Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 13 of 28 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 27 28
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I realize society is changing. My point is just that the more you make everything gray, the less the story is about good vs. evil. The less the story is about good versus evil, the more real it becomes and the more complicated and less simple and just plain fun.
I am someone who greatly prefers shades of grey. For me black and white is just boring. If I already know what is going to happen then I don't see the point of playing the game unless I have absolutely nothing else to do. I get no enjoyment out of being told what path to follow, plus there is absolutely no replayability if there is only the one "correct" way to do things. With shades of grey, each decision can lead to different things and I can immerse myself in my character better because there are more options to grow and change.

I especially don't like it when the black and white is due to people trying to force current real world views into fiction without understanding that they need to see the fictional world from the viewpoint of someone living in it, and even from the different types of viewpoints in the world rather than just the one they agree with the most. Looking from the different perspectives would make many things shades of grey.

As for the goblin and tiefling kids, I think both should be able to be killed, but maybe it should be a clear decision you have to make since it is apparently bothersome or offensive for some people. The choice to kill them or not would be correct or incorrect from any point of view - black, white, and grey.

Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
A false dichotomy in the context of moral/ethical choices is that there can only ever be shades of grey or black and white. There is a third option: black, grey and white.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Going to put this in spoiler tags, since it's more a discussion of tone and delivery than anything else, and is getting a little bit off topic, but I still wanted to offer it just in case it helps ^.^

Originally Posted by Natureboy
Oh, dear... I started playing D&D in 1979, 2 years after they expanded to D&D and AD&D, and likely years before you were born.

I'm not really interested in how old or young you claim you are, or how old or young you think I am. Your supposed age, mine, and anyone else's is not a factor that has any value of consideration in a discussion of this nature...

“Heed me, because I'm older,” and “Heed me, because I have experience,” are appeals to authority and they are not a valid form of argumentation, especially not in an online space where they are ephemeral concepts to begin with – sensible people heed others because what they have to say has merit, not because of who is saying it or how old or experienced they say they are.

Quote
Please cite a quotation from my.post where I claimed or suggested that BG3 is an attempt to depict 3.0 "monsters", or is based on 3.0 depictions of "monsters". I'm well aware that 3.0 does not equal either 4.0 or 5e, even if in your rush to judgement you assumed otherwise.

Please cite a quotation from my post where I claimed or suggested you were saying that ^.^

I only pointed out that the information you were supplying, related to how things were described in earlier editions, has no bearing on the here and now, since this game is based in 5th, and, as you helpfully point out, they are not the same. I should probably have led with a “Bear in mind” or some other softener, so it didn't seem like I was directly arguing on the matter – I understand it was just a point of sharing between you and Scales. I had intended that the introduction, being that I was just sharing some background details and facts, was enough. It wasn't, I see.

Quote
2. I killed Arabella's parents, [etc.]

As stated.... your ability to kill people, have the guards question you, be brushed off with a check, and have everyone continue on as though nothing else had happened, even with dead bodies bleeding everywhere all around them, is not relevant here, since it is a 'feature' of all of Larian's games, everywhere, in every instance. It's a universal trait of their poor design, not a relevant factor to this particular situation. It was always going to be the case no matter how it was written or set up, because that's just part of the 'game' mechanics, and not related to the plot or story at all... and yeah, it's pretty bad.

For the rest, Kagha has asked you, quietly, to take an action that she cannot outright order without creating a rift in the druids – Rath does not support her, and about a third to a half of the other druids are not fully behind her either. She has not put out word around the camp that the refugees are to be killed – the guards are still keeping the peace. When a scripting event occurs that actively turns the entire druid enclave against the refugees, that's actually a thing that happens, and they will all turn hostile against them – that doesn't happen here because it's not a big public thing.

Perhaps you're suggesting that it should – in which case, sure! – but there would need to be shouting and all of the refugees would need to immediately turn hostile and attempt to escape the groove as the druids turn on them. If Kagha's acceptance of your killing Zevlor triggered the same “kill the refugees” script in the entire druid grove and played out accordingly, except with the refugees red and the druids green, as opposed other other way around, such as when you steal the idol, that might be good – currently that's not what happens, and that's intended, at the moment.

Quote
3. I also killed off a Xvart settlement in [...]

Just remember, Xvarts are fiends; they are literally intrinsically evil in their essence, and cannot be otherwise by definition of the world space. A Xvart that ceased to be evil aligned would not be a Xvart any more and would be changed or transformed in some way as a result. It's a very different situation - what are you trying to say by mentioning it?

