I already explained how evil endings for games have you destroying the entire world. In that instance children will be killed. Whether it's your character unleashing some sort of evil upon the world or becoming a vessel for a demon it all leads to the same result and the forces of pure evil do not discriminate.
You've referenced the ending of Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal where you can become Bhaal's successor. This is not the same as destroying the entire world since there are other deities as well.
Has this happened in the Middle Ages? Yes. Would the "unholy god of death" do this? Yes. Does that mean it has to be part of a role-playing game in which you can play evil characters? No.
Says who? Do you happen to have the legendary book of "What a real RPG is and how RPG's should be played"? I didn't think so. The fact is, if the option is there then it's there for a reason.
Says me. There's no logical reason why every single atrocity that has ever occurred in the Middle Ages would
have to be part of a computer role-playing game. Who needs a book to verify that logic? And sometimes options are only there because nobody thought of combinations that make them possible.
So it's fine killing adults who could have families themselves but anything beyond that is bad? Okay. So next time you encounter a bandit in Divinity 2, don't kill him because who are you to say that he's not simply a bandit to provide for his starving diseased children who will die GRUESOMELY if he quit his job? Oh and say the bandits are FORCING him to be a bandit and he has no choice but for the love of his children, he is doing what he must to ensure their survival.
I don't understand your point. If you play a goody two shoes in every game then that's fine by me. I have no problem with that but I don't get why you expect me to do the same when I have fun playing characters of all alignments.
That's a rather bad attempt at mind-reading because I neither wrote there should be no evil options in games nor do I want that. I also play characters of different alignments. My point is that being able to play an evil character doesn't mean there is an option for every imaginable atrocity.
I've got nothing against being able to kill children in a role-playing game, but you act as if one couldn't play an evil character without that option and that's simply not true. Computer role-playing games will always omit some parts of the character's life. I don't mind if killing children isn't actually possible, but left to the player's imagination because some players say this is more than they can bear.
