Larian Studios
So Larian decided it is ok to perpetuate negative sterotypes with their depiction of Goblins. But what is even more insidious is they allow you to kill children in BG3 but only the nasty green skinned ones.

Try killing a Tiefling child and you arent able to.

so what is the message here Larian?
Posted By: GaryOD Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 01:34 AM
Games are generally not meant to reflect real life, so maybe try not to put so much emphasis on being offended. The genre is called 'Fantasy' for a reason.
Posted By: Milani Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 01:36 AM
Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes
So Larian decided it is ok to perpetuate negative sterotypes with their depiction of Goblins. But what is even more insidious is they allow you to kill children in BG3 but only the nasty green skinned ones.

Try killing a Tiefling child and you arent able to.

so what is the message here Larian?


it's not that deep, dude...
Offended!
Can we just not.
I feel like a lot of people are either trolling or looking for reasons to be offended. People trying to compare IRL racism with some fantasy creatures like Orcs, Goblins, etc., when there are literally minority humans in game, or trying to find some hidden message to be offended at instead of looking to real world issues.

In all honesty it should be across the board though. Larian should either 1.) Not have any children being killed because of backlash they'll get from the parents or 2.) Everyone can be killed.
Posted By: Eguzky Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 01:57 AM
Rofl. It has nothing to do with the fact that goblins, by nature, are evil and cruel. Nope.

Stop getting so angry at a video game, lordy.
Posted By: _Vic_ Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 02:01 AM
whaaat? who does not want to kill goblins?

[Linked Image]

Same rules for all. If it lives and our characters are strong enough to defeat it they should have the option to attemt to do so. 'Real' world politics should not need to be reflected in games. It reminds me of some professors talking about the actuality and current relevance of literary classics as if relating to current events were the best way to make a classic. grin
Posted By: Eguzky Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 02:17 AM
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Same rules for all. If it lives and our characters are strong enough to defeat it they should have the option to attemt to do so. 'Real' world politics should not need to be reflected in games. It reminds me of some professors talking about the actuality and current relevance of literary classics as if relating to current events were the best way to make a classic. grin


True! But in some parts of the world (I think Europe?), the rating changes MASSIVELY if children can be killed/are seen dying.
I think goblins are okay because they are 'monsters'. Even in D&D, goblins are evil and cruel. Whereas Tieflings are people, playable in the PHB.

But getting upset over it? Well, some people just aren't happy unless they're tilting at the next windmill.
Yes, there are strange rules here on the good old continent when it comes to such things. Here in germany we only recently allowed swastikas in games, as if they would magically make those seeing them plot genocide.
If a game does not allow such things, someone will make a mod. Banning it in the first place is pointless. But it sure does allow some people to play flame wars on forums. Fortunately it seems to happen rarely here.
Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes
So Larian decided it is ok to perpetuate negative sterotypes with their depiction of Goblins. But what is even more insidious is they allow you to kill children in BG3 but only the nasty green skinned ones.

Try killing a Tiefling child and you arent able to.

so what is the message here Larian?


I think we should be able to kill them especially if your a paladin they are demonically tained after all and goblins are just as sentient as tieflings
Posted By: Eguzky Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 03:10 AM
Originally Posted by EndymionSelene
Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes
So Larian decided it is ok to perpetuate negative sterotypes with their depiction of Goblins. But what is even more insidious is they allow you to kill children in BG3 but only the nasty green skinned ones.

Try killing a Tiefling child and you arent able to.

so what is the message here Larian?


I think we should be able to kill them especially if your a paladin they are demonically tained after all and goblins are just as sentient as tieflings

Except, by the D&D rules/settings, goblins are evil and Teiflings can be any alignment.

I would think a Paladin mass slaughtering Teiflings would lose his powers and alignment, as it would be an evil act. Since the Teifling race is not evil.
Originally Posted by Eguzky
Rofl. It has nothing to do with the fact that goblins, by nature, are evil and cruel. Nope.

Stop getting so angry at a video game, lordy.


This isnt the case.

WOTC have stated that no races in D&D are inherently evil anymore.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 09:52 AM
What are you talking about? You can kill anyone you want in the game. So it's up to you whether you spare the goblin kids and kill the tieflings, or you kill both, or you kill none. Nobody is holding up your hand.
Originally Posted by Nyanko
What are you talking about? You can kill anyone you want in the game. So it's up to you whether you spare the goblin kids and kill the tieflings, or you kill both, or you kill none. Nobody is holding up your hand.


If you can also kill the tiefling kids then theres no issue here, I read you could if you chose to side with the drow / goblins.

So you can kill the goblin kids, the tiefling kids, or none of them correct?
Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes
so what is the message here Larian?


I don't know, but you tell me, please. I am literally curious to see who are the goblins and who are the tieflings counterparts in your head.
The OP is just having a laugh obviously.

I found it hilarious. personally.

#NSPCGC
I thought that goblins are people now. Moreover, each goblin is an adventurer with class and skills.
With that said, i think player should be able to attack (and kill, eventually) any creature in the game.
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf

This isnt the case.

WOTC have stated that no races in D&D are inherently evil anymore.


It's still up to the DM, nothing WotC can do or say changes that.

Also, we need to distinguish between goblins as a race and goblin society/culture. While individual goblins may not be evil, their society/culture as a whole is definitely evil. It's a society built on the strong bullying the weak, cruelty, torture and destruction.
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Yes, there are strange rules here on the good old continent when it comes to such things. Here in germany we only recently allowed swastikas in games, as if they would magically make those seeing them plot genocide.
If a game does not allow such things, someone will make a mod. Banning it in the first place is pointless. But it sure does allow some people to play flame wars on forums. Fortunately it seems to happen rarely here.


This is not entirely correct. They are allowed now, if the art of the game demands it (just like it was before with paintings, caricatures, movies), and/or if they fulfill the purpose of education. They just sort of opened the law up towards video games, so they are more considered art. The symbols are still banned and unconstitutional and a game like Battlefield would not necessarily be allowed to have them. In case of Wolfenstein it could have gone either way, really. I am not a fan of the new ruling, as categorizing games as art I find often stretched, and there is room for abuse and/or worthless additions to games.

On the topic at hand, if you can indeed kill gobbo childs, this is one of those worthless additions, and from a moral POV, regardless of what the rules or the lore says, this would be the decision of a madman and universally "evil". Plus of course picturing a race as inherently evil is obviously incorrect, as it is all subjective if you think of gobbo as a sentient race with culture, and is also sort of contrary to lore, as in SoD you can recruit a gobbo shaman, who has a somewhat gentle heart even.
You can let the tiefling kids die. It's like you're completely blind to the scenario and circumstances at hand. The tiefling kids do something stupid, like get drawn in by harpies or steal from the druids and it can cost them their lives if you don't save them. The goblin kids are hitting a bear with stones and you can choose to kill the bear or the goblin kids. Honestly I find the goblins much more shitty than the tieflings.

It depends on how you play, so what in the world are you getting so unnecessarily triggered over?
Goblins aren't real though
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Yes, there are strange rules here on the good old continent when it comes to such things. Here in germany we only recently allowed swastikas in games, as if they would magically make those seeing them plot genocide.

Didn't realise you had relaxed the rules on the swastika. As a keen modeller, do you realise how many kit decal sets I had to modify because they didn't include swastikas for the tail? Of course, I blame you, personally, for my life-changing issues.
I'm also highly offended that the game encourages you to ruin the plan of the mind-flayers. That's denying them their culture and imposing non-mind-flayer values on them. I am appalled.

I also see that Larian have included devils. What message is that to send? We are going to have a generation of devil-worshippers if this is allowed to continue!
Trigger warning. Goblins are oppressed by stereotype/lore. Don't play this game if you're an ideological zealot.
Why do people make fun of the OP only asking for continuity, the game is marketed under "inclusiveness" and other modern politics bullshit.

His request is sensible.
At this point, so many silly complaints have been lodged over absolutely nothing that I can't tell if this is a legitimate concern or satire.
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
At this point, so many silly complaints have been lodged over absolutely nothing that I can't tell if this is a legitimate concern or satire.


Well the complaint is either that you can kill kids in this game, or that you can not kill all kids in this game. Honestly this should be out of the question totally, but the OP is correct that it is at least a double standard, especially when your game is otherwise trying to be very inclusive.

It is also not consistent with the current lore, as in SoD you at least can have a goblin follower, who is true neutral and a rather gentle soul, too. It is said that she is this way, because of her maturity, so she might be an outlier, however does mean that Goblins are not absolute evil. This does not matter either, as the morals of the story are a reflection of today's morals. And in today's morals killing of infants or kids is universally condemned, especially deliberate. Going against that code of conduct is so rare, that the need of representation through implementation of it is inherently worthless.
This is some kind of "Green lifes matter" message?
At this point, I have no idea.

Troll, SJW, highly-sensitive, champion of the small goblinoid people, legitimate concern... it could be anything. I long ago gave up thinking that people made sense in the modern world.
Originally Posted by VincentNZ
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
At this point, so many silly complaints have been lodged over absolutely nothing that I can't tell if this is a legitimate concern or satire.


Well the complaint is either that you can kill kids in this game, or that you can not kill all kids in this game. Honestly this should be out of the question totally, but the OP is correct that it is at least a double standard, especially when your game is otherwise trying to be very inclusive.

It is also not consistent with the current lore, as in SoD you at least can have a goblin follower, who is true neutral and a rather gentle soul, too. It is said that she is this way, because of her maturity, so she might be an outlier, however does mean that Goblins are not absolute evil. This does not matter either, as the morals of the story are a reflection of today's morals. And in today's morals killing of infants or kids is universally condemned, especially deliberate. Going against that code of conduct is so rare, that the need of representation through implementation of it is inherently worthless.


Because it couldn't be something as simple as a minor oversight on flagging NPCs or have something to do with alignment, right? This is clearly some agenda that we need to quell before it gets out of hand. ouch
Posted By: Grieg Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 02:08 PM
Isn't it more the question about consistency?
If goblins can be killed so should humans and elves which IMHO is much better (so basically what FO2 did, rather than F3).
Although, if no other way (which probably is the case in order to please SJ warriors), none should be allowed to be killed as a compromise. I guess what I'm trying to say there should be all of them or none of them allowed, for the sake of consistency.
Well you can ally with the goblins and wipe out the druid grove entirely, which is what I'm doing on my evil drow playthrough, so what the heck are you people going on about? xD
Posted By: LoneSky Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 02:16 PM
For the sake of consistency, just remove killing altogether. Adults are just as cute, why we killing the adults?
Kill them softly with our song.

Bring up the Bard.
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Originally Posted by VincentNZ
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
At this point, so many silly complaints have been lodged over absolutely nothing that I can't tell if this is a legitimate concern or satire.


Well the complaint is either that you can kill kids in this game, or that you can not kill all kids in this game. Honestly this should be out of the question totally, but the OP is correct that it is at least a double standard, especially when your game is otherwise trying to be very inclusive.

It is also not consistent with the current lore, as in SoD you at least can have a goblin follower, who is true neutral and a rather gentle soul, too. It is said that she is this way, because of her maturity, so she might be an outlier, however does mean that Goblins are not absolute evil. This does not matter either, as the morals of the story are a reflection of today's morals. And in today's morals killing of infants or kids is universally condemned, especially deliberate. Going against that code of conduct is so rare, that the need of representation through implementation of it is inherently worthless.


Because it couldn't be something as simple as a minor oversight on flagging NPCs or have something to do with alignment, right? This is clearly some agenda that we need to quell before it gets out of hand. ouch


Sure, could be, but even then the OP is correct in calling this out as a bug. Still I suppose you are talking about Tiefling kids not being attackable and not Goblin kids being attackable. The problem with having that option is that, while the game wanting to represent contemporary moral standards and also include being able to open a wide variety of choices, they do not offer the corresponding consequences. Does the killing of the Gobbo kids remove the option to side with the goblin camp? It should. It should also have several other consequences like companions leaving, quest givers not giving quests anymore, certain factions or NPCs being hostile on sight, restricting certain traders, increase trading prices and so forth. So it would reflect the consequences of the real world, they are trying to represent in a fantasy setting.
Originally Posted by VincentNZ

Sure, could be, but even then the OP is correct in calling this out as a bug. Still I suppose you are talking about Tiefling kids not being attackable and not Goblin kids being attackable. The problem with having that option is that, while the game wanting to represent contemporary moral standards and also include being able to open a wide variety of choices, they do not offer the corresponding consequences. Does the killing of the Gobbo kids remove the option to side with the goblin camp? It should. It should also have several other consequences like companions leaving, quest givers not giving quests anymore, certain factions or NPCs being hostile on sight, restricting certain traders, increase trading prices and so forth. So it would reflect the consequences of the real world, they are trying to represent in a fantasy setting.


Contemporary moral standards don't apply in a fantasy setting.
To most people in Faerûn goblins are nothing more than dangerous pests, so most people would be ok with anyone doing pest control. Traders/merchants and travelers would more than likely be grateful that you've made the roads a little safer to travel.
And let's be honest ... if you're slaughtering them, you're unlikely to want to forge an alliance with them anyway.
I'm playing a dwarf. Goblins are my traditional enemy and I'm sworn to wipe them out where I find them. One of the characters is a dwarf ranger and is not going to be best pleased at goblin kids teasing the wildlife (my future dwarf druid will be even more angry).

Goblin children will grow to be goblins. Kill them all. Genocide is not only right, but it is my duty!

That's playing in the Forgotten Realms for you.
Originally Posted by VincentNZ
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Originally Posted by VincentNZ
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
At this point, so many silly complaints have been lodged over absolutely nothing that I can't tell if this is a legitimate concern or satire.


Well the complaint is either that you can kill kids in this game, or that you can not kill all kids in this game. Honestly this should be out of the question totally, but the OP is correct that it is at least a double standard, especially when your game is otherwise trying to be very inclusive.

It is also not consistent with the current lore, as in SoD you at least can have a goblin follower, who is true neutral and a rather gentle soul, too. It is said that she is this way, because of her maturity, so she might be an outlier, however does mean that Goblins are not absolute evil. This does not matter either, as the morals of the story are a reflection of today's morals. And in today's morals killing of infants or kids is universally condemned, especially deliberate. Going against that code of conduct is so rare, that the need of representation through implementation of it is inherently worthless.


Because it couldn't be something as simple as a minor oversight on flagging NPCs or have something to do with alignment, right? This is clearly some agenda that we need to quell before it gets out of hand. ouch


Sure, could be, but even then the OP is correct in calling this out as a bug. Still I suppose you are talking about Tiefling kids not being attackable and not Goblin kids being attackable. The problem with having that option is that, while the game wanting to represent contemporary moral standards and also include being able to open a wide variety of choices, they do not offer the corresponding consequences. Does the killing of the Gobbo kids remove the option to side with the goblin camp? It should. It should also have several other consequences like companions leaving, quest givers not giving quests anymore, certain factions or NPCs being hostile on sight, restricting certain traders, increase trading prices and so forth. So it would reflect the consequences of the real world, they are trying to represent in a fantasy setting.


It's being reported in the General forum and not the Bug forum, and the inclusion of the silly bait that is "So what is the message here, Larian?" makes it very clear that OP isn't a concerned member of the EA process in this case.
It's just another fake virtue-signaling baitpost meant to challenge the integrity of a developer that we can safely disregard and throw into the tire fire of similar posts like "This is not Baldur's Gate 3, it's Divinity: Original Sin 3" and "I'm an SJW and I'm offended by comments on the Steam forums so please moderate them better."
Posted By: vometia Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 03:45 PM
My take on it is that there wasn't any particular decision-making behind it other than "what might be required for particular quest outcomes?" Things like this may be standardised at a later stage of development.
Originally Posted by Kendaric


Contemporary moral standards don't apply in a fantasy setting.



I really would like that to be the case.
At this point my guess is that the OP wanted to star a little flamewar. It produced some interesting bits of satire so far.
Posted By: Ixal Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 04:00 PM
Hopefully WotC won't try to enforce their new marketing "inclusivity" on Larian. Especially their newest change that "everyone is unique and special" so that you can freely switch around your racial ability modifiers (+2 strength halflings, etc.) because biology having an influence on your physical or mental attributes is racist.
So my very minor issue is this: Why are we bringing "real world" into a fantasy game discussion? If I wanted to deal with the real world 24/7, I wouldn't be playing fantasy games. I'm sure not looking around as hard as I can to find things to be offended by either. I mean, if one looks hard enough, they can always find something to be offended about.

So I guess my question to the OP is this: Can you side with the goblins, and wipe out the Druid Grove? If the answer is yes, then they've picked the wrong topic to be offended by, because there are children in the Grove. I know that I have failed a dialog check that resulted in the death of a tiefling child, so it would seem that this imagined immunity from death is just that, imagined. That's not including references made in this thread that I haven't personally seen, just the one I have, and already I'm left thinking "Are we playing the same game".
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 04:56 PM
I just got to this part in the Goblin camp area - the Worg Pens, specifically.

