Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I'd also like to point out that the original games allowed you to attack anyone and everyone, including kids. You could select the Attack command and then click on the target and start attacking them. Sure. There were usually consequences. But you could do it. So why wouldn't you be able to do it in BG3? Why are people having such an issue with it in this game but not the originals?

"We used to be able to do 'x'" isn't exactly a good argument for why something should be allowed.

Not my point. My point is that in BG1 and 2, you weren't really supposed to go around killing kids. It was possible, but it wasn't like it was a core element of the game. However, you COULD go around killing kids if you wanted to, adding a level of realism and depth. IF you killed a kid, there was consequences for your actions, as it should be.

In BG3, the third game in the series, why should it suddenly be any different? Suddenly, you have children but you can't harm them at all. No matter how much they do to you, attack you, etc., you can't do anything to harm them.

Look. I'm not an advocate for killing kids. I REALLY don't like the idea at all. The first time I encountered the goblin kids while saving Halsin, I struggled with the idea of having to kill the kids before they alerted the entire camp. However, if you are going to make a game where killing kids is impossible, don't have the kids robbing you, smarting off to you, running off to get an entire grove to attack you as soon as you leave their den, and don't make it so that you as a player can pick up a kid's corpse and throw it at harpies to do damage - then have the kid resurrect instantly because YOU did damage to them. Don't allow goblin kids to be killed but not tiefling kids. Have the kids immediately run away and disappear if you try to attack them and DON'T have them be a real threat to you that you can't do anything about.

I REALLY don't like it that Mol and her gang can EASILY cause the entire grove to turn against you. You make one wrong move with Mol and the next thing you know every freaking tiefling is attacking you. So, in a sense, because you can't kill Mol and her gang, you have to butcher all their parents and everyone in the grove. It's a weird state of things. And if you don't kill the goblin kids, they run and alert everyone in the goblin camp. It's the same basic thing.

So yeah. I don't WANT to go around killing goblin or tiefling kids. However, if they are going to be a potential threat to my party, absolutely they need to not be immortal. Also, if I can use their bloody corpses as missiles in battle, don't make them immortal and able to be resurrected even if I throw them.

Good points well made. Was thinking about this over lunch. If you play this game as a role player rather than a gamer observing what's going on in the world, I think the two are different approaches, the more choices you have, the better. To that end, I agree that there needs to be equality built into the game. If I could faithfully role play a Bargest in BG3, I'd need the option to kill everyone to stay accurate to the lore of that monster. Guessing RPers who play Loth sworn Drow might feel the same... Comes down to how deep you want to go I guess. An "Evil" character might have no qualms about killing youngsters but they might so again, choice is key here.
In my 8 play throughs I have only killed the gobbo kids once partly because the idea is a bit repellent to me and also, I play a surface drow at war with Lolth so I prefer a less lethal approach when possible. Again though, I go to my point about how deep should we think this. Intelligent people always look for option, depth and choice so its natural that they do so when playing an RPG that's meant to provoke those things however, I think we risk losing the fantasy aspect of our hobby if we go too deep all the time.....