Quote
[I also] wiped out the entire Drow city of Ust N'atha after a bug caused the inhabitants to turn hostile […] I also rescripted the game so that... […]

Why are you talking about what you did as a result of a bug in a different game? What is this even about? What does your rescripting of a different game to suit your needs have to do with any of this, enough to make it worth bringing up here? If you're trying to give us a character profile of yourself, there's no need; it's not important.

The point was, and I apologise if my explanation wasn't clear... You had your character commit a murderous crime in the open in front of people who are there to keep the peace and prevent such crimes from being committed and who were, at that time, still doing that. They didn't like it and tried to stop your character, going hostile against you, according to your earlier report. What problem are you seeing with this sequence of events? Why do you think this sequence of events is not correct? What do you think should have happened?

Quote
4. I lived in and grew up in...

As mentioned above, appeals to authority, appeals to seniority and appeals to experience are not relevant and not worth acknowledging in a discussion like this. It's not that there's anything wrong with sharing your background - by all means do - it's just that you cannot expect it to carry any weight here, or lend any strength to what you're saying - it doesn't, and won't. Insisting that someone should listen to what you say because of who you are, rather than because of what you are actually saying being legitimate, is never going to really fly in a sensible discussion, and it will only make you look less credible overall the more you do it.

Quote
5. You are so blinded by instinctive anger that you can't distinguish between manipulation and forcing choices.

This is more extremist language, attempting to paint the other person into an irrational position that they aren't actually occupying. You seem to be the angriest person here, if I'm honest; I'm just trying to be helpful and clear. You probably aren't worked up or angry in reality – I'm sure that none of us here actually are, because that would be very unhealthy, but the language you use makes you come across as deeply agitated by this, and quite worked up and angry indeed. You'll come across a lot calmer if you vet your language a little.

Quote
I also see little ability on your part to read carefully or recognise nuance and complexity.

I found this comment deeply amusing. I'm sure others did too. You may not have noticed, because you may not have looked, but I've agreed with a lot of the points that you have had to make, and admitted that they have merit. Larian's writing is pretty darn clumsy and bad, and you'll find few here who legitimately argue that point (though you will find a few ^.^).

My response was first and foremost a selection of corrective points that simply shared information about the topics being discussed, for clarity. The latter part, directed towards you specifically, was in relation to your tone, more than anything else, and the way that your writing causes you to come across... and implicitly, though I could have been clearer, how that is unhelpful to you and detrimental to you in getting your otherwise interesting points across to other people. If you interpreted any of that as anger or resentment, I'm sorry, but that's on you reading something into this that isn't here, because you seem to want to have something to react against... your opening posts here are all extremely caustic and borderline attacking of the supposed reader in general – it's not a good way to invite people to listen to you.

Quote
6. In patch 6, you DO NOT need to steal the Idol of Silvanus to save Gale.

You never had to do this. There are more than enough artefacts in the first chapter to satisfy Gale without you ever needing to go anywhere near the idol, and there always has been. I have personally never fed Gale the idol. I usually give him the sword, or the flask – either one of them sets him right for the chapter.

Quote
My complaint was that as a Druid, I could not castigate him for making such an offensive request.

This is the first time you've articulated that as being your actual complaint, as far as I know (if you said this elsewhere and I missed it, I apologise), and I wholeheartedly agree with you on that score; you should absolutely be able to stop and tell him that that isn't happening, if you're a character that feels that way.

I do feel you have a lot of value to add to the community, and a lot of interesting things to say! I feel that you'll manage to do so far better if you try to do it in a calm and polite way that's respectful to others and avoids insulting, belittling or condescending to the people you're talking to, and strives to avoid derogatory or abrasive language in general.

==

In a separate response... above this you posted a summation of the theoretical value of life based in the reproductive proclivity of a species, followed by a mapping of this to the characters and creatures in the game... Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't appear to be doing this ironically, and were legitimately attempting to reason that goblin lives were of less value than other humanoids (goblins are humanoids).

It's interesting to know that, if indeed you feel this way, you view human life on earth as the least valuable form of life in existence saving only some species of insects, microorganisms and bacteria... That by this reasoning, if you do hold it, you would feel that in all cases, if a human is being endangered by another animal, that it is the correct choice to value the human life less than the creature, and that the human should be allowed to die, if they do, rather than taking the life of the other creature, if those are the only options. Is that your feeling on the matter? It's an honest question with no malice intended, I'm just curious about whether you're applying this idea to humans as well, or excluding them arbitrarily from the metric.

