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

Instead of addressing just the goblins themselves (which I will) I'm going to address all games that play it too safe as well as games that show the "harsher" side of things.

First, "People"? Already there's a flaw with this argument. It's so easy for people to lie to themselves without even realising it (all too common). To think they know "better" yet do not. "Different" yes. But "Goblins are freaks"? But then so are people so often. If you look hard enough and get to know them. Everyone has their reasons for lashing out and being violent (there's worse things then attempted murder. I defuse people in real life). The vioelnce you see may not even be the worst of it. What are people doing? At least with goblins they show it clearly. No excuses or pretence (unless of course Specific X goblin is lying). Are their lives worth "less" because people look down on them? I find this way of thinking unhealthy and destructive. This does affect real life. Make no mistake though, if anything I want to see more pain suffering and despair in games. At the same time there has to be contrast. Reasons. Why. Logic. Without the "You're wrong to exist because you exist" (And with it) which is, frankly, flawed and incorrect.

BG3 is not the kind of game that is "just played to just enjoy it casually without a brain". No, it's an RPG game and as such the "why" and "reasons" for events is important. It's more then "Just because you exist". That is not a good counter argument. It is easily debunked.

Here's the flaw with that argument. "Good and evil" are subjective (Things are more "grey" in reality). The goblins, while more violent, are also more ignorant. They're victims of their own fear and stupidity. Every kid to ever exist at that point (baring violence. Getting to that). This is dangious but I can see bigger dangers. Are their lives "less worthy" then that of another race just for the soul reason that "They're goblins"? Even orcs in LOTR get more respect (partly because they make it about strength more. That's actually very important). Orcs wage war over and over. But hey, goblins are small even if adult sized. It's not hard to fit the pieces together. They're easy targets. Humans will pick on them. Take one look at them and go "Stabby stabby" on first sight. Why would a goblin ever be nice to a human if they're treated like that? They will learn to fear. They will learn to hate. They will learn to make targets because that is what they were taught. But just who teaches them?

Honestly, when you take into account we're creating the monsters, stabbing a blue little kid in the eye might be the least of peoples concerns. Btw, I also want the option of stabbing a blue little kid in the eye even if I would rather be diplomatic. Options are options. That's what it boils down too.

Neverwinter Nights 1 actually makes a good case for kobolds. "Paladins seeing the worst too easily and being the first to act out of fear/anger". P.S: Do that to an ice dragon in their own lair and no wonder they freeze you. That's defending your home after being threatened at that point. So I assure you, covering such events and reasons in a game does add to entertaint value while also getting people to consider their real selves (even if they don't realise they do it). The games that show "the ugly truth" are the ones that have helped make me a better person. Options. Choices. Consequences. Most importantly of all player choice. Any "restriction" is basically going "You don't get too. I decided for you because my beliefs are superior to yours." (taking into account it's an intended restriction in this case). It also indicates "I'm afaid of having my game taken down if it's viewed as too extreme".

Let's cover entertainment value.

One of the reasons people "cry" about goblins is because it's been "done to death". It's the "expected result". Boring. Why not a playful good alligned race for once? Can't I stab a race of Azata worshippers? I'm playing pathfinder: wrath of the rightous where characters have eyeballs removed and flesh eaten (not even joking. Love that it does that) but I can't stab a blue kid here? WOTR isn't getting taken down. The blue kid in BG3 can die to a snake though. So there's that. Is that snake "Good" or "evil" for doing what their owner wants? I would say loyal. You can also have a chat with that snake. So this is something. Now what if the player could influence that snake to bite the kid more easily? Roll for diplomacy (actually, please just show me the result with the dice roll. I prefer that. BG3 got that as an option btw?)

