and ends at *checks notes* resentment toward Lolth and the Absolute. And fallaciousness is getting brought up... I didn't realize we were in a highschool debate club.

Since this is actively where you want the conversation to go, yes actually it is possible for anything to happen in a fictional timeframe that has not had the events in that timeframe specifically defined. That's why story and character-development heavy tabletop games in these settings work so well in spite of how unique each game is. The entire point is that it's a starting point to play our games in, and as it happens if IP holder gives the go ahead that includes things like official videogames specifying things within or at either end of that timeline for the sake of a more established narrative to play through. Yeah, sure "but but but I just told you WOTC involvement is logically invalid" but this isn't a contest to score debate points, this is just how things generally work. I gave an EXAMPLE of speculative thought that is easy to understand and easy to apply to what's already there while you've chosen to give one that is actively ridiculous in order to falsely equate them (oh yes imagine that other people can also point out fallacies). Not very consistent of you with how much you seem to dislike that sort of thing.

Anyway I'm not here to score imaginary points about fallacies. That's kind of just insufferable. If this is how you want our replies to continue you are free to chase me away with the next one.