By this description, human lives are less intrinsically valuable than almost any other living thing on the planet – as a species and as a whole you certainly are more populous and reproduce, multiply and spread far faster and more easily than all but the aforementioned insects and bacteria – value described like this says that we should never dream of killing a wolf to spare a human (and, you know, don't kill wolves anyway, because a lot a distinct wolf species are actually critically endangered, despite what various media might tell you).

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The less the story is about good versus evil, the more real it becomes and the more complicated and less simple and just plain fun.
I dunno ...
Stormtroopers was allways humans (except that part where they was clones) ... so they kinda allways had families, life, and their own dreams ... they were just serving, wich was not even a choice by the way ... we just ignored it for whole time. :-/
Doesnt seems so hard to me to ignore it once again ... but i would personaly feel like im passing out significant part of the story.

Sure there still can be simple story about "good versus evil" ...
All you need to do is artificialy create an army ... in Star Wars, it would be clones, or droids ... in DnD i can think about Draconians from Dragonlance ...
But once you use any "regular" race, you just get moral dilema about some soldiers who were just doing their job ... no matter wich race you pick, even between Lolthsworn Drow there is chance (small one tho) to meet someone who dont necesarily agree with the way their society works, but cant do anything about it.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
But my point is that by leaving the goblin kids element in the game, you are going to have a more complicated moral dilemma that you are putting your players in. Naturally, there will be players who feel guilty about killing goblin kids just because their kids. If you do that, then you need to expect that there are going to be players who are not only uncomfortable with it, but they straight up hate it.
Maybe that is the purpose?
To kinda force player to ask himself such deep question. (In that case i failed btw)

I mean as far as i know, you dont *need* to kill litteraly even a single kid ... they are insignificant NPCs, so you can easily knock them out and still have quest complete. laugh

IM not sure about this, but i think that you dont need to kill litteraly anyone (i believe quest completed for me when i knocked out Minthara).
But havent tryed on last patch, so even if i remember that corectly, this also can allready be changed.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
So, in my mind, wouldn't it be better to just remove the children from the equation so that players don't have to make that moral choice, just like with the tiefling children? That was the main reason I was bringing up this whole thing about the more gray you make everything the less fun it is. I am speaking in generalities.
I believe the problem here isnt that Goblin kids are mechanicaly killable ...
But that Tiefling kids are not ... so you kinda cant do any moral choice there.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Of course there are going to be some people who think that such a moral dilemma is actually really fun. Those people are going to like the realism of it, and they're going to justify the killings the way I did by saying kid goblins are going to grow up to be flesh eating adult goblins who prey upon people. I don't really have a problem with it myself. Do I like killing kids of any race in the game? No. That is not really fun to me. Do I accept it because they are monster evil kids who are going to eat people when they grow up? Yes.
Phylosophicaly speaking ...
It seems much more interesting question to ask if leaving only kids alive is acutaly act of kindness, or more like cruelity. wink

Originally Posted by GM4Him
The main point I'm trying to make is that part of what made D&D so fun when it first started, and Star Wars, was that you didn't have to make such moral dilemma choices. It was more black and white, good versus evil, and you didn't have to worry about whether the monster, Imperial, you were killing might actually be a good person. I wasn't necessarily criticizing the game. Just trying to make a point that the more you make things gray the more you're going to have people upset about it, and rightly so.
Nah, you would just aswell make the other group of people upset if your story would be too black and white ...
You just need to pick your target group thats all. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
All this having been said, do I think leaving the kids in the story fits with the rest of the story? Yes. This game is full of these kind of moral choices. Even the hag sub story is full of moral dilemma. If you really think about it, are you really the good guy for going in and killing the hag? Did she really do anything to you? The entire subplot is really about you invading her home and budding your nose in to other people's business. Did anyone even ask you to help? Not a single person asks you to help, and the entire time they tell you to get lost in mind your own business. So are you the good guy?
From pure moral perspective? Yes.