I think the devs just don't have enough expreince on the "dark/depraved" side to really consider it enough to show on screen. Impressive that WOTR did. While at the same time able to provide counters to balance things out. In order to truely understand something like that one must understand pain, suffering and depsair to extremes and be able to adapt to the worst of events quickly. The average preson does not have that kind of expreince to have the necessarily imagination for being able to display such events on a game. Oneline roleplay (think of it like typing a stroy together) helps to serve as a controlled environment for such things. Which in turn can lead to games. In order to really "master" it though one must know it "first hand". So the lack of "Extremes of the dark side" can be because the devs lack such experience. It's my strong suit. If I was adding story/plot to a theme I would be able to do that. Though in the case of BG3 I think I'd only do that in an expansion to start with a character from scratch. I've been inspired by some lawful evil characters lately. I think chaotic evil needs more understanding though (got a good head cannon for other settings there).

Once we introduce fear it gets more complicated. It's easy to see the worst. But what if that's the problem? Rather, specifically, what if what people see/believe isn't the truth? There's a reason we all need to be challenged. Even degraded. To leave weakness unchallenged and under the guise of strength is to allow weakness. Of the self. Which affects others. The goblins are weak. What affected the goblins? We'd probably have to go far back in their history to find the answer.

"Goblins are evil. They're monsters". PEOPLE are often monsters. It's simply a quesiton of wherever one is honest about it and can claim responsibility (and many people and monsters alike do not). Anyone that can't do that is a danger/threat to me. It's a matter of awareness/honesty/trust. In that order. You might call that "lawful evil". It can as easily be viewed as "Chaos theory". And thus apply to a chaotic evil character. It matters not if people intend or seek out. The pattern will be followed or you will suffer and continue to suffer. Suffering itself not the worst part. Worst part is "Living a lie". An honest situation even if painful can be worth the suffering.

Because of the awareness factor (both eyes open) this is why the "why" of context and individials is important. Even when it comes to green nosed little snots. There's also envirnoment and upbringing to take into account. If you do the same thing over and over then you get used to it. It's insanity. But you're used to it. May as well make the best of it and enjoy what you can. If you didn't do what's expected of you then you wouldn't fit in. If you don't hurt that big bear in the cage the your breathen might shun you and see you as a freak. Where would you go? Who would you turn too?

The goblins are in a catch 22 situation there. At the same time "Do what's expected when you're an elf. Warcraft 3 makes a good point of how that's counter productive and leads to violence when diplomacy works better (Hellscrem and Thrall). What is said about goblins right now? That was said of orcs before. Before that it was drow, who actually have quite the interesting culture. So on and so forth. Do we want more interesting goblins that have more going on for them then "Because goblin" or do we want "Because goblin"?

I also argue that the races with good intentions and moral high grounds cause more harm then good then any honest evil race. I actually can see Sauron in LOTR in a "Postive" light when I take into account that even if his methods are harsh he'll still want you and put you to use even if you stand against everything he beleives in (there's a certain "coexistence" behind that). Which is more then a back turner or coward would do when they have good intentions and leave you to bleed to death as they toss you aside like you're garbage and not even worth breaking. I WANT to see more of this with more elaboration in games. It's good story and lore. Seeing Talions family being murdered, kid included, in shadow of mordor was a sight to see. It shows how far Talion has been broken and fallen by the time he's descending into a state of apathy in shadow of war and giving reason for that. With reasons and why. Instead of "just because". The story in Shadow of War is flawed but it displays events where "good" can be why "evil" exists. The logic makes sense too. Fight that long and at some point you side with the devil you know. Sauron if nothing else is not a back turner. He killed your family but he's always been one co confront and knows control and strength. Something to learn from. Something people want and desire. If you wallow, keep attacking out of fear and anger and continue in that then that is your weakness. Sauron recruits the nazgul by simply not going "I tell you what to think. I know best." Instead he's turn your life upside down and you will consume yourself. Your own weakness. Even if devoid of all meaning and purpose, even if he is the reason for that at first, in the end he's giving you that reason and purpose. It's very effective. If such lore was expanded on even more then it might be enjoyed by more players. We know Sauron's "methods" yet little to nothing of his reasons. This can easily set up a evil character that's along the same lines in D&D.