I approached the cage, saw the goblin kids tossing rocks at the bear. I chastised them, and told them to stop, but they did not. My choices were to attack the bear, attack the children, or leave.

I then attempted to leave, so I could decide what to do, and there was a cutscene, the Bear broke out, and went hostile towards me, because I had not immediately started attacking the goblin children in dialogue. The bear remained hostile towards me, even though I spent all my turns attacking the goblins and none attacking the bear. Needless to say, it was a hopeless battle which led to a TPK.


I'm not a huge fan of "If you're not evil, you must attack these children right away." Even leaving aside morality, that's not very intuitive, nor does it allow for any sort of flexible approach or strategy. I do not like it.

The way the deaths of children are handled seems to be exaggerated and over the top, like it's trying to be edgy to make a point about how edgy it is to have the deaths of children in the game.


Originally Posted by robertthebard
I know that I have failed a dialog check that resulted in the death of a tiefling child, so it would seem that this imagined immunity from death is just that, imagined.


That's dialogue. I think he means you can't force-attack the Tiefling children in the camp. I haven't tried that so don't know if it's accurate, though.

The DC for the Tiefling child death is 18 for Persuasion and 20 for Nature, which are extremely high for level 2-3 characters, and the game offers no way to mitigate that or have a partial success. It's pass a DC 18 or watch a child die in agony, sucker.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I know that I have failed a dialog check that resulted in the death of a tiefling child, so it would seem that this imagined immunity from death is just that, imagined. That's not including references made in this thread that I haven't personally seen, just the one I have, and already I'm left thinking "Are we playing the same game".

As I recall, you have the option of agreeing that death is a good punishment because she's a thief. I might be misremembering, but I know that some of the dialogue is fairly hard on the tiefling's chances.
Posted By: Ixal Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
So my very minor issue is this: Why are we bringing "real world" into a fantasy game discussion?


Because Wizards of the Coast, the owners of D&D have lately quite often brought real world into their fantasy game for marketing purposes, first be their "No race is evil" statement, the changes they do to Orcs and Drow because them being evil is racist and now their "everyone is special" rules changes that basically remove ability scores from races as everyone is free to trade them around, again because apparently the biology determining your strength is racist according to them.
Originally Posted by Stabbey
I just got to this part in the Goblin camp area - the Worg Pens, specifically.

I approached the cage, saw the goblin kids tossing rocks at the bear. I chastised them, and told them to stop, but they did not. My choices were to attack the bear, attack the children, or leave.

I then attempted to leave, so I could decide what to do, and there was a cutscene, the Bear broke out, and went hostile towards me, because I had not immediately started attacking the goblin children in dialogue. The bear remained hostile towards me, even though I spent all my turns attacking the goblins and none attacking the bear. Needless to say, it was a hopeless battle which led to a TPK.


I'm not a huge fan of "If you're not evil, you must attack these children right away." Even leaving aside morality, that's not very intuitive, nor does it allow for any sort of flexible approach or strategy. I do not like it.

The way the deaths of children are handled seems to be exaggerated and over the top, like it's trying to be edgy to make a point about how edgy it is to have the deaths of children in the game.


Originally Posted by robertthebard
I know that I have failed a dialog check that resulted in the death of a tiefling child, so it would seem that this imagined immunity from death is just that, imagined.


That's dialogue. I think he means you can't force-attack the Tiefling children in the camp. I haven't tried that so don't know if it's accurate, though.

The DC for the Tiefling child death is 18 for Persuasion and 20 for Nature, which are extremely high for level 2-3 characters, and the game offers no way to mitigate that or have a partial success. It's pass a DC 18 or watch a child die in agony, sucker.

I failed it on my Rogue, but passed it on my Ranger. I don't recall what the roll was supposed to be. It's not like I'm actively trying to run around and force attack children, Goblin or otherwise either.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by Ixal
Because Wizards of the Coast, the owners of D&D have lately quite often brought real world into their fantasy game for marketing purposes, first be their "No race is evil" statement, the changes they do to Orcs and Drow because them being evil is racist and now their "everyone is special" rules changes that basically remove ability scores from races as everyone is free to trade them around, again because apparently the biology determining your strength is racist according to them.



Or, alternatively, enough players are going, "I have in mind a character concept for a race and class, but I don't get any racial bonuses to get to a 16 in that class's favored ability from point buy, and still like to make the character without the rest of the people at my table yelling at me for playing 'suboptimally'."

I got enough flak for saying "I'd like to make a Halfling Wizard" just in a D&D thread on a discussion forum, before even getting to a table.
I was roundly berated over on RPGNet for daring to suggest that players could design characters that were sub-optimal but fun to play.

"You shouldn't play a healer because the DPS versus the healing times the average hits... blah blah blah. You're letting everyone else at the table down."

Some folk take their hobby far more seriously than I do.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
I was roundly berated over on RPGNet for daring to suggest that players could design characters that were sub-optimal but fun to play.

"You shouldn't play a healer because the DPS versus the healing times the average hits... blah blah blah. You're letting everyone else at the table down."

Some folk take their hobby far more seriously than I do.


I agree. In this forum and others, I have noticed people taking video games way too seriously even DnD. When it comes to Baldur's Gate, I see a lot of people bringing up DnD rules and such but based on my research through WOTC, they claim it's not set in stone. These rules are in place to help you play the game and not mean to take over in your game play. Especially when it comes to characters and their personalities and such, WOTC has their own canon but that doesn't mean you can't create your own. The one thing that is stressed by WOTC is that the most important part of DnD is storytelling. When there are players that want to push forward the rules, that takes the fun of playing DnD away.
Posted By: Aviox Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 17/10/20 08:08 PM
All should be fair game.
I just let them run away (even turned off my Attack of Opportunity for that fight.)
The point is that if you can kill Goblin children, you should be able to kill any other children in the game.

It's an argument of consistency.

Both WOTC and Larian are strongly advertising both tabletop 5e and BG3 to all the current SJW diversity stuff for marketing and social media credit, so they should apply those views consistently in this game.

The arguments are not being made because people are being SJWs, they are pointing out the flaws that WOTC and Larian have already made such statements but may not be applying them in this game.

I haven't actually checked if you can kill any of the non goblin children in the game as it isn't something I would normally do in my playthroughs, I've heard from some people you can and this thread that you can't.

However my brain had the exact same curiousity as the OP when I got to Halsim's cell and found out you could kill the Goblin children.
What goblin children?
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
The point is that if you can kill Goblin children, you should be able to kill any other children in the game.

It's an argument of consistency.

Both WOTC and Larian are strongly advertising both tabletop 5e and BG3 to all the current SJW diversity stuff for marketing and social media credit, so they should apply those views consistently in this game.

The arguments are not being made because people are being SJWs, they are pointing out the flaws that WOTC and Larian have already made such statements but may not be applying them in this game.

I haven't actually checked if you can kill any of the non goblin children in the game as it isn't something I would normally do in my playthroughs, I've heard from some people you can and this thread that you can't.

However my brain had the exact same curiousity as the OP when I got to Halsim's cell and found out you could kill the Goblin children.

Actually, they shouldn't apply them at all. Keep the real world political stuff in the real world, and leave my fantasy games alone.
Originally Posted by Ixal
Hopefully WotC won't try to enforce their new marketing "inclusivity" on Larian. Especially their newest change that "everyone is unique and special" so that you can freely switch around your racial ability modifiers (+2 strength halflings, etc.) because biology having an influence on your physical or mental attributes is racist.


Argh...I see people advocating for similar blanding of races and abilities in ESO (my other "play a lot" game).

I LIKE the fact that certain races/gender/culture/background can be a starting point and a limitation. I'm had pressed to understand how that can be racist; but then there are silly and uneducated people everywhere.

Originally Posted by Sadurian
I was roundly berated over on RPGNet for daring to suggest that players could design characters that were sub-optimal but fun to play.

"You shouldn't play a healer because the DPS versus the healing times the average hits... blah blah blah. You're letting everyone else at the table down."

Some folk take their hobby far more seriously than I do.


I offer you sympathy and respect for working with such choices - I really like the unusual choices that make playing a particular character fun...or challenging...or both.
If I want to be a follower of the absolute and slaughter children that's my call. I'm disappointed that the only children I can kill are the goblin children. Sometimes I want to save everyone, sometimes I want to play through a second time and be the most horrible individual possible. Maybe I want to know what dwarf tastes like, and maybe dwarven children are like veal.
Ok I just went ahead and tried it to confirm, you can't kill the tiefling children, they just go down to and stay invincible on 0 HP.

I agree with the OP that there shouldn't be any difference between being able to kill Goblin children and those of any other race.

Either they should all be killable, or none of them should be.
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Ok I just went ahead and tried it to confirm, you can't kill the tiefling children, they just go down to and stay invincible on 0 HP.

I agree with the OP that there shouldn't be any difference between being able to kill Goblin children and those of any other race.

Either they should all be killable, or none of them should be.


+1

But I'd rather it's all
If a person really wants to kill children in game.....

I hope they find a good therapist.
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
If a person really wants to kill children in game.....

I hope they find a good therapist.


Its a game ...

Whats the difference between killing one NPC and another?

And you can already kill two children in the game anyway.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 18/10/20 03:43 AM
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
If a person really wants to kill children in game.....

I hope they find a good therapist.


Could say the same of anyone playing a murderhobo or a evil character in general. I mean, if you re going to judge that, might as well judge any bad deeds in video games.
I took a look at the scene with the goblin children teasing the bear, which is a very IMPORTANT bear, I don't want to spoil it for anyone that may not know. All I will say is DON'T kill the bear. It seems in the cinematic scene we are shown children goblins BUT I don't think that's who you end up fighting. I noticed one of the goblin kids running to get help. So, who you end up killing is maybe one goblin child because the rest are actually adults but since the goblins are the same height, it's hard to tell. I took a look at the faces on the top left of the screen and noticed that they don't seem like faces of younglings but they look more adult.
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I took a look at the scene with the goblin children teasing the bear, which is a very IMPORTANT bear, I don't want to spoil it for anyone that may not know. All I will say is DON'T kill the bear. It seems in the cinematic scene we are shown children goblins BUT I don't think that's who you end up fighting. I noticed one of the goblin kids running to get help. So, who you end up killing is maybe one goblin child because the rest are actually adults but since the goblins are the same height, it's hard to tell. I took a look at the faces on the top left of the screen and noticed that they don't seem like faces of younglings but they look more adult.


You can kill the children or leave them to run away and warn the rest of the camp. While killing them is optional, it is still possible unlike the invincible tiefling children.
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
If a person really wants to kill children in game.....

I hope they find a good therapist.


Originally Posted by Hachina

Could say the same of anyone playing a murderhobo or a evil character in general. I mean, if you re going to judge that, might as well judge any bad deeds in video games.


True, much of all the versions of D&D seem to generate murder hoboes in general.
In this case I'm a splitter, not a lumper and someone complaining that they can't kill children .. that has a definitely different feel to "I kill monsters and take their loot" to me.

YMMV
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
If a person really wants to kill children in game.....

I hope they find a good therapist.


Originally Posted by Hachina

Could say the same of anyone playing a murderhobo or a evil character in general. I mean, if you re going to judge that, might as well judge any bad deeds in video games.


True, much of all the versions of D&D seem to generate murder hoboes in general.
In this case I'm a splitter, not a lumper and someone complaining that they can't kill children .. that has a definitely different feel to "I kill monsters and take their loot" to me.

YMMV


But we can kill children in this game. The Goblin ones at least. If they hadn't put that in, then no one would be wanting to kill the Tiefling kids as well.
Originally Posted by Kendaric
Originally Posted by VincentNZ

Sure, could be, but even then the OP is correct in calling this out as a bug. Still I suppose you are talking about Tiefling kids not being attackable and not Goblin kids being attackable. The problem with having that option is that, while the game wanting to represent contemporary moral standards and also include being able to open a wide variety of choices, they do not offer the corresponding consequences. Does the killing of the Gobbo kids remove the option to side with the goblin camp? It should. It should also have several other consequences like companions leaving, quest givers not giving quests anymore, certain factions or NPCs being hostile on sight, restricting certain traders, increase trading prices and so forth. So it would reflect the consequences of the real world, they are trying to represent in a fantasy setting.


Contemporary moral standards don't apply in a fantasy setting.
To most people in Faerûn goblins are nothing more than dangerous pests, so most people would be ok with anyone doing pest control. Traders/merchants and travelers would more than likely be grateful that you've made the roads a little safer to travel.
And let's be honest ... if you're slaughtering them, you're unlikely to want to forge an alliance with them anyway.


Oh, they do. That is why there were no same-sex romances in BG1+2 (romance was even race-restricted in some cases), but they were in SoD and the Enhanced Editions. They've also been in any RPG of the last decade. And since the last three years we have seen more and more representation, with rather "polarizing" outcomes. Like Corwyn in SoD, who in a half-sentence, told you her lifestory and the internet went ablaze. I believe you can romance anyone regardless of race/class/gender in Baldur's Gate III, just like you can about anywhere in the Western World. Thing is, we do want the contemporary morals implemented, and some things haven't changed in thousands of years, regardless if it is a fantasy setting or set in the "real world". The killing of infants, like murder in general or stealing is one of them. That also extends to animals or, vermin. Goblins are on a higher tier, because they are an intelligent people with culture and language and, most importantly, they are humanoid. So you would have a hard time drowning a baby cat already, but a much harder time killing an infant that can talk back and resembles something you are very familiar with.
The reason we see it a lot in games and the demand for it, is because of reloading and no consequences whatsoever attached to it. That is why it is a double-standard to have certain actions, yet not the repercussions. That is why having amoral decisions in general in games is tendencially futile and solely there for the "hurhur, I just wiped out a village"-effect. So like GTA, where to whole world is curiously devoid of children.
There's a difference between children who are enemy combatants, and children who are not.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
There's a difference between children who are enemy combatants, and children who are not.


If you join the Goblins and choose to wipe out the Druid Grove, then the tiefling children become enemy combatants, but are still invincible.

Also the Goblin kids literally don't attack you, THEY TRY TO RUN AWAY!

But you can kill them from behind while they are trying to escape.
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
There's a difference between children who are enemy combatants, and children who are not.


If you join the Goblins and choose to wipe out the Druid Grove, then the tiefling children become enemy combatants, but are still invincible.

Also the Goblin kids literally don't attack you, THEY TRY TO RUN AWAY!

But you can kill them from behind while they are trying to escape.



Ah, well in that case, you should definitely be able to kill the tiefling kids. I haven't seen a game that let you kill kids since Fallout 2, though.
Wasn't there someone claiming that they had to slaughter all the hiding tiefling kids in order to push forward the plot...?

Either way, I don't get why you are so wound up about this. The 'preset' option seems to be going the good aligned playthrough, that's usually what most people do. Goblins have been very humanized in this game, and I have to admit, as much as I disliked them being made so smart and civilized, I found some of them very cute, I grew fond of Zassa or Sazza and I couldn't be mean to her in my evil playthrough, I had to spare her. Still, I'm sorry, but they're effing gobbos and 99% of them are evil (I haven't found a single good gobbo in the game, so I leave that 1% open.)

The children that you can kill, but you don't have to kill (I didn't even manage to catch them in my playthrough, they darted off so fast!) are clearly growing up to be just as evil and already behaving like psychopaths, they are shown torturing other creatures and enjoying it thoroughly. There is clearly a difference between them, and the tieflings, as much as you wouldn't like to admit it, the goblins are still a monstruous race, and their culture revolves around cruelty and back stabbing.

Originally Posted by Goldberry
Wasn't there someone claiming that they had to slaughter all the hiding tiefling kids in order to push forward the plot...?

Either way, I don't get why you are so wound up about this. The 'preset' option seems to be going the good aligned playthrough, that's usually what most people do. Goblins have been very humanized in this game, and I have to admit, as much as I disliked them being made so smart and civilized, I found some of them very cute, I grew fond of Zassa or Sazza and I couldn't be mean to her in my evil playthrough, I had to spare her. Still, I'm sorry, but they're effing gobbos and 99% of them are evil (I haven't found a single good gobbo in the game, so I leave that 1% open.)

The children that you can kill, but you don't have to kill (I didn't even manage to catch them in my playthrough, they darted off so fast!) are clearly growing up to be just as evil and already behaving like psychopaths, they are shown torturing other creatures and enjoying it thoroughly. There is clearly a difference between them, and the tieflings, as much as you wouldn't like to admit it, the goblins are still a monstruous race, and their culture revolves around cruelty and back stabbing.



My criticism is to have the option at all, since it is one of the few things in the world across time people can agree on as being amoral. In any world it would have social, professional and therefore personal consequences, which are not represented in this game, hence having these interactions themselves is worthless other than filling the desire to act as an inhuman being. Even people inclined to that sort of behaviour know it is wrong and refrain from doing it, because of the attached consequences, hence it is a statistical outlier and always has been. Even if you go by the definition of them being just vermin or animals, taking a puppy behind the barn is not something anyone would do for fun and is quite stressing for the individual.
If one agrees that goblins are humanoids with a culture, that might be alien to us, we are now in a society (and this western society is represented in this game) that respects that and does not directly make the assumption that different cultures are inherently evil. Besides, cruelty to animals is a totally human behaviour, especially as a child, I bet everyone of us has a story of witnessing or acting on causing an animal mental or physical stress and pain deliberately inflicted for a varied amount of reasons.

