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

It's telling that people defending the tone of Larian's attempt have to stretch further than Mister Fantastic in order to reach a flaccid comparison such as an optional cloak.

Quite telling you chose to respond to this post but not my previous post about the non-optional lack of alignment system.

Cite your source?

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying they purposely meant for a lawful good character to be a mass murderer because they thought it would be funny?

The POINT is that the game was designed so that players would play the game as intended. Lawful Good characters were not MEANT to be murderers just because it's hilarious.

In D&D,mI can make a lawful good character and go around killing untold numbers IF the DM lets me and doesn't penalize me, but that's not the intent of the rules of the game. The intent of the original games was to create a D&D video game experience based on tabletop rules at the time, and they weren't trying to make it so people could do something comical like play a lawful good person who is totally evil, and that's my point. It was meant to be serious. If you made a Lawful Good character, you were meant to behave in the game as lawful good. Just like in tabletop. You can choose to not be Lawful Good, but then you aren't playing in character.

BG3 seems like it wants to be both serious and comical creating an adventure that is supposed to be a sequel to a serious RPG.

It was not a few gimmicks, that is the point that you are missing. When I can finish the game with a level one character - a mage using wands in BG1 - then that is silly in my opinion. Fun, but silly.

The lack of an alignment system is silly, but not fun. Because to roleplay a good character that slowly gives into the corruption, I'd have to wait until the end of SoA. Before that, the only thing that happens is the reputation drop. So the actual consequence of playing evil is dealing with shop proces and respawning guards. There is very little reaction from the main plot, to the point where it becomes absurd. Such as getting celebrated as the hero who saved the elven city, even though my character destroyed it.

Nevermind, Ash. We're just not connecting. It's fine. Whatever.

You think BG3 should be comical. I think it should be serious.

No, you again miss the point. If changing your alignment as a result of your actions should not be possible, then the hell trials in BG2 don't make sense. If changing your alignment should be possible, then it doesn't mean it was done in one step. An LG character can be for example consumed by getting vengeance for Gorion and as a result if that overwhelming hatred can slowly give in to the taint. They don't become the next lord of murder overnight. But in BG1, they cannot become that at all; quite ironic, considering the subject of the story. What is even the point of all those dark dreams and powers?

You shouldn't speak on behalf of anyone unless you can provide verifiable quotations/records.

I speak on behalf of myself. Perhaps it wasn't clear since you've decided to quote only one sentence from that paragraph. This is what I mean: reputation that can be easily brought up by donating at temples. The manual tells you how much money you need to donate to raise it, including at rock bottom. When a feature is described in the manual, then yes, I consider it intended by the devs.

I prefer to shave with Occam's razor: a gameplay mechanic intended to get players out of a hole (a caveat which in itself is a necessary evil), rather than a creative decision intended to produce a specific semi-farcical result.

I think the point here is that if someone went to play BG1 for the first time, the game would come across as being a serious attempt at a legitimate RPG rather then a RPG parady. Yes, the devs built in lots of little cheats and gimics and allow plenty of bugs to be exploited, but the first time you played it, without foreknowledge of these exploits, you get the impression that the devs were taking the the story seriously. This is what was intended. Most of the exploits in BG1 aren't in your face obvious, they are there to be discovered and abused later when you've finished the game and are goofing around trying to break things.

I completely agree with GM4Him that the mechanics should be realistic instead of road runner. Basic mechanics are what will keep this game alive for more then 6 months after release. If people can't take the game seriously, they won't want to play it more then once. The two most successful RPGs I can name without even thinking about are World of Warcraft and Skyrim. Both of these games have odd little quirks in them, but the developers took the mechanics serious as a heart attack. If Larian wants the game to be more than another DoS2, then they should look at what those two games did right. DoS2 is a decent enough game that most people finish it, remember it fondly, or at least not negatively, and move on. Skyrim is a game that people have spent years playing, same with WoW.

Dustmen has restated my point well.

Let's just get back on topic. This is totally derailing. Point is, throwing tiefling children as immortal missiles is weird and comical, and BG3 is really starting to lose a LOT of credibility for me as a serious RPG. Thing after thing increases the sheer comedy of this game, and I am losing the enchantment and seeing nothing but ridiculous trolling memery.

Larian. PLEASE do something more about this. You need to scale back on this stuff. It's being taken too far.

I agree that mechanics should aim to be realistic, and that includes removing homing missile devices like immortal kids. But when you then give Skyrim as an example, then I have the impression that "realistic" seems to be very subjective description in the context of this discussion. I've had lots of fun with that game, but only because there were mods to fix its worst non-optional feature: the level scaling. I consider that mechanics to be very unrealistic. Yet I'd hazard a guess most players didn't find that an issue.