If you would be looking for real life example here ... i think that domestic violence would be perfect example.
Many persons (at least in my experience) dont want to report it and are even upset if you find out, since as you said "you poke your nose in someone else business and nobody asked for your help" ... but that is not the question here, important part is that you know that someone is being harmed and therefore morally you should at least try to stop it.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
The point is that it fits with the rest of the game. If you want to start chucking elements because of morality, because you feel guilty, you'd have to start chucking a lot of other elements that are just as, or more so, morally ambiguous.
The funny thing about morality is that if you feel bad about your choices, you should reconcider making them. smile
It would be indeed bad if all choices you get offered would be morally questionable ... but this isnt the case. wink


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Ukraine
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Ukraine
#JusticeForThePriestessGut

I am True Soul, I told her everything as it is and I do not want to kill her! Do we have to kill her because she is a goblin, Larian ??

Also, why can't I kill those nasty teen thief tieflings?

#FreeGoblinSazza

#DeathToThieves


Join the Minthara Baenre fan club

"If a country, choosing between war and shame, chooses shame, it gets both war and shame." - Winston Churchill .
#CloseTheSky
Joined: Apr 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2020
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I realize society is changing. My point is just that the more you make everything gray, the less the story is about good vs. evil. The less the story is about good versus evil, the more real it becomes and the more complicated and less simple and just plain fun.
I am someone who greatly prefers shades of grey. For me black and white is just boring. If I already know what is going to happen then I don't see the point of playing the game unless I have absolutely nothing else to do. I get no enjoyment out of being told what path to follow, plus there is absolutely no replayability if there is only the one "correct" way to do things. With shades of grey, each decision can lead to different things and I can immerse myself in my character better because there are more options to grow and change.

I especially don't like it when the black and white is due to people trying to force current real world views into fiction without understanding that they need to see the fictional world from the viewpoint of someone living in it, and even from the different types of viewpoints in the world rather than just the one they agree with the most. Looking from the different perspectives would make many things shades of grey.

I see the real world in the terms of good and evil, with very little gray area. Which is why I prefer my entertainment to have little good and evil, with many shades of gray. The Infinity War being an exception. One of my top 10 favorite sci-fi series was Continuum. Here you had terrorists who killed thousands of innocents. But as the story unfolded, it wasn't all that black and white. The "terrorists" were fighting an oppressive corporate dictatorship. In the real world I have no tolerance for terrorists, they're evil and need to be wiped out. But in that sci-fi series, I actually sympathized with what they were fighting for. I still hated most of their methods though, shades of gray.

Originally Posted by Zarna
As for the goblin and tiefling kids, I think both should be able to be killed, but maybe it should be a clear decision you have to make since it is apparently bothersome or offensive for some people. The choice to kill them or not would be correct or incorrect from any point of view - black, white, and grey.

I'm playing an "evil playthrough" my next time, where I'm going to side with the Goblins. It will be my 1st time, I've always sided with the Tieflings, even with my morally gray characters. So I'm not as well informed as some of you; but there is a video from WolfheartFPS on YouTube, where he sides with the Goblins. In the video he goes into a house during the Goblin attack. It's full of Tiefling children, he wipes them out. He kept saying how bad he felt, while he was killing them. So you can kill them, just I guess only during the attack. I won't kill children in a game period; whether Goblin, Tiefling, or Martian. Though I love my entertainment gray, I just can't do it.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Merlex
I see the real world in the terms of good and evil, with very little gray area. Which is why I prefer my entertainment to have little good and evil, with many shades of gray.
I find that really interesting. I find pretty much everything in real life to be shades of grey once examined from all sides, whether I agree with it or not. This is why I have a hard time with absolute good or absolute evil in anything else, because all the mental gymnastics I have to do to fit something into a box makes me frustrated unless I am attempting to roleplay a fanatic.

Originally Posted by Merlex
I'm playing an "evil playthrough" my next time, where I'm going to side with the Goblins. It will be my 1st time, I've always sided with the Tieflings, even with my morally gray characters. So I'm not as well informed as some of you; but there is a video from WolfheartFPS on YouTube, where he sides with the Goblins. In the video he goes into a house during the Goblin attack. It's full of Tiefling children, he wipes them out. He kept saying how bad he felt, while he was killing them. So you can kill them, just I guess only during the attack. I won't kill children in a game period; whether Goblin, Tiefling, or Martian. Though I love my entertainment gray, I just can't do it.
Personally I have no emotional reaction one way or the other, but I think for people like you they maybe could add something where the tiefling children run past you (like with the goblin ones) and the goblins kill them instead or they just disappear. If someone wants to personally kill them then it still can be done.