In the end it barely matters for most the players, but if your game wants to represent the society of liberal standards of today, this is something to keep in mind for the devs.
Originally Posted by Goldberry
Wasn't there someone claiming that they had to slaughter all the hiding tiefling kids in order to push forward the plot...?

Either way, I don't get why you are so wound up about this. The 'preset' option seems to be going the good aligned playthrough, that's usually what most people do. Goblins have been very humanized in this game, and I have to admit, as much as I disliked them being made so smart and civilized, I found some of them very cute, I grew fond of Zassa or Sazza and I couldn't be mean to her in my evil playthrough, I had to spare her. Still, I'm sorry, but they're effing gobbos and 99% of them are evil (I haven't found a single good gobbo in the game, so I leave that 1% open.)

The children that you can kill, but you don't have to kill (I didn't even manage to catch them in my playthrough, they darted off so fast!) are clearly growing up to be just as evil and already behaving like psychopaths, they are shown torturing other creatures and enjoying it thoroughly. There is clearly a difference between them, and the tieflings, as much as you wouldn't like to admit it, the goblins are still a monstruous race, and their culture revolves around cruelty and back stabbing.



Monsterous races are fine to me and most players, but WOTC have stated that none of their races are meant to be inherently evil anymore. If they want to push such agendas, then they should enforce them as well and at the least remove the ability to be able to kill the two Goblin children. And likewise I actually began to somewhat like the goblins in this game, particularly the one cheering for Volo, and even most of the evil ones actually end up seeming somewhat funny, but then the game lets you kill their children.

Its ok to let the stealing Tiefling kid die to a snake, then what about if Lae'zel wants to smash the skull of the one that tricks her with fake magical rings? Or if Astarion wants to mercy kill them rather than leaving them to die on the road after being kicked out of the grove? Or if you happen to role playing a character that simply wants to kill anythkng that looks like a demon?

And on that note how are tieflings not a monsterous race as well when they straight up look like demons with actual horns? Who decides what the moral and ethical scope is meant to be in a D&D setting?

'Tieflings are invaders from hell that need to be destroyed like the devilkin they are and sent back to hell' - what is wrong with roleplaying such a perspective? Do the Githyanki spare children when deciding to slit people navel to throat as Lae'zel so exquisitely details?

Originally Posted by DumbleDorf

Monsterous races are fine to me and most players, but WOTC have stated that none of their races are meant to be inherently evil anymore. If they want to push such agendas, then they should enforce them as well and at the least remove the ability to be able to kill the two Goblin children.


You still don't differentiate between "race" and "society/culture"... goblin society is undeniably evil (they delight in torture and cruelty, bullying those weaker than themselves, etc). A goblin that is brought up in a different culture wouldn't necessarily have those tendencies, therefore the "race" goblin isn't inherently evil. That's basically what WotC meant.

Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Who decides what the moral and ethical scope is meant to be in a D&D setting?


The DM does. If players have an issue with a DM's decision, they are free to find another group to play with.

Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
'Tieflings are invaders from hell that need to be destroyed like the devilkin they are and sent back to hell' - what is wrong with roleplaying such a perspective? Do the Githyanki spare children when deciding to slit people navel to throat as Lae'zel so exquisitely details?


There's nothing wrong with roleplaying a character with that perspective, you just need the right group to play a character like that.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 18/10/20 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
If a person really wants to kill children in game.....

I hope they find a good therapist.


Originally Posted by Hachina

Could say the same of anyone playing a murderhobo or a evil character in general. I mean, if you re going to judge that, might as well judge any bad deeds in video games.


True, much of all the versions of D&D seem to generate murder hoboes in general.
In this case I'm a splitter, not a lumper and someone complaining that they can't kill children .. that has a definitely different feel to "I kill monsters and take their loot" to me.

YMMV


Well, maybe he is a teacher and he has very evil kid in his class? Video game can be good as a Catharsis . Though that would reinforce your point of needing a therapist.
Originally Posted by Goldberry
Wasn't there someone claiming that they had to slaughter all the hiding tiefling kids in order to push forward the plot...?

Either way, I don't get why you are so wound up about this. The 'preset' option seems to be going the good aligned playthrough, that's usually what most people do. Goblins have been very humanized in this game, and I have to admit, as much as I disliked them being made so smart and civilized, I found some of them very cute, I grew fond of Zassa or Sazza and I couldn't be mean to her in my evil playthrough, I had to spare her. Still, I'm sorry, but they're effing gobbos and 99% of them are evil (I haven't found a single good gobbo in the game, so I leave that 1% open.)

The children that you can kill, but you don't have to kill (I didn't even manage to catch them in my playthrough, they darted off so fast!) are clearly growing up to be just as evil and already behaving like psychopaths, they are shown torturing other creatures and enjoying it thoroughly. There is clearly a difference between them, and the tieflings, as much as you wouldn't like to admit it, the goblins are still a monstruous race, and their culture revolves around cruelty and back stabbing.




That's a good point that remind me of "Zadig''book of Voltaire, where an angel kill a small kid and tells Zadig that the kid would have become a serial killer and would have murdered a lot of people. Very pragmatic.
Originally Posted by VincentNZ

Thing is, we do want the contemporary morals implemented, and some things haven't changed in thousands of years, regardless if it is a fantasy setting or set in the "real world". The killing of infants, like murder in general or stealing is one of them. That also extends to animals or, vermin. Goblins are on a higher tier, because they are an intelligent people with culture and language and, most importantly, they are humanoid. So you would have a hard time drowning a baby cat already, but a much harder time killing an infant that can talk back and resembles something you are very familiar with.


I think your argument bites itself. "most importantly, they are humanoid." You seem to agree that people of any race are worth the same. While you are willing to expand the set of entities to whom your system of morals applies beyond tribe and race to all humanoids you draw the border at "most importantly humanoid". So it does not apply to sentient beings that are not humanoid. Is "can a human create viable offspring with it" a good basis for a system of morals?
If current western morals are to be normative then why is "racism" evil but "speciesism" is not?

"Thing is, we do want the contemporary morals implemented"
I do not want that at all. It's all arbitrary and rooted in cultures that simply do not exist in the forgotten realms.
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
Originally Posted by VincentNZ

Thing is, we do want the contemporary morals implemented, and some things haven't changed in thousands of years, regardless if it is a fantasy setting or set in the "real world". The killing of infants, like murder in general or stealing is one of them. That also extends to animals or, vermin. Goblins are on a higher tier, because they are an intelligent people with culture and language and, most importantly, they are humanoid. So you would have a hard time drowning a baby cat already, but a much harder time killing an infant that can talk back and resembles something you are very familiar with.


I think your argument bites itself. "most importantly, they are humanoid." You seem to agree that people of any race are worth the same. While you are willing to expand the set of entities to whom your system of morals applies beyond tribe and race to all humanoids you draw the border at "most importantly humanoid". So it does not apply to sentient beings that are not humanoid. Is "can a human create viable offspring with it" a good basis for a system of morals?
If current western morals are to be normative then why is "racism" evil but "speciesism" is not?

"Thing is, we do want the contemporary morals implemented"
I do not want that at all. It's all arbitrary and rooted in cultures that simply do not exist in the forgotten realms.


I see your point, but this is not what my personal view is. Since I am convinced in the real world that every man is created equal I put that belief into the game and extend it to every being that has a comparable social structure, regardless of the humanoid thing (which in itself is quite a variety, like anything walking upright and having two legs can be considered humanoid so bird people, lizard people, inanimate machines and undead). Many players do the same, but draw the line at the humanoid thing. The Rachni from Mass Effect are a good example. For me there was no other way than helping an insectoid race become a thing again. Many other players ( I think there were stats on that) drew the line there. So I deduced that this would be the same here, gobbos are humanoid so most players are inclined to extend the morals to them as well.
It gets really interesting when developers put sentient creatures into their game that are either benign or have a point, but are appaling to look at and/or generally considered hostile. That is where peoples' morals really grind their gears. It does not mean that deciding against, say, a nice phase spider is wrong or right, but is contemporary moral either way.

And I still think that all games are basically rooted into the western moral code. If they are not, or if parts of it are not (Caesar's Legion comes to mind in Fallout: NV) there are serious repercussions attached. And even they abide to certain principles not unknown to us, although they are the clearly evil path. Stealing for example is not a thing, and neither is the killing of infants (which also wasn't in the game). If we take the BG as an example over the last 20 years it is rather clear it was modeled after the real world. Keep in mind morals does not necessarily mean equal to culture, but any gender can do anything and anyone can also date anyone, there are gobbo followers, drow can seemingly walk freely on the surface (and get a charisma bonus). Quite a few things even changed over the last two decades. There are still some antiquated social structures, but way more ways to get out of them and many stories/quests evolve around breaking those up, like dethroning that lord that treats his people bad and such.
Now a game that is not at all rooted in these traditionally narrow set of morals, would need to be totally reinvented and probably disconnected from the human race, too. And of course when you break out of it, you will need to add all the added repercussions. Like I said before, if you are known to be the happy baby cat killer, you are not going to be invited to tea very often. If you hunt gobbo kids for sport, then companions should leave, spread the word and cut you out of a lot of content. Some might even secretly like it, but that does not mean these people would like to openly be seen with the "monster of the goblin village". If nothing like this is the case then the addition is moot and without benefit.

I did not expect anything from the title, but it actually made me think about that sort of stuff. Hence I keep on discussing. laugh
Posted By: Kr0w93 Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 18/10/20 06:19 PM
We should be able to kill anyone and everyone.

You could kill kids in the original series, and the game made sure you were heavily penalized for it. You took on a much higher rep hit than for killing most other innocent NPCs.
Posted By: Hawke Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 18/10/20 06:54 PM
I detect evil in this thread and I will smite it.

Genociding Goblins is lawful good!
Also being able to kill kids means the game has to be censored in countries like Germany and Larian definetly doesn't want that.
Originally Posted by Hawke

Also being able to kill kids means the game has to be censored in countries like Germany and Larian definetly doesn't want that.


Theres a lot of games already that aren't banned in Germany that let you kill children:

https://www.giantbomb.com/killing-children/3015-4067/games/

Not necessarily everyone on that list, but whichever ones are not banned.
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I took a look at the scene with the goblin children teasing the bear, which is a very IMPORTANT bear, I don't want to spoil it for anyone that may not know. All I will say is DON'T kill the bear. It seems in the cinematic scene we are shown children goblins BUT I don't think that's who you end up fighting. I noticed one of the goblin kids running to get help. So, who you end up killing is maybe one goblin child because the rest are actually adults but since the goblins are the same height, it's hard to tell. I took a look at the faces on the top left of the screen and noticed that they don't seem like faces of younglings but they look more adult.


You can kill the children or leave them to run away and warn the rest of the camp. While killing them is optional, it is still possible unlike the invincible tiefling children.


That's because Tieflings are of Human origin when Goblins are not. They are considered monsters and usually evil. I wouldn't call Tiefling children invincible, look at the cinematic scene with the Tiefling child Arabella, if you fail to save her, she gets killed by Kagha's snake.
Posted By: flick40 Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 18/10/20 08:51 PM
I never tried to kill any kids, goblin or otherwise, and I played both sides of that coin. The tiefling kids we all dead at goblin hands when I found them. The goblin kids were never around once you start to wipe their camp and that goes for their bodies as well. But the druid cove was littered with their bodies and there were far more tiefling children than goblin. I felt bad for the mute tiefling kid though.

But I don't want either race's kids or any kids to be removed from the game. Baldur's Gate better have kids and I loved the lil scam the tiefling kids had going on.
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I took a look at the scene with the goblin children teasing the bear, which is a very IMPORTANT bear, I don't want to spoil it for anyone that may not know. All I will say is DON'T kill the bear. It seems in the cinematic scene we are shown children goblins BUT I don't think that's who you end up fighting. I noticed one of the goblin kids running to get help. So, who you end up killing is maybe one goblin child because the rest are actually adults but since the goblins are the same height, it's hard to tell. I took a look at the faces on the top left of the screen and noticed that they don't seem like faces of younglings but they look more adult.


You can kill the children or leave them to run away and warn the rest of the camp. While killing them is optional, it is still possible unlike the invincible tiefling children.


That's because Tieflings are of Human origin when Goblins are not. They are considered monsters and usually evil. I wouldn't call Tiefling children invincible, look at the cinematic scene with the Tiefling child Arabella, if you fail to save her, she gets killed by Kagha's snake.


I already covered that. If she can get killed by the snake then theres no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to with a weapon or spell. They are invincible when they cannot die and stay alive on 0 HP. Tieflings also look like devils, pretty much the definition of 'monsterous' if you care to look it up. The goblins actually look less like monsters than tieflings do anyway.
Posted By: Hawke Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 18/10/20 09:17 PM
Nope! Teifling are not monstrous or evil in 5E! Just an uncommon race alike Gnomes or Dragonborn.
Originally Posted by Hawke
Nope! Teifling are not monstrous or evil in 5E! Just an uncommon race alike Gnomes or Dragonborn.


They are monsterous based on the dictionary definition of monsterous:

having the qualities or appearance of a monster
came face to face with a monstrous creature

Doesn't matter what 5e or WOTC want to define it as, if players want to kill tieflings then let them kill tieflings.

They straight up come from the hells.
Posted By: Hawke Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 18/10/20 09:23 PM
If you don't care about 5e lore then this discussion is a waste of time Tieflings are just differnt looking humans while Goblins are monsters
/thread closed
Originally Posted by Hawke
If you don't care about 5e lore then this discussion is a waste of time Tieflings are just differnt looking humans while Goblins are monsters
/thread closed


Erm tieflings are not Humans, they are tieflings. Goblins are classified as as humanoid as well.

And you should be able to kill human children in the game if any are put in as well.

Also goblins are not even classified as monsterous https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Goblin
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I took a look at the scene with the goblin children teasing the bear, which is a very IMPORTANT bear, I don't want to spoil it for anyone that may not know. All I will say is DON'T kill the bear. It seems in the cinematic scene we are shown children goblins BUT I don't think that's who you end up fighting. I noticed one of the goblin kids running to get help. So, who you end up killing is maybe one goblin child because the rest are actually adults but since the goblins are the same height, it's hard to tell. I took a look at the faces on the top left of the screen and noticed that they don't seem like faces of younglings but they look more adult.


You can kill the children or leave them to run away and warn the rest of the camp. While killing them is optional, it is still possible unlike the invincible tiefling children.


That's because Tieflings are of Human origin when Goblins are not. They are considered monsters and usually evil. I wouldn't call Tiefling children invincible, look at the cinematic scene with the Tiefling child Arabella, if you fail to save her, she gets killed by Kagha's snake.


I already covered that. If she can get killed by the snake then theres no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to with a weapon or spell. They are invincible when they cannot die and stay alive on 0 HP. Tieflings also look like devils, pretty much the definition of 'monsterous' if you care to look it up. The goblins actually look less like monsters than tieflings do anyway.


According to WOTC, the DM (Larian) is the one telling the story. That's the point of DnD not the rules or what WOTC considers canon. DnD is about storytelling, not about what the rules day, that's not fun. They are in place for guidance and that's it. To Larian, they are making Goblins evil, regardless whether they are adult or child, they are evil. Tieflings because they were once Human from pacts with demons, Larian is not making them killable. Perhaps because they were once Human. At the end of the day this is Larian's DnD story, they are the DM. I feel like some people are too invested in DnD and may in fact ruin the fun for others. This is supposed to be fun and not for us to be nitpicking every little thing Larian adds.
Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes
So Larian decided it is ok to perpetuate negative sterotypes with their depiction of Goblins. But what is even more insidious is they allow you to kill children in BG3 but only the nasty green skinned ones.

Try killing a Tiefling child and you arent able to.

so what is the message here Larian?


I did not pay attention to this in the game, but if there is such a fact it is strange

Perhaps Hitler's ideas about good and bad races? Who can be killed and who can not.
Either let's not kill children at all (that would be a good idea, I have nothing against it), or let's kill everyone. Why was one race put above the other?

By the way. J.K. Rowling some blamed of anti-Semitism, since the goblins at Gringotts were associated with Jews. https://momentmag.com/debunking-the-harry-potter-anti-semitism-myth/
Here is the first 2 lines of the entry for Goblins at https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/goblin


Goblin
Small humanoid (goblinoid), neutral evil


Goblins are evil. Enough said.
It appears most people look at this thread as ironic in a way. However, when playing through the first act of the game I have encountered two different scenarios where Tiefling children are killed or at the very least can be killed. In one instance, a Tiefling child can be killed by the druids, while an additional can be killed by harpies not far from the previous location.