My personal opinion as to why Skyrim is popular is not that it's because it is realistic, but it's because the game combines Sims-like elements with a generic ease of combat and exploration (which in turn is due to Bethesda removing challenges such as the complex dungeons from Daggerfal), and is moddable. And I'd say this is a successful strategy, considering the popularity of their Fallout sequels compared to the imo more complex original Fallouts. Tbh, I think if that many players were looking for realistic combat, games like Solasta would be bestsellers instead of remaining indie titles. Instead it is Skyrim, where I seem to recall (admittedly I haven't played it in years) you could become an archmage of the mages guild regardless of your characters magical skill or lack thereof.

Why are you focusing so much on these other things that aren't a part of the point?

You stated that you agreed with the point. Mechanics should aim to be realistic, and that includes removing homing missile devices like immortal kids. That's the point we're trying to make here. That's it. A serious RPG aims to be realistic. That was my point. That's it. That's why I brought up BG1 and 2 and the other games. They aimed to be realistic, therefore, they are serious RPGs. That was why I said that BG3 should be a serious RPG. Ragnarok said something like "Who said this is supposed to be a serious RPG," and I said, "Because the previous games were. It's the third installment of a series of serious RPGs."

See, the problem was, people starting trying to refute that BG1 and 2 were serious RPGs. And somehow we're now talking about how all games have crazy exploits and glitches and gimmicks and so forth.

The whole point I was trying to make was that BG 1 and 2 were MEANT to be serious RPGs. So BG3 SHOULD be serious too and not purposely comical with crazy comical elements. So forget Skyrim and Fallout and whatever else. Not on topic. Topic is, BG3 should be serious because BG1 and 2 were serious RPGs aimed at being realistic and as solid adaptations of D&D as possible.

That relates to throwing immortal tiefling children, because it is ridiculous that the tiefling children are immortal and can be resurrected now by throwing them. Therefore, allow tiefling children to die and be killed by the players.

If we've seen the core of Larian's efforts, then I think you're better off wishing upon a star. Either...

...the game is going to feature this brand of bizarre humor; buckle up for the ride.

or

...the game is going to be scrapped and built from the ground up to be firmly serious.

or

...the game is going to be abandoned/cancelled.

Seeing as how they're barely in touch with the spirit of D&D and/or The Forgotten Realms AND Sven is on record saying that this installment is a great business opportunity for his company, I'd say the first outcome is most likely.

You're not wrong.

Maybe I'll just go play Solasta now. Maybe I should be pumping people up more to play that game.

Sigh. But BG3 has SO much potential! Ugh.

Sigh. Maybe I need to just let it go. Let this ship sail however it's going to.

I'll tell you this much, though. If they don't do something to legit give us at least some of what we're hoping for, it'll be the last game of Larian's that I ever buy.

And to be clear, I'm not REALLY asking for a whole overhaul. I'm wanting them to tame it down and make things more valuable and meaningful and realistic within the boundaries provided by established lore.

I expect jumping superheroes if the jump spell is cast. Without it, no. 5-10 feet is a pretty normal-ish jump distance. Shove 5-10 feet. Normal. Spell. 15 feet makes sense, or whatever. I don't even have as much a problem with arrows doing the knock back because they're magic. It's the immortal tiefling kids type stuff that's got to go and the ridiculous shoving/throwing distances and jumping distances and so forth.

THAT'S what I mean by being a serious RPG. Provide us with a realistic normal so magic is special and there's more of a contrast between normal and supernatural. Using kids as throwing objects that never die... Nope. Gotta go.

And frankly, the OP is right. These kids should be realistic and kill-able because that is life. That is normal. That is realism. Being immortal, no matter how you feel about killing kids, is ridiculous.

The last point to be made on why this farsical loony toons baboonery should be put to bed is the trailer for the game. The game is being advertised as a legitimate D&D 5E RPG with a dark story line. I find nothing humorous or amusing about the opening cinimatic to the game. In comparison, take a look at the trailer for Saints Row or Borderlands, games where the outlandish is expected in game play. If they were looking to create a Borderlands type RPG, they should have advertised it as such. Instead, the trailer for the game advertises one thing, and so far the game itself is delivering another.

+1

Nice. You're real nice.

I love you too J. 😒

As a German, I want to tell you something:

Hitler was wrong. He erroneously believed that different human races exist at this day and age. That is not the case. All races, except for homo sapiens sapiens, are extince, the latest going extinct being the neanderthal race.

I know there are certain cultures that persist in calling ethnicities races, for example many people in the the USA. Even many educated Americans do that. And I guess it's a cultural thing; you guys don't have the same precise way of naming things as we do - by and large. But enough being off-topic...



DnD races are neither equal to human races, nor to human ethnicities. Races, by the biological definition, can procreate with one another. Dwarves and elves, by DnD's definition, can not procreate with one another. On top of that, the DnD writers may not have been overly concerned about science when they created a game where fall damage scales linearly, rapiers and maces penetrate full plate the same way etc.


Now this was my layman's perspective. Check out what actual scientists have to say, please:

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/