Yeah but that's my point. Today, in many Star Wars video game and stories, Imperials aren't so evil anymore. Gone are the days when this was true: the Empire is full of evil people to be sure, but it rules through fear, people are cowed into evil because they live under a regime that normalizes it. This is actually a important aspect of the lore because its the actual manifestation of the conflict between the dark and light sides of the force, as the Empire's power grows it's influence on the people of the galaxy does so as well, and with that so does the dark side."
The directions Star Wars is heading in is that sure there were leaders in the Empire who were evil, but there were also many people who served the Empire who didn't realize just how bad it was. Take the Battlefront 2 video game.
She becomes a good guy and joins the Rebels after learning just how bad the Empire really is during Operation Cinder.
. There are more and more Star Wars stories like this popping up. Even look know how they are humanizing Boba Fett. He was once this terrible ruthless cold-blooded mercenary bounty hunter, and now they're turning him into someone who wants to rule with respect in Jabba's place. What the crap is that? He was one of the most iconic villains. He was ruthless and the best bounty hunter in the galaxy, and now they are turning him into a good guy.
As for the Hutts, you are right. They made a vast majority of them gangsters. It is rare to find a Hutt in any story that isn't a vile gangster. I did always think that was stupid. I created a Force using Hutt one time while playing the Star Wars RPG. Now that was fun. The players also seem to like it a lot. This big old Hutt wielding a lightsaber and lifting things with the Force. Slow as could be, but quite effective nevertheless because the Force was his ally.
Anyway, I felt guilty at first killing goblin kids, but then I thought about it and realized that they are little monsters who eat people. So then I was fine with it. Still, just the fact that they do exist in the game does make it a bit of a moral question that springs up in your mind whether you want it to or not. I'm okay with them leaving it in the game because they are flesh eating monsters, but I certainly wouldn't mind if they took it out so that people don't have to have some sort of moral conscience issue when playing a video game. It's one thing to murder a bunch of goblin warriors and such. It's another thing to kill kids even if they are monsters.
I think the issue at play here is really that the concept of "monster" is considered antiquated.
As you know, the ability to speak makes you intelligent. And being intelligent means you are human, so inherently True Neutral...I mean something something Free Will something something Pelagius.
One of the worst things Star Wars did was start making this same mistake. What was fun in the original movies was that the Empire was evil and bad. The Rebels were good. What was so fun was that Stormtroopers were inhuman bad guys you could kill without remorse, like shooting endless armies of battle droids. Luke Skywalker killed millions of Imperials by blowing up the Death Star, and it was awesome because he killed millions of bad guys.
Then they made the Empire maybe not so bad, humanizing Stormtroopers and making it all more realistic. Suddenly, Stormtroopers were people with families and such. Imperials might be people just fighting for legit peace and justice. They just aren't on the side of the Rebels. So who's bad or good anymore?
And just like that, it's not as much fun because now a single Stormtrooper death makes one wonder. Did I kill someone good who is just not on my side with my agenda? Where once I could run around in my backyard shooting stormtroopers for pretend and hacking them all down with a lightsaber and I'd feel like a superhero, now I must question the morality of my fantasy story. Was Luke actually the good guy or the bad guy? He murdered millions with one shot. These were people who had no say whatsoever about the decision of some murder hobo Moff. They were government employees just trying to work for a living.
Now, all my childhood heroes are villains because people want to make the fantasy story more realistic. Han, Luke, Leia... They're now all murderers butchering innocent people just because they want democracy instead of a monarchy.
My interest in the Star Wars franchise sharply dropped when...
...The Empire started to become more "misunderstood" and less "malicious".
...The Republic (Old or New, take your pick) became surprisingly corrupt or even no better than The Empire.
...the Jedi became religious fundamentalists terrified of the prospect of losing their influence.
..."The Force" was split into "The Light Side of The Force" and "The Dark Side of The Force" and darkness somehow became equally as important; this is probably my biggest bugaboo with modern Star Wars. The "Dark Side" is a corrupting presence one needs about as much as an otherwise healthy individual needs a concentration of cancerous cells.
Most of these changes began and remained in the Expanded Universe, but some of them have been brought to the silver screen and/or smaller screens (i.e., over media streaming services).
Originally Posted by GM4Him
This is not reality. That's why it's fun.
I have no love for real monarchies, though my characters would support a just king and a peaceable kingdom.
I have no desire to scavenge cemeteries, loot mausoleums or plumb crypts, though my characters will explore such places and likely obtain treasure from them at some point.