For the goblin children they can be killed by the druid in his bear form when he knocks down the gate, but they also have an opportunity to run away through the main doors. I do not recall the Tiefling children being afforded this opportunity with the exception of multiple game reloads in order to get the proper rolls or setup.

Regardless, the children on both sides can be killed, it may not be the exact way you would like to kill them or have them killed, but it is available none the less.
Originally Posted by Osprey39
Here is the first 2 lines of the entry for Goblins at https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/goblin


Goblin
Small humanoid (goblinoid), neutral evil


Goblins are evil. Enough said.


If they are evil (but reasonable, and know how to speak and realize themselves ...), this gives us the right to kill their children, but children of good races cannot be killed? NSDAP said the same
Goblins are people too, they have feelings, intelligence, and so on.
This thread has produced interesting arguments and made some people thing about how universal a system of morals can or should be. It is a rough ride but what could easily have turned into a flamewar elsewhere has stayed focused on arguments. It may lead nowhere but maybe it's worth the ride anyway.
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Originally Posted by Osprey39
Here is the first 2 lines of the entry for Goblins at https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/goblin


Goblin
Small humanoid (goblinoid), neutral evil


Goblins are evil. Enough said.


If they are evil (but reasonable, and know how to speak and realize themselves ...), this gives us the right to kill their children, but children of good races cannot be killed?


I don't understand the logic some are using here. I see people are arguing that if you can kill a child from an evil race that will grow up to be evil, it's wrong because you can't kill a child from a good race that will grow up to be good. That makes no sense to me. That's like a murderer wanting to kill his victim but gets killed by someone and because the murderer was killed and not his victim, the victim should be killed. What?!
Not exactly logically equivalent but you are right, that line of argument does not make sense
I think it is a matter of principle for most people. Taking morals into the story makes it depend on a common moral standard that is just not there. Same rules for every species and race avoid such problems.
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Originally Posted by Osprey39
Here is the first 2 lines of the entry for Goblins at https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/goblin


Goblin
Small humanoid (goblinoid), neutral evil


Goblins are evil. Enough said.


If they are evil (but reasonable, and know how to speak and realize themselves ...), this gives us the right to kill their children, but children of good races cannot be killed? NSDAP said the same
Goblins are people too, they have feelings, intelligence, and so on.


[Linked Image]

Take a look at what is roasting on the spit in that picture. They are EVIL! The only reason they aren't attacking my character is because they think I am a True Soul. Stop trying to make moral equivalency arguments. Goblins have no morals and they generally kill on sight.


Originally Posted by Osprey39
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Originally Posted by Osprey39
Here is the first 2 lines of the entry for Goblins at https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/goblin


Goblin
Small humanoid (goblinoid), neutral evil


Goblins are evil. Enough said.


If they are evil (but reasonable, and know how to speak and realize themselves ...), this gives us the right to kill their children, but children of good races cannot be killed? NSDAP said the same
Goblins are people too, they have feelings, intelligence, and so on.


[Linked Image]

Take a look at what is roasting on the spit in that picture. They are EVIL! The only reason they aren't attacking my character is because they think I am a True Soul. Stop trying to make moral equivalency arguments. Goblins have no morals and they generally kill on sight.





We really need a vegan activist on this thread. Which would prove to us that bulls and other animals in this game are also intelligent, and can talk (after reading a spell, a talk with animals), then they cannot be eaten, and those who eat them are no different from goblins who eat gnomes.

grin
Originally Posted by OneManArmy


We really need a vegan activist on this thread. Which would prove to us that bulls and other animals in this game are also intelligent, and can talk (after reading a spell, a talk with animals), then they cannot be eaten, and those who eat them are no different from goblins who eat gnomes.

grin


Moral philosophy is fun and never leads to results. It hast been a source of joy and entertainment since antiquity without producing anything substantial. Whats not to like
The fact that you can't kill tiefling kids isnt because they are good, their alignment, or because of anything to do with storytelling. it is an oversight of political correctness issues like in many other games where they make children unkillable for political and legal matters, such as some countries banning games where you can kill children.

But the presence of the two killable goblin children show that they have completely overlooked this, and are applying that logic inconsistently. I do not think that any legal issue would arise it all the children in this game happened to be killable, just as they already were in BG1&2.

'Evil' in D&D doesn't designate what you get to kill or dont get to kill, as you are meant to have the choice to play as good or evil yourself. The fact that we can join the goblins and create a raid on the Druid camp shows that we can clearly play as evil in this game, and as such there is no reason from a lore perspective as to why only the evil goblin children should be killable.

It doesn't affect you if another player chooses to do an evil playthrough and kill everyone, children included in the Druid camp, just as much as it doesn't if anyone does the typical same thing with killing everyone and the children in the goblin camp.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 18/10/20 11:18 PM
Just let the player do whatever he wants. Why is everybody rolling on their back for a couple of pixels on the screen. Its like , killing a 18/21 years old male human is okay, but killing a teenagers goblin isn't, are you for real?
Also, its okay to kill a village, but its not okay to kill some NPC because they appears younger? Uh? What about gnome and dwarf , then? They may be as small as children, but you'd happily slaughter them just because they have a better armor class, an axe, and lived a few more years.
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
The fact that you can't kill tiefling kids isnt because they are good, their alignment, or because of anything to do with storytelling. it is an oversight of political correctness issues like in many other games where they make children unkillable for political and legal matters, such as some countries banning games where you can kill children.

But the presence of the two killable goblin children show that they have completely overlooked this, and are applying that logic inconsistently. I do not think that any legal issue would arise it all the children in this game happened to be killable, just as they already were in BG1&2.

'Evil' in D&D doesn't designate what you get to kill or dont get to kill, as you are meant to have the choice to play as good or evil yourself. The fact that we can join the goblins and create a raid on the Druid camp shows that we can clearly play as evil in this game, and as such there is no reason from a lore perspective as to why only the evil goblin children should be killable.

It doesn't affect you if another player chooses to do an evil playthrough and kill everyone, children included in the Druid camp, just as much as it doesn't if anyone does the typical same thing with killing everyone and the children in the goblin camp.


The point that you are missing as so are others is that at the end of the day, this is Larian's story. They are the Dungeon Master and we, the players, choose what to do in that story, per what the DM (Larian) decides what we are allowed to do. If I'm the DM, I'm the one telling the players were the go, who they fight and who they are allowed to kill. It's up to the players to choose what they want to do based on the options I give them. You can choose to play the story or walk away. It seems like hardcore DnD gamers are getting too wrapped up in the lore and the rules and are turning to nitpicking and dictating to Larian how to make a DnD game. When the core of DnD is all about storytelling, and Larian is the storyteller.
Originally Posted by Hachina
Just let the player do whatever he wants. Why is everybody rolling on their back for a couple of pixels on the screen. Its like , killing a 18/21 years old male human is okay, but killing a teenagers goblin isn't, are you for real?
Also, its okay to kill a village, but its not okay to kill some NPC because they appears younger? Uh? What about gnome and dwarf , then? They may be as small as children, but you'd happily slaughter them just because they have a better armor class, an axe, and lived a few more years.


I agree, people should play the game however they want. The problem is that said people want Larian to change the game to their liking and completely disregard what others might like. I've seen threads where one person wants the gore and nudity removed so she can play with her kids. When this is game is rated MA. Another thread wants Larian to remove the scene where Astarion tries to feed on your character because to her it's glorifying sexual assault and it's offensive. Some of these threads nitpick the game too much, it's ridiculous and takes the fun away from playing these game. I hope Larian continues to make the game the way they want to make it. People need to keep their own personal ideologies to themselves instead to forcing it on a video game.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 19/10/20 12:44 AM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Hachina
Just let the player do whatever he wants. Why is everybody rolling on their back for a couple of pixels on the screen. Its like , killing a 18/21 years old male human is okay, but killing a teenagers goblin isn't, are you for real?
Also, its okay to kill a village, but its not okay to kill some NPC because they appears younger? Uh? What about gnome and dwarf , then? They may be as small as children, but you'd happily slaughter them just because they have a better armor class, an axe, and lived a few more years.


I agree, people should play the game however they want. The problem is that said people want Larian to change the game to their liking and completely disregard what others might like. I've seen threads where one person wants the gore and nudity removed so she can play with her kids. When this is game is rated MA. Another thread wants Larian to remove the scene where Astarion tries to feed on your character because to her it's glorifying sexual assault and it's offensive. Some of these threads nitpick the game too much, it's ridiculous and takes the fun away from playing these game. I hope Larian continues to make the game the way they want to make it. People need to keep their own personal ideologies to themselves instead to forcing it on a video game.


Yeah, 100% agree. It's crazy how some people just want to censor the game.
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Hachina
Just let the player do whatever he wants. Why is everybody rolling on their back for a couple of pixels on the screen. Its like , killing a 18/21 years old male human is okay, but killing a teenagers goblin isn't, are you for real?
Also, its okay to kill a village, but its not okay to kill some NPC because they appears younger? Uh? What about gnome and dwarf , then? They may be as small as children, but you'd happily slaughter them just because they have a better armor class, an axe, and lived a few more years.


I agree, people should play the game however they want. The problem is that said people want Larian to change the game to their liking and completely disregard what others might like. I've seen threads where one person wants the gore and nudity removed so she can play with her kids. When this is game is rated MA. Another thread wants Larian to remove the scene where Astarion tries to feed on your character because to her it's glorifying sexual assault and it's offensive. Some of these threads nitpick the game too much, it's ridiculous and takes the fun away from playing these game. I hope Larian continues to make the game the way they want to make it. People need to keep their own personal ideologies to themselves instead to forcing it on a video game.


If you wouldn't like killing the tieflings then don't kill the tieflings.

Making all NPCs killable doesn't ruin the game for you.

It has nothing to with this being a D&D game or what the DM says when it is simply political censorship as with most such video games.
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Hachina
Just let the player do whatever he wants. Why is everybody rolling on their back for a couple of pixels on the screen. Its like , killing a 18/21 years old male human is okay, but killing a teenagers goblin isn't, are you for real?
Also, its okay to kill a village, but its not okay to kill some NPC because they appears younger? Uh? What about gnome and dwarf , then? They may be as small as children, but you'd happily slaughter them just because they have a better armor class, an axe, and lived a few more years.


I agree, people should play the game however they want. The problem is that said people want Larian to change the game to their liking and completely disregard what others might like. I've seen threads where one person wants the gore and nudity removed so she can play with her kids. When this is game is rated MA. Another thread wants Larian to remove the scene where Astarion tries to feed on your character because to her it's glorifying sexual assault and it's offensive. Some of these threads nitpick the game too much, it's ridiculous and takes the fun away from playing these game. I hope Larian continues to make the game the way they want to make it. People need to keep their own personal ideologies to themselves instead to forcing it on a video game.


If you wouldn't like killing the tieflings then don't kill the tieflings.

Making all NPCs killable doesn't ruin the game for you.

It has nothing to with this being a D&D game or what the DM says when it is simply political censorship as with most such video games.


How is it political censorship? They're fictional races. Not everything a game does is political. That's nitpicking.
Originally Posted by Hachina
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Hachina
Just let the player do whatever he wants. Why is everybody rolling on their back for a couple of pixels on the screen. Its like , killing a 18/21 years old male human is okay, but killing a teenagers goblin isn't, are you for real?
Also, its okay to kill a village, but its not okay to kill some NPC because they appears younger? Uh? What about gnome and dwarf , then? They may be as small as children, but you'd happily slaughter them just because they have a better armor class, an axe, and lived a few more years.


I agree, people should play the game however they want. The problem is that said people want Larian to change the game to their liking and completely disregard what others might like. I've seen threads where one person wants the gore and nudity removed so she can play with her kids. When this is game is rated MA. Another thread wants Larian to remove the scene where Astarion tries to feed on your character because to her it's glorifying sexual assault and it's offensive. Some of these threads nitpick the game too much, it's ridiculous and takes the fun away from playing these game. I hope Larian continues to make the game the way they want to make it. People need to keep their own personal ideologies to themselves instead to forcing it on a video game.


Yeah, 100% agree. It's crazy how some people just want to censor the game.


Agree, I find it funny how some people get offended over fictional characters.
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna

The point that you are missing as so are others is that at the end of the day, this is Larian's story. They are the Dungeon Master and we, the players, choose what to do in that story, per what the DM (Larian) decides what we are allowed to do. If I'm the DM, I'm the one telling the players were the go, who they fight and who they are allowed to kill. It's up to the players to choose what they want to do based on the options I give them. You can choose to play the story or walk away. It seems like hardcore DnD gamers are getting too wrapped up in the lore and the rules and are turning to nitpicking and dictating to Larian how to make a DnD game. When the core of DnD is all about storytelling, and Larian is the storyteller.

Hi, I have been playing since AD&D and have been a perma GM for two decades. While I am not really invested in the discussion I feel the need to point out that this is an extremely spicy take. What you described is known as railroading in the pen and paper community and is seen under a very poor light unanimously. You are the storyteller but you are telling the players story. Their choices matter just as much if not more than yours and the only time it is considered okay to tell a player what they can and cannot do is when there is a mechanical reason for it or to prevent in group conflict with obvious incendiary choices(such as PvP). I'm not disagreeing with you per se but please don't give the impression that this is the norm or standard in the tabletop community.
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Hachina
Just let the player do whatever he wants. Why is everybody rolling on their back for a couple of pixels on the screen. Its like , killing a 18/21 years old male human is okay, but killing a teenagers goblin isn't, are you for real?
Also, its okay to kill a village, but its not okay to kill some NPC because they appears younger? Uh? What about gnome and dwarf , then? They may be as small as children, but you'd happily slaughter them just because they have a better armor class, an axe, and lived a few more years.


I agree, people should play the game however they want. The problem is that said people want Larian to change the game to their liking and completely disregard what others might like. I've seen threads where one person wants the gore and nudity removed so she can play with her kids. When this is game is rated MA. Another thread wants Larian to remove the scene where Astarion tries to feed on your character because to her it's glorifying sexual assault and it's offensive. Some of these threads nitpick the game too much, it's ridiculous and takes the fun away from playing these game. I hope Larian continues to make the game the way they want to make it. People need to keep their own personal ideologies to themselves instead to forcing it on a video game.


If you wouldn't like killing the tieflings then don't kill the tieflings.

Making all NPCs killable doesn't ruin the game for you.

It has nothing to with this being a D&D game or what the DM says when it is simply political censorship as with most such video games.


How is it political censorship? They're fictional races. Not everything a game does is political. That's nitpicking.


The literal reason for why children are unkillable in games is because of politics and people complaining about video game violence. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the DM / D&D / Storytelling or any off your made up excuses.

The fact is that all NPCs including children could be killed in previous BG games, and they are choosing to pick that its ok to kill just goblin children in this game but not the children of any other race which is hypocritical to WOTCs statements of evil no longer being a race based mechanic in D&D.

The only nitpicking is trying to defend this as though it has anything at all to do with D&D when it is in fact an industry standard based entirely on politics.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 19/10/20 01:55 AM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Hachina
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Hachina
Just let the player do whatever he wants. Why is everybody rolling on their back for a couple of pixels on the screen. Its like , killing a 18/21 years old male human is okay, but killing a teenagers goblin isn't, are you for real?
Also, its okay to kill a village, but its not okay to kill some NPC because they appears younger? Uh? What about gnome and dwarf , then? They may be as small as children, but you'd happily slaughter them just because they have a better armor class, an axe, and lived a few more years.


I agree, people should play the game however they want. The problem is that said people want Larian to change the game to their liking and completely disregard what others might like. I've seen threads where one person wants the gore and nudity removed so she can play with her kids. When this is game is rated MA. Another thread wants Larian to remove the scene where Astarion tries to feed on your character because to her it's glorifying sexual assault and it's offensive. Some of these threads nitpick the game too much, it's ridiculous and takes the fun away from playing these game. I hope Larian continues to make the game the way they want to make it. People need to keep their own personal ideologies to themselves instead to forcing it on a video game.


Yeah, 100% agree. It's crazy how some people just want to censor the game.


Agree, I find it funny how some people get offended over fictional characters.


I know right, it's like they suffered some personal slight because the character doesn't want to be BFF. can't separate fiction from real life.
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna

The point that you are missing as so are others is that at the end of the day, this is Larian's story. They are the Dungeon Master and we, the players, choose what to do in that story, per what the DM (Larian) decides what we are allowed to do. If I'm the DM, I'm the one telling the players were the go, who they fight and who they are allowed to kill. It's up to the players to choose what they want to do based on the options I give them. You can choose to play the story or walk away. It seems like hardcore DnD gamers are getting too wrapped up in the lore and the rules and are turning to nitpicking and dictating to Larian how to make a DnD game. When the core of DnD is all about storytelling, and Larian is the storyteller.