It could as easily be a D&D setting where a dragon consumes souls yet spares you if you're entertaining/useful. I'd also be courting that dragon if they're female and sleeping with it, as long as they're honest and not one to hide. While gaining the ability to turn into a dragon myself. Do you think this sick and twisted? Judge if you like. I and whatever dragon I would be with would be focusing on being happy without putting each other in danger. My mindset when facing any character (game or life alike) is "are they a threat to ME?" And if so "Why?" Cue communicaiton/diplomacy/debate. THEN let's further take into account the options (if that sounds like a lot of work, it means work more until it becomes second nature). Are the optionsin a game "Black or white"? If the answer to this is yes then the issue is more to do with those black and white options where a player is shoe horned down one path or another. Do we "have" to kill the goblins at the bear? Can we do a distraction to lure them away instead? Can the player talk around things with high enough diplomacy? It's about the "options". The more there are the less a player feels "constrained". If a person in real life is sick and tired of being "the good guy" then they want to have that choice in a game. If they don't get that in a game (or some other way) this willl affect their real life. Without some outlet then someone could get hurt when the pressure of "I was never allowed" kicks in which leads to lash outs. You already might have a parent doing it to you. Add a game doing it on top of that and it's added stress. At some point... Boom. Like a boiler that can't let off steam. This is why it's very important for games to have as much freedom as possible. Unless the design of the game is to be restrictive (let's say SWAT 4. Ruels of engagement. BUT the player can CHOOSE not to follow them and shoot people unarmed people that surrender. Still one of the best games ever made).

There's also not much entertaintment value in "Oh look yet another goblin to kill" when it's been done to death 1000 times over. We get it D&D. You can do goblins and make them bad guys. In some games you can even SAVE a goblin. Who can then become a cook in your kitchen. It's different. So it's "more fun" because of this. Surely this is more entertaining (and useful) then "yet another goblin to kill". "Just being goblins for the sake of being goblins" isn't a good enough reason for the goblins to be there IMO. At least the game Shadow of War gives personality to the orcs. One that want to be friendly. Ones that sing. Ones that have great comebacks. Ones that actually really are insane and can't even form a setence. Variety. Is. Key. Context is key. It makes the in game world come to life.

The entertainment from games is there BECAUSE it reflects real life. In the Witcher 3 for example one of the points it makes is that "Humans are monsters". We all are. Some are just honest about it. Batman would say it. Going to argue with Batman? he knows he used go "I know best for you" too much. He says it when he's odler and wiser. it's a nice touch to the character. I like it when games and TV display this. The "self reflection". It gets us to relate to them.

In Nevewinter Nights 1 I also get to see the other side of the kobolds when I don't kill them (which you can). The CHOICE is there. The OPTION is there. This is back around the year 2000. It might be one of the first games that put kobolds in a "Don't just kill them" light. Now we got kobolds being pretty popular. So take that for what it's worth. If kobolds started becoming more populer around the year 2000 then Neverwinter Nights 1 might have had a hand in it. One was even a pet to a dragon. That you're not forced to kill and can convinced to be peaceful. Options. If I want to turn into a frost giant and attack him then that option is there too (it's even tying in with a quest). When a player has options upon options suddenly they're more and more in control of it all. Best. Feeling. Ever.

In the game Pathfinder: Wrath of the RIghtious, if I want to kill angels trapped inside of a crystal and uneleash fallen ones devoid of hope that are angry I can do that. If I want to kill them all I can do that. If I want to save them all I can do that. The CHOICE is there. On all accounts. This is religion here. representing christianity. So if we're talking morals I'm talking morals. If I want to be a genoicidal swarm that walks and consume everyone I come across then even that option is there. It's not the most fun because it lacks more communication then other ways I can play. But it's an option. It's basically the "I've played the game so often I'm just going to clean house" mythic. Why do people kill everyone in Skyrim? Same reason.

Course, if you kill everyone you come across then there's a lack of plot. So the game has to take this into account too. Which is why the swarm thing I mentioned above is done much later in the game. Still, any reason a game can't basically do a Undertale genocide run? We ARE the kid there. Murdering everything in our path.

After typing all this out I've suddenly got a newfound respect for games that show the darker side of events. So yes, I want more of that in BG3 too. Make dark have a point. Make light flawed. And just for laughs have a snot nosed goblin bake me a pie in the kitchen. I'll keep you save from the wrath of humans if you're useful you little welp. Mush!

