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

Instead of addressing just the goblins themselves (which I will) I'm going to address all games that play it too safe as well as games that show the "harsher" side of things.

First, "People"? Already there's a flaw with this argument. It's so easy for people to lie to themselves without even realising it (all too common). To think they know "better" yet do not. "Different" yes. But "Goblins are freaks"? But then so are people so often. If you look hard enough and get to know them. Everyone has their reasons for lashing out and being violent (there's worse things then attempted murder. I defuse people in real life). The vioelnce you see may not even be the worst of it. What are people doing? At least with goblins they show it clearly. No excuses or pretence (unless of course Specific X goblin is lying). Are their lives worth "less" because people look down on them? I find this way of thinking unhealthy and destructive. This does affect real life. Make no mistake though, if anything I want to see more pain suffering and despair in games. At the same time there has to be contrast. Reasons. Why. Logic. Without the "You're wrong to exist because you exist" (And with it) which is, frankly, flawed and incorrect.

BG3 is not the kind of game that is "just played to just enjoy it casually without a brain". No, it's an RPG game and as such the "why" and "reasons" for events is important. It's more then "Just because you exist". That is not a good counter argument. It is easily debunked.

Here's the flaw with that argument. "Good and evil" are subjective (Things are more "grey" in reality). The goblins, while more violent, are also more ignorant. They're victims of their own fear and stupidity. Every kid to ever exist at that point (baring violence. Getting to that). This is dangious but I can see bigger dangers. Are their lives "less worthy" then that of another race just for the soul reason that "They're goblins"? Even orcs in LOTR get more respect (partly because they make it about strength more. That's actually very important). Orcs wage war over and over. But hey, goblins are small even if adult sized. It's not hard to fit the pieces together. They're easy targets. Humans will pick on them. Take one look at them and go "Stabby stabby" on first sight. Why would a goblin ever be nice to a human if they're treated like that? They will learn to fear. They will learn to hate. They will learn to make targets because that is what they were taught. But just who teaches them?

Honestly, when you take into account we're creating the monsters, stabbing a blue little kid in the eye might be the least of peoples concerns. Btw, I also want the option of stabbing a blue little kid in the eye even if I would rather be diplomatic. Options are options. That's what it boils down too.

Neverwinter Nights 1 actually makes a good case for kobolds. "Paladins seeing the worst too easily and being the first to act out of fear/anger". P.S: Do that to an ice dragon in their own lair and no wonder they freeze you. That's defending your home after being threatened at that point. So I assure you, covering such events and reasons in a game does add to entertaint value while also getting people to consider their real selves (even if they don't realise they do it). The games that show "the ugly truth" are the ones that have helped make me a better person. Options. Choices. Consequences. Most importantly of all player choice. Any "restriction" is basically going "You don't get too. I decided for you because my beliefs are superior to yours." (taking into account it's an intended restriction in this case). It also indicates "I'm afaid of having my game taken down if it's viewed as too extreme".

Let's cover entertainment value.

One of the reasons people "cry" about goblins is because it's been "done to death". It's the "expected result". Boring. Why not a playful good alligned race for once? Can't I stab a race of Azata worshippers? I'm playing pathfinder: wrath of the rightous where characters have eyeballs removed and flesh eaten (not even joking. Love that it does that) but I can't stab a blue kid here? WOTR isn't getting taken down. The blue kid in BG3 can die to a snake though. So there's that. Is that snake "Good" or "evil" for doing what their owner wants? I would say loyal. You can also have a chat with that snake. So this is something. Now what if the player could influence that snake to bite the kid more easily? Roll for diplomacy (actually, please just show me the result with the dice roll. I prefer that. BG3 got that as an option btw?)

I think the devs just don't have enough expreince on the "dark/depraved" side to really consider it enough to show on screen. Impressive that WOTR did. While at the same time able to provide counters to balance things out. In order to truely understand something like that one must understand pain, suffering and depsair to extremes and be able to adapt to the worst of events quickly. The average preson does not have that kind of expreince to have the necessarily imagination for being able to display such events on a game. Oneline roleplay (think of it like typing a stroy together) helps to serve as a controlled environment for such things. Which in turn can lead to games. In order to really "master" it though one must know it "first hand". So the lack of "Extremes of the dark side" can be because the devs lack such experience. It's my strong suit. If I was adding story/plot to a theme I would be able to do that. Though in the case of BG3 I think I'd only do that in an expansion to start with a character from scratch. I've been inspired by some lawful evil characters lately. I think chaotic evil needs more understanding though (got a good head cannon for other settings there).

Once we introduce fear it gets more complicated. It's easy to see the worst. But what if that's the problem? Rather, specifically, what if what people see/believe isn't the truth? There's a reason we all need to be challenged. Even degraded. To leave weakness unchallenged and under the guise of strength is to allow weakness. Of the self. Which affects others. The goblins are weak. What affected the goblins? We'd probably have to go far back in their history to find the answer.