Hi, I have been playing since AD&D and have been a perma GM for two decades. While I am not really invested in the discussion I feel the need to point out that this is an extremely spicy take. What you described is known as railroading in the pen and paper community and is seen under a very poor light unanimously. You are the storyteller but you are telling the players story. Their choices matter just as much if not more than yours and the only time it is considered okay to tell a player what they can and cannot do is when there is a mechanical reason for it or to prevent in group conflict with obvious incendiary choices(such as PvP). I'm not disagreeing with you per se but please don't give the impression that this is the norm or standard in the tabletop community.


I understand but what I been seeing is that when it comes to how someone is telling a story and someone doesn't like it, they will come out and say that the storyteller is wrong. I've seen people play pen and paper DnD make some weird characters or decisions but that's the fun part of telling a story. WOTC even encourages this. As they have stated that the main part of DnD is telling a story and how you tell a story, but there are players that are getting too dogmatic about DnD. Thereby, not making it seem fun. I feel like "hardcore" DnD players are nitpicking the game based on how they play DnD, the rules and the lore. Which I heard are supposed to me more for guidelines and not to dictate how someone plays the game. If a "hardcore" DnD player is all about rules and lore, that will discourage someone who may be new to DnD and feel like it's too hard to get into because they will feel like there are too many rules to playing this game.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 19/10/20 02:00 AM
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna

The point that you are missing as so are others is that at the end of the day, this is Larian's story. They are the Dungeon Master and we, the players, choose what to do in that story, per what the DM (Larian) decides what we are allowed to do. If I'm the DM, I'm the one telling the players were the go, who they fight and who they are allowed to kill. It's up to the players to choose what they want to do based on the options I give them. You can choose to play the story or walk away. It seems like hardcore DnD gamers are getting too wrapped up in the lore and the rules and are turning to nitpicking and dictating to Larian how to make a DnD game. When the core of DnD is all about storytelling, and Larian is the storyteller.

Hi, I have been playing since AD&D and have been a perma GM for two decades. While I am not really invested in the discussion I feel the need to point out that this is an extremely spicy take. What you described is known as railroading in the pen and paper community and is seen under a very poor light unanimously. You are the storyteller but you are telling the players story. Their choices matter just as much if not more than yours and the only time it is considered okay to tell a player what they can and cannot do is when there is a mechanical reason for it or to prevent in group conflict with obvious incendiary choices(such as PvP). I'm not disagreeing with you per se but please don't give the impression that this is the norm or standard in the tabletop community.


Not in video game. You may have some liberty when you're playing Baldurs gate1, but its still the story of a Bhaalspawn, you're still gorion ward, and you're still going to kill Sarevok at the end, no matter what. Baldur's gate3 is definitely Larian story before anything else, just like Baldurs gate 2 was Obsidian and black isle story. You may interract within the border defined by them, with the degree of liberty than they decide, and that's that.
Racial issues have sparked so much discussion
Godwin's Law time
[Linked Image]


Since goblins and their children are bad, then what? The final solution of the goblin question by the paladinS?
Well that's what I'm thinking, what makes the Goblin children so evil that its ok to kill them but not other races children?

Being raised in a society that tells them its ok to throw rocks at a bear?

Surely the solution isn't to kill them for that, but to rescue them from such a society, maybe by adopting them into a better one.

Or making efforts to increase the social inclusion and welfare of Goblins as a whole.

But hey if you're going to just sit there and go 'Its just a game, its evil goblin kids, so what if you kill them?', then let me also be able to kill the tiefling kids too?

Would it be ok to Kill Shrek's kids because they're ogres or some such? And in fact Shrek should demonstrate the whole reason why the idea of 'good races vs bad races' is inherently flawed.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 19/10/20 02:17 AM
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Well that's what I'm thinking, what makes the Goblin children so evil that its ok to kill them but not other races children?

Being raised in a society that tells them its ok to throw rocks at a bear?

Surely the solution isn't to kill them for that, but to rescue them from such a society, maybe by adopting them into a better one.

Or making efforts to increase the social inclusion and welfare of Goblins as a whole.

But hey if you're going to just sit there and go 'Its just a game, its evil goblin kids, so what if you kill them?', then let me also be able to kill the tiefling kids too?

Would it be ok to Kill Shrek's kids because they're ogres or some such? And in fact Shrek should demonstrate the whole reason why the idea of 'good races vs bad races' is inherently flawed.


It's a story. In this story, goblin are bad, and their kid are bad , and the race is bad. Because its fantasy. You may or may not like the story. You may find it grim, pessimistic for poor goblins or inherently flawed. But in this world, goblin are ruthless , cruel, evil creature and you can't do anything about them.
And no, you can't take a balor home and make it into your puppy. Sorry.
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Well that's what I'm thinking, what makes the Goblin children so evil that its ok to kill them but not other races children?

Being raised in a society that tells them its ok to throw rocks at a bear?

Surely the solution isn't to kill them for that, but to rescue them from such a society, maybe by adopting them into a better one.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

The superiority of the tiefling race over the goblin race still needs to be proven, in any case.
There were people here who wanted to play for the goblin race, at least I saw a couple of people on this forum

The drow are evil too, but I don't want to kill their children or commit genocide of this race. There are neutral drow, maybe there are neutral goblins as well?
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Well that's what I'm thinking, what makes the Goblin children so evil that its ok to kill them but not other races children?

Being raised in a society that tells them its ok to throw rocks at a bear?

Surely the solution isn't to kill them for that, but to rescue them from such a society, maybe by adopting them into a better one.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

The superiority of the tiefling race over the goblin race still needs to be proven, in any case.
There were people here who wanted to play for the goblin race, at least I saw a couple of people


I don't think that this has anything to do with superiority but the fact that the Tieflings have a human origin, from Humans making pacts with demons. In the game they are referred to as half human or half demon. When it comes to Goblins they are seen usually as evil with no human origin but a completely different race. I can see Larian keeping up with that stereotype of Goblins being evil, which is why you can kill them.
Posted By: Zaemon Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 19/10/20 02:50 AM
OMG you can kill an Ogre woman!! FEMICIDE!!!1111 FEMALE ABUSE! You can even eavesdr0p her while she's NAKED!!! SEXUAL HARRRAAAAASSSSS
#GoblinsArePeopleToo
Racial discrimination

You can kill the children of an intelligent creature that is able to communicate, only because of its genes and origin

And you cannot kill tieflings

People would not give a damn about it, in fact, if it was possible to kill everyone, or not to kill any of the children. But we see injustice, inequality. One intelligent race was placed above another intelligent race because of its origin. It's one thing in the gaming world, by Lore
bad attitude towards goblins, it's ok. Other when the developers decided it. That children of one race cannot die, and that of another race can.

I would of course kill children throwing stones at a bear with pleasure in a good walkthrough, but how are they worse than tieflings?
From the point of view of an outside observer. Maybe I want to kill tiefling children who tried to deceive me and sell the "magic" ring, why can't I do it, but and can kill goblins child?
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
#GoblinsArePeopleToo
Racial discrimination

You can kill the children of an intelligent creature that is able to communicate, only because of its genes and origin

And you cannot kill tieflings

People would not give a damn about it, in fact, if it was possible to kill everyone, or not to kill any of the children. But we see injustice, inequality. One intelligent race was placed above another intelligent race because of its origin. It's one thing in the gaming world, by Lore
bad attitude towards goblins, it's ok. Other when the developers decided it. That children of one race cannot die, and that of another race can.

I would of course kill children throwing stones at a bear with pleasure in a good walkthrough, but how are they worse than tieflings?
from the point of view of an outside observer


#GoblinsArePeopleToo and Racial discrimination? I hope that you are just trolling with that. If not, I hope you realize that these races don't exist in real life. They are make believe and we are to just have fun in a fictional video game world.
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
#GoblinsArePeopleToo
Racial discrimination

You can kill the children of an intelligent creature that is able to communicate, only because of its genes and origin

And you cannot kill tieflings

People would not give a damn about it, in fact, if it was possible to kill everyone, or not to kill any of the children. But we see injustice, inequality. One intelligent race was placed above another intelligent race because of its origin. It's one thing in the gaming world, by Lore
bad attitude towards goblins, it's ok. Other when the developers decided it. That children of one race cannot die, and that of another race can.

I would of course kill children throwing stones at a bear with pleasure in a good walkthrough, but how are they worse than tieflings?
from the point of view of an outside observer


#GoblinsArePeopleToo and Racial discrimination? I hope that you are just trolling with that. If not, I hope you realize that these races don't exist in real life. They are make believe and we are to just have fun in a fictional video game world.



maybe a troll, maybe not, who knows cool
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
#GoblinsArePeopleToo
Racial discrimination

You can kill the children of an intelligent creature that is able to communicate, only because of its genes and origin

And you cannot kill tieflings

People would not give a damn about it, in fact, if it was possible to kill everyone, or not to kill any of the children. But we see injustice, inequality. One intelligent race was placed above another intelligent race because of its origin. It's one thing in the gaming world, by Lore
bad attitude towards goblins, it's ok. Other when the developers decided it. That children of one race cannot die, and that of another race can.

I would of course kill children throwing stones at a bear with pleasure in a good walkthrough, but how are they worse than tieflings?
from the point of view of an outside observer


#GoblinsArePeopleToo and Racial discrimination? I hope that you are just trolling with that. If not, I hope you realize that these races don't exist in real life. They are make believe and we are to just have fun in a fictional video game world.



maybe a troll, maybe not, who knows cool


At least your honest.
I guess the border between trolling and satire is fluid
@onemanarmy
I see the parallel. Is speciesism the same as racism?
To quote Dawkins:
"The director of a zoo is entitled to "put down" a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might "put down" a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees!"

I do not believe in the existence of universally true systems of morals. The vast majority of humans do and your point should provide food for thought for them
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 19/10/20 04:18 AM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
#GoblinsArePeopleToo
Racial discrimination

You can kill the children of an intelligent creature that is able to communicate, only because of its genes and origin

And you cannot kill tieflings

People would not give a damn about it, in fact, if it was possible to kill everyone, or not to kill any of the children. But we see injustice, inequality. One intelligent race was placed above another intelligent race because of its origin. It's one thing in the gaming world, by Lore
bad attitude towards goblins, it's ok. Other when the developers decided it. That children of one race cannot die, and that of another race can.

I would of course kill children throwing stones at a bear with pleasure in a good walkthrough, but how are they worse than tieflings?
from the point of view of an outside observer


#GoblinsArePeopleToo and Racial discrimination? I hope that you are just trolling with that. If not, I hope you realize that these races don't exist in real life. They are make believe and we are to just have fun in a fictional video game world.



I lold at the hashtag.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 19/10/20 04:22 AM
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
@onemanarmy
I see the parallel. Is speciesism the same as racism?
To quote Dawkins:
"The director of a zoo is entitled to "put down" a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might "put down" a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees!"

I do not believe in the existence of universally true systems of morals. The vast majority of humans do and your point should provide food for thought for them


I agree with that . People think about their culture and moral as an absolute value when often, it's relative. This often border to irrationnal, as people have a hard time understanding that what they were taught as kid / in family / in their culture isn't necessarily true.
Originally Posted by Hachina
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
#GoblinsArePeopleToo
Racial discrimination

You can kill the children of an intelligent creature that is able to communicate, only because of its genes and origin

And you cannot kill tieflings

People would not give a damn about it, in fact, if it was possible to kill everyone, or not to kill any of the children. But we see injustice, inequality. One intelligent race was placed above another intelligent race because of its origin. It's one thing in the gaming world, by Lore
bad attitude towards goblins, it's ok. Other when the developers decided it. That children of one race cannot die, and that of another race can.

I would of course kill children throwing stones at a bear with pleasure in a good walkthrough, but how are they worse than tieflings?
from the point of view of an outside observer


#GoblinsArePeopleToo and Racial discrimination? I hope that you are just trolling with that. If not, I hope you realize that these races don't exist in real life. They are make believe and we are to just have fun in a fictional video game world.



I lold at the hashtag.


I did too but sometimes I can't tell if someone is being serious or not as unfortunately there are people that take fictional scenes as if it were real life.
I can't believe this conversation exists. I can't believe that such obvious flame-bait is being discussed. Some people need to take a long hard look at the things they feel moral indignation over.
Originally Posted by Hachina
Originally Posted by ArmouredHedgehog
@onemanarmy
I see the parallel. Is speciesism the same as racism?
To quote Dawkins:
"The director of a zoo is entitled to "put down" a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might "put down" a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees!"

I do not believe in the existence of universally true systems of morals. The vast majority of humans do and your point should provide food for thought for them


I agree with that . People think about their culture and moral as an absolute value when often, it's relative. This often border to irrationnal, as people have a hard time understanding that what they were taught as kid / in family / in their culture isn't necessarily true.


It is universal. We are mostly brought up in the Western World, which stretches from Europe to the Americas to Oceania, we share the same basic set of morals, which only changed slightly over the last couple of thousand years. Take the 10 commandments, for example, they are still mostly applicable, stealing, lying, murdering, cheating, jealousy and greed, honoring the family and so forth, even the one where you are supposed to have only one god or whatever belief you adhere to. Today, what has been added is the freedom of speech and the right to integrity of the human body, although this could be covered by not murdering. Basically every constitution is just a reinterpretation of these 10 commandments, although similar beliefs applied before that as well.

This does not mean other things can not be included, it is a constant change. 50 years ago, civil rights movement. 20 years ago, no gay romance option in BG2. Your example is great, because there has been a constant shift and debate over the treatment of animals and especially apes. Only four years ago there was this headline: "Monkey selfie case: judge rules animal cannot own his photo copyright A San Francisco court said that while the protection of law could be extended to animals, there was no indication that it was in the Copyright Act" 20 years ago this would have been mostly unthinkable.
There is also the indigenous people on the Sentinel Islands that attack anyone that comes close and killed the stupid missionary two years ago. From our POV they do seem "evil" and murderers, but that is not the whole story, otherwise we would be enraged and bring them our morals by force.
To swing back to this game and this incident, so what are Goblins? Are they closer to the Sentinelese people or are they Chimpanzees? In the first case they should clearly be awarded our morals, regardless if they keep their unknonwn set of rules. If the latter, when was the last time you guys killed an infant vertebrate, and why don't you do it?
The game is designed with our western morals in mind, that are the same almost worldwide, hence the implementation of this encounter is at least spicy. Plus of course, while the German law, and a big, big market for BG3 has been a little more lenient regarding those things, especially if they fill an educational or artistic purpose, you would be hard pressed to see that purpose in killing infants running away. Now, all it takes is one complaint to the BPjM and they have to discuss it, possibly leading to indexing, which in turn means Steam won't sell it and might not let you activate it either, so that market's gone. But I am sure Larian is aware.
I think a lot of the issue comes down to the way goblins are portrayed in this game in particular.

Historically in fantasy computer games, Goblins were often portrayed as largely mindless monsters. Cannon fodder. Mooks to be mowed down. Sometimes you got a bit more flavor than that, a tiny bit of (generally) hostile dialogue, but even then goblins were usually portrayed as warbands of able-bodied soldiers. You didn't really get to see non-combatants.

BG3 is different because the Goblins are fully rendered, usually have names, and dialogue options. They are not portrayed as monsters, they are portrayed as people. This makes it a bit squeamish to consider as a "good" character just slaughtering the lot of them.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
I can't believe this conversation exists. I can't believe that such obvious flame-bait is being discussed. Some people need to take a long hard look at the things they feel moral indignation over.


Right? I rush ahead to collect the snails off the road every time someone has to drive out during the summer. I really don't need to feel guilt over killing a goblin grin

We are so dramatic as a society in general, we go from insensitive to oversensitive.


Originally Posted by Telephasic
I think a lot of the issue comes down to the way goblins are portrayed in this game in particular.

Historically in fantasy computer games, Goblins were often portrayed as largely mindless monsters. Cannon fodder. Mooks to be mowed down. Sometimes you got a bit more flavor than that, a tiny bit of (generally) hostile dialogue, but even then goblins were usually portrayed as warbands of able-bodied soldiers. You didn't really get to see non-combatants.

BG3 is different because the Goblins are fully rendered, usually have names, and dialogue options. They are not portrayed as monsters, they are portrayed as people. This makes it a bit squeamish to consider as a "good" character just slaughtering the lot of them.


Even Gale complains if you kill the ogre and bugbear that were bonking in their shed as being unreasonable kills.

But killing goblin kids for throwing stones at a bear, yea ok sure that's totally fine /s.
I really don't understand why people virtue signal for races that were originally created to be fodder/evil.

You can have a society and culture and the majority of them be evil or bad compared to yours. People are so focused on "but the goblin I made is actually chaotic good so don't discriminate against goblins!"

Congrats, your goblin is an exception. The same goes for every "lower" race meant to be enemies for XP.

The thought process for killing the goblin children was that they were going to warn the rest of the camp. That's literally what they are trying to do if you don't kill them fast enough.