In the real world, people are people and actions are evil, good or (most often) somewhere in-between. Goblins are actual monsters; monsters are fictional creations not bound by reality. Stop pushing this "monsters are human too" agenda.

A popular take, but utterly wrong. Goblins aren't the victims, they are the perps. It's not humans who pick on goblins, it's goblins who target humans. It's not humans who can't live with goblins, it's goblins who rove off of humans. It's like blaming the sheep for shunning the wolf. It's humans who fear goblins, not the other way around.

The post is much too dense to respond to fully, so I will focus on this part.

If you believe casting a monster in a sympathetic light is in any way bold or new, you haven't been paying attention to entertainment for the past 30 years. "[Insert monster here] is actually misunderstood and a victim and the REAL aggressors are the humans" is about as stock a trope as it gets. It came about as a subversion of the "evil monster" trope, true, but it's been done so many times it became a generic trope unto itself.

Similarly, saying that humans can be monstrous is not some "ugly truth" or enlightened wisdom, it's something most people realize by the time they hit 15. If someone needs a game to make them realize that and look into themselves, I dare say they are extremely sheltered and have bigger problems than the way monsters are handled in fictional narratives.

None of this is controversial whatsoever. Gratuitous gore or sympathetic monsters or putting the blame on humans isn't going to get anything taken down, they've been entertainment staples for decades. On the contrary, I would argue that having an inherently, irredemably evil race is what's truly subversive in the current year. After all, this is why the lore is being changed in the first place. Because of social pressures. People say it's "bigoted" to have an evil race because they look for parallels where there are none, and so to avoid making this vocal minority mad, the idea of evil races is being done away with. Not some attempt to add depth. Not to make you ask questions. Pure peer pressure.

Oh dear. Each time people bring up "but PEOPLE are the real evil!" like it is some kind of hot new thing, I get reminded of that this was revolutionary about... Well, early 19th century when Frankenstein was written. The vast majority of modern horror focuses on the evil of man instead of including monsters, so yeah. Most people probably got the message by now.


I am with Ragitsu on this one tbh. Constantly trying to frame man/humanoids as the evil-doers (excluding obvious humanoid antagonists) in universes where there clearly are monsters that seek to harm humans/humanoids/other living things for no particularly good reason is really not revolutionary in any way, and - in my personal opinion - it is quite boring.

Like Dexai said -

Goblins are not afraid of humans - they chase down both humans and other living beings. There are even multiple in-game notes on this from Halsin and some other NPCs. We are not hunting peaceful goblins that are trying to exist in their own little village without harming anyone, we are hunting goblins that are terrorizing human settlements, travelers and other living beings for sports.

I mean, you obviously do find enjoyment in all the shades of grey aspects that could possibly fit into the story - which obviously is fine and all - but some people do not. Personally I am so extremely tired of movies, books, games and whatnot trying to push the "but is the hero REALLY a hero? HMMM?"-setting that by now I simply roll my eyes when I see it. Small bits and pieces, sure. That can work as pretty good character development. But constantly trying to push character that obviously try their best to be good towards the grey or even evil spectrum is just so very boring and has been done in every single possible way there is as that take is very popular in modern entertainment because some people find it so "compelling" and "realistic".

Btw.


I don't think any fantasy fan would find your wishes for a romance with a dragon very "sick and twisted" (I mean, what? Why would we? Dragon and human romance has been a thing for ages) - especially not in the DnD setting where there are so many different dragons. The idea of dragons having humanoid lovers is not really revolutionary either - although I am not quite sure about the "gaining the ability turn into a dragon myself"-part... But I suppose fantasy is fantasy so if that is what you'd feel compelled by then by all means. Go you!

And options - absolutely. I agree. Options are great - the more the better (as long as the game can "handle" the options and respond accordingly). Not sure what to think about the statement behind "If a person in real life is sick and tired of being "the good guy" then they want to have that choice in a game. If they don't get that in a game (or some other way) this willl affect their real life"-part. I know venting is important and have proven very healthy for gamers in general - as you say, having an outlet is good - but let's not pretend like there is a lack of games (and irl physical activities) where you can have your outlet (in so many varying shapes and forms). That said, if the argument you're trying to push is "it's important to have a functional and satisfying evil path" then sure. Most people here have already argued for Larian to improve their evil path. In a RPG, the entire point is being able to roleplay as different characters, obviously this would include evil characters.

