Originally Posted by Auric
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.
I was not being reductionist with Sav. I was stating his motivations for his evil. I even gave context for exactly what I was talking about. What is reductionist is pretending the comparison of evil wasn't in my reply, so you could dismiss it. If in BG4 Minthara was around, but she was slavishly following the orders of her mother, that would be a retcon of similar quality. And anyone complaining about the retcon being poorly done doesn't need the explanation of 'but it's canon' or your other variant 'well Drow are matriarchal and she's lived a long time in it and you know how difficult it is to just abandon your culture like that? Maybe her mother caught up to her between games.'

Why are you bothering to lay out the path? There is no path from A to B to C with a retcon. Because claiming A was C all along is what a retcon does.

There is really no point in claiming you weren't saying it wasn't a retcon, only to muddy the waters by saying people fall back into cults all the time or was doing light speculation on the timeline as if it were a logical extension of events instead of a retcon. And then only to then flip back to saying you didn't say it wasn't a retcon when pressured on these justifications you have no reason to give.

As I said earlier, how does that address the problem? How does that pertain to this thread and why it was created?

I would be thrilled if others could and would accurately point of logical fallacies! Recognizing and avoiding them can only improve discourse in general, like recognizing faulty arguments made in politics, not just in debate class. It makes no difference if I say insulting people doesn't prove your point, or if I say an ad hominem of attacking the person and not the argument is counterproductive. I'm not sure why you are so particular about the definition of Character Assassination, but this terminology is a problem.

It is quite consistent of me. Your light speculation and my light speculation are equally unable to be disproven. It becomes a fallacy if I was saying my scenario was equally as likely, in which the absurd nature of it would be a mark against it. However, I did not say that. Just that there was an equal amount of evidence for it. Which is none and the absurdity was to highlight that the blade you were using cuts both ways. The argument in question, that using "time skip" as a reason for why BG3 characterization makes sense in absentia of any actual background is a poor justification, remains intact. Because if it made sense, it wouldn't need a retcon.

In extension of that, you have gone on to argue as if I was saying having a time skip where things develop is not possible or is bad, complete with a lecture on how adventure modules work. When the actual argument is that your rationale was basically the Step 1. Use Viconia, Step 2 ??? Step 3. Profit! meme in order to simultaneously argue that Viconia's situation is a logical progression because 100 years of mysterious character development and also say it's a retcon WOTC/Larian did for their own reasons, take it or leave it.

Pick one.

My main issue is that Vic and Sav are used as stepping stones for Larian's characters. It does not matter what events in the backstory are established (or not) because Vic's sole purpose in the game is either to be replaced by Shadowheart, or defeated as the big bad abuser on SH's behalf and her character was retconned accordingly. Giving her more time on screen doesn't change her role as a prop. The same goes for Sav. I'm pretty sure the incest isn't in Boo's Journal of Villainy. Making him and the cultists pathetic lackies (with altered personalities and motivations) for the sole purpose of being stomped by Durge, Daddy's favorite and the special Bhaalspawn, is aggrandizement of Larian's creations at the expense of Bioware's. As far as legacy characters go, this is one of the most poorly handled examples I've seen.

WOTC having their canon does not oblige Larian to use them, at all, or in this 'mine is better than yours' way. I am as interested in 'this is how things work' as a defense as I am in 'Rey Skywalker is canon' arguments. It doesn't address the argument. It doesn't address the problem. It answers questions no one asked.