Do you think that non horror / horror adjacent belongs here?

No. I'm still rolling my eyes at D&D and Lara Croft.

But I think the first Terminator movie is a straightforward horror flick.

Sure, Strahd would have been fine, but the D&D chapter is what it is, and I think Vecna and the survivors have really bad designs. Even their other cosmetics look like they're made to be as tacky as possible, like being an adventurer requires wearing only what you can find in thrift shops.

Strahd would have been better but Dracula is the more important vampire, so while I dislike the D&D chapter, if I had to choose between Strahd and Dracula, it would be Dracula any day of the year.

Horror Adjacent depends on how close. D&D for example REALLY tows the line between acceptable and not (since you can straight up make a horror campaign and there's even a horror setting with Ravenloft, but Vecna's more along the fantastical side of things, even if he's a rotting corpse held together by the souls he's stolen and placed in his phylactery), but something like Jurassic Park, which borders along a full-on Slasher series at times, or Terminator would fit depending on which film you're taking from.

Non-horror IPs straight up don't belong in a horror game. I don't care how much inspiration the Survivor timeline of Tomb Raider took from The Descent, the IP as a whole is an action-adventure with supernatural (NOT the same as horror) elements. Even if Lara works PERFECTLY as a CHARACTER, she is still incredibly out of place and just shouldn't have been added. Though I would much rather have these than real people.

The official perspective is that anything which has room to fit into the horror genre is fair game, a perspective I would agree with if I thought BHVR was good at doing that(Vecna doesn't belong here). That's why we got DnD and Castlevania, which aren't strictly horror series but have prominent horror elements. I think it's worth noting, though… Terminator is a horror movie? The series definitely becomes more of an action series, but the first isn't even just adjacent to horror, it's in every sense just a horror movie. Terminator is absolutely fair game.

If you're asking me, Wesker is about as non-horror as I'm willing to accept. He's a very actiony version of the character that doesn't belong and gets in because Nemesis put in a good word. Vecna is beyond the Wesker Threshold.

So the Entity can take say a female race car driver, as long as her name is fictional Rachel Parker and not real life Danica Patrick? What's the difference? They took a horror movie actor and wrote lore to bring him into the game. The lore behind Nicolas Cage is that he was set to play The Blight in a movie, and the Black Veil set him up, so that when he was rehearsing the scene where Talbot Grimes (The Blight) summoned the Entity, Nicolas Cage actually summoned the Entity for real.

The way I see it, since the Entity can take any person, any time, any where, again I ask what's the difference between a race car driver named Rachel Parker and one named Danica Patrick?

(Note I am not saying they need to add Danica Patrick, just she was the first non-horror real person I thought of to compare to someone who would be fictionally added to DBD)

I mean, you are entitled to your opinion, but its' already been established before Nicolas Cage that all fiction exists as real somewhere in the world of Dead by Daylight. Feng Min has a "cosplay" outfit for Jill Valentine and another one for Cheryl Mason, showing that until she met her in the Entity's realm, Feng thought Jill was just a fictional character and so was Cheryl. Plus, even if that wasn't the case, the point of the lore is that The Black Veil manipulated things to take Nicolas Cage into The Fog. So one of them probably wrote the script, etc. So that doesn't make the game fictional, just that The Black Veil exists and were making a movie (but probably just to help the Entity kidnap people, as that's what they do.)

I strongly prefer straight horror for licenses. For example, while TR and DnD are horror adjacent enough, they just don't do much for me. I still think of this game as a sort of "Horror Hall of Fame" and I'd much rather they just keep expanding on that

I think the game needs to intentionally stay the horror juggernaut that it is.

Like others Wesker is probably my limit.

Except all original characters regardless of theme are objectively horror characters by default because they were made for Dead by Daylight itself, which is created with the focus to not only be a horror game, but is also classified and advertised as being one.

Lara Croft however is not a horror character because Tomb Raider is not a horror game, it has never been classified nor advertised as being one and while it has some scary elements here and there, they are not the main focus of the franchise. Tomb Raider itself is closer to that of Indiana Jones and Uncharted than it is to anything horror related.

I think Lara Croft is the only real outlier I've seen that made me question "is this horror enough for DBD" but also, who cares, it's hilarious and silly and cool that Lara Croft is in the game. The more stuff in the game, the better IMO.

I was thinking about this and the most ridiculous thing I think they could add while still being arguably horror would be Homer Simpson, due to the Treehouse of Horror episodes. And truthfully, I think I'd buy a Homer Simpson/Treehouse of Horror chapter.

Nah. If they are going into the Simpsons IP then it'd either be Kang/Kodos or Sideshow Bob.