I have never considered traveling into primeval forests while armed, armored and laden with supplies in search of purpose, though my characters engage in this sort of behavior on a regular basis.
I have little bravery, though my characters will battle all manner of mundane animals and mythological monsters while holding fast to their courage.
I have no religious belief, though my characters worshiped and will worship gods.
--- --- ---
At a certain point and on some level, learning how to differentiate between the romanticized adventures you explore with others and the realities you must take into account in order to live a healthy life becomes vital.
Originally Posted by GM4Him
As for tieflings, yeah. Never evil. Neeshka from Neverwinter Nights 2 was the first tiefling I ever encountered. Never evil. Mischievous and devious, maybe, with a splash of moral ambiguity, yes, but not evil. There's quite a difference. Never were they man-eating vile murderous monsters as a race.
The original Tiefling Alignment was "Any Neutral or Evil", so it was theoretically possible to find a Tiefling upholding the law (Lawful Neutral) in addition to a Tiefling that just wanted to be left alone (Neutral -> "Live and let live."). Outright heroic Tieflings were out, unless you counted "heroic by comparison" (i.e., any being of Neutral Alignment is heroic when compared to those that are Evil).
3e's Tieflings were "Usually evil". Good-aligned Tieflings became possible, though they were generally malevolent.
Now that it's hip to play a character demonic in appearance, however, they're pretty much any Alignment and not predisposed to any particular (im)moral or (un)ethical behavior. Over the course of their published history, Tieflings were typically Evil, infrequently Neutral and rarely Good.
Note how this fabricated quandary mostly applies to humanoid monsters. Few people are going to lose sleep if, say, a Hatchling/Wyrmling Green Dragon (i.e., an intelligent, man-sized, armored and aerial chlorine-spewing engine of devastation) is killed.
..."The Force" was split into "The Light Side of The Force" and "The Dark Side of The Foce" and darkness somehow became equally as important; this is probably my biggest bugaboo with modern Star Wars. The "Dark Side" is a corrupting presence one needs about as much as an otherwise healthy individual needs a concentration of cancerous cells.
We can thank missinterpretting Revan for this shit. -_-
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
..."The Force" was split into "The Light Side of The Force" and "The Dark Side of The Foce" and darkness somehow became equally as important; this is probably my biggest bugaboo with modern Star Wars. The "Dark Side" is a corrupting presence one needs about as much as an otherwise healthy individual needs a concentration of cancerous cells.
We can thank missinterpretting Revan for this shit. -_-
I think it goes back further than Revan, though he was a big contributor.
Well the phylosophy about "grey jedi" was mostly presented in KotOR series ... First there was Jolee Bindo ... and in second Kreia ... Of course Revan, as one of most famous characters pushed it a lot ... im honestly not quite sure why so many people believe that he was so "incredibly powerfull" ... I mean sure, we is known for "walking both Dark and Light path" ... even tho originaly it was first one and then the other, not both at once ... but still, it seems much more understandable that moral around Light and Dark is something like ... dunno, seesaw(?) ... either you are incredibly strong on one side, but completely useless on the other, or other way around ... and yes, theoreticaly it is possible to ballance things out and stand right in the middle, but then you should not be able to reach top of either.
Sadly since KotOR (or at least that is when i first heared about this) people start to think that once you reach your full potential in Light side, you can go study Dark side and earn absolute mastery in both. :-/ Wich by the way, was exactly Revan case ... especialy in the book. And wich by the way is exactly the reason i hate this guy. (This and that undearned overhype around him ... i mean what did he achieve anyway?)
---
I think the same case can be used in Baldur's Gate ... While multiclassing is possibility (think about it as trying to play Grey Jedi, taking just the best of every part) ... you should never be able to reach potential power of pure Class. At least that is my opinion ...
---
And just so i dont purely offtopic ... I sill dont care about moral question of killing Tiefling kids ... i dont even care how inocent, or contextualy forced they are to live like criminals ... i just want to have option to hit Mol in the face, bcs in the whole game there is nobody who would deserve it more ... well, maybe Shadowheart ... and Astarion ... sometimes Wyll ... Kagha ... ok, there are others, but i want to hit them all.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 08/01/2201:57 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
I was referring to expanded universe books and comics for Star Wars. Before KOTOR, there were many EU publications that started to move towards the whole "Bad is not necessarily bad" thing.
