Did Snape and Draco get redemption arcs? Or did they just not get punished for their crimes? Like Draco and his family fuck off during the giant final battle, sure, but that's all. They just don't actively continue killing people. They did plenty before, and didn't get punished for it. Did something happen after the books to give him redemption?
I'd say Draco has a redemption arc via Cursed Child. If this was confined to the original septology, no, I wouldn't say he's redeemed.
And Snape's "redemption" arc was that even though he was an abusive, lying, sniveling, racist, murderous asshole, it was okay because...he wanted to rape Harry's mom and didn't get the chance while she was alive.
Like Snape is evil, straight up. Even if his actions were "for the greater good" his actions and role was that of an evil person doing evil.
The Nazi double-agents in World War 2 who sold secrets to the Allies were still Nazis.
I completely disagree.
You can make the case that during the First Wizarding War, Snape's actions are entirely driven by self-interest, but that doesn't apply to his actions in the second, and everything up to that. Lily's dead, Snape has every opportunity to genuinely serve Voldemort, but he doesn't. Even after Voldemort takes over in the alternate timeline in Cursed Child, he still secretly works against him, even sacrificing his own life in the cause.
Snape isn't a paragon of virtue, but "evil?" Hardly.
Also, Nazi double-agents (or double-agents of anyone) are Nazis by technicality. If you're a double agent selling secrets, by definition, you're not allied to the cause you were originally part of.
So Grindelwald pretended to be 3 people in a department that doesn't doublecheck shit?
I'll grant you that one.
Not an argument.
I don't think there's a singular reason and it's a fantastically dishonest way of arguing to try and pin me to saying otherwise
That was your original insinuation. You've been dishonest this entire time.
And you just correctly assumed that the cultists piloting the largest fleet in the galaxy ever full of ships rivaling the Death Star in power was the brainwashed kids of this random sect of, until now, unknown cultists instead of y'know, the ex-Imperials already established in the story?
I find this hilarious. You just claimed I was focusing on "one singular reason," now you're throwing back one singular element.
Again, let's go over it:
-We see the cultists on Exegol.
-We see the ships on Exegol.
-It stands to reason that the Sith Eternal was involved in their maintenance to at least some extent
-No, I haven't seen any brainwashed kids, but that's one small part of the overall picture.
I already broke down the tweet ages back. The first part was obvious, the second part can be taken through implication.
...I'm not treating Hogwarts Legacy as canon, same was as I don't treat any of the myriad of Star Wars games as canon
So, you accuse me of dishonesty, but you consider yourself entitled to choose what is and isn't canon. Wow. Just wow.
Anyway, if you choose not to treat the games as canon, then this is an absolute waste of time.
Edit: Seriously, I don't understand this mindset. If you have such a low opinion of games, why are you even on a website that's mostly devoted to games?
Orcs having free will in Lord of the Rings is debatable
Feel free to debate it. Or not. I'm sure you'll just choose what is and isn't canon to suit your argument.
Orcs in Warhammer are Chaotic Violent, no more or less inherently evil than Dwarves or Humans (although saying so would make the Dwarves and Humans very cross with me)
...which is relevant to free will how, exactly?
Orcs, humans, and dwarfs all possess free will. Creatures like skeletons and zombies don't possess free will. Some daemons clearly possess free will (e.g. Belekor), some daemons don't seem to (lesser demons), some are in grey areas. The level of violence is irrelevant to the question of free will.
You are wrong. The monster manual is setting neutral and doesn't override any setting specific information.
I'm sorry, no doubt you understand more about DnD, but this doesn't make any sense.
I've already cited the multiverse aspect. If the multiverse aspect is incorrect, then the DnD lore wiki is wrong. If it is correct, then somehow, the nature of creatures within a multiverse can be changed, but somehow the setting isn't changed?
If, for instance, orcs in Warhammer are no longer brutes but actually a multi-dimensional, empathetic species, surely you'd call that a setting change?
Clarification that Orcs aren't always evil in the same way that Drow aren't always evil has been a long time coming given Drizzt Do'Urden is over 30 years old.
Isn't the whole schtick with Drizzt that he's very much the exception to the rule?
If they'd made this change 20 or even 10 years ago, it'd be entirely uncontroversial as most people already play that way, it's our modern era of profitable culture wars that made this an issue
I really can't see that. There's been retcons before in various IPs done for various reasons, they're usually controversial regardless of any external baggage.
Also, homebrew settings are only canon to the relevant home groups and not the D&D property, owned by Wizards of the Coast, subsidiary of Hasbro, obviously.
If that's true, then the wiki needs updating.