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

I made you laugh. Thats good. People should laugh more. My point though was ...its not real. Devils dont exist.

Well made points and some I agree with. I get that Germans (for the most part) are extremly sensitive about using swaztikas in games, books etc. For years even over here in the UK, it was hard to find a model kit of say an FW190 that was entirely historically accurate because of the exclusion of swaztikas. Dont get me wrong, that symbol is about nothing more than hate, exclusion and intolerance and I despise it and those that worship it. But in the context of historical exploration, it needs to be represented even if its just to allow an understanding of just why its so utterly vile. If we forget, history could very well repeat. As they say.

Your point about fantasy being put into context I think is the very essential essence of these debates though. Context is everything and to me at least, this is a fantasy game that should not be a reflection of real life. To me, the very inclusion of the option to kill the gobbo kids and not the others is actually pretty powerful. Look at the discussions it has generated. My position is I would not want the choice, I do not want to splat kids as my character is not that kind of ....... character.

I know. I hope I'm wrong about what I said about this in my Kagha thread, but it may be that Larian wanted to make a point with the Tieflings and just forgot to apply that to the Goblins as well.

I read you could kill children in previous BG games. I remember clearly wiping out all of Beregost just to see if i could do it, and noticing children didn't care about fireballs. Was it changed?

Also, those particular gobelins are killable because they're part of the fight. That's all. And children in general aren't killable because that's a convention in most games, nothing more. It's just one of those points where you realize it's a game and therefore not a fully consistent universe.

For me it's a game design debate, not a political one. Since Larian didn't decide this 'no killing children' rule in games. Once you decided they'll be children playing in that camp, what could you do? They could pop off once the fight start, very immersion breaking. They could be invincible all the time except once the fight start, even worse. Or you can make them part of the fight and tell them to run away warn adults, wich lead to more story telling and an interesting gameplay choice, since they're quite fast^^. Mine usually find an empty camp so i just don't care^^.

What would be the point to directly confront the 'no killing children' rule in the tieffling camp? Nothing except letting players who just want to wipe out the grove to do it 'completely'. It's not worth breaking the rule.

And no, in Faerun, noone would think badly of you because you killed two young goblins rushing to their tribe to stop you from saving a druid. And eat you afterwards. You'd probably be criticized by the more zealous for letting them run away actually. Tiefflings however, if some knight told in a random tavern how he one day slaughtered them children alike, you would end up with a raging debate :p But the knight would be considered a criminal by the law anyway.


About fantasy and real life. I'm tired of the 'it's not supposed to be a reflection of the real world' thing. It's supposed to be a reflection of what? A universe where nothing is alike? Aren't the farmers growing food in exchange for money they need to buy tools and clothing in a feodal society? There are no empires, state-cities, pioneers and refugees? Are the wars fought because people don't agree about which color is the prettiest instead of land, economy, belief, political power? Are the rules for moral, demographic, art, history, logic, whatever, in the FR totally made up and making no sense at all? All those fantastical beings, gods themselves, aren't they moved by the same needs and fellings that move any beings in our real world? Last time i checked, players made characters driven by cupidity, lust, power, love, loyalty, knowledge, culture... and wanted to play in a world they could understand, predict, one where the setting is different but the rules are the same. It's not like if any author could invent different rules anyway. Racism, sexism and all those things some seemingly want to forget had always have been a strong part of the FR, notions used to ground this world. It define entire societies (looking at you, drows). And it was always depicted as a bad thing. Sure you can play a righteous zelot who slay anything that is different and think very good about himself. It's fine. But we all know than if the group stumble upon, let's say, a drow being burned by religious fellow for no other reason than she is a drow, the good choice is to free her. Even if she's evil, i guess deontology beat consequentialism in the FR. And it has all to do with the moral and political belief of the society in wich the game was made at the moment it was made.

It's interesting to see how it's precisely the issues we collectively still struggle to deal with that have the more weight in the moral outcome of our characters choices. For an exemple, you will hardly find any quest that confront the political system of the country/city you play in. If the king must be removed, it's not because he's a king, but because he's a bad king. If the council must be fought, it's not because it's not a democracy, but because its members are blind, corrupt, whatever.. That's because it's assumed we're all democrats, the debate is settled, so it's not very interesting to deal with, there is no tension. Since it's med fan, there is mostly feodal systems, but since it's fictional, you can find or make almost any system here and there, even anarchism :p Nobody cares as long as it's not totally unconceivable in a med fan world. But when it's about slavery, letting little monsters live or not, oppression, women in charge, military or diplomatic policy, religious confrontations, the place of strangers in a community... Now there's tension, now players will pick different options, probably quarrel with the DM about the outcome of their choices, and generally feel like those choices can build how their character see the world.

