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

I know this is a troll post, but the double standard on #TLM and #DeathToAllGoblins is a little awkward.

People take this game way to seriously I want my fantasy detached from reality. I want stuff that offends people and makes them realise this genre of entertainment is probably not for them. Its fantasy, its not real..... Not everything in life has to represent a view or attitude or position in real life.

All Druids are Bastards.

It's easy to get bogged down in discussions related to the internal minutia of the game space, but please remember, that that isn't what this discussion is about.

It's about the actions of the developers, above the game - which is a very real thing, and not fiction or fantasy.

If the developers made a game where you scored points for killing disabled people, well, yes, you could say that it's all fiction and none of it is real, and not to get upset over it, but that wouldn't be the point; it would be about the choices and behaviour of the developers, and the statement they are making, and selling to other (very much real) people, with the game... and generally, it would not be considered okay.

The issue being raised is that here we have a situation where Larian have arbitrarily stepped in to say: "This is a representation of a child, of a people whom we have depicted as sentient and intelligent, and who have language and society and culture. We are not allowing you to murder this representation."

And then,

They have created something just a few stones throws away that says: "Here, on the other hand, is a representation of a child, of a people whom we have depicted as sentient and intelligent, and who have language and society and culture. You can murder THESE children, and in fact it's encouraged, because they're [insert race here]"

This is an 'above game' decision that Larian have made, that creates the undertones of an 'above game' message being sent, whether intentional or not... and it's a steeply racist one, that the game passively encourages you to partake in. They could have depicted the monstrous races as sub-humanoid, as more dramatically monstrous, and as less worthy of moral concern. They didn't. They chose to depict them as fully sentient, fully intelligent, language-using, personable, culture-bearing entities. That matters, for how they then encourage you to treat them.

Yes, the game is not real, yes its fantasy.... If that is the defence, however, then we absolutely need to be allowed to murder with equality - either no children of races depicted as sentient and intelligent can be wantonly killed, or they all can. Don't discriminate at an above game level on this.

I don't think we can kill the Goblin children because they're GOBLINS. I think we can kill them because they're clearly already dangerous sociopathic killers themselves (or are just a tiny step away from being so), and represent a clear threat to the lives of the peaceable citizens of the land. The Goblin children in the game are obviously adolescents, already capable of wielding weapons and already demonstrating sadism and psychopathic tendencies. You notice we don't see any really small and helpless Goblin children, no Goblin toddlers, no Goblin babies. If any of THOSE were in the game, and we could kill them, then I'd agree with you.

That's a fair counter, sure... but overall I still find it worrying as a thing to see. One step away from a killer is not a killer; almost mature is not mature, and tendencies towards certain behaviours are not, themselves, ingrained behaviours... It doesn't feel like a good writing choice for them to have made, all told, and there's precious little purpose for it.

I'd also just want to add to that...

It's not as though Mol is any better. She's not. She absolutely doesn't care if she gets people killed pursuing her plans, as long as they aren't her friends, and she plans to get to baldur's gate and start a thieves guild of some sort - and if you think for a moment that isn't going to involve silencing unwanted voices and blinding unwanted eyes, it most certainly will. She's not just impulsively violent - she's calculatingly homicidal, at a premeditated level (or, is one tiny step away from being so, to use that argument)

Goblins in D&D 5th are a playable race as well....

I think at least from my perspective is the goblins and their dialog and stories are far more interesting and deep than the boring tieflings.. literally they stand around the druid grove complaining fighting and getting in the way.. The goblins are busy partying and destroying the evil humans like goblins do but Larion humanised them to such a point people have started to feel for them.. And rightly so they are a sentient race..

In Warhammer goblins and orcs are hugely popular races these days with customers.. I think D&D folks are behind the times fantasy wise.

Monsters also have their own cultures and sentience. Both the literal and metaphorical monsters. That doesn't stop them from being monsters.

Well, what is killing the refugees supposed to represent then? Refugees who are for the most part normal folk shunned and persecuted because of their race and looks.

I think trying to assign a moral reasoning to what appears to be a commercial decision (avoiding potential censorship issues in some countries) is not going to work. Not in a game where the developers actively advertised for players to try the evil path.

In my personal opinion: just don't throw kids in the middle of combat in games, like with the goblins at the fortress. Then the player won't be put into a situation where they are supposed to justify why it's seemingly ok - from the game's point of view, not the player's - to kill one group of kids and not the other.

Its a game and always has been.....and I am with Auntie Ethel..........Halfling kids are tender and sweet but bad on the teeth, Human kids,nice little dumplings but you have to watch the weight. Elf kids are your vegan option.....but you will be hungry 30 minutes after you eat one( Drow have a bit of a bitter taste). Dwarf kids ah......best Jerky in the world but takes awhile to chew. Now petal them Tieflings and goblins both are fast food.......easy to get but not so tasty .

The kids aren't though, are they? Are they born this way? Or is it the culture, the tribe that enforces that? What would happen if you raise a goblin child as a human and vice versa? And when does a child become a "killable" adult? 10 years, 12, 14 or when you are allowed to vote? I do not have answers to these questions.
And there is the precedence of M'Khiin in SoD. She is a true neutral. Not an unpleasant person at all. Certainly capable of caring. While she does say that she left her tribe because she was "too elevated in her mind" to accept the brutality of it, she does not hold a grudge and she never states that she is one in a thousand. There could be many more like this.
Plus there is the issue, that these are Goblins, but still kids. And they are throwing stones, which is a phenomenon not unknown to human childs either, I am sure everyone has seen, heard or partaken in something similar. They are also running away, if I recall correctly. So no immediate threat.
At the same time, the game is a representation of a very liberal western society. The same moral code as in the US or Europe (and technically all around the world) and that has not changed a whole lot over the last centuries either. So when you have no objections to same-sex sex, transgender people, refugees with a distinctly different phenotype etc.. killing kids becomes hard to justify. Heck, even killing the owlbear cub in this game is something that meets resistance, naturally, since when was the last time you drowned a kitten yourself? it is just not something people tend to do, even in extreme situations.

