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

Or after killing a child, a sign saying "You are a monster" should appear and a game over screen to load the previous save, and no longer make such decisions

Take it seriously Leonard, we are talking here about a game!

+1.


Larian, as DM, put themselves into that position though. :|

In a TT game, the general campaign etiquette and mannerism will usually be discussed at session 0 and there the players and DM will usually bring up any clear "dos" and "don'ts" they might have. Since Larian is not a live DM, we do not get a session 0 and thus we can only go on the options that are granted ingame. And the facts are that Larian allows evil PCs and evil intentions - that much is clear from the options that we are given in dialogues and within the story. I find it really weird that Larian would signal that these options are okay, and then *choose to create* the encounter with these tiefling children that actively provoke the PC by stealing, deceiving and/or threatening them. If I, as a DM, would not be okay with killing or hurting children but in general would be okay with evil alignment that is borderline murderhobo - then I would never put my players in a position where there SHOULD be a possible response for their characters to simply kill the children for their ignorance or at least forcefully take the stolen belongings back while giving them a good smack - options that almost any DM would allow if it was an adult gang - but then simply not allow it because I, as a DM, am uncomfortable with that behavior towards children. It really does not make any sense to me. If you allow a party of evil alignment characters, then do not put those characters in a position that is obviously provoking the characters to do something that you are not comfortable with.

Should there be consequences? Absolutely, consequences are important in DnD. Hells, I'd even be totally fine with them all transforming into red dragons and murdering the party. But the OPTION should be there since it is CLEARLY in line with the options that Larian usually provides in similar situations.

Allow me to illustrate - imagine if you had a session 0 with your DM, me, regarding a completely homemade campaign, and I say "this campaign will not allow the PCs to eat bread, because I once had a terrible experience after consuming expired garlic bread." but, since I do not want to limit your player creativity too much - you are most definitely allowed to play a gluttonous duck or professional baker - and you and the other players are like "yeah okay, that's fine. No big deal." One of you choose to play a very gluttonous duck, and throughout the first sessions there are plenty of opportunities that I represent to the duck where he can explore his RP persona by devouring corn, ice cream, vegetables, oats and rice.

BUT, during session 4-5 you are asked by an important NPC to wait a few hours until the King of Coffee Beans come back from their parade in Vanilla Yogurt Lane, and while describing the surroundings, I describe the smell of freshly baked bread and tell you all of a lovely and very cozy bakery right next to the PCs before asking you all what you would like to do while waiting for the king. Obviously, I decline you the option to simply sit down at the bakery and enjoy a freshly baked sandwich while waiting for the king because I am traumatized by garlic bread. Would you, as a player, not find it slightly weird that I, as a DM, put you in that position when I obviously was never going to let you enjoy your freshly baked sandwich? Wouldn't you, as a player, wonder why I didn't simply choose to use a tavern with freshly cooked meals instead?

Look, this is still the Forgotten Realms. Atrocities are commonplace. Entire villages, and even cities are wiped off the map regularly. Killing someone outright is actually not even close to the worst thing that can happen to someone in this world. Tieflings have never been commonplace in the realms, and never been beloved of the people. Everyone knows why this is, you can't help but look at the exagerated features that Larian created for them without being certain why people might think the worst of them. Are they all evil? No, they aren't all evil, but they are all tainted, and for some, even some Paladins, that would be reason enough to eradicate them.

This is a game. Everyone knows this is a game, but some people are here screaming about killing kids not because they care about these poor little digital characters, but because they want to control how other people live their lives and play their games. You want to scream about killing kids, then scream about the people killing and exploiting real live children. Get out there on social media, and in the streets petitioning your law makers and government oficials to do more to stop it. Once you've done all that, I'll give you credit that you actually care about children instead of just trying to force other people to do what you want.

Now when you mention that ...

A situation come to my mind, when certain Elf is LITTERALY trying to cut your throat ...
And then you are FORCED to accept his appology and tolerate all his smirk and smug coment from then on ... without any chance to at least remind him that he is allready on thin ice with you. O_o

Or countless situations when certain Gith is mocking you and you lack option to smash her nose even deeper to her skull ...
Not to kill her just to establish dominance.

And dont even make me start about Shadowheart. -_-

The more i think about it ... the more i get the feeling that Larian actualy IS terrible DM who enjoys getting us to frustrating situations and then deny our solutions. :-/

Player 1: "Won't someone think of the goblin children?"
Player 2: "Oh, I am. Hm...Fireball or Oil of Fiery Burning?"
Player 3: "Too flashy; too visible."
Player 4: "And what about the treasure?"
Player 2: "Good points. Cloudkill, maybe?"
Player 3: "Subtle - well, compared to a blaze - but a bit much. Entangle ought to snare the little bastards; then, we pick them off with arrows and bolts."
Player 1: "Wait, I..."

