That's a fair and true point, but (if I remember rightly) the use of Dementors at Azkaban is actually brought to an end after the books' plot.
They are, replaced by aurors.
Everything is racist, everything is homophobic, everything is sexist. You just have to twist your view of it a little.
How dare you say such a racist, homophobic, sexist thing, you horrible person!
It doesn't, because they were gonna do it.
Grindlewald was going to do it. Not "they."
You're going in an endless loop here. I can't tell if you're more mad that Grindlewald was able to infiltrate MACUSA, or that MACUSA practices capital punishment. From a storytelling perspective it's irrelevant because we're never shown how Grindie managed to impersonate Percival, we can take the writer at writ that he managed to do so. From a worldbuilding standpoint...yes, and? MACUSA practices capital punishment and segregation. No-one explicitly comments on the former, the latter is treated as a bad thing by characters (e.g. Newt) and by musical cues. We can safely assume that Grindie is working outside the bounds of the law because he's already broken the law, and doesn't tell "Steve" that he's taking characters to be executed.
Fucking hell, I've got to accept barely explained twitlongers and mobile game lore and you haven't even seen the primary source?
Says the person who's seen Rise of Skywalker and has to have basic things explained about the movie.
Anyway, the third film wasn't even relevant until you brought it up.
I hate arguing on the internet.
So do I, but here we both are.
If I had to suffer through this shit, so should you
And are you going to "suffer" through other sources, or is that all on me?
The source for *that specific claim* is pottermore and a mobile game. The line before that was "wizards thought it was amusing when the muggles tried to burn them, and some of them played along, setting themselves up to be "burned" multiple times"
First, claiming the medium type of the source is irrelevant to the source itself. If anything, Pottermore is more authorative than most sources since it's an example of "word of God."
Second, you're right in a sense, that's the original line, the lore was since expanded - the Salem Witch Trials are part of that, it also covers witch-hunts in Europe and Africa.
A witch-hunt was the Muggle search for and punishment of persons suspected of being witches or of practising witchcraft.[1][2] The period of witch-hunts in Europe and colonial North America spanned roughly the 14th century to the 18th century.[2][3] Those targeted by these hunts may or may not...
harrypotter.fandom.com
Even if you claim it's a retcon (it certainly made me go "wait, what? when I read it ages ago, though I wouldn't call it one), the retcon hasn't been retconned, so the current lore as it stands is that witch-hunting steadily became more intense, and explains a lot of anti-Muggle sentiment.
Never said it was, chief. Just know that the vast majority of people hated the GoT ending so much the series basically stopped being talked about
There's a lot wrong in that statement, but back to your original claim, you really think that the reason people dislike the ending of GoT is that Westeros doesn't become a democracy by the end of it?
Have you watched *that* one? Because no it fucking didn't
Yes, I have, and yes, it did.
It shows the fleet, it shows the cultists, it shows the Sith troopers. As much as I dislike Rise of Skywalker, that the cultists are Sith is explicitly confirmed, and that the fleet was on Exegol is again self-evident.
Lmao, I'm not gonna pull a Wookieepedia and start assuming videogames are explicitly canon.
That's not a Wookiepeedia thing, that's a common sense thing. If a game, or anything is published in an IP, the default position is to treat it as canon unless there's significant inconcistencies within it and/or there's explicit confirmation that it isn't.
And if videogames AREN'T explicitly canon, then I assume you're not treating Hogwarts Legacy as canon either? Because otherwise you're just picking and choosing.
Only this game, the game the thread is about.
Come on, this back and forth has barely dealt with the game, it's dealt with the IP. And if you're discussing an IP, you have to agree what canon is.
Demons do not have free will in D&D, they're created metaphysical constructs. They have flexibility in thinking to accomplish their goals, kind of, but their goals are not their own. Orcs are not a hive mind in D&D either, so that's a really fucking weird argument
The hive mind example was to distinguish between free will and hive minds in general. The demons reference was to demons in general, not DnD demons.
But by your example, if orcs have free thinking in deciding their goals, then surely that counts as free will. For instance, orcs are often depicted as monsters in various fantasy pieces (Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, etc.), all of them still have free will.
You say that people were mad that lore aspects of the setting were changed. That would require the Monster Manual to have a setting to change
Correct me if I'm wrong:
*Orcs in DnD were retconned
*People were aggravated that it happened, especially for the reasoning behind it
*Dungeons and Dragons operates on the principle of a shared multiverse, where every campaign setting is canonical, as well as homebrew settings
*Orcs being retconned in one, more, or all of these settings is, by definition, a change to the setting, because you've taken what was previously stated as fact (orcs are evil) to new canon (actually, orcs aren't all evil).