Last edited by Zarna; 11/01/22 04:10 AM.
Joined: May 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2021
Same (replying to Merlex).

My choice to abstain from kid slaughtering is unswayed by ham fisted argument about ecological principles and population size (a slippery slope argument if I have ever heard one, as applied to sentient beings). Perhaps a pure neutral druid Tav might do it based on that that logic —- much like a Salarian. But my own Druid Tav is more of a geologist than an ecologist, and is pretty dubious about the effectiveness of over managing ecosystems (lol).

In terms of morality, I find it hard to lump kids into categories of good and evil. Tiefling kids steal, goblin kids torture animals…they are all little shits, but evil? Hmm. And even if they are…why should my character kill any of them? Unless I am playing a warrior priest or something, sworn to cleanse the land of evil, how is this my job? If they don’t attack me, why should I kill any of them?

But in all honesty, it just makes me (the me in the chair) feel like an arsehole to have my Tav kill kids. It makes me dislike the character I am playing. I don’t consider that a good time, so I let the wee ones live when I can. Tiefling and goblins alike.

Last edited by timebean; 11/01/22 03:55 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Not to bring this back to Star Wars but this scenario with the children is pretty much what Anakin does to the younglings and I have a similar disassociation with the impetus and the action. Our motivations to side with the goblins could be a lot of things, but I don't think any of the ones presented adequately build up to that kind of action. Though I've only done the evil route all the way through once before and I only recall going to the hideout and finding their bodies.

Not to tumble down a slippery slope but I think I might understand the ecological point (maybe, it's difficult to know sometimes) about how a species of vermin who eventually evolve intelligence might have a different understanding of the value of life. Part of this also deals with how I don't think the concept of sentience has to be binary. If any of you have played Mass Effect, their equivalent of goblins the Vorcha kind of play into this as well, they're a race that has very short lifespans as well as high breeding rate, so they never really mature, nor do they have many 'longterm' goals, and their concept of 'self' is very different from a human's, almost a hive society.

Originally Posted by timebean
But in all honesty, it just makes me (the me in the chair) feel like an arsehole to have my Tav kill kids. It makes me dislike the character I am playing. I don’t consider that a good time, so I let the wee ones live when I can. Tiefling and goblins alike.

A little off-topic but this is something I've viewed as a shortcoming in video games, and player driven narratives for some time. I found that in games like God of War and The Last of Us, that after a certain point I stopped being interested in playing the game because I was no longer sympathetic to the main character. But I know that it was mostly because I was in part responsible for their actions, whereas had they been films or books I don't think my interest would have lagged. It's one of the reasons making a compelling reason for being 'evil' in games like BG:3 is important to me, beyond the knowledge that there is 'content' there for you to see.

Joined: May 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2021
Agree. I can play characters that are evil if they are charming or charismatic. Or self serving ones if they are witty or super cool or or have an interesting back story. Or even horror-show turd munchers if the writing is amazing (Disco Eleysium). Ie, I need *something* to like.

And if there is a morality gut punch, then it needs to be worth it. Like KOTOR2. I came so close to being swayed by Krei’s darkside arguments, which almost seemed like a more honest continuation of Jolee Bindo’s reasonable grey jedi stance. Then baam…I find out the real result of what such actions cost my character in the first place ! So good (loved that game).

Killing wee’uns just…because? They steal too much or reproduce too quickly? Nah. Not a compelling enough narrative reason to sell my digital soul! Lol

Last edited by timebean; 11/01/22 03:50 AM.
Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
They're monsters because they're monsters. It really is that simple. As was said before, the more you humanize monsters, the more fun you take out of the escapism; however, you also make them less monstrous in the process.

There's what I like to call "nuance overload", where attempts to inject complexity (genuine or superficial) to a race/species eventually results in a boring homogeneity across the board.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
It's simple. If this game at any point makes players feel bad and not have fun, it's doing a bad job. Games are meant to be fun.

Regardless of how many people might enjoy a certain element, if it has a lot of potential to make players feel guilty or feel bad, they should come up with another solution. You can have fun in other ways. It doesn't have to be killing goblin kids.

I felt bad, and do feel bad each time and have to talk myself into it being okay. Others don't even try to talk themselves into it being okay. They just feel bad.

So, that's not good. They should come up with another solution.

Oh, wait. They did. Not being sarcastic here, but it just came to me. Set the attack to knock out. Then when you 0 the goblin kids, they are unconscious. Not dead.