I like what PFK does. Lawful good goes hardcore in the eradication of ogres, orcs, and monster races in general for the sake of all the is "Good and Just" but it obviously seems like genocide. I remember there was a moment where I had the option to kill this monster dad's kids after I killed him. The lawful choice was to kill them, chaotic choice was to let them go. Both good if I remember correctly. It shows the hypocrisy that good is in relation to something. Law of your culture or freedom to live.
Posted By: Hachina Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 08/11/20 07:45 PM
Cry about murdering goblin kids.

Then rasp in agony as that same goblin kid backstab you and eat the nape of your neck.
Maybe Larian could introduce a liberal arts college safespace in the underdark for the termally offended? I think a new difficulty called "safemode" would be a good idea so social studies majors don't get their mental trigger towards "wrong think" and start flapping around like Jim Carrey on cyrstal meth while trapped in a locked elevator with a maga hat.
Originally Posted by SecondAchaius
I really don't understand why people virtue signal for races that were originally created to be fodder/evil.

You can have a society and culture and the majority of them be evil or bad compared to yours. People are so focused on "but the goblin I made is actually chaotic good so don't discriminate against goblins!"

Congrats, your goblin is an exception. The same goes for every "lower" race meant to be enemies for XP.

The thought process for killing the goblin children was that they were going to warn the rest of the camp. That's literally what they are trying to do if you don't kill them fast enough.

I like what PFK does. Lawful good goes hardcore in the eradication of ogres, orcs, and monster races in general for the sake of all the is "Good and Just" but it obviously seems like genocide. I remember there was a moment where I had the option to kill this monster dad's kids after I killed him. The lawful choice was to kill them, chaotic choice was to let them go. Both good if I remember correctly. It shows the hypocrisy that good is in relation to something. Law of your culture or freedom to live.






I was not well pleased with some of Kingmaker's ideas of what "good" entailed. Especially since they basically force it on you.
Posted By: LoneSky Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 08/11/20 09:19 PM
I expected that the goblin kids (at bear druid scene) will run away when the fight starts, and they did. Those goblin kids are evil, but would be difficult for them to be anything else in that entourage.
Usually most games avoid the child killing. I remember killing demon kids in Nox (a Diablo like old RPG), but maybe they weren't kids, just smaller demons (they were red, attacked in groups and had funny sounds when exploded on death doing AoE damage, so was very different to BG3 goblins).

Child killing needs the option to be avoidable, which is in there so far. Rest is up to the players (some will do it, but most won't "enjoy" pointless kills)
Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes
Try killing a Tiefling child and you arent able to.

Tryed ... killed ... i dont see your point. O_o
Posted By: Sordak Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 09/11/20 12:51 PM
one of them is a player race and one of them isnt.
Also theres no negative stereotypes of goblins. Its not a stereotype, its a type. the type is caleld "goblin"

Tho i admit, you should definitly be able to kill tiefling children just as much
How else are you gonna roleplay that conquest paladin.
Originally Posted by GaryOD
Games are generally not meant to reflect real life, so maybe try not to put so much emphasis on being offended. The genre is called 'Fantasy' for a reason.


You're missing the point completely. The problem is the weak stomached "law" people FORCE games to be "Appropriate".

Personally I say have games get MORE dark. We have people dying on TV and it's considered entertainment. The life of someone young is implied to "matter more". Welp, not to me. Age is moot. How you AFFECT me determines if I run you through or care about you. Witcher 3 should really let you have the option of killing the "blue kids" and let you be as evil as you please. But the game forces you to be a goody two shoes. Normally I am. But damn, where's the CHOICE? It's a game of MONSTERS and how people FEAR them. Sure, you're a witcher and should know better. But we see countless times that even witches are flawed. So why can't OUR character be just as bloodthirsty and ruthless as that if we want them to be? Just as capable of giving in to bloodlust and anger and vengeance and killing little blue snots playing pranks at your expense as they laugh at you and mock you?

The only gripe I have with the goblin children is that the game seems to force you to either let the bear remain tortured or kill them. There should be a middle ground.

You can also let a godling die to a snake. You technically don't "kill" them yourself but you can let it happen and watch with a smirk on your face. Hell, outright running them through yourself might even be a mercy killing at that point. It would traumatise them less.
Posted By: Vhaldez Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 09/11/20 02:58 PM
I know this is a troll post, but the double standard on #TLM and #DeathToAllGoblins is a little awkward.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 09/11/20 09:04 PM
People take this game way to seriously smile I want my fantasy detached from reality. I want stuff that offends people and makes them realise this genre of entertainment is probably not for them. Its fantasy, its not real..... Not everything in life has to represent a view or attitude or position in real life.
All Druids are Bastards.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 09/11/20 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
All Druids are Bastards.


laugh
Posted By: Niara Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 09/11/20 11:17 PM
It's easy to get bogged down in discussions related to the internal minutia of the game space, but please remember, that that isn't what this discussion is about.

It's about the actions of the developers, above the game - which is a very real thing, and not fiction or fantasy.

If the developers made a game where you scored points for killing disabled people, well, yes, you could say that it's all fiction and none of it is real, and not to get upset over it, but that wouldn't be the point; it would be about the choices and behaviour of the developers, and the statement they are making, and selling to other (very much real) people, with the game... and generally, it would not be considered okay.

The issue being raised is that here we have a situation where Larian have arbitrarily stepped in to say: "This is a representation of a child, of a people whom we have depicted as sentient and intelligent, and who have language and society and culture. We are not allowing you to murder this representation."

And then,

They have created something just a few stones throws away that says: "Here, on the other hand, is a representation of a child, of a people whom we have depicted as sentient and intelligent, and who have language and society and culture. You can murder THESE children, and in fact it's encouraged, because they're [insert race here]"

This is an 'above game' decision that Larian have made, that creates the undertones of an 'above game' message being sent, whether intentional or not... and it's a steeply racist one, that the game passively encourages you to partake in. They could have depicted the monstrous races as sub-humanoid, as more dramatically monstrous, and as less worthy of moral concern. They didn't. They chose to depict them as fully sentient, fully intelligent, language-using, personable, culture-bearing entities. That matters, for how they then encourage you to treat them.

Yes, the game is not real, yes its fantasy.... If that is the defence, however, then we absolutely need to be allowed to murder with equality - either no children of races depicted as sentient and intelligent can be wantonly killed, or they all can. Don't discriminate at an above game level on this.
Originally Posted by Niara
It's easy to get bogged down in discussions related to the internal minutia of the game space, but please remember, that that isn't what this discussion is about.

It's about the actions of the developers, above the game - which is a very real thing, and not fiction or fantasy.

If the developers made a game where you scored points for killing disabled people, well, yes, you could say that it's all fiction and none of it is real, and not to get upset over it, but that wouldn't be the point; it would be about the choices and behaviour of the developers, and the statement they are making, and selling to other (very much real) people, with the game... and generally, it would not be considered okay.

The issue being raised is that here we have a situation where Larian have arbitrarily stepped in to say: "This is a representation of a child, of a people whom we have depicted as sentient and intelligent, and who have language and society and culture. We are not allowing you to murder this representation."

And then,

They have created something just a few stones throws away that says: "Here, on the other hand, is a representation of a child, of a people whom we have depicted as sentient and intelligent, and who have language and society and culture. You can murder THESE children, and in fact it's encouraged, because they're [insert race here]"

This is an 'above game' decision that Larian have made, that creates the undertones of an 'above game' message being sent, whether intentional or not... and it's a steeply racist one, that the game passively encourages you to partake in. They could have depicted the monstrous races as sub-humanoid, as more dramatically monstrous, and as less worthy of moral concern. They didn't. They chose to depict them as fully sentient, fully intelligent, language-using, personable, culture-bearing entities. That matters, for how they then encourage you to treat them.

Yes, the game is not real, yes its fantasy.... If that is the defence, however, then we absolutely need to be allowed to murder with equality - either no children of races depicted as sentient and intelligent can be wantonly killed, or they all can. Don't discriminate at an above game level on this.



I don't think we can kill the Goblin children because they're GOBLINS. I think we can kill them because they're clearly already dangerous sociopathic killers themselves (or are just a tiny step away from being so), and represent a clear threat to the lives of the peaceable citizens of the land. The Goblin children in the game are obviously adolescents, already capable of wielding weapons and already demonstrating sadism and psychopathic tendencies. You notice we don't see any really small and helpless Goblin children, no Goblin toddlers, no Goblin babies. If any of THOSE were in the game, and we could kill them, then I'd agree with you.
Posted By: Niara Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 09/11/20 11:42 PM
That's a fair counter, sure... but overall I still find it worrying as a thing to see. One step away from a killer is not a killer; almost mature is not mature, and tendencies towards certain behaviours are not, themselves, ingrained behaviours... It doesn't feel like a good writing choice for them to have made, all told, and there's precious little purpose for it.

I'd also just want to add to that...

It's not as though Mol is any better. She's not. She absolutely doesn't care if she gets people killed pursuing her plans, as long as they aren't her friends, and she plans to get to baldur's gate and start a thieves guild of some sort - and if you think for a moment that isn't going to involve silencing unwanted voices and blinding unwanted eyes, it most certainly will. She's not just impulsively violent - she's calculatingly homicidal, at a premeditated level (or, is one tiny step away from being so, to use that argument)
Originally Posted by Sordak
one of them is a player race and one of them isnt.
Also theres no negative stereotypes of goblins. Its not a stereotype, its a type. the type is caleld "goblin"

Tho i admit, you should definitly be able to kill tiefling children just as much
How else are you gonna roleplay that conquest paladin.

Goblins in D&D 5th are a playable race as well....

I think at least from my perspective is the goblins and their dialog and stories are far more interesting and deep than the boring tieflings.. literally they stand around the druid grove complaining fighting and getting in the way.. The goblins are busy partying and destroying the evil humans like goblins do but Larion humanised them to such a point people have started to feel for them.. And rightly so they are a sentient race..

In Warhammer goblins and orcs are hugely popular races these days with customers.. I think D&D folks are behind the times fantasy wise.
Monsters also have their own cultures and sentience. Both the literal and metaphorical monsters. That doesn't stop them from being monsters.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies


I don't think we can kill the Goblin children because they're GOBLINS. I think we can kill them because they're clearly already dangerous sociopathic killers themselves (or are just a tiny step away from being so), and represent a clear threat to the lives of the peaceable citizens of the land.

Well, what is killing the refugees supposed to represent then? Refugees who are for the most part normal folk shunned and persecuted because of their race and looks.

I think trying to assign a moral reasoning to what appears to be a commercial decision (avoiding potential censorship issues in some countries) is not going to work. Not in a game where the developers actively advertised for players to try the evil path.

In my personal opinion: just don't throw kids in the middle of combat in games, like with the goblins at the fortress. Then the player won't be put into a situation where they are supposed to justify why it's seemingly ok - from the game's point of view, not the player's - to kill one group of kids and not the other.
Posted By: Xatasha Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 07:16 AM
Its a game and always has been.....and I am with Auntie Ethel..........Halfling kids are tender and sweet but bad on the teeth, Human kids,nice little dumplings but you have to watch the weight. Elf kids are your vegan option.....but you will be hungry 30 minutes after you eat one( Drow have a bit of a bitter taste). Dwarf kids ah......best Jerky in the world but takes awhile to chew. Now petal them Tieflings and goblins both are fast food.......easy to get but not so tasty .
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Niara
It's easy to get bogged down in discussions related to the internal minutia of the game space, but please remember, that that isn't what this discussion is about.

It's about the actions of the developers, above the game - which is a very real thing, and not fiction or fantasy.

If the developers made a game where you scored points for killing disabled people, well, yes, you could say that it's all fiction and none of it is real, and not to get upset over it, but that wouldn't be the point; it would be about the choices and behaviour of the developers, and the statement they are making, and selling to other (very much real) people, with the game... and generally, it would not be considered okay.

The issue being raised is that here we have a situation where Larian have arbitrarily stepped in to say: "This is a representation of a child, of a people whom we have depicted as sentient and intelligent, and who have language and society and culture. We are not allowing you to murder this representation."

And then,

They have created something just a few stones throws away that says: "Here, on the other hand, is a representation of a child, of a people whom we have depicted as sentient and intelligent, and who have language and society and culture. You can murder THESE children, and in fact it's encouraged, because they're [insert race here]"

This is an 'above game' decision that Larian have made, that creates the undertones of an 'above game' message being sent, whether intentional or not... and it's a steeply racist one, that the game passively encourages you to partake in. They could have depicted the monstrous races as sub-humanoid, as more dramatically monstrous, and as less worthy of moral concern. They didn't. They chose to depict them as fully sentient, fully intelligent, language-using, personable, culture-bearing entities. That matters, for how they then encourage you to treat them.

Yes, the game is not real, yes its fantasy.... If that is the defence, however, then we absolutely need to be allowed to murder with equality - either no children of races depicted as sentient and intelligent can be wantonly killed, or they all can. Don't discriminate at an above game level on this.



I don't think we can kill the Goblin children because they're GOBLINS. I think we can kill them because they're clearly already dangerous sociopathic killers themselves (or are just a tiny step away from being so), and represent a clear threat to the lives of the peaceable citizens of the land. The Goblin children in the game are obviously adolescents, already capable of wielding weapons and already demonstrating sadism and psychopathic tendencies. You notice we don't see any really small and helpless Goblin children, no Goblin toddlers, no Goblin babies. If any of THOSE were in the game, and we could kill them, then I'd agree with you.



The kids aren't though, are they? Are they born this way? Or is it the culture, the tribe that enforces that? What would happen if you raise a goblin child as a human and vice versa? And when does a child become a "killable" adult? 10 years, 12, 14 or when you are allowed to vote? I do not have answers to these questions.
And there is the precedence of M'Khiin in SoD. She is a true neutral. Not an unpleasant person at all. Certainly capable of caring. While she does say that she left her tribe because she was "too elevated in her mind" to accept the brutality of it, she does not hold a grudge and she never states that she is one in a thousand. There could be many more like this.
Plus there is the issue, that these are Goblins, but still kids. And they are throwing stones, which is a phenomenon not unknown to human childs either, I am sure everyone has seen, heard or partaken in something similar. They are also running away, if I recall correctly. So no immediate threat.
At the same time, the game is a representation of a very liberal western society. The same moral code as in the US or Europe (and technically all around the world) and that has not changed a whole lot over the last centuries either. So when you have no objections to same-sex sex, transgender people, refugees with a distinctly different phenotype etc.. killing kids becomes hard to justify. Heck, even killing the owlbear cub in this game is something that meets resistance, naturally, since when was the last time you drowned a kitten yourself? it is just not something people tend to do, even in extreme situations.

I am not objecting to the scene. I see the gameplay value in having an encounter that could alarm the goblin camp. I am objecting to being able to kill the kids at all. It is also a legal issue. I'd suspect that in some time the BPjM here in Germany could deal with this scene in the future, once someone files a complaint. In the light of such a trial an index could be happening, which would mean the removal from Steam (and possibly GoG and other digital platforms as well).
Posted By: Sordak Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 09:01 AM
Gary gygax once had an article about pretty much this.
I dont know where your moral quandry is here.

"Lawfull good" is not your modern morals. Killing goblin children is lawfull good. Nits make lice, which is the quote gary gygax used. Its a debate as old as the game itself.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 09:21 AM
Originally Posted by Xatasha
Its a game and always has been.....and I am with Auntie Ethel..........Halfling kids are tender and sweet but bad on the teeth, Human kids,nice little dumplings but you have to watch the weight. Elf kids are your vegan option.....but you will be hungry 30 minutes after you eat one( Drow have a bit of a bitter taste). Dwarf kids ah......best Jerky in the world but takes awhile to chew. Now petal them Tieflings and goblins both are fast food.......easy to get but not so tasty .



laugh Yup.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 09:33 AM
"At the same time, the game is a representation of a very liberal western society. The same moral code as in the US or Europe (and technically all around the world) and that has not changed a whole lot over the last centuries either. So when you have no objections to same-sex sex, transgender people, refugees with a distinctly different phenotype etc.. killing kids becomes hard to justify. Heck, even killing the owlbear cub in this game is something that meets resistance, naturally, since when was the last time you drowned a kitten yourself? it is just not something people tend to do, even in extreme situations."

Good points again, however, we (in my opinion) REALLY need to understand that fantasy is not real life. I think its a huge step backwards to start censoring art/games/TV etc just because the content "might" offend a few people. I think the problem is that some players are finding it difficult to put reality aside and just see where the narrative is going. I mean, this is a "world" populated by demons and devils and owlbears and wizards...... Do we start taking the devils seriously?? This to me is a disturbing trend that is insidiously creeping into books, tv, games and it needs to be halted. On the other hand, those are the things that influence a lot of people many of whom are incapable of coming to an independant conclusion on their own... The game is meant for adults, its challenging but that is not a bad thing.
Posted By: Vhaldez Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 09:43 AM
Originally Posted by Topper
"At the same time, the game is a representation of a very liberal western society. The same moral code as in the US or Europe (and technically all around the world) and that has not changed a whole lot over the last centuries either. So when you have no objections to same-sex sex, transgender people, refugees with a distinctly different phenotype etc.. killing kids becomes hard to justify. Heck, even killing the owlbear cub in this game is something that meets resistance, naturally, since when was the last time you drowned a kitten yourself? it is just not something people tend to do, even in extreme situations."
Originally Posted by Topper
Do we start taking the devils seriously??
The entire point of the "good" path in Act 1 is to 'take the devils seriously' lol.
Posted By: Sordak Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 10:39 AM
same sex acceptance is not because FR shares the same moral values as our modern world.
it is because Greenwood wanted everyone to be bisexual due to him imagining FR as a world of sexual debauchery.

