Asking an honest question as someone new to the FR and canon as it relates to DnD. What is the significance as to whether or not BG3 (or anything else for that matter) is considered canon? Obviously players are free to ignore or embrace whatever works for them. I'm assuming its only an issue for publishers.
As Taril notes it's slippery slope issue and it's a question if the flavor of the setting has been altered.
Someone mentioned Star Wars - which is a useful analogue. In the prequels it was revealed that the force came from Midi-chlorians. Now Star Wars has a policy that is the inverse of WotC's policy on cannon: movies are canon and books are not.
Not only was this a movie, it was a movie directed by the creator of the series. It is absolutely canon! And many fans hated it. For them it ruined the 70's mysticism of the force. Star Wars fans wanted the force to be arcane and mysterious force not some biologically inherited trait that can be discovered with a blood test.
And because the backlash was so strong subsequent directors have left midi chlorians alone even as they have changed the lore on the force . . .
Closer to home, the canonical hero of the Bhaalspawn crisis is Abdel Adrian. A character most BG2 fans hate. Passionately. But, because he is the canonical hero he has figured in modules like Murder in Baldur's Gate. He's even mentioned in BG3 but Larian was smart to downplay him. You really need to search to find the references and neither Minsc or Jaheria name the hero of Baldur's Gate.
So even if something is deeply disliked it is much more likely to appear in future works if it is canon. Taril downplays the slippery slope to which I say: Abdel Adrian is BG3 and Murder in Baldurs Gate. He's in BG3 despite the fact that Larian knows that fans hate him. Such is the nature of canon, it's difficult to ignore.
