this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025
110 points (99.1% liked)
Asklemmy
53800 readers
453 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not into Baldur's Gate, but my partner explained the retcons in 3 to me, and I find them offensive. Why not just make an original character instead of altering an existing one beyond recognition?
The answer is that no one at WotC knows what D&D is supposed to be at this point, so the setting went through 20 years sailing with the Ship of Theseus, with a captain whose sole focus seemed to be fantasising about dark elf matriarchs dominating him. In the middle of that, the game's Fourth Edition came as a messianic figure from the sky in both mechanics and setting, and was fittingly crucified, continuing the ever-expanding clusterfuck generously called the Forgotten Realms.
For me the retcons aren't even the worst part. There were zero logical reasons to name that game Baldurs Gate 3. It doesn't continue the story and the mechanics are completely different. They just misused the big name, to get people hype up, and sadly, it seemed to have worked.