Ah, but then again, here lies the real life dilemma. What is more cruel? Knock out the kids but kill their entire tribe, or just kill the kids with their families so they don't wake up and discover their all alone?

I suppose you could play total pacifist and kill no one, but that would solve nothing. The goblins are hard core fanatics of the Absolute and just love to kill. They're not going to leave people alone if you let them live.

Hmmm. Yeah. Just remove the kids from the setting and it wouldn't be so bad. End of story. In order to save Halsin, you are confronted with killing kids, and that just presents enough of a conscience dilemma for too many. For the sake of conscience, it should just be removed. It's not fun playing a game that makes you feel guilty. Period. As long as you have a legit choice, that's not a problem, but with the goblin kids, you have to kill them or they bring reinforcements, and knockout is more cruel than death.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Not trying to derail the thread, but I am curious how many of you who have issues with killing children in the game are roleplaying as mostly yourselves? If you were to put yourselves completely in the shoes of someone who grew up thinking all goblins are evil and need to be wiped out, or someone who hates thieves and wants to see them all executed or is following orders in a combat situation, would you still have a similar emotional response?

Originally Posted by GM4Him
but with the goblin kids, you have to kill them or they bring reinforcements
Maybe they could change it so they run out a side tunnel instead of getting reinforcements? Just throwing out ideas that should give options for both the kill and no kill types. I do not care one way or the other personally.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
I normally rescue Halsin after I dealt with the Goblins and their Leader, so I just let the kids run away.
I don't want to kill children either and normally don't like playing evil, so I don't need the option to kill children, no matter the race.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Dec 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Dec 2021
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It's simple. If this game at any point makes players feel bad and not have fun, it's doing a bad job. Games are meant to be fun.

Regardless of how many people might enjoy a certain element, if it has a lot of potential to make players feel guilty or feel bad, they should come up with another solution. You can have fun in other ways. It doesn't have to be killing goblin kids.

[...]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you're serious, that is a very slippery slope stance to take. People get upset for the most insignificant, nonsense reasons, and if we take out anything and everything that may make someone feel bad, we'll not have any game left by the end.

Conflict is the core of storytelling. Characters in stories face obstacles and setbacks, and they have to make hard decisions and sacrifices. Otherwise, there is no story. Feeling bad, conflicted, uncertain is necessary, because you cannot have release without building up tension first. Even children's entertainment, which by its nature skews towards more simplistic morality, will have plotlines and ask questions that can upset its target audience. Surely games as a medium can aspire to that level at least?

Of course, storytelling is not always the main focus in videogames, but with this particular one, I think it's fairly obvious it's at least on the same level of importance as the other aspects. If you don't want to think at all about what you're doing, there are plenty of dungeon crawlers with minimal or no plot on the market. Kill monsters, collect loot, have fun. This is not meant to be disparaging, we all look for different things in our entertainment.

By the way, you don't have to kill the goblin kids. Get rid of the three leaders, then go report back to the tieflings. Halsin will be waiting at the grove, having freed himself without your aid. There, no dead kids on your conscience, monstrous or otherwise.

Joined: Aug 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It's simple. If this game at any point makes players feel bad and not have fun, it's doing a bad job. Games are meant to be fun.

Regardless of how many people might enjoy a certain element, if it has a lot of potential to make players feel guilty or feel bad, they should come up with another solution. You can have fun in other ways. It doesn't have to be killing goblin kids.

I felt bad, and do feel bad each time and have to talk myself into it being okay. Others don't even try to talk themselves into it being okay. They just feel bad.

So, that's not good. They should come up with another solution.

Oh, wait. They did. Not being sarcastic here, but it just came to me. Set the attack to knock out. Then when you 0 the goblin kids, they are unconscious. Not dead.

Ah, but then again, here lies the real life dilemma. What is more cruel? Knock out the kids but kill their entire tribe, or just kill the kids with their families so they don't wake up and discover their all alone?

I suppose you could play total pacifist and kill no one, but that would solve nothing. The goblins are hard core fanatics of the Absolute and just love to kill. They're not going to leave people alone if you let them live.

Hmmm. Yeah. Just remove the kids from the setting and it wouldn't be so bad. End of story. In order to save Halsin, you are confronted with killing kids, and that just presents enough of a conscience dilemma for too many. For the sake of conscience, it should just be removed. It's not fun playing a game that makes you feel guilty. Period. As long as you have a legit choice, that's not a problem, but with the goblin kids, you have to kill them or they bring reinforcements, and knockout is more cruel than death.