Heres a pointer for you. I FR, incest is considerd a normal family pasttime. Hows that for modern western morals. and no, pornhub is not a standard reference guide for modern western morals.
Originally Posted by Topper
"At the same time, the game is a representation of a very liberal western society. The same moral code as in the US or Europe (and technically all around the world) and that has not changed a whole lot over the last centuries either. So when you have no objections to same-sex sex, transgender people, refugees with a distinctly different phenotype etc.. killing kids becomes hard to justify. Heck, even killing the owlbear cub in this game is something that meets resistance, naturally, since when was the last time you drowned a kitten yourself? it is just not something people tend to do, even in extreme situations."

Good points again, however, we (in my opinion) REALLY need to understand that fantasy is not real life. I think its a huge step backwards to start censoring art/games/TV etc just because the content "might" offend a few people. I think the problem is that some players are finding it difficult to put reality aside and just see where the narrative is going. I mean, this is a "world" populated by demons and devils and owlbears and wizards...... Do we start taking the devils seriously?? This to me is a disturbing trend that is insidiously creeping into books, tv, games and it needs to be halted. On the other hand, those are the things that influence a lot of people many of whom are incapable of coming to an independant conclusion on their own... The game is meant for adults, its challenging but that is not a bad thing.


Oh yeah, it is always a thin line between artistic freedom and legal or moral boundaries. I do not see a stepback here though. In 1998 Half-Life had to replace the Marines with Robots in Germany, in 2008 Fallout 3 had to remove dismemberment for the German version. In "No Russian" of CoD Modern Warfare 2 the devs had to change the mission, so you can not shoot anyone. The international versions were on the index, which is not equal to a ban, it just restricts advertising and open selling, and selling to underage people, hence the reason Steam usually does not sell games on the Index in one of the biggest markets. In 2008 also a game called KZ-manager got banned and forfeited. Two years ago the usage of Swastikas was allowed in games due to a new classification of a law. Games can now be considered art and for educational reasons the usage is allowed. So I have seen a constant liberalisation in all forms of media over the last 20 years.
The question that can be taken from it were: Does a Fallout game need dismemberment to work? Do you need to be able to kill civilians, just to polarize and make a point, if that point even exists? And I can not agree that these games are for adults, the first BG rating was 12 years. Divinity 2's rating was 16 in Germany, 17+ for PEGI. Same for BG3, although this is mostly due to partial nudity and strong language, I suppose. That is hardly adult territory, and even then people can be influenced by this, that is why we have those regulations in the first place. So it being fantasy does not really matter, as there are people that can not differentiate and/or can not put what was seen into context. And these trigger points are different for everyone.
In any case an encounter like this can serve a purpose in any game. But apparently the context is limited to the kids throwing stones at an animal and then running away when combat starts. So what is the purpose? Is it educational? Does the game tell you, you did something "wrong"? Companion interactions? Consequences, like aborted quests, NPCs and traders not talking to you, companions leaving, the world knowing you as child killer? That would be considered context in that regard that validated such an interaction, if you get my drift.
Originally Posted by Sordak
same sex acceptance is not because FR shares the same moral values as our modern world.
it is because Greenwood wanted everyone to be bisexual due to him imagining FR as a world of sexual debauchery.

Heres a pointer for you. I FR, incest is considerd a normal family pasttime. Hows that for modern western morals. and no, pornhub is not a standard reference guide for modern western morals.


Yet, 20 years ago, same-sex romance in BG2 was unheard, I do not even recall, if there was a single gay NPC in that game, let alone the notion that "everyone was bisexual". Drow were only starting to become accepted, Tieflings apparently not so much. And now in the year 2020 we had goblin companions, transgender companions, we can make drow and tiefling characters and general of almost every phenotype and skintone. We can also bonk anyone and there might even be nipples. And that holds true for many, many games of the last ten years, be it Mass Effect, Dragon Age, PoE even the Fallout series (which naturally started out more liberal).
Political issues like segregation, suppression, dislocation, and especially racism plays a much larger role in the recent years, sometimes even central. As the whole society became more liberal and accepting (on these issues at least), so did it's media.
.
On the topic of incest, well I suppose then genetics work differently in FR, because there are existential drawbacks of bonking your family. Additionally you do not have to go back far, like 50 years, to see that marriages within the family were not unheard nor frowned upon and sometimes even the norm.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 11:13 AM
I could be entirely wrong but don't the goblin kids run away? If this is the case then you clearly don't have to attack them. If they attack you then knock them out maybe? Not like you ever have to go back in that room.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 11:16 AM
Originally Posted by Vhaldez
Originally Posted by Topper
"At the same time, the game is a representation of a very liberal western society. The same moral code as in the US or Europe (and technically all around the world) and that has not changed a whole lot over the last centuries either. So when you have no objections to same-sex sex, transgender people, refugees with a distinctly different phenotype etc.. killing kids becomes hard to justify. Heck, even killing the owlbear cub in this game is something that meets resistance, naturally, since when was the last time you drowned a kitten yourself? it is just not something people tend to do, even in extreme situations."
Originally Posted by Topper
Do we start taking the devils seriously??
The entire point of the "good" path in Act 1 is to 'take the devils seriously' lol.


I made you laugh. Thats good. People should laugh more. My point though was ...its not real. Devils dont exist.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 11:34 AM
Originally Posted by VincentNZ
Originally Posted by Topper
"At the same time, the game is a representation of a very liberal western society. The same moral code as in the US or Europe (and technically all around the world) and that has not changed a whole lot over the last centuries either. So when you have no objections to same-sex sex, transgender people, refugees with a distinctly different phenotype etc.. killing kids becomes hard to justify. Heck, even killing the owlbear cub in this game is something that meets resistance, naturally, since when was the last time you drowned a kitten yourself? it is just not something people tend to do, even in extreme situations."

Good points again, however, we (in my opinion) REALLY need to understand that fantasy is not real life. I think its a huge step backwards to start censoring art/games/TV etc just because the content "might" offend a few people. I think the problem is that some players are finding it difficult to put reality aside and just see where the narrative is going. I mean, this is a "world" populated by demons and devils and owlbears and wizards...... Do we start taking the devils seriously?? This to me is a disturbing trend that is insidiously creeping into books, tv, games and it needs to be halted. On the other hand, those are the things that influence a lot of people many of whom are incapable of coming to an independant conclusion on their own... The game is meant for adults, its challenging but that is not a bad thing.


Oh yeah, it is always a thin line between artistic freedom and legal or moral boundaries. I do not see a stepback here though. In 1998 Half-Life had to replace the Marines with Robots in Germany, in 2008 Fallout 3 had to remove dismemberment for the German version. In "No Russian" of CoD Modern Warfare 2 the devs had to change the mission, so you can not shoot anyone. The international versions were on the index, which is not equal to a ban, it just restricts advertising and open selling, and selling to underage people, hence the reason Steam usually does not sell games on the Index in one of the biggest markets. In 2008 also a game called KZ-manager got banned and forfeited. Two years ago the usage of Swastikas was allowed in games due to a new classification of a law. Games can now be considered art and for educational reasons the usage is allowed. So I have seen a constant liberalisation in all forms of media over the last 20 years.
The question that can be taken from it were: Does a Fallout game need dismemberment to work? Do you need to be able to kill civilians, just to polarize and make a point, if that point even exists? And I can not agree that these games are for adults, the first BG rating was 12 years. Divinity 2's rating was 16 in Germany, 17+ for PEGI. Same for BG3, although this is mostly due to partial nudity and strong language, I suppose. That is hardly adult territory, and even then people can be influenced by this, that is why we have those regulations in the first place. So it being fantasy does not really matter, as there are people that can not differentiate and/or can not put what was seen into context. And these trigger points are different for everyone.
In any case an encounter like this can serve a purpose in any game. But apparently the context is limited to the kids throwing stones at an animal and then running away when combat starts. So what is the purpose? Is it educational? Does the game tell you, you did something "wrong"? Companion interactions? Consequences, like aborted quests, NPCs and traders not talking to you, companions leaving, the world knowing you as child killer? That would be considered context in that regard that validated such an interaction, if you get my drift.


Well made points and some I agree with. I get that Germans (for the most part) are extremly sensitive about using swaztikas in games, books etc. For years even over here in the UK, it was hard to find a model kit of say an FW190 that was entirely historically accurate because of the exclusion of swaztikas. Dont get me wrong, that symbol is about nothing more than hate, exclusion and intolerance and I despise it and those that worship it. But in the context of historical exploration, it needs to be represented even if its just to allow an understanding of just why its so utterly vile. If we forget, history could very well repeat. As they say.

Your point about fantasy being put into context I think is the very essential essence of these debates though. Context is everything and to me at least, this is a fantasy game that should not be a reflection of real life. To me, the very inclusion of the option to kill the gobbo kids and not the others is actually pretty powerful. Look at the discussions it has generated. My position is I would not want the choice, I do not want to splat kids as my character is not that kind of ....... character.
Posted By: Vhaldez Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 12:01 PM
Originally Posted by Topper
I made you laugh. Thats good. People should laugh more. My point though was ...its not real. Devils dont exist.
I know. I hope I'm wrong about what I said about this in my Kagha thread, but it may be that Larian wanted to make a point with the Tieflings and just forgot to apply that to the Goblins as well.
Posted By: Cendre Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 03:30 PM
I read you could kill children in previous BG games. I remember clearly wiping out all of Beregost just to see if i could do it, and noticing children didn't care about fireballs. Was it changed?

Also, those particular gobelins are killable because they're part of the fight. That's all. And children in general aren't killable because that's a convention in most games, nothing more. It's just one of those points where you realize it's a game and therefore not a fully consistent universe.

For me it's a game design debate, not a political one. Since Larian didn't decide this 'no killing children' rule in games. Once you decided they'll be children playing in that camp, what could you do? They could pop off once the fight start, very immersion breaking. They could be invincible all the time except once the fight start, even worse. Or you can make them part of the fight and tell them to run away warn adults, wich lead to more story telling and an interesting gameplay choice, since they're quite fast^^. Mine usually find an empty camp so i just don't care^^.

What would be the point to directly confront the 'no killing children' rule in the tieffling camp? Nothing except letting players who just want to wipe out the grove to do it 'completely'. It's not worth breaking the rule.

And no, in Faerun, noone would think badly of you because you killed two young goblins rushing to their tribe to stop you from saving a druid. And eat you afterwards. You'd probably be criticized by the more zealous for letting them run away actually. Tiefflings however, if some knight told in a random tavern how he one day slaughtered them children alike, you would end up with a raging debate :p But the knight would be considered a criminal by the law anyway.


About fantasy and real life. I'm tired of the 'it's not supposed to be a reflection of the real world' thing. It's supposed to be a reflection of what? A universe where nothing is alike? Aren't the farmers growing food in exchange for money they need to buy tools and clothing in a feodal society? There are no empires, state-cities, pioneers and refugees? Are the wars fought because people don't agree about which color is the prettiest instead of land, economy, belief, political power? Are the rules for moral, demographic, art, history, logic, whatever, in the FR totally made up and making no sense at all? All those fantastical beings, gods themselves, aren't they moved by the same needs and fellings that move any beings in our real world? Last time i checked, players made characters driven by cupidity, lust, power, love, loyalty, knowledge, culture... and wanted to play in a world they could understand, predict, one where the setting is different but the rules are the same. It's not like if any author could invent different rules anyway. Racism, sexism and all those things some seemingly want to forget had always have been a strong part of the FR, notions used to ground this world. It define entire societies (looking at you, drows). And it was always depicted as a bad thing. Sure you can play a righteous zelot who slay anything that is different and think very good about himself. It's fine. But we all know than if the group stumble upon, let's say, a drow being burned by religious fellow for no other reason than she is a drow, the good choice is to free her. Even if she's evil, i guess deontology beat consequentialism in the FR. And it has all to do with the moral and political belief of the society in wich the game was made at the moment it was made.

It's interesting to see how it's precisely the issues we collectively still struggle to deal with that have the more weight in the moral outcome of our characters choices. For an exemple, you will hardly find any quest that confront the political system of the country/city you play in. If the king must be removed, it's not because he's a king, but because he's a bad king. If the council must be fought, it's not because it's not a democracy, but because its members are blind, corrupt, whatever.. That's because it's assumed we're all democrats, the debate is settled, so it's not very interesting to deal with, there is no tension. Since it's med fan, there is mostly feodal systems, but since it's fictional, you can find or make almost any system here and there, even anarchism :p Nobody cares as long as it's not totally unconceivable in a med fan world. But when it's about slavery, letting little monsters live or not, oppression, women in charge, military or diplomatic policy, religious confrontations, the place of strangers in a community... Now there's tension, now players will pick different options, probably quarrel with the DM about the outcome of their choices, and generally feel like those choices can build how their character see the world.

I wouldn't find role playing games interesting if my characters didn't have to position themselve about issues i actually care about. And i love playing an aristocratic, imperialist, expansionist, power hungry, and kinda racist human wizard. If the DM says it's evil when my character really think it isn't, fine, i did my job smile
Posted By: Finnius Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 04:56 PM
1. Since when did pixels on a screen become "real"?

2. What is the definition of "role-playing"?

3. If I accidentally or purposely have my character walk into a bonfire...should that character be arrested for attempted suicide? Should I, as the directing party, immediately be arrested for attempted murder?

This thread is funny...and ridiculous. Nobody is "killing" anyone.

I understand about immersion into a fiction...sure...but when you start applying our Earth societal morals and systems of belief onto a fantasy setting that obviously does not behave or share the same ruleset (as the above poster said)...then YOU are breaking the role-playing.
Posted By: Cendre Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 04:59 PM
Oh, suicide too :o We get the swearing or not, sincerely or not, 'i'll take the poison if i change', to Nettie smile
Posted By: Finnius Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 05:27 PM
...one last point:

Ok you have created a character and imbued him/her with "life" and a set of imposed moral code...you are now 'god'. 'god' has no restrictions and can manipulate a character as you see fit...think of yourself as zeus with his little chessboard...free to make them move and do as you please. kill the kids, rape the harlots, milk the goats with your mouth...you are omnipotent and above such petty mortal restrictions. oh sure...maybe THEY wouldn't tie a rock to a kitten and throw it in a lava-pool...but as 'god' you get to make them do whatever you whim. I suggest you role-play 'god'.
Originally Posted by Cendre
I read you could kill children in previous BG games. I remember clearly wiping out all of Beregost just to see if i could do it, and noticing children didn't care about fireballs. Was it changed?
players who just want to wipe out the grove to do it 'completely'. It's not worth breaking the rule.

I don't remember any invincible children in BG1 or BG2, are you talking about the originals or enhanced editions? The only invincible npcs I remember were plot-related (those that were necessary for the plot later, like Imoen in the first dungeon) and Arkanis Gath. And they weren't quite immortal, because players came up with a way to kill them and the devs never patched that.
Posted By: Cendre Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 10/11/20 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Cendre
I read you could kill children in previous BG games. I remember clearly wiping out all of Beregost just to see if i could do it, and noticing children didn't care about fireballs. Was it changed?
players who just want to wipe out the grove to do it 'completely'. It's not worth breaking the rule.

I don't remember any invincible children in BG1 or BG2, are you talking about the originals or enhanced editions? The only invincible npcs I remember were plot-related (those that were necessary for the plot later, like Imoen in the first dungeon) and Arkanis Gath. And they weren't quite immortal, because players came up with a way to kill them and the devs never patched that.


The original BG1 i think, computers screen were small and not flat yet :p And there was no entropist. But it's a very old memory, i wouldn't be surprised to be wrong. Although i remember that very clearly.. Maybe i'm going to search for the original game and try it :p

Internet seem to say you can in BG but not in ID. Weird^^
Originally Posted by SecondAchaius
Monsters also have their own cultures and sentience. Both the literal and metaphorical monsters. That doesn't stop them from being monsters.



Yea good point, a really good example of morality among monsters is The Witcher universe which separates the sentient but good creatures from the sentient but evil ones. There is so much nuance on the monsters and their types that you discover that many of them are misunderstood and have redeeming qualities making siding with them an intelligent and sometimes evil maneuver. In Act 1 Goblins are represented with no redeeming qualities (except laughing at Volo) that the "new" fantasy stories like The Witcher (or 5e Dnd) would bring forth. Drow got a pass back in the day and became beloved by players because they had an awesome character representing them but they are still inherently evil but here they are supposed to be in control but also being controlled at the same time so it's a difficult narrative to work with motivation-wise. If we are going to make goblins as beloved as they are in other fantasy universes and for similar reasons we have to make their leaders smarter, or at least more willing to listen to a good plan, having Minthara this static quest giver is just awful not to mention the fact that only Dror Ragzlin tells you directly to go to her. Big oversight here.


