Originally Posted by Orbax
It wasn't an edgy decision, it was a bad one. It removed agency and option and got a player briefly involved in a bad situation they were intended to fail at just so the DM could make a point. There are other ways to do it like just have you make a perception check and see this happen across the way, otherwise you see a dead body and need to ask someone so they tell you who did it otherwise a snake did..

As a DM, if the argument is narrative and mechanics, they did a piss poor job of it and I could spend all day writing down more interesting things that could happen that the players could be involved in that also drove home the fact that choices matter. Making choices matter and then restricting their ability to choose and act is a dick move.

Can I justify what they did? Yes. I can actually justify just about anything. The question is what is the best way to do that and I cannot imagine a scenario where I would end up choosing what they did.

I disagree. And I'll tell you upfront I'm not a D&D guy, not that I think it should matter anyway. I think you miss the point here. This moment in the game is not really about mechanics, and it's defiantly not about the child or the player. This moment is about Kagha. The only change I would say might be valid is to remove the option to change the outcome altogether. The player's choice in a video game is not the same as a player's choice in a D&D session. and there is no DM. there is a story, in which the player has some choice regarding how it will unfold, but the player can't (and shouldn't) be able to affect every single event in the game. because you just can't account for that if you are not a human DM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."