I feel like you're being overly reductionist in your view of what games should be. I think that games should always be engaging and entertaining, but that's not the same thing as fun. It's the same with any form of media, from books to movies. I think those things only truly fail in one of two ways; either they fail to make the audience care about what they're depicting, or they inspire a reaction that goes against what they intended to create. Some people are engaged and entertained when they feel bad, when they have to grapple with moral dillema's. If Larian doesn't want to inspire this feeling in players then yeah, they should change something. And honestly I don't think they do want this reaction. The presence of the goblin children aren't framed as them being much different from their older counterparts. When I last played, I don't think I even realized they were children.


Originally Posted by Ragitsu
They're monsters because they're monsters. It really is that simple. As was said before, the more you humanize monsters, the more fun you take out of the escapism; however, you also make them less monstrous in the process.

There's what I like to call "nuance overload", where attempts to inject complexity (genuine or superficial) to a race/species eventually results in a boring homogeneity across the board.

I won't dig into the issues I personally have with the idea of escapism and fun mixed with guiltlessly killing thinking, sapient beings, but I will address your "nuance overload" point. Because if adding nuance makes things boring and homogenous then the problem isn't the nuance itself, it's just bad writing and probably isn't actually nuanced. I fail to see how fleshing out a species that's traditionally labeled as monstrous and giving them depth and personalities could make them homogenous. I'd argue that the idea that "they're monsters because they're monsters" is even more likely to make things boring and homogenous.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It's simple. If this game at any point makes players feel bad and not have fun, it's doing a bad job. Games are meant to be fun.
I wonder if anybody ever made a good game ...
Including times before computer games ...

Cant find any. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Regardless of how many people might enjoy a certain element, if it has a lot of potential to make players feel guilty or feel bad, they should come up with another solution.
I believe they did, you listed some of those youreself. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Ah, but then again, here lies the real life dilemma. What is more cruel? Knock out the kids but kill their entire tribe, or just kill the kids with their families so they don't wake up and discover their all alone?
Indeed sweet, sweet moral question. smile
The only problem is that you dont *need* to kill their entire tribe ... you can only choose to, just as with everything else in this game. laugh

Just the same way as you knock out those kids, you can knock out litteraly anyone else aswell. :P laugh

Also, there are ways to kill just leaders and dont even cause alarm.
And yes, all 3 ... even tho it require huge metagaming, will to use almost every gimmick(?) Larian provided, and also you will loose all your loot. laugh
Anyway: Here is video guide. :P

Originally Posted by GM4Him
I suppose you could play total pacifist and kill no one, but that would solve nothing. The goblins are hard core fanatics of the Absolute and just love to kill. They're not going to leave people alone if you let them live.
This is simply not true ...
If you knock out whole Goblin camp, and kill just Ragzlin, MInthara and Gut ... all your quests will mark as complete, and no futher attack ever happens ... once you long rest they will all disappear. :P

I mean even from story perspective ... sure, Goblins are fanatics ... but they are also cowards, and when they will see on their own eyes that group of FOUR (wich kinda means that they were outnumbered in aproximately 10:1 ratio) adventurers decimated their whole army and killed their "Goddesschosen leaders" ... they will dig so deep to the ground so nobody will hear about them ever again. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Just remove the kids from the setting and it wouldn't be so bad. End of story.
If we start removing things that could potentialy insult, or trigger someone ...
We can aswell just go play Pony Adventure Quest. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
In order to save Halsin, you are confronted with killing kids
Eh ... no, you are are not.
Its an option, but hardly anything more. :P

Either you can let them run (and have consequences) ... or you can let Halsin kill them (sure, they are dead, but your hands are clean of this particular crime) ... or you can kill them ... also, using a bit of metagaming, you can ignore this scene (room) whole and you will never learn their fate. :P

Originally Posted by GM4Him
It's not fun playing a game that makes you feel guilty. Period.
Then dont ... also period. :P

Originally Posted by GM4Him
As long as you have a legit choice, that's not a problem, but with the goblin kids, you have to kill them or they bring reinforcements, and knockout is more cruel than death.
Oh but there IS a choice ... you just listed two of your many options. laugh
Sure, kinds will bring reinforcements ... but that is the ugly side of every choice, they tend to have consequences. smile

---

Originally Posted by Zarna
or someone who hates thieves and wants to see them all executed or is following orders in a combat situation
Oh yes, orders ... the oldest excuse in the world. laugh