I am not objecting to the scene. I see the gameplay value in having an encounter that could alarm the goblin camp. I am objecting to being able to kill the kids at all. It is also a legal issue. I'd suspect that in some time the BPjM here in Germany could deal with this scene in the future, once someone files a complaint. In the light of such a trial an index could be happening, which would mean the removal from Steam (and possibly GoG and other digital platforms as well).

Gary gygax once had an article about pretty much this.
I dont know where your moral quandry is here.

"Lawfull good" is not your modern morals. Killing goblin children is lawfull good. Nits make lice, which is the quote gary gygax used. Its a debate as old as the game itself.

Yup.

"At the same time, the game is a representation of a very liberal western society. The same moral code as in the US or Europe (and technically all around the world) and that has not changed a whole lot over the last centuries either. So when you have no objections to same-sex sex, transgender people, refugees with a distinctly different phenotype etc.. killing kids becomes hard to justify. Heck, even killing the owlbear cub in this game is something that meets resistance, naturally, since when was the last time you drowned a kitten yourself? it is just not something people tend to do, even in extreme situations."

Good points again, however, we (in my opinion) REALLY need to understand that fantasy is not real life. I think its a huge step backwards to start censoring art/games/TV etc just because the content "might" offend a few people. I think the problem is that some players are finding it difficult to put reality aside and just see where the narrative is going. I mean, this is a "world" populated by demons and devils and owlbears and wizards...... Do we start taking the devils seriously?? This to me is a disturbing trend that is insidiously creeping into books, tv, games and it needs to be halted. On the other hand, those are the things that influence a lot of people many of whom are incapable of coming to an independant conclusion on their own... The game is meant for adults, its challenging but that is not a bad thing.

The entire point of the "good" path in Act 1 is to 'take the devils seriously' lol.

same sex acceptance is not because FR shares the same moral values as our modern world.
it is because Greenwood wanted everyone to be bisexual due to him imagining FR as a world of sexual debauchery.

Heres a pointer for you. I FR, incest is considerd a normal family pasttime. Hows that for modern western morals. and no, pornhub is not a standard reference guide for modern western morals.

Oh yeah, it is always a thin line between artistic freedom and legal or moral boundaries. I do not see a stepback here though. In 1998 Half-Life had to replace the Marines with Robots in Germany, in 2008 Fallout 3 had to remove dismemberment for the German version. In "No Russian" of CoD Modern Warfare 2 the devs had to change the mission, so you can not shoot anyone. The international versions were on the index, which is not equal to a ban, it just restricts advertising and open selling, and selling to underage people, hence the reason Steam usually does not sell games on the Index in one of the biggest markets. In 2008 also a game called KZ-manager got banned and forfeited. Two years ago the usage of Swastikas was allowed in games due to a new classification of a law. Games can now be considered art and for educational reasons the usage is allowed. So I have seen a constant liberalisation in all forms of media over the last 20 years.
The question that can be taken from it were: Does a Fallout game need dismemberment to work? Do you need to be able to kill civilians, just to polarize and make a point, if that point even exists? And I can not agree that these games are for adults, the first BG rating was 12 years. Divinity 2's rating was 16 in Germany, 17+ for PEGI. Same for BG3, although this is mostly due to partial nudity and strong language, I suppose. That is hardly adult territory, and even then people can be influenced by this, that is why we have those regulations in the first place. So it being fantasy does not really matter, as there are people that can not differentiate and/or can not put what was seen into context. And these trigger points are different for everyone.
In any case an encounter like this can serve a purpose in any game. But apparently the context is limited to the kids throwing stones at an animal and then running away when combat starts. So what is the purpose? Is it educational? Does the game tell you, you did something "wrong"? Companion interactions? Consequences, like aborted quests, NPCs and traders not talking to you, companions leaving, the world knowing you as child killer? That would be considered context in that regard that validated such an interaction, if you get my drift.

Yet, 20 years ago, same-sex romance in BG2 was unheard, I do not even recall, if there was a single gay NPC in that game, let alone the notion that "everyone was bisexual". Drow were only starting to become accepted, Tieflings apparently not so much. And now in the year 2020 we had goblin companions, transgender companions, we can make drow and tiefling characters and general of almost every phenotype and skintone. We can also bonk anyone and there might even be nipples. And that holds true for many, many games of the last ten years, be it Mass Effect, Dragon Age, PoE even the Fallout series (which naturally started out more liberal).
Political issues like segregation, suppression, dislocation, and especially racism plays a much larger role in the recent years, sometimes even central. As the whole society became more liberal and accepting (on these issues at least), so did it's media.
.
On the topic of incest, well I suppose then genetics work differently in FR, because there are existential drawbacks of bonking your family. Additionally you do not have to go back far, like 50 years, to see that marriages within the family were not unheard nor frowned upon and sometimes even the norm.

I could be entirely wrong but don't the goblin kids run away? If this is the case then you clearly don't have to attack them. If they attack you then knock them out maybe? Not like you ever have to go back in that room.