And now we're back to what SEEMS to be the core of the issue.

Larian is creating a troll game. They, the DM, are just messing with all of us and having a great time of it. The game, Single or Multiplayer, is being crafted so players can troll one another and exploit all sorts of things just for the fun of it - thus not a serious RPG. Then, to boot, they are crafting story and dialogue to troll people, making it so tiefling kids can troll you, and there's nothing you can do about it. And then, to boot, making it so you have to kill goblin kids if you're "good", thus making good people feel guilty about killing kids. Even making bad players - people who choose the murder all Grove people (not that they are bad people per se) - feel guilty about killing everyone in the Grove.

I hope this is actually not true, but right now it sure seems true.

I honestly still have hope that they are not actually being this way on purpose and that they will fix it for all areas where this seems to be the case. I still really like this game, but I am starting to see more and more of the flaws. But that's what EA is for right? Right?

Absolutely agree that this is a symptom of the same issue. Sebille in DoS2 had a similar introduction as *that certain ELF* and there was nothing preventing you from just killing her on the spot for it. I actually did that on my first playthrough because I, through my character, felt like "yeah hell no, you are not getting away with that." ... Not sure why they decided to not make that the case with Astarion. Perhaps that is something that will be included in the released version? :]

That's the lion's share of modern entertainment: you're going to feel guilty, no matter what. Guilty = "deep". Guilty = "real".

Well, in previous patches that option was there even for *that certain Elf* ...
But for some indeed unknown reason it was removed (i believe it was patch 4?)

Maybe im messing things right now ...
But i believe that Swen himself was talking about that they were focusing on wich companions players are killing during their first encounter ... not sure if it was in PFH, or in some interview before that patch ... if i remember corectly, he said that they are quite surprised in Larian that mostly killed one was Gale. O_o

Since Gale is the only person we can attack straight in the first encounter, even before we say anything ... it doesnt seem so suprising to me.
Then few other sentences from Gale was added, so he state clearly that he means no harm to us ... yet possibility for us to mean some serious harm to him remained intact.

And in that same Patch, possibility to directly attack Astarion (there, i said it) and Raphael (as well as few other NPCs, but i mention theese two, bcs they directly and litteraly threaten you) was removed ...

If i had to quess ... and i would want to be mean (and i do) ...
I would say that it seemed like somebody was tasked to adjust our first meeting with Astarion so people dont feel so strong urge to kill him right there on a spot ... and since that person was either lazy, uncapable, frugal (not sure if that is right word? ... i mean voices for the scene are allready recorded and that was expensive) or simply didnt get any better idea ...
S/He simply removed the option and marked it as "problem solved". -_-

That is my hope ...
As well as with every other mention of missing dialogue choices im listing here

Wait a minute, was it possible to attack the powerful demon Raphael and even defeat him in the previous patch?

If I recall, the 'attack now' button, in the bottom left menu, was always there for all dialogues, initially, and has since been removed from many (most?) of them.

I feel as though, if you did that with Raphael, it ended the cutscene (so it could start your requested initiative), which of course just dumped you back out into your camp, and no devil to see. I'm not 100% certain on that, but that's what my brain is telling me.

Hey, if they don't want to fix issues like people hating Astarion now, then they can fix it after they have more than a million customers telling them they suck. I mean this is a customer satisfaction job they work in. If they refuse to answer to their customers, then eventually, they won't have any.

I want this button to attack and defeat the Absolute, Selûne's avatar, and others the first time they meet. Or see what happens

Quote you now, print you later?

I just want that button back ...
Its lack dont fix anything, it just make thigs more unimersive and weird ... i mean i attack Astarion anyway, either after conversation, or with my companion ... so ... whats the big deal?

True! But in some parts of the world (I think Europe?), the rating changes MASSIVELY if children can be killed/are seen dying.

No we love being able to play games the way we want to, restrictions in rpgs SUCK

Ah... A truly Chaotic way of thinking.

Problem with chaos is, evil likes to thrive in it. When and where do you draw the line? Murdering kids is okay, but rape?... Child molestation?... Child sacrifice?... When is it too much? When do you cross the line and it becomes just plain wrong?

Chaos isn't inherently evil, though.

Would it help if they put a disclaimer on the game saying "No children were harmed in the making of this video game."? Because it is a game. I see where you're going with this, and sure, we can all over dramitize things when we want, but no one is suggesting anything but an even playing field. They put goblin children on the game and allowed you to kill them. No one asked them to, so if they are going to allow chlidren, even disgusting, smelly, canibalistic goblin children to be murdered by the party, then all children should be treated equally. I would be fine if they removed goblin children altogether, but I"m not fine with Larian saying it's okay to kill the smelly green kids, but leave those pretty red ones alone.