I saw someone comparing the goblins to chimpanzees which is accurate except they are endowed with this sentience, personality and life for the first time in a DnD game and it just feels a bit awkward and haphazardly done. In sword coast legends (a recent but failed DnD game) you are introduced to a group of ratmen living in the sewers and they will give you some great rogue gear if you stop the city from exterminating them. I think a solution like this for the grove v. goblins issue where you stop the grove from being attacked and negotiate the release of Halsin with Minthara, explaining that wiping out the druids grove is reckless and they should just wait to ambush the Tieflings on the roads and then attack the grove (perhaps you could go and falsely claim you had gotten them safe passage from the gobs).

It would make the goblins a more compelling choice that makes a lot more sense and go along with the newer idea of the goblins as a chaotic, but still sentient race who can be controlled rather than just random baddies to fill dungeons and do dumb stuff. This could still follow with a battle on the road and sneak attack on the grove and of course, a concluding goblin party and sweet drow lovin' but you would already have persuaded Minthara that you are worth keeping by hatching this dastardly plan. OR you could turn her plan around on her and replace her.

Also I found the lack of a neutral solution a bit disturbing considering we are dealing with druids here who are inherently neutral (except shadow druids).

But to get at the question here, yes it is wrong to kill innocent goblin children, the problem is that the only innocent ones are orphans or ones that have turned against their race and traditions. I find this argument so compelling and a part of why fantasy has made a come back, these moral quandaries are infinitely relatable to the human situation. But DnD games are known to be on the lighter side of fantasy and considering that no other computer game has attempted something like this in the DnD universe and done it well I give Larian credit for going all out on the design of the baddies, I just want some more complexity in their motivations and actions I guess.
Regarding the original post: and so?

Does the aauthor of the thread get what he is playing? I mean the set and so on? There are plenty of games that don't are based on wars and fights between diferent factions (wheter they are races, social classes, or a bit of both).

This is a game based on a tabletop game wich is inspired by a subset of narrative called fantasy, a set that has its root in medieval european history (something a lot of people tend to forget, lets take for example tha so called afro haircuts post).

Ok, medieval ages weren't the dark ages certain narrative would love to be.

Nevertheless those where centuries in wich every and each population saw other nationalities as different and somehow less worth of living. So many wars, so many massacres and slaughters, so much prejudice, some prejudices against some ethnics groups saw light in those years (near the end of the Middle Age started the prejudice against Cinti and Roma, not to forget the emargination of Jews ), no matter how much we want the setting to reflect our modern values the fact that medieval ages were violent, full of prejudice, didn't care for lives of children remains.

Also in the game you play a role of a character that belongs to a certain faction, with their ideas and prejudices, not to forget, as I said in other replies, that Larian plays it in a subtle way that is if the player takes the time to talk to the goblins, specially the kids, to massacre them has a different taste, more bitter and maybe even a little rancid, the main characters and companions become more nuanced and there's no side that can be labelled as completely good or evil. I don't know if Larian did this in purpose, however to me is an amazing fact and shows how Larian doesn't ignore the ethic and moral values of our modern society, even if they don't do it in a explicit way (as I said to consider Goblins something more than cannibal pillagers there is the need to talk with them, adults and children).

On a last note: we have two paths, save the thieflings (killing the goblin leaders, and as far as i got reading the forum there is a strategy that allows not to slaughter all the camp), or save the goblins (killing the thieflings).
Posted By: Sordak Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 11/11/20 08:41 AM
Vincent you realy dont get my point.
Real life morals influence game design, btu were talking about in universe morals. In universe, everyone was bisexual form the start, thats how Greenwood envisioned it. back then, people were afraid to show that (ToEE did it first i think).

Likewise, now the game would be afraid not to show ethnic minorities, for example. but thats the falvor of its time and not neccesarily reflecting the actual world.

Point is, killing Goblin children is probably fine and dandy in FR. They are followes of evil deities, they are evil creatures and they are pests. Kid goblins turn into adult goblins and thats why people kill them.
You CAN play almost anything in DnD, doesnt mean that they arent evil or arent hated by civilized people.

The point i was making about morality is that while FR might appear on the outisde to be a modern western liberal set of morals, thsi is simply not true. Just because theres same sex marriage doesnt mean that Palladins stringing up bandits and goblins on trees isnt also a thing that happens.
Posted By: Rieline Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 11/11/20 05:16 PM
To be honest Goblins are despicable creature by nature. Opportunist and most of the time even coward. Their Strenght comes with the number and they often attack in pack on easy target. During my playtrough i was put in between a choice to leave the Goblin children run and allow them to warn all the camp or get rid of them then deal with the adult. I chose the latter with no regrets. Goblins are evil. When you first meet the goblin childrens they not only playing with a corpse they also threaten you.
While i dislike absolutely invincible npcs. Childrens are often in videogames.

I won't make a comparsion between Tiefling child and Goblin child. Tiefling are born and often victim of a lot of prejudice due to their fiendish heritage but not all of them end to be evil.

Goblin on the other hand are a despicable evil race. So. The only good goblin is a dead goblin.

Originally Posted by Rieline
To be honest Goblins are despicable creature by nature. Opportunist and most of the time even coward. Their Strenght comes with the number and they often attack in pack on easy target. During my playtrough i was put in between a choice to leave the Goblin children run and allow them to warn all the camp or get rid of them then deal with the adult. I chose the latter with no regrets. Goblins are evil. When you first meet the goblin childrens they not only playing with a corpse they also threaten you.
While i dislike absolutely invincible npcs. Childrens are often in videogames.

I won't make a comparsion between Tiefling child and Goblin child. Tiefling are born and often victim of a lot of prejudice due to their fiendish heritage but not all of them end to be evil.

Goblin on the other hand are a despicable evil race. So. The only good goblin is a dead goblin.



So you're telling me it's okay to kill a cute little scamp like this,

[Linked Image]

But not a literal spawn of a devil?
/s
Posted By: Bukke Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 13/11/20 03:40 PM
Originally Posted by brosephhstalin
Originally Posted by Rieline
To be honest Goblins are despicable creature by nature. Opportunist and most of the time even coward. Their Strenght comes with the number and they often attack in pack on easy target. During my playtrough i was put in between a choice to leave the Goblin children run and allow them to warn all the camp or get rid of them then deal with the adult. I chose the latter with no regrets. Goblins are evil. When you first meet the goblin childrens they not only playing with a corpse they also threaten you.
While i dislike absolutely invincible npcs. Childrens are often in videogames.

I won't make a comparsion between Tiefling child and Goblin child. Tiefling are born and often victim of a lot of prejudice due to their fiendish heritage but not all of them end to be evil.

Goblin on the other hand are a despicable evil race. So. The only good goblin is a dead goblin.



So you're telling me it's okay to kill a cute little scamp like this,

But not a literal spawn of a devil?
/s


That image is pro-goblin propaganda and I will not be deceived by it.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 13/11/20 11:01 PM
Have none of you read Snuff by Terry Pratchett!!!! smile And yes, that image is cute. Gobbo's are not cute. Are they?? I dont know any more.
Posted By: Verte Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 13/11/20 11:09 PM
If not the 'true soul' business those gobbos would probably kill our little party of adventurers. And then kick Laezel's body making her nose even more flat. It is really simple choice for me.
Posted By: Rieline Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 13/11/20 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by brosephhstalin
Originally Posted by Rieline
To be honest Goblins are despicable creature by nature. Opportunist and most of the time even coward. Their Strenght comes with the number and they often attack in pack on easy target. During my playtrough i was put in between a choice to leave the Goblin children run and allow them to warn all the camp or get rid of them then deal with the adult. I chose the latter with no regrets. Goblins are evil. When you first meet the goblin childrens they not only playing with a corpse they also threaten you.
While i dislike absolutely invincible npcs. Childrens are often in videogames.

I won't make a comparsion between Tiefling child and Goblin child. Tiefling are born and often victim of a lot of prejudice due to their fiendish heritage but not all of them end to be evil.

Goblin on the other hand are a despicable evil race. So. The only good goblin is a dead goblin.



So you're telling me it's okay to kill a cute little scamp like this,

[Linked Image]

But not a literal spawn of a devil?
/s




Absolutely! WIth fire!
Posted By: Athann Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 13/11/20 11:42 PM
he is just trolling
Posted By: Lotus Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 14/11/20 02:48 AM
Time to kill goblin
I love how this thread has evolved from joke post to serious philosophical discussion about alignments back to jokes, good stuff.
Originally Posted by Topper
Have none of you read Snuff by Terry Pratchett!!!! smile And yes, that image is cute. Gobbo's are not cute. Are they?? I dont know any more.


People likely have read it yet tend to be rather quiet about it. Too much poo, snot and toenails. But, yeah it catches the essence of what we are discussing here. laugh
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 14/11/20 10:00 AM
I have most of his books smile Apart from some of the later ones about football and trains etc. This has indeed become an interesting discussion. I have a problem with cutefying DnD creatures though.. Where does it end? Aww poor mindflayers, just doing what they do poor wee things.... :O No!!!!!!! They are monsters!!!! Kill them with fire!!!!! And so on.
Originally Posted by VincentNZ
Originally Posted by Topper
Have none of you read Snuff by Terry Pratchett!!!! smile And yes, that image is cute. Gobbo's are not cute. Are they?? I dont know any more.


People likely have read it yet tend to be rather quiet about it. Too much poo, snot and toenails. But, yeah it catches the essence of what we are discussing here. laugh

If I find a piano in one of the Goblin camps, I shall be highly suspicious.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 14/11/20 12:37 PM
And yet, they have ...poetry..... One step away from stringing words into song.
Originally Posted by Topper
I have most of his books smile Apart from some of the later ones about football and trains etc. This has indeed become an interesting discussion. I have a problem with cutefying DnD creatures though.. Where does it end? Aww poor mindflayers, just doing what they do poor wee things.... :O No!!!!!!! They are monsters!!!! Kill them with fire!!!!! And so on.

Steam and Unseen Academicals were good, but a slight shift of gear. They were evidently books that Pterry felt the need to write due to his own interest in the subjects, but you could easily skip them and not miss out on the wider Discworld Lore.

As for rehabilitation of fantasy monsters; yes, I think it is a dangerous slope to start on. If you have 'humanised' your main evil race, then your next Evil needs to be demonstrably worse. I prefer to give my campaign monsters good old-fashioned human prejudices and flaws, without making them human. In my GURPS Fantasy campaign, you can try to negotiate with goblins but they will likely just laugh and eat you - they see all other living things as food. Orcs are more 'civilised' and will trade, but are highly clannish and xenophobic and will start a fight at a moment's notice with the slightest excuse.
Originally Posted by Topper
I have most of his books smile Apart from some of the later ones about football and trains etc. This has indeed become an interesting discussion. I have a problem with cutefying DnD creatures though.. Where does it end? Aww poor mindflayers, just doing what they do poor wee things.... :O No!!!!!!! They are monsters!!!! Kill them with fire!!!!! And so on.



It doesn't have to be about cutifying them, just provide more context for why certain races are the way they are. Think about goblins specifically, their society is based entirely on survival. They have to be sneaky and cunning to not get eaten or smashed by everyone else. In comparison with the average humanoid nation goblins are at a massive disadvantage, hence why they'll group up with other monsters or evil leaning sorts for protection.

The goblins in BG3 aren't mindless killers, at several points in the game they have the opportunity to attack you but go for threats first instead, they will fight if they have to but generally seem to want to avoid it if they can.

They aren't good, but I would hesitate to call them totally evil either. I mean, Wyll for example tries to be pretty charming, but when the goblins come up he goes full on genocide mode. xD Truly man is the real monster. x)
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Topper
I have most of his books smile Apart from some of the later ones about football and trains etc. This has indeed become an interesting discussion. I have a problem with cutefying DnD creatures though.. Where does it end? Aww poor mindflayers, just doing what they do poor wee things.... :O No!!!!!!! They are monsters!!!! Kill them with fire!!!!! And so on.

Steam and Unseen Academicals were good, but a slight shift of gear. They were evidently books that Pterry felt the need to write due to his own interest in the subjects, but you could easily skip them and not miss out on the wider Discworld Lore.

As for rehabilitation of fantasy monsters; yes, I think it is a dangerous slope to start on. If you have 'humanised' your main evil race, then your next Evil needs to be demonstrably worse. I prefer to give my campaign monsters good old-fashioned human prejudices and flaws, without making them human. In my GURPS Fantasy campaign, you can try to negotiate with goblins but they will likely just laugh and eat you - they see all other living things as food. Orcs are more 'civilised' and will trade, but are highly clannish and xenophobic and will start a fight at a moment's notice with the slightest excuse.


Well, you coul argue the major plot point of the last books was the whole humanization of orcs and goblins thing. I was not a fan, but I got the gist of it, and I think it is worth noting. In the end, how do you find out about others if you do not ask nor try to understand?

There is this secluded tribe on the Andaman islands, just off the coast of India, that will attack anyone that comes close to them. They have been left alone for decades until two years ago an American got killed trying to talk to them about god. They are hostile on sight. Some tribes in South America are similar as well and might raid lumbercamps even. Japanese Holdouts after WWII also either lived isolatory and secluded or showed aggressive behaviour years after the war was over. Now obviously the right thing is not to annihilate these tribes and people, but to either leave them be or talk to them so one can come to some form of understanding. I do know that these comparisons are a bit shaky, but it begs the question if anyone ever saw it from the POV of the goblins or tried to understand what they are all about.

This rehabilitation happens all the time, though in many series and in real life. Former adversaries become neutral, become new allies, even if a mutual understanding was outrageous a couple of years ago. Again, 100 years in the past, the Bhaalspawn had a Goblin companion. Drow seem to have little issues walking above ground, except some small remarks and so forth. So it is nothing out of the ordinary to at least question their motives, yet there isn't really anyone asking these questions, beside Volo maybe.
Posted By: Topper Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 14/11/20 09:40 PM
Very fine points all. Do we need bad guys? Do we need something to kill???? Thats what it comes down to yeah? If we look for and find good, reason, purpose in everything, dont we essentially find......God? I'm far from religious but is that not the benchmark for morality?
Originally Posted by Finnius
1. Since when did pixels on a screen become "real"?

2. What is the definition of "role-playing"?

3. If I accidentally or purposely have my character walk into a bonfire...should that character be arrested for attempted suicide? Should I, as the directing party, immediately be arrested for attempted murder?

This thread is funny...and ridiculous. Nobody is "killing" anyone.

I understand about immersion into a fiction...sure...but when you start applying our Earth societal morals and systems of belief onto a fantasy setting that obviously does not behave or share the same ruleset (as the above poster said)...then YOU are breaking the role-playing.

Its a morale thing.. has nothing to do with pixels, humans are either good or evil, you wont change that.

Originally Posted by Verte
If not the 'true soul' business those gobbos would probably kill our little party of adventurers. And then kick Laezel's body making her nose even more flat. It is really simple choice for me.

Which is understandable really, if i met our companions in real life i'd kill them all on the spot as well.. and i'd be doing the world a justice, way more than killing some poor goblins.. Our companions are the most evil scum you'd ever meet, make a few goblins seem down right pleasant.
Originally Posted by Topper
People take this game way to seriously smile I want my fantasy detached from reality. I want stuff that offends people and makes them realise this genre of entertainment is probably not for them. Its fantasy, its not real..... Not everything in life has to represent a view or attitude or position in real life.


Sigh. You're missing the point.

It's not about "realism". It's about "immersion". Two very different things. Just because it't not real doesn't mean you can just go "Add anything in". It has to make sense.

A unircorn shitting muffins in Borderlands makes sense because that's the game it is.

But do that here... Well, if it's very cleverly done, maybe. But you know what I mean.

Fantasy exists BECAUSE of reality. Because people suffered and got traumatised and managed to turn those bad situations around into fun and games. But it's not always fun and games. So why should fantasy be any different?

The reason you don't want real merged with fantasy is because of people in REAL life having weak stomachs. But maybe that's exactly why it should be mixed. It's called oppression. We want our fun stuff and that should be fun as far as "real" is concerned.

Here's the thing. Real life people with weak stomachs go out of their way to make sure it's NOT fine. This makes it impossible to separate the two at times. You have to take sales figures into account. What "most people tend to enjoy and get put off by". And then you got the law poking it's ugly nose into your business. "This is fine. That's fine. I decide for you what should be enjoyed."

Personally I say "I got an iron stomach." I make more fun out of dark events in online roleplay (and real life for that matter. Both). It's given me a very good imagination.
Posted By: Nyloth Re: Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings - 19/11/20 05:52 AM
Goblins? Kobolds? Gnomes? ; )
© Larian Studios forums