The irony is that Lucas said he originally created Star Wars as a black/white story of good vs. evil. The original intent was good is good and bad is bad. The Empire was to be like Space Nazis, and the Rebels were fighting against the evil regime.
But people started moving it further and further from the original intent, making it just like so many other stories; everything is gray and there is no such thing as good and evil.
And D&D is doing the same thing. It started as you play a hero vanquishing evil and saving people. Even if you played a Raistlin character (from Dragonlance), you still were a hero fighting evil.
Now, you can be the bad guy if you want. You don't need to be a hero at all. You could even play a flesh eating orc or whatever and go around being totally bad. Although that allows for more variety and freedom, it turns the original concept of the game on its head, making it gray and confused and muddled and a bit too real for my tastes.
But, unfortunately, that's how the majority like it, it seems.
Rebells are still freedom fighters and Empire is still Space Nazis ... But also Rebells are in fact just terorists, and Empire (no matter how strict) is still legal goverment.
I was thinking that you are criticising the "mastery in everything" kind of attitude that KotOR bringed.
---
I dont think that "bad is not necesarily bad" is wrong attitude ... After all perspectives of things being bad or wrong are changing over time, that is how our society i evolving in general matter ... thinks like gender or religion prejustice, racism, or slavery was just several decades moraly okey, since society concidered them normal, and today we concider them being bad ...
I dont want to imply that our fathers and grandfathers was easy ... But one have to objectively agreed that plot in stories back then was to say at least "not much complex".
Sure, in old stories there was allways "evil sorcerer" or "evil king" or "evil race" ... but society moved from there, now people are asking why would that "evil *XY*" do what he did ... And just "because they are evil" is no longer acceptable. :P
After all, if i remember corectly even you were complaining that you would like to see some better reasons for our characters for acting evil, than "just being evil". :P
So i think this isnt matter of Star Wars, nor DnD ... that is just society evolving and genre reflecting that evolution.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 08/01/2204:47 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
I realize society is changing. My point is just that the more you make everything gray, the less the story is about good vs. evil. The less the story is about good versus evil, the more real it becomes and the more complicated and less simple and just plain fun.
Sure, dark fantasy that is more complex and real has its place. BG3 is a dark fantasy, so it should have elements that are more complex and real. I'm not saying that it shouldn't. That's why I said that I don't necessarily have a problem with them leaving the whole goblin kids thing in the game.
But my point is that by leaving the goblin kids element in the game, you are going to have a more complicated moral dilemma that you are putting your players in. Naturally, there will be players who feel guilty about killing goblin kids just because their kids. If you do that, then you need to expect that there are going to be players who are not only uncomfortable with it, but they straight up hate it.
So, in my mind, wouldn't it be better to just remove the children from the equation so that players don't have to make that moral choice, just like with the tiefling children? That was the main reason I was bringing up this whole thing about the more gray you make everything the less fun it is. I am speaking in generalities.
Of course there are going to be some people who think that such a moral dilemma is actually really fun. Those people are going to like the realism of it, and they're going to justify the killings the way I did by saying kid goblins are going to grow up to be flesh eating adult goblins who prey upon people. I don't really have a problem with it myself. Do I like killing kids of any race in the game? No. That is not really fun to me. Do I accept it because they are monster evil kids who are going to eat people when they grow up? Yes.
The main point I'm trying to make is that part of what made D&D so fun when it first started, and Star Wars, was that you didn't have to make such moral dilemma choices. It was more black and white, good versus evil, and you didn't have to worry about whether the monster, Imperial, you were killing might actually be a good person. I wasn't necessarily criticizing the game. Just trying to make a point that the more you make things gray the more you're going to have people upset about it, and rightly so.
So the question is, is it worth leaving it in the game? Is it worth upsetting players who have a guilty conscience about killing goblin kids? Or would it be better to make it more black and white, good versus evil, so that players don't have to feel guilty about killing all the goblins?
All this having been said, do I think leaving the kids in the story fits with the rest of the story? Yes. This game is full of these kind of moral choices. Even the hag sub story is full of moral dilemma. If you really think about it, are you really the good guy for going in and killing the hag? Did she really do anything to you? The entire subplot is really about you invading her home and budding your nose in to other people's business. Did anyone even ask you to help? Not a single person asks you to help, and the entire time they tell you to get lost in mind your own business. So are you the good guy?
The point is that it fits with the rest of the game. If you want to start chucking elements because of morality, because you feel guilty, you'd have to start chucking a lot of other elements that are just as, or more so, morally ambiguous.