TL;DR - There's a lot of text in your comment, and I agree in some things that you say, while disagreeing with other things you say. Much of what you say is just opinion-based - which is fine, obviously, most of us just have opinions here. All in all, I prefer having a balance to it all. Some good alignment, some evil alignment. Evil monsters are fine, redeemable/misunderstood monsters are fine. It's all about moderation.

I dunno ...
I bet there isnt as much Goblin Heroes who would travel to Human Village and slaughter those dangerous Humans ...
As there is Human Heroes who would travel to Goblin Village (tribe?) and slaugher those dangerous Goblins ...

Dont get me wrong, i would never say that Goblins are good race ... nor are Humans tho.

I dunno why so many people in this matter need to see either A or B ... while middle ground is so easily to find here.
There simply isnt race of victims and race of agressors ... once there are Humans and Goblins within grasp of each other, they are both attacking and killing each other ... sometimes out of fear, sometimes for resources, sometimes bcs they simply want to, and sometimes preventively so the other dont have enough time to create too strong army to decimate the other (and im sure there is plenty other options im too lazy to find) ...

Trying to choose if Goblins or Humans are better race seems to me like choosing if you want to be shoot into right, or left knee ...
I would preffer no shooting at all, thank you.

---

//Edit:
Now ... how about return to actual problem of this topic? :P
We demand more sexy(?) options to kill Tieflings kids!

Because it's not a thing goblin heroes do, it's a thing the average goblin does. Whereas humans need help from exceptional people to protect themselves.

cite your sources, and don't tell me Palpatine. It could be that you're treating as subjective, something that is merely unknowable. What is good and evil, and whether or not they are subjective, is the fodder of most philosophy. Furthermore in my experience most philosophy is really about one question: "What gives value to human life?"

None of this is pertinent in D&D because good and evil are explicitly objective in this setting, and unlike in our world, those 'people' aren't human. One of the reasons I brought up Mass Effect is because science-fiction deals with this dynamic in a slightly less fraught way. Stories about heroes dealing with icons from folklore are already going to be easily seen as allegory for the real world, but spacemen making first contact with an entirely new form of life are easier to treat for what they are, something completely alien to our own experience. It's very pithy to think that everyone is human, if they are sentient how can they not be, but what if sentience is a concept that we take for granted in this way. Even with free will your essential makeup in D&D can be inherently good or evil, there's no way getting around that.

Also I'm not an expert in Tolkien cosmology but I do think Sauron is in league with or is continuing the work of literal Satan, and not cool neopagan Satan either.

As for the Witcher, I think this brings up a concept I haven't seen too much around here. The idea that not only can individuals, races, and societies have alignments, but also worlds. Or in D&D, planes of existence. The Material Plane is tabula rasa but it is influenced by every plane of existence, among these are the planes where lawful chaotic good and evil stem from, think on that the next time WotC tries to downplay alignment.

And the most important take away of all...give us a romanceable dragon please. I'll also accept a mermaid~but I've said too much.

Larian is DM. DM decides what is good and evil. Goblins are painted as bad. Tieflings good. Join goblins. You're bad. Join Tieflings, you're good.

Therefore, based on DM's choice, kill all goblins. Good. Kill all Tieflings. Bad.

Just ask Gale, Wyll and Shadowheart. They all don't like helping the goblins.

The reason I felt the need to push back against that statement is because I knew someone that called the Nazis "monsters". I pointed out that the actions of the Nazis and their sympathizers were certainly monstrous, but they themselves were people...incredibly desperate and living in a time of greater ignorance (when certain propaganda was easier to propagate), but still people. There was nothing special about them. It is dangerous to assume another group of people (humans) in another place and another time couldn't be persuaded to commit similar atrocities.

