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

I'm not really interested in how old or young you claim you are, or how old or young you think I am. Your supposed age, mine, and anyone else's is not a factor that has any value of consideration in a discussion of this nature...

“Heed me, because I'm older,” and “Heed me, because I have experience,” are appeals to authority and they are not a valid form of argumentation, especially not in an online space where they are ephemeral concepts to begin with – sensible people heed others because what they have to say has merit, not because of who is saying it or how old or experienced they say they are.


Please cite a quotation from my post where I claimed or suggested you were saying that ^.^

I only pointed out that the information you were supplying, related to how things were described in earlier editions, has no bearing on the here and now, since this game is based in 5th, and, as you helpfully point out, they are not the same. I should probably have led with a “Bear in mind” or some other softener, so it didn't seem like I was directly arguing on the matter – I understand it was just a point of sharing between you and Scales. I had intended that the introduction, being that I was just sharing some background details and facts, was enough. It wasn't, I see.


As stated.... your ability to kill people, have the guards question you, be brushed off with a check, and have everyone continue on as though nothing else had happened, even with dead bodies bleeding everywhere all around them, is not relevant here, since it is a 'feature' of all of Larian's games, everywhere, in every instance. It's a universal trait of their poor design, not a relevant factor to this particular situation. It was always going to be the case no matter how it was written or set up, because that's just part of the 'game' mechanics, and not related to the plot or story at all... and yeah, it's pretty bad.

For the rest, Kagha has asked you, quietly, to take an action that she cannot outright order without creating a rift in the druids – Rath does not support her, and about a third to a half of the other druids are not fully behind her either. She has not put out word around the camp that the refugees are to be killed – the guards are still keeping the peace. When a scripting event occurs that actively turns the entire druid enclave against the refugees, that's actually a thing that happens, and they will all turn hostile against them – that doesn't happen here because it's not a big public thing.

Perhaps you're suggesting that it should – in which case, sure! – but there would need to be shouting and all of the refugees would need to immediately turn hostile and attempt to escape the groove as the druids turn on them. If Kagha's acceptance of your killing Zevlor triggered the same “kill the refugees” script in the entire druid grove and played out accordingly, except with the refugees red and the druids green, as opposed other other way around, such as when you steal the idol, that might be good – currently that's not what happens, and that's intended, at the moment.


Just remember, Xvarts are fiends; they are literally intrinsically evil in their essence, and cannot be otherwise by definition of the world space. A Xvart that ceased to be evil aligned would not be a Xvart any more and would be changed or transformed in some way as a result. It's a very different situation - what are you trying to say by mentioning it?


Why are you talking about what you did as a result of a bug in a different game? What is this even about? What does your rescripting of a different game to suit your needs have to do with any of this, enough to make it worth bringing up here? If you're trying to give us a character profile of yourself, there's no need; it's not important.

The point was, and I apologise if my explanation wasn't clear... You had your character commit a murderous crime in the open in front of people who are there to keep the peace and prevent such crimes from being committed and who were, at that time, still doing that. They didn't like it and tried to stop your character, going hostile against you, according to your earlier report. What problem are you seeing with this sequence of events? Why do you think this sequence of events is not correct? What do you think should have happened?


As mentioned above, appeals to authority, appeals to seniority and appeals to experience are not relevant and not worth acknowledging in a discussion like this. It's not that there's anything wrong with sharing your background - by all means do - it's just that you cannot expect it to carry any weight here, or lend any strength to what you're saying - it doesn't, and won't. Insisting that someone should listen to what you say because of who you are, rather than because of what you are actually saying being legitimate, is never going to really fly in a sensible discussion, and it will only make you look less credible overall the more you do it.


This is more extremist language, attempting to paint the other person into an irrational position that they aren't actually occupying. You seem to be the angriest person here, if I'm honest; I'm just trying to be helpful and clear. You probably aren't worked up or angry in reality – I'm sure that none of us here actually are, because that would be very unhealthy, but the language you use makes you come across as deeply agitated by this, and quite worked up and angry indeed. You'll come across a lot calmer if you vet your language a little.


I found this comment deeply amusing. I'm sure others did too. You may not have noticed, because you may not have looked, but I've agreed with a lot of the points that you have had to make, and admitted that they have merit. Larian's writing is pretty darn clumsy and bad, and you'll find few here who legitimately argue that point (though you will find a few ^.^).

My response was first and foremost a selection of corrective points that simply shared information about the topics being discussed, for clarity. The latter part, directed towards you specifically, was in relation to your tone, more than anything else, and the way that your writing causes you to come across... and implicitly, though I could have been clearer, how that is unhelpful to you and detrimental to you in getting your otherwise interesting points across to other people. If you interpreted any of that as anger or resentment, I'm sorry, but that's on you reading something into this that isn't here, because you seem to want to have something to react against... your opening posts here are all extremely caustic and borderline attacking of the supposed reader in general – it's not a good way to invite people to listen to you.


You never had to do this. There are more than enough artefacts in the first chapter to satisfy Gale without you ever needing to go anywhere near the idol, and there always has been. I have personally never fed Gale the idol. I usually give him the sword, or the flask – either one of them sets him right for the chapter.


This is the first time you've articulated that as being your actual complaint, as far as I know (if you said this elsewhere and I missed it, I apologise), and I wholeheartedly agree with you on that score; you should absolutely be able to stop and tell him that that isn't happening, if you're a character that feels that way.

I do feel you have a lot of value to add to the community, and a lot of interesting things to say! I feel that you'll manage to do so far better if you try to do it in a calm and polite way that's respectful to others and avoids insulting, belittling or condescending to the people you're talking to, and strives to avoid derogatory or abrasive language in general.

==

In a separate response... above this you posted a summation of the theoretical value of life based in the reproductive proclivity of a species, followed by a mapping of this to the characters and creatures in the game... Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't appear to be doing this ironically, and were legitimately attempting to reason that goblin lives were of less value than other humanoids (goblins are humanoids).

It's interesting to know that, if indeed you feel this way, you view human life on earth as the least valuable form of life in existence saving only some species of insects, microorganisms and bacteria... That by this reasoning, if you do hold it, you would feel that in all cases, if a human is being endangered by another animal, that it is the correct choice to value the human life less than the creature, and that the human should be allowed to die, if they do, rather than taking the life of the other creature, if those are the only options. Is that your feeling on the matter? It's an honest question with no malice intended, I'm just curious about whether you're applying this idea to humans as well, or excluding them arbitrarily from the metric.

By this description, human lives are less intrinsically valuable than almost any other living thing on the planet – as a species and as a whole you certainly are more populous and reproduce, multiply and spread far faster and more easily than all but the aforementioned insects and bacteria – value described like this says that we should never dream of killing a wolf to spare a human (and, you know, don't kill wolves anyway, because a lot a distinct wolf species are actually critically endangered, despite what various media might tell you).