I wouldn't find role playing games interesting if my characters didn't have to position themselve about issues i actually care about. And i love playing an aristocratic, imperialist, expansionist, power hungry, and kinda racist human wizard. If the DM says it's evil when my character really think it isn't, fine, i did my job

1. Since when did pixels on a screen become "real"?

2. What is the definition of "role-playing"?

3. If I accidentally or purposely have my character walk into a bonfire...should that character be arrested for attempted suicide? Should I, as the directing party, immediately be arrested for attempted murder?

This thread is funny...and ridiculous. Nobody is "killing" anyone.

I understand about immersion into a fiction...sure...but when you start applying our Earth societal morals and systems of belief onto a fantasy setting that obviously does not behave or share the same ruleset (as the above poster said)...then YOU are breaking the role-playing.

Oh, suicide too :o We get the swearing or not, sincerely or not, 'i'll take the poison if i change', to Nettie

...one last point:

Ok you have created a character and imbued him/her with "life" and a set of imposed moral code...you are now 'god'. 'god' has no restrictions and can manipulate a character as you see fit...think of yourself as zeus with his little chessboard...free to make them move and do as you please. kill the kids, rape the harlots, milk the goats with your mouth...you are omnipotent and above such petty mortal restrictions. oh sure...maybe THEY wouldn't tie a rock to a kitten and throw it in a lava-pool...but as 'god' you get to make them do whatever you whim. I suggest you role-play 'god'.

I don't remember any invincible children in BG1 or BG2, are you talking about the originals or enhanced editions? The only invincible npcs I remember were plot-related (those that were necessary for the plot later, like Imoen in the first dungeon) and Arkanis Gath. And they weren't quite immortal, because players came up with a way to kill them and the devs never patched that.

The original BG1 i think, computers screen were small and not flat yet :p And there was no entropist. But it's a very old memory, i wouldn't be surprised to be wrong. Although i remember that very clearly.. Maybe i'm going to search for the original game and try it :p

Internet seem to say you can in BG but not in ID. Weird^^

Yea good point, a really good example of morality among monsters is The Witcher universe which separates the sentient but good creatures from the sentient but evil ones. There is so much nuance on the monsters and their types that you discover that many of them are misunderstood and have redeeming qualities making siding with them an intelligent and sometimes evil maneuver. In Act 1 Goblins are represented with no redeeming qualities (except laughing at Volo) that the "new" fantasy stories like The Witcher (or 5e Dnd) would bring forth. Drow got a pass back in the day and became beloved by players because they had an awesome character representing them but they are still inherently evil but here they are supposed to be in control but also being controlled at the same time so it's a difficult narrative to work with motivation-wise. If we are going to make goblins as beloved as they are in other fantasy universes and for similar reasons we have to make their leaders smarter, or at least more willing to listen to a good plan, having Minthara this static quest giver is just awful not to mention the fact that only Dror Ragzlin tells you directly to go to her. Big oversight here.


I saw someone comparing the goblins to chimpanzees which is accurate except they are endowed with this sentience, personality and life for the first time in a DnD game and it just feels a bit awkward and haphazardly done. In sword coast legends (a recent but failed DnD game) you are introduced to a group of ratmen living in the sewers and they will give you some great rogue gear if you stop the city from exterminating them. I think a solution like this for the grove v. goblins issue where you stop the grove from being attacked and negotiate the release of Halsin with Minthara, explaining that wiping out the druids grove is reckless and they should just wait to ambush the Tieflings on the roads and then attack the grove (perhaps you could go and falsely claim you had gotten them safe passage from the gobs).

It would make the goblins a more compelling choice that makes a lot more sense and go along with the newer idea of the goblins as a chaotic, but still sentient race who can be controlled rather than just random baddies to fill dungeons and do dumb stuff. This could still follow with a battle on the road and sneak attack on the grove and of course, a concluding goblin party and sweet drow lovin' but you would already have persuaded Minthara that you are worth keeping by hatching this dastardly plan. OR you could turn her plan around on her and replace her.