I think the issue at play here is really that the concept of "monster" is considered antiquated.
As you know, the ability to speak makes you intelligent. And being intelligent means you are human, so inherently True Neutral...I mean something something Free Will something something Pelagius.
But let's let Qui-Gon weigh in.
I believe Qui-Gon would say, that the ability to speak does NOT make you intelligent. I think that was actually the proper line that he said to jar jar.
Again, racial issues come up. Why tieflings are better than goblins.
Why the rationale that goblins are the lowest race in this game gives us the right to kill their children, and the children of tieflings are immortal. ONE RIGHTS AND STANDARDS FOR ALL!
#GoblinsRightsWatch #GoblinsArePeopleToo
Thanks to Larian for Baldurs Gate 3 and the reaction to player feedback
Halsin might be able to answer that question for you, because he understands "nature".
Goblins multiply at astronomical rates, and this characteristic has persisted through each version of D&D. If the anthropogenic and abstract concept of "value" can be applied to life, it is inversely proportional to the ease with which that individual life can and is likely to be replaced. The life of a vole or Deer Mouse is more readily replaced than that of the rodent eating snakes that eat them, so in "nature's" economy has less value that that of a rodent eating snake. This despite the fact that Deer Mice and voles are vastly more intelligent than snakes, are far more perceptive of pain and fear, and the widely overlooked fact that predators depend on their staple prey, while contrary to the popular fiction, most predators DON'T significantly limited population densities of their prey in natural ecosystems. Voles and Deer Mice go through boom and bust cycles even when rodent eating predators are abundant; they crash when populations exceed the carrying capacity of rheir habitat due yo food shortages, stress related outbreaks of disease, territorial aggression, etc. Because rodent dependent predators depend on rodent prey for long term ecological success, rodent populations are paradoxically nore important to rodent predators than rodent predators are to rodent population "health".
Tieflings multiply at rates comparable to Humans but faster than Elves, and their period of parental dependency is similar. Goblins have far higher reproductive potentials and evidently far shorter periods of parental dependency. Thus Goblin lives are individually far less valuable than those of Humanoids. Surfacer Elves by the same criteria have more "valuable" lives than Humans and Half-Elves. D&D is filled with logical contraditions; if the Lolth Sworn Drow are so ruthless and murderous towards each other, how do they avoid killing themselves off and dying out? Similarly Red Wizards have the same reproductive potentials as other Humans; why don't they kill themselves off, and in such a chaotic and murderous society where treachery is so paramount over leatning and skill, how do they even learn to become highly skilled spellcasters? They and Lolth Sworn Drow don't augment their populations by recruiting outsiders!
As anyone who studies wildlife (that means plants, fungi, and bacteria as well as animals!) population dynamics knows, "the balance of nature" doesn't exist. In stable or naturally successive ecosystems approximations of temporary equilibrium alternate with periods of instability and change. That's why ammonites, Calamites, and giant dinosaurs no longer exist.
I just replayed the Nettie scene trying out the disrespectful options in patch 6. Nettie doesn't try to secretly poison the PC even if they are rude or hostile. The player is given the option of recognizing the plant as toxic, but Nettie will refer to it's use only as what she as "a last resort" if the player choses to kill themselves. She will follow on her earlier dialog of asking for the player's oath and taking her Wyvern Poison IF CONVENTIONAL ceremorphosis starts. If they refuse after 2 requests, she will turn hostile. Big improvement!
Oh, dear... I started playing D&D in 1979, 2 years after they expanded to D&D and AD&D, and likely years before you were born.
1. My comments about Tieflings in BG2 and the 3.0 and expansions Monster Manual were part of a discussion with "Scales and Fangs" about how D&D depictions of "monsters" have evolved with and between different versions of D&D. Please cite a quotation from my.post where I claimed or suggested that BG3 is an attempt to depict 3.0 "monsters", or is based on 3.0 depictions of "monsters". I'm well aware that 3.0 does not equal either 4.0 or 5e, even if in your rush to judgement you assumed otherwise.
2. I killed Arabella's parents, Dammon, Zevlor, Tilsis, Asharak, the members of Dammon's caravan (who went hostile after I killed Dammon to test the responses of the Druids), and other Tieflings near Arron. After I killed Zevlor and Tilsis, but before I killed other Tiefs, I spoke to Kagha; she grinned and said: "Then you should have no difficulty in dealing with the rest of them". The Druids that YOU claim are guards are under HER rule, most support her, and their reaction to killing Tieflings is an example of unchanged and obsolete scripting, NOT their role as guards. Kagha WANTS you to kill off the Tieflings, but the coders haven't rescripted the Druids. By cheating and boosting my Druid's charisma to 30, I was able to pass every persuasion check, and those bloody Tiefling corpses lay where they fell, as the other Tiefs and Druids went about their scripted business.