However, that is reality. If you want to represent that sort of social rot in your tabletop gaming campaign, that is fine, but don't cut yourself off from escapism because entertainment at large has convinced you that escapism is "wrong" or "dumb". As Sigmund Freud once said, "Sometimes, an orc is just an orc."

P.S. Should you desire standoffish beings that aren't human, consider making them universally some flavor of Neutral; there's nothing that says a Lawful Neutral/Neutral/Chaotic Neutral group can't be initially hostile/aggressive until they're convinced to calm down.

So as someone who isn't a fan of the stance that goblins, orcs, bugbears, etc are all monsters and are only ever evil...I do not have any issue at all with the goblins presented in BG3. They're part of an evil cult, of course they're evil and I'm not gonna feel bad about killing them. The presence of goblin children that I can kill? Yeah, that's pretty iffy to me, but keep it in the game, I don't care. Hell, I liked the little bit about the goblins having turned away from their prior god and I actually hope that comes up again later because it's an interesting idea of one flavor of evil vs another flavor of evil.

Ultimately, even though I don't like races that are pure evil without the intervention of some kind of magic and I'm glad that that's becoming less and less the default assumption in settings and games, because I think it's an inferior default...it doesn't really matter. The changes are happening, but the DM can make any choice at their table and that's fine, as long as they aren't being a dick to their players. And likewise the players shouldn't be dicks to their DM. I get it, we're all passionate about this hobby and we want as many people to enjoy it as possible. But ultimately...this is just a game. And really, the issue of good goblins and bad goblins isn't an issue that BG3 is even trying to ask.


I will bring up something about escapism that I think has kind of gotten lost in this thread. For some people, having an entire species that is unfailingly and unchangeably evil that they can kill guiltlessly regardless of context isn't escapsim. It certainly isn't for me. For plenty of people, being able to play as that race and force the acknowledgement of their personhood from others who deny it is escapism. Or having a world where that personhood isn't even a question and they can just go off and do cool stuff is escapism for them.

Basically, there's no such thing as doing escapism wrong, and different people have different ideas of it.

Spare me. As of late, the entertainment industry as a whole has thoroughly convinced people that heroes that aren't really heroes and monsters/bad guys that aren't monstrous/bad is fun; once you take a step back, you realize that this assumption as the norm is exhausting rather than enjoyable. Where's the pull? What is the incentive to jump from a muddled reality to a muddled "fantasy" full of humans in funny suits in addition to regular humans? Why does the lion's share of media have to be constrained by a soul-sucking palette of grey and gray? What should have been an interesting occasional twist (i.e., "Monsters as analogies for real-world human minority groups.") - particularly as a method for teaching children about bias recognition - has overtaken fiction. The pushback against people that want simple literal monsters to vanquish is incredibly inane and I will continue to maintain that a narrow inability to separate reality from fiction (or vice versa) is at the heart of the matter.

I simply think that there's a difference between "there are sapient beings who are as a species irredeemably evil as a function of their species" and "there are bad guys that you don't have to feel bad about fighting and killing." I fully support the idea of bad guys being bad and good guys being good, with some complexity thrown in for variety. I won't argue that always assuming monstrous races are an analogy for oppressed minorities isn't the way to go about things. I just also don't think that "sapient species that can be written off as murder fodder" is the only alternative. And that being the norm for so long ends up being just as inane and dull. I'm all about vanquishing monsters. Killing owlbears and evil cults, overthrowing evil empires and slaying wicked witches and evil warlocks? Bring all that on! the Darkspawn from Dragon Age? Oh yeah, I can kill those all day. Same with the myriad monsters in The Witcher games, or the various demons and devils in Pathfinder. I love villains who are unappologetically evil and wicked, and do their thing with glee and not a shred of remorse. Those guys are fun and killing them are absolutely my preferred type of escapism. And none of it requires assuming that a sapient race is just evil. You can even still have a race be the antagonists because that's what their culture, leadership, etc leads them to being.

It's not an assumption. Take your pick ->

They're evil because they were created by an evil god.
They're evil because they were formed from "immoral residue" that was cast off when the world was young and still changing.
They're evil because they were tainted by corrupting magic.
They're evil because...they're evil. Hooray for the tautology: steadfast savior of escapism.