Also I found the lack of a neutral solution a bit disturbing considering we are dealing with druids here who are inherently neutral (except shadow druids).

But to get at the question here, yes it is wrong to kill innocent goblin children, the problem is that the only innocent ones are orphans or ones that have turned against their race and traditions. I find this argument so compelling and a part of why fantasy has made a come back, these moral quandaries are infinitely relatable to the human situation. But DnD games are known to be on the lighter side of fantasy and considering that no other computer game has attempted something like this in the DnD universe and done it well I give Larian credit for going all out on the design of the baddies, I just want some more complexity in their motivations and actions I guess.

Regarding the original post: and so?

Does the aauthor of the thread get what he is playing? I mean the set and so on? There are plenty of games that don't are based on wars and fights between diferent factions (wheter they are races, social classes, or a bit of both).

This is a game based on a tabletop game wich is inspired by a subset of narrative called fantasy, a set that has its root in medieval european history (something a lot of people tend to forget, lets take for example tha so called afro haircuts post).

Ok, medieval ages weren't the dark ages certain narrative would love to be.

Nevertheless those where centuries in wich every and each population saw other nationalities as different and somehow less worth of living. So many wars, so many massacres and slaughters, so much prejudice, some prejudices against some ethnics groups saw light in those years (near the end of the Middle Age started the prejudice against Cinti and Roma, not to forget the emargination of Jews ), no matter how much we want the setting to reflect our modern values the fact that medieval ages were violent, full of prejudice, didn't care for lives of children remains.

Also in the game you play a role of a character that belongs to a certain faction, with their ideas and prejudices, not to forget, as I said in other replies, that Larian plays it in a subtle way that is if the player takes the time to talk to the goblins, specially the kids, to massacre them has a different taste, more bitter and maybe even a little rancid, the main characters and companions become more nuanced and there's no side that can be labelled as completely good or evil. I don't know if Larian did this in purpose, however to me is an amazing fact and shows how Larian doesn't ignore the ethic and moral values of our modern society, even if they don't do it in a explicit way (as I said to consider Goblins something more than cannibal pillagers there is the need to talk with them, adults and children).

On a last note: we have two paths, save the thieflings (killing the goblin leaders, and as far as i got reading the forum there is a strategy that allows not to slaughter all the camp), or save the goblins (killing the thieflings).

Vincent you realy dont get my point.
Real life morals influence game design, btu were talking about in universe morals. In universe, everyone was bisexual form the start, thats how Greenwood envisioned it. back then, people were afraid to show that (ToEE did it first i think).

Likewise, now the game would be afraid not to show ethnic minorities, for example. but thats the falvor of its time and not neccesarily reflecting the actual world.

Point is, killing Goblin children is probably fine and dandy in FR. They are followes of evil deities, they are evil creatures and they are pests. Kid goblins turn into adult goblins and thats why people kill them.
You CAN play almost anything in DnD, doesnt mean that they arent evil or arent hated by civilized people.

The point i was making about morality is that while FR might appear on the outisde to be a modern western liberal set of morals, thsi is simply not true. Just because theres same sex marriage doesnt mean that Palladins stringing up bandits and goblins on trees isnt also a thing that happens.

To be honest Goblins are despicable creature by nature. Opportunist and most of the time even coward. Their Strenght comes with the number and they often attack in pack on easy target. During my playtrough i was put in between a choice to leave the Goblin children run and allow them to warn all the camp or get rid of them then deal with the adult. I chose the latter with no regrets. Goblins are evil. When you first meet the goblin childrens they not only playing with a corpse they also threaten you.
While i dislike absolutely invincible npcs. Childrens are often in videogames.

I won't make a comparsion between Tiefling child and Goblin child. Tiefling are born and often victim of a lot of prejudice due to their fiendish heritage but not all of them end to be evil.

Goblin on the other hand are a despicable evil race. So. The only good goblin is a dead goblin.

So you're telling me it's okay to kill a cute little scamp like this,



But not a literal spawn of a devil?
/s

That image is pro-goblin propaganda and I will not be deceived by it.

Have none of you read Snuff by Terry Pratchett!!!! And yes, that image is cute. Gobbo's are not cute. Are they?? I dont know any more.

If not the 'true soul' business those gobbos would probably kill our little party of adventurers. And then kick Laezel's body making her nose even more flat. It is really simple choice for me.

Absolutely! WIth fire!

he is just trolling