I believe the problem (and core reason for this topic to exist) is that if you are the character you are describing here (Tiefling hater) ... you have no way to harm those kids, no matter how much s/he would want to ... bcs its not morally corect to harm a child no matter how evil, twisted and sadistic character you play. laugh
But once you enter goblin camp, you can litteraly slaughter whole groups (there are 2) of childern with no real reason at all (you dont even need to talk to them, just can just start shooting out of noting). laugh

That was the original point ...
Either allow us to attack both, or none ... but dont make system differences just bcs you want us to hate one side and simpatize with the other ... its cheap, its lame, and we dislike it. :P

Originally Posted by Zarna
Maybe they could change it so they run out a side tunnel instead of getting reinforcements? Just throwing out ideas that should give options for both the kill and no kill types. I do not care one way or the other personally.
I dislike this option honestly ...
I mean its kinda honorable from certain point of view to *not harm* childern, no matter how bloodthirsty, twisted and sadistic they are ... and i bet my Paladin (once aviable) will think about this question a lot ...

But still our choices should have consequences ... removing those just so you can play your Goldstar and whole camp of bloodthirsty Goblins is not standing in your way seems to me like choice just as poor as making Tieflings kids imortal ...
After all, lets be honest for a second ... those reinforcements are shit anyway, you kill them in two rounds top. laugh

---

Originally Posted by MrToucan
Conflict is the core of storytelling. Characters in stories face obstacles and setbacks, and they have to make hard decisions and sacrifices. Otherwise, there is no story. Feeling bad, conflicted, uncertain is necessary, because you cannot have release without building up tension first. Even children's entertainment, which by its nature skews towards more simplistic morality, will have plotlines and ask questions that can upset its target audience.
That bird is right. :3
+1!


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
I won't dig into the issues I personally have with the idea of escapism and fun mixed with guiltlessly killing thinking, sapient beings

Boiled down to its most essential elements, D&D is a game centered around combat (i.e., violence and death). Sooner or later, thinking beings are going to meet their end by steel or spell...well, unless you're only slaying skeletons and oozes, anyhow. Surprisingly, you can indulge in a session of tabletop roleplaying where unabashed bad guys are getting killed while your character neglects/forgets to display remorse and not be a homicidal maniac in your everyday life. If one is incapable of keeping a barrier between reality and fantasy (e.g., they find it impossible to not view monsters as humans), that is an issue they need to address; the alternative is to abandon roleplaying.

[Linked Image from thumbs.gfycat.com]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Because if adding nuance makes things boring and homogenous then the problem isn't the nuance itself, it's just bad writing and probably isn't actually nuanced. I fail to see how fleshing out a species that's traditionally labeled as monstrous and giving them depth and personalities could make them homogenous. I'd argue that the idea that "they're monsters because they're monsters" is even more likely to make things boring and homogenous.

Nup. Taking all the classic (evil) monsters* and essentially reframing them as misunderstood humans with fangs/green skin/bloodshot eyes/et cetera is boring. There's nothing wrong with throwing alien and completely inimical mindsets into the mix.

* Or the humanoid monsters, at the very least. Again, hardly anyone will lose sleep over the death of a young Chromatic dragon.

Joined: Sep 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2021
Double

Last edited by Scales & Fangs; 11/01/22 11:50 AM.
Joined: Sep 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2021
+ 1 for giving us options to kill children. I do not enjoy it but it does happen. Many reasons for that. It can trigger some conflicts in character or stir some emotions in the players.

It's also part of D&D. By the way, how do you think a drow clan exterminates a whole other clan?

In addition it is something that has happened a lot in human history. Sacking a city, overthrowing a dynasty. Why should you wear pink glasses all the time?

Originally Posted by Natureboy
I just replayed the Nettie scene trying out the disrespectful options in patch 6. Nettie doesn't try to secretly poison the PC even if they are rude or hostile. The player is given the option of recognizing the plant as toxic, but Nettie will refer to it's use only as what she as "a last resort" if the player choses to kill themselves. She will follow on her earlier dialog of asking for the player's oath and taking her Wyvern Poison IF CONVENTIONAL ceremorphosis starts. If they refuse after 2 requests, she will turn hostile. Big improvement!

Thanks for the info!

Last edited by Scales & Fangs; 11/01/22 11:51 AM.
Page 13 of 28 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 27 28

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5