... with no references to the parasitic and thieving relationship that the Tiefs perpetuate towards the Druids who feed them scarce food and shelter them from goblinoids (only 'evil' Kagha is allowed to even mention something so politically incorrect but glaringly obvious),
I'm curious about where you're getting this from, and am interested in hearing you explain it to me.
- Halsin offered a group of refugees shelter from the more-dangerous-than-usual situation of the goblin encampment.
- The teiflings take the space granted to them for this and contribute in some ways where they can (and where the druids *let* them contribute), such as serving in the grove's defence - on its front line, no less. When the assault comes, most of the tieflings will be dead long before even a single grove druid even mildly risks coming under attack.
- There is NO food shortage and NO water shortage. That is an outright fabrication and a lie by Kagha, and in fact it's ridiculous that any of the druids bought it even for a moment, because they are also druids... Unless the Kagha supporting druids are complicit in the lie, which they are telling to the tieflings who they expect will not know better... it's the only way it can make any kind of sense. They literally live on a fresh water river, and their grove is full of many druids who ALL have at least 1st level casting capabilities - they could comfortably feed half a city every day and not run out of food.
- The tieflings are here as refugees, on a journey elsewhere, and are not seeking to perpetuate this situation at all; they are looking forward to being able to leave and continue on towards their destination, as soon as the immediate danger has passed.
while putting those virtue signaling exhibitionist "anti thief" lecturing parents of Arabella out of their misery
Now you're just being abjectly hateful - you're talking about openly murdering a pair of parents who are afraid that the acting leader of the grove they have been
Offered shelter in is going to
Kill their pre-teen child (and in fact WILL do so if you don't intervene), for a childish act of petty theft, which she failed at. One of the people in this scenario is acting like an evil monster - it's not any of the tieflings.
Odd how you can kill cute but irredeemably malicious Goblin children such as One and Three with impunity, but can't do this with less cute but just as irredeemably evil Tiefling children.
Anyone who wants to go around throwing the term 'irredeemably evil' at mortal race children should not be making any kind of judgement. They aren't evil - that's just factual, in the realms setting. Fiends are evil. Tieflings are not fiends.
Is it right that we can kill the goblin children, but can't kill the tiefling children? No it's not; they should be treated the same... but it's a far cry from that to branding literal children as irredeemably evil and deserving of death - the only monstrous person in that situation is the one saying that in the first place. Mol is a piece of work, sure - not because she's a tiefling, but because she's just plain a nasty piece of work... but she's also a Larian staple. You'll find an exact character clone of her in their last game as well. She makes no sense and cannot/would not actually exist, and you can guarantee, because it's Larian, that when we get to Baldur's Gate, Mol will be running a competition thieves guild under the city and actually making it work... and mysteriously has knowledge and wiles beyond the possibility of her eight years, and is conducting dealings with hardened adult criminals and not being simply eliminated for trying to poke her childishly infantile nose into dangerous situations. Because Larian likes to recycle their ideas wholesale.
So... if you've got the time and energy... explain your perspective to me; I'm curious at how you arrived at it.