3. I also killed off a Xvart settlement in self defense after Gaider deliberately railroaded me into getting too close to their home in BG1, wiped out the entire Drow city of Ust N'atha after a bug caused the inhabitants to turn hostile before Matron Mother Ardulace's summoning ritual (even Solaufein turned hostile and attacked my party), and rescripted and rewrote BG2 so that my party members remained with me after I told Imoen to shove it. I also rescripted the game so that she did not respawn at the Copper Coronet afterwards, and so that I could kill Saemon Havarian. In a fit of murderous glee, I wiped out Candlekeep's inhabitants, from Firebead Elvenhair to Phylidia with my mana augmented mage, until Gorion justifiably killed me with a non legit spell that the devs gave him to stop murderous player psychopaths like me who KILL. INNOCENT. PEOPLE.
In real life, I'm a loving husband and father of 2 who saves hundreds of otherwise doomed wild birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians each year, and teaches hundreds of students about biology and mathematics annually. So go hang me from a tree because "You. KILLED INNOCENT. PEOPLE."
4. I lived in and grew up in over 39 different nations and also in former colonies that were still colonies when I lived there. The difference between living in and growing up in different societies is that a formative child or adolescent is more readily influenced by growing up in different cultures, but an adult with a fairly open mind can observe things that children and adolescents usually overlook or fail to understand. I observed the effects of colonialism and colonial mindsets and how they harm former colonies and persist after independence. I also observed firsthand how differing rates of street and organized crime (thieves' guilds) and government corruption affect societies. I despise thieves, and routinely download and install mods that let me destroy them and their guild members. Contrary to Gaider's insistence, Imoen is my cousin only because we are the offspring of Bhaal; I always played BG1 and BG2 as an Elven Bhaalspawn, so she is less my 'cousin' than any of hundreds of Elven and Drow Bhaalspawn. I hated colonial minded self hater regime change Lanaya, and greatly admired fiercely independent, traditional knowledge preserving, Shemlen defying Zathrian. Gaider has a serious problem with highly intelligent, highly educated people (usually male mages), and loves dumb, infantile, mediocre, easily deceived people such as Alistair ("Goooolllddaaaannnaa!") and Imoen. He also is a blatant misogynist (see Anora's senseless MANIPULATIVE treachery after you free her from inprisonment), but let's pretend he isn't.
5. You are so blinded by instinctive anger that you can't distinguish between manipulation and forcing choices. I also see little ability on your part to read carefully or recognize nuance and complexity. BG 3 rarely forces choices, but even with the many improvements in patch 6, they still manipulate players far more than the Elder Scrolls and Pathfinder/Owlcat games do. Your anger is resentment over a newcomer who has disturbed an established and fairly stable existing order in which you occupy a prominent position, by posting a "wall of text" rant. It's a rant, and so was your response. Any online gamer runs into the same anger from established players high in the power hierarchy after joining a new server. It's the same in all of the more intelligent social animals and it's in our genes.
6. In patch 6, you DO NOT need to steal the Idol of Silvanus to save Gale. He was alive and kicking after receiving only 2 magical items from my Druid when he was killed by an undetected trap near the Selune statue under the Shattered Sanctum. My complaint was that as a Druid, I could not castigate him for making such an offensive request. It's called I-M-M-E-R-S-I-O-N and lore fidelity.
7. Larian has multiple writers for BG3, of varying ability, and values and perspectives. Most of the heavy handed writing results from efforts to quickly change unpopular subplots and companion personalities. They can do better, and they can do worse. Their patch 6 changes to Nettie (my favorite character in the game so far, I liked her better than Halsin) are great. Their painfully forced and badly written "Kagha's revelation and redemption" subplot is awful.
... but still, it seems much more understandable that moral around Light and Dark is something like ... dunno, seesaw(?) ... either you are incredibly strong on one side, but completely useless on the other, or other way around ... and yes, theoreticaly it is possible to ballance things out and stand right in the middle, but then you should not be able to reach top of either.
![[Linked Image from thumbs.gfycat.com]](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/RedBoldGrackle-max-1mb.gif)