You keep arguing about canon, but this discussion isn't about canon, it's about the feel of the setting as it has existed up until this moment.
This discussion and that discussion are different.
The point I raised is in direct response to the notion that something being in BG3 =/= suitable for the setting.
Wherein, it doesn't matter what has existed to this point. All that matters is the canon and WotC's take on the setting.
If WotC deems it appropriate to add to the setting, then you can argue that it is appropriate for the setting. This doesn't necessarily mean it is "Correct" or "Irrefutable". Only that an argument can be made.
Which is directly related to the snippet I quoted. You note I didn't quote an entire post and haven't responded to the entire post, only to the single line about this one particular thing.
But it WAS NOT THAT BEFORE. It was once one thing, now it is a different thing. Larian were given permission to change that thing, yes, but they DID change it. Key word here being CHANGE
This entire ramble about change is meaningless. Like literally pointless.
We're discussing whether the CHANGES are appropriate for the setting (As there's always CHANGES when new story is written. As new characters, new lore, new stories get added to this ever CHANGING setting) so explicitly emphasising CHANGE has literally no relevance.
That's why I asked those questions about if new york were to be transplanted into the setting or if the setting is inherently a nonsense setting. Because even if WotC decides today that yes, all those things are true, that does not retroactively mean the decisions line up and make sense with what the setting has been before that decision. The only way that would be the case is if the Forgotten Realms were in fact a nonsense setting where anything goes.
If WotC decides that those are true, then you can make the arguement that it makes sense because it is canon and they deem it acceptable for their IP.
Which is again, true. You as a consumer can disagree with that notion and make counter arguments that it is not narratively consistent with what has previously been written. But that doesn't preclude the argument that it is canon, therefore it makes sense.
