The fate of Alexis Kennedy's contribution to DA4

Probably it was already scrapped when development was rebooted, which is for the better now.

Yeah, even Mike Laidlaw made a point of speaking up about him though he's not with BW anymore, and I think he was the one who hired AK for the work. Now I'm curious if they knew using him could blow up in their faces at any time. 

You are mentioning this literally out of nowhere. What prompted you to bring it up and what are you basing your "it's safe to say" conclusion on?

Its really much ado about nothing...probably. He was hired on just as a contract worker to flesh out a bit of the background lore maybe a faction. He wasn't on staff and really wasn't an employee. Whether or not whatever he came up with makes it into the DA4...I doubt we'll ever fully know. They'll probably just repurpose what he came up with and work it around so they can slap someone else's name on it and that will be the end of it.

You're welcome!

Would a reboot prompt a reboot of story and themes, though? Mechanics, I get, but story?
Maybe they didn't have that much already written for the game, only certain parts, Kennedy's part among them considering he was a freelancer and probably had limited availability.
Ooor, they might still implement stuff from the previous iteration into the new one like they implemented story beats and themes from the Exalted March cancelled DLC into DAI.

Okay, a probably controversial question:

Even if all this is true and his work is still in DA4 (a lot of assumptions in that last part), should it be removed? Future employers should reconsider hiring certainly, but I’m of the opinion that sometimes art can be taken separate from the artist as long as it isn’t objectionable in and of itself. If he produced quality work and BioWare decides to keep it (and I think it entirely likely that they took what he made and repurposed and modified it anyway by this point), I don’t think that would be a problem. They already paid for his labor anyway.

They can strip his name from the credits though.

I wouldn't be surprised if they've had it in contract that they can do with these story sections whatever they want. But I don't think it's a good idea to leave anything that would resemble the work of AK in the text - it would look too much like endorsement. Which is why I think it may have been a good idea to hire folks like Failbetter in his stead, IF there is still part of DA that they'd like to be written by someone else, maybe in similar style. After all, they still operate within similar style of storytelling/aesthetic and BW appears to be in good standing with the studio - many prominent devs were quick to retweet Failbetter's response to allegations and one of the victims is still with them as editor/writer. I think it would've been a decent recourse, especially that Failbetter itself could use some help these days.

As for 'separating artist from the art' - that's a longer discussion to be had, but I think I'm not the only one who feels that for too long this was an excuse used to do little about problematic part of that artist (or entrepreneur or some other big fish). IMO such behavior is exactly why there's so much toxicity within creative industries and beyond - if people were held more accountable for their actions, instead of their talent being used as a convenient shield (for person in question or for our own comfort), we wouldn't be in a situation where a lot of people we respect for their big or creative endeavors turn out to be line-crossing a-holes and abusers. And that's entirely aside from the fact that 'but their unique talent!' defense has likely blocked the path or outright destroyed no less uniquely talented people or their chance for recognition 

I think that, especially when it comes to recent cases, there will be time to re-assess their deeds in larger, nuanced discussion about approaching and enjoying stuff that's problematic - because a lot of stuff is problematic in one way or another and we can still enjoy them while recognizing problems within.

...But right here and right now, in current climate, IMO it's not a good idea to just try and do any convenient separating that will ensure that problematic creator in question will reap direct or indirect benefits from continued exposure to their work/contribution. The whole concept of separation as it is usually proposed is weird to me anyway, especially as someone who creates stuff herself. Like... you can't separate that sh*t from me - it IS a part of me, WTH  The whole concept of separation basically cancels the idea of self-expression, because if art can be separated from the artist then what do we need artists for anyway? I mean, they did hire Kennedy specifically because they liked his work, didn't they?

I think most people operate like this as well, even if on subconscious level. Creative works are oftentimes looked upon differently than many different products because they are created to impact people emotionally (although we've seen similar excuses to people on different fields as well). There's a reason why there's a terrible amount of discomfort or kneejerk reactions when we find out that what we like was created by someone who perhaps doesn't deserve to be liked/liked as much - because, ultimately, the whole separation thing is impossible. So, IMO, even exposure that brings recognition is still a form of reward for the perpetrator (especially that exposure to things that are emotionally-impactful or simply skillful can ply enough people into softening on creator or their misdeeds) and should be minimized, especially if the case is still very recent.

As for wider discussion, I agree with this video:

When did movements as #metoo became just about crimes and not also abusive behavior and crossing boundaries that contribute to toxicity within industry and may not result with formal accusations and sentencing, but at least carries consequences in professional life? People have been fired or shunned for lesser things and in this case we don't just have accusations of predatory behavior towards multiple women, but mobbing and professional retaliation.

And I'm fairly sure Bioware may know about more than current accusers who have decided to go public. Some did imply that they do know more, also in case of other people within the industry.

Well I disagree, but I won’t get into the bigger discussion here. Suffice to say that I don’t think the worst aspects of an artist are always on display in their work and the work must be evaluated independently to determine whether it is. You can invoke the subconscious all day but in the end if it isn’t in the text it isn’t in the text.

The issue of supporting the man himself through pay or exposure holds a lot more water with me (which is why I don’t think this issue is much to worry about with dead authors), but in this case its a bit of a non-issue as he was already paid and realistically how many people are even aware of the lead writers of their video games let alone the contract worker who worked on one small part years ago. They aren’t even obliged to give him a credit.

That’s what I suspect BioWare will do, use his work in whatever modified form it currently exists and scrub his name from everything they can.

Aside from me never saying or even implying anything about "the worst aspects of the artists being always on display in their work" (please point me to where you think I did?) this isn't about what is being in text or what is subconscious - this is predominantly about audience's reception and relationship with such art/artist.

If you know about artist being an a-hole then that informs you about something about the text, doesn't it? Even if the text itself presents something entirely opposite to what was revealed about the author. In fact, oftentimes this only makes things worse.

Anyway - gamers overall may not care about whatever small input guest writers may have left but the fact remains that Kennedy collaborating with Bioware on writing part of next DA was basically the first solid news we've learned about DA after they began production on it, and a point of positive publicity for both BW and AK. So there will be people curious about what has happened to his contributions, even if they will indeed scrub all traces of collaboration.

'What has surfaced' are unproven accusations of what sounds like possibly unprofessional conduct. What is morally irresponsible is condemning someone without any sort of investigation into the facts. Witch hunts are not a good thing.