Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings

My take on it is that there wasn't any particular decision-making behind it other than "what might be required for particular quest outcomes?" Things like this may be standardised at a later stage of development.

I really would like that to be the case.
At this point my guess is that the OP wanted to star a little flamewar. It produced some interesting bits of satire so far.

Hopefully WotC won't try to enforce their new marketing "inclusivity" on Larian. Especially their newest change that "everyone is unique and special" so that you can freely switch around your racial ability modifiers (+2 strength halflings, etc.) because biology having an influence on your physical or mental attributes is racist.

So my very minor issue is this: Why are we bringing "real world" into a fantasy game discussion? If I wanted to deal with the real world 24/7, I wouldn't be playing fantasy games. I'm sure not looking around as hard as I can to find things to be offended by either. I mean, if one looks hard enough, they can always find something to be offended about.

So I guess my question to the OP is this: Can you side with the goblins, and wipe out the Druid Grove? If the answer is yes, then they've picked the wrong topic to be offended by, because there are children in the Grove. I know that I have failed a dialog check that resulted in the death of a tiefling child, so it would seem that this imagined immunity from death is just that, imagined. That's not including references made in this thread that I haven't personally seen, just the one I have, and already I'm left thinking "Are we playing the same game".

I just got to this part in the Goblin camp area - the Worg Pens, specifically.



I'm not a huge fan of "If you're not evil, you must attack these children right away." Even leaving aside morality, that's not very intuitive, nor does it allow for any sort of flexible approach or strategy. I do not like it.

The way the deaths of children are handled seems to be exaggerated and over the top, like it's trying to be edgy to make a point about how edgy it is to have the deaths of children in the game.




That's dialogue. I think he means you can't force-attack the Tiefling children in the camp. I haven't tried that so don't know if it's accurate, though.

The DC for the Tiefling child death is 18 for Persuasion and 20 for Nature, which are extremely high for level 2-3 characters, and the game offers no way to mitigate that or have a partial success. It's pass a DC 18 or watch a child die in agony, sucker.

As I recall, you have the option of agreeing that death is a good punishment because she's a thief. I might be misremembering, but I know that some of the dialogue is fairly hard on the tiefling's chances.

Because Wizards of the Coast, the owners of D&D have lately quite often brought real world into their fantasy game for marketing purposes, first be their "No race is evil" statement, the changes they do to Orcs and Drow because them being evil is racist and now their "everyone is special" rules changes that basically remove ability scores from races as everyone is free to trade them around, again because apparently the biology determining your strength is racist according to them.

I failed it on my Rogue, but passed it on my Ranger. I don't recall what the roll was supposed to be. It's not like I'm actively trying to run around and force attack children, Goblin or otherwise either.

Or, alternatively, enough players are going, "I have in mind a character concept for a race and class, but I don't get any racial bonuses to get to a 16 in that class's favored ability from point buy, and still like to make the character without the rest of the people at my table yelling at me for playing 'suboptimally'."

I got enough flak for saying "I'd like to make a Halfling Wizard" just in a D&D thread on a discussion forum, before even getting to a table.

I was roundly berated over on RPGNet for daring to suggest that players could design characters that were sub-optimal but fun to play.

"You shouldn't play a healer because the DPS versus the healing times the average hits... blah blah blah. You're letting everyone else at the table down."

Some folk take their hobby far more seriously than I do.

I agree. In this forum and others, I have noticed people taking video games way too seriously even DnD. When it comes to Baldur's Gate, I see a lot of people bringing up DnD rules and such but based on my research through WOTC, they claim it's not set in stone. These rules are in place to help you play the game and not mean to take over in your game play. Especially when it comes to characters and their personalities and such, WOTC has their own canon but that doesn't mean you can't create your own. The one thing that is stressed by WOTC is that the most important part of DnD is storytelling. When there are players that want to push forward the rules, that takes the fun of playing DnD away.

All should be fair game.

I just let them run away (even turned off my Attack of Opportunity for that fight.)

The point is that if you can kill Goblin children, you should be able to kill any other children in the game.

It's an argument of consistency.

Both WOTC and Larian are strongly advertising both tabletop 5e and BG3 to all the current SJW diversity stuff for marketing and social media credit, so they should apply those views consistently in this game.

The arguments are not being made because people are being SJWs, they are pointing out the flaws that WOTC and Larian have already made such statements but may not be applying them in this game.

I haven't actually checked if you can kill any of the non goblin children in the game as it isn't something I would normally do in my playthroughs, I've heard from some people you can and this thread that you can't.

However my brain had the exact same curiousity as the OP when I got to Halsim's cell and found out you could kill the Goblin children.

What goblin children?

Actually, they shouldn't apply them at all. Keep the real world political stuff in the real world, and leave my fantasy games alone.

Argh...I see people advocating for similar blanding of races and abilities in ESO (my other "play a lot" game).

I LIKE the fact that certain races/gender/culture/background can be a starting point and a limitation. I'm had pressed to understand how that can be racist; but then there are silly and uneducated people everywhere.



I offer you sympathy and respect for working with such choices - I really like the unusual choices that make playing a particular character fun...or challenging...or both.

If I want to be a follower of the absolute and slaughter children that's my call. I'm disappointed that the only children I can kill are the goblin children. Sometimes I want to save everyone, sometimes I want to play through a second time and be the most horrible individual possible. Maybe I want to know what dwarf tastes like, and maybe dwarven children are like veal.

Ok I just went ahead and tried it to confirm, you can't kill the tiefling children, they just go down to and stay invincible on 0 HP.

I agree with the OP that there shouldn't be any difference between being able to kill Goblin children and those of any other race.

Either they should all be killable, or none of them should be.

+1

But I'd rather it's all