And which are Goblins?
I've been think about this a little and I wonder if this is more of a sticking point for people because the goblins we meet all speak common. When building a world I always like to take into account language as a major factor in shaping societies, regions and races. Goblins who speak common, and speak it pretty well, are already on a level well above my personal baseline expectation. The goblin language, as I understand it, if translated into English would sound like a series of verbs and nouns that only make sense in context, because it's a reflection the level of concepts possible to its average speaker.

Also Ragitsu, a little more politesse might be in order. GG isn't wrong to feel this way, these concepts are present in genre fiction. If we're going to have a conversation on this topic, it should attempt to intersect with how races are depicted in D&D and in BG:3. Otherwise this thread is just going to be a place for people to rant.

Sozzy, but my intention isn't to sway folks to my point of view; I came here to counter the notion that "Universally evil race/species in tabletop gaming = stupid and/or dubious." and to display solidarity with anyone else sympathetic to this refutation.

And as I've said a couple times before, all of those things other than the last one are justifications I'm totally fine and happy with, you won't see me complaining about those first three. Again, I point out the various races of devils, the corruption inherent in becoming a Lich. Furthermore, if a game sends me to kill a tribe of orcs that have recently raided and destroyed a small village, I'm not gonna raise moral complaints, because they did something evil. If I enconter a goblin that has been lurking in the sewers of a city, mugging and killing remorselessly for food, I'm also not gonna feel bad about killing them. You can have unquestionably evil antagonists without resorting to tautalogical "evil because this species is evil and there's no other justification why" language. And frankly, those first three ideas are all way more interesting and imply really cool lore stuff that I almost always love to get into, whereas evil because evil is dull and kinda lazy from a creative standpoint. And again, I will counter the notion of escapism being just one thing that requires some specific things to count as escapism, which you're implying whether you intend to or not.

Ultimately though, I respect that you have your opinion and that it differs from mine. As I've said before, your approach to enjoying games is valid and doesn't make you stupid or dubious.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Goblin

https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/goblin

Alignment = ???

Description
Goblins are small, black-hearted humanoids that lair in despoiled dungeons and other dismal settings. Individually weak, they gather in large numbers to torment other creatures.

Personality
Like other goblinoids, goblins often had a short temper,[7] and were more easily provoked than individuals of most other races. They often found it difficult to overcome this short fuse, and had a sense of greed that made it difficult for them to act altruistically.[14] They also generally took sadistic pleasure in exacting revenge once crossed.[14]

Young goblins were taught from an early age to rely only on themselves, and that to survive, they needed to be aggressive and ruthless. To a goblin, it didn't seem logical to treat others as well or better than you would treat yourself; rather, they believed in preemptively removing potential rivals before they could become a threat. Expatriated goblins would sometimes try to recreate the circumstances of their culture, preying on the weaknesses of others in non-goblin communities.[9]

Despite their generally poor reputation however, not all goblins were dim-witted or evil. Some goblins have risen to become heroes, gaining enough renown to be accepted into the civilized world of other, more commonly good races. Those goblins seeking this path may have found it difficult to overcome their temper and greed, as well as the cultural influence of their brethren, but those who did often found it could be more rewarding, in the long run at least, to serve good rather than to serve evil.[14] Those that did often made use of their ill-gained talents as rogues or fighters.

Can there be good goblins? Yes. Are they uncommon and even the young are standardly evil? Yes. Would the young in BG3 fall into evil category. Yes.

Just ask Brian.

I cant quite shake the idea that you are totally offtopic. :-/

A little hint from OP:

Who is off topic? We're discussing why it's okay to kill goblin kids but not tieflings.

"Young goblins were taught from an early age to rely only on themselves, and that to survive, they needed to be aggressive and ruthless."

So, most are evil like their adults. Therefore, killing goblin young is killing evil young.

You can't tell me those kids in the gobbo camp weren't going to partake in eating victims like Brian and those taken from Waukeen's Rest and such.

Tiefling kids, on the other hand, unless I missed something, weren't eating people.