"Goblins are evil. They're monsters". PEOPLE are often monsters. It's simply a quesiton of wherever one is honest about it and can claim responsibility (and many people and monsters alike do not). Anyone that can't do that is a danger/threat to me. It's a matter of awareness/honesty/trust. In that order. You might call that "lawful evil". It can as easily be viewed as "Chaos theory". And thus apply to a chaotic evil character. It matters not if people intend or seek out. The pattern will be followed or you will suffer and continue to suffer. Suffering itself not the worst part. Worst part is "Living a lie". An honest situation even if painful can be worth the suffering.

Because of the awareness factor (both eyes open) this is why the "why" of context and individials is important. Even when it comes to green nosed little snots. There's also envirnoment and upbringing to take into account. If you do the same thing over and over then you get used to it. It's insanity. But you're used to it. May as well make the best of it and enjoy what you can. If you didn't do what's expected of you then you wouldn't fit in. If you don't hurt that big bear in the cage the your breathen might shun you and see you as a freak. Where would you go? Who would you turn too?

The goblins are in a catch 22 situation there. At the same time "Do what's expected when you're an elf. Warcraft 3 makes a good point of how that's counter productive and leads to violence when diplomacy works better (Hellscrem and Thrall). What is said about goblins right now? That was said of orcs before. Before that it was drow, who actually have quite the interesting culture. So on and so forth. Do we want more interesting goblins that have more going on for them then "Because goblin" or do we want "Because goblin"?

I also argue that the races with good intentions and moral high grounds cause more harm then good then any honest evil race. I actually can see Sauron in LOTR in a "Postive" light when I take into account that even if his methods are harsh he'll still want you and put you to use even if you stand against everything he beleives in (there's a certain "coexistence" behind that). Which is more then a back turner or coward would do when they have good intentions and leave you to bleed to death as they toss you aside like you're garbage and not even worth breaking. I WANT to see more of this with more elaboration in games. It's good story and lore. Seeing Talions family being murdered, kid included, in shadow of mordor was a sight to see. It shows how far Talion has been broken and fallen by the time he's descending into a state of apathy in shadow of war and giving reason for that. With reasons and why. Instead of "just because". The story in Shadow of War is flawed but it displays events where "good" can be why "evil" exists. The logic makes sense too. Fight that long and at some point you side with the devil you know. Sauron if nothing else is not a back turner. He killed your family but he's always been one co confront and knows control and strength. Something to learn from. Something people want and desire. If you wallow, keep attacking out of fear and anger and continue in that then that is your weakness. Sauron recruits the nazgul by simply not going "I tell you what to think. I know best." Instead he's turn your life upside down and you will consume yourself. Your own weakness. Even if devoid of all meaning and purpose, even if he is the reason for that at first, in the end he's giving you that reason and purpose. It's very effective. If such lore was expanded on even more then it might be enjoyed by more players. We know Sauron's "methods" yet little to nothing of his reasons. This can easily set up a evil character that's along the same lines in D&D.

It could as easily be a D&D setting where a dragon consumes souls yet spares you if you're entertaining/useful. I'd also be courting that dragon if they're female and sleeping with it, as long as they're honest and not one to hide. While gaining the ability to turn into a dragon myself. Do you think this sick and twisted? Judge if you like. I and whatever dragon I would be with would be focusing on being happy without putting each other in danger. My mindset when facing any character (game or life alike) is "are they a threat to ME?" And if so "Why?" Cue communicaiton/diplomacy/debate. THEN let's further take into account the options (if that sounds like a lot of work, it means work more until it becomes second nature). Are the optionsin a game "Black or white"? If the answer to this is yes then the issue is more to do with those black and white options where a player is shoe horned down one path or another. Do we "have" to kill the goblins at the bear? Can we do a distraction to lure them away instead? Can the player talk around things with high enough diplomacy? It's about the "options". The more there are the less a player feels "constrained". If a person in real life is sick and tired of being "the good guy" then they want to have that choice in a game. If they don't get that in a game (or some other way) this willl affect their real life. Without some outlet then someone could get hurt when the pressure of "I was never allowed" kicks in which leads to lash outs. You already might have a parent doing it to you. Add a game doing it on top of that and it's added stress. At some point... Boom. Like a boiler that can't let off steam. This is why it's very important for games to have as much freedom as possible. Unless the design of the game is to be restrictive (let's say SWAT 4. Ruels of engagement. BUT the player can CHOOSE not to follow them and shoot people unarmed people that surrender. Still one of the best games ever made).

There's also not much entertaintment value in "Oh look yet another goblin to kill" when it's been done to death 1000 times over. We get it D&D. You can do goblins and make them bad guys. In some games you can even SAVE a goblin. Who can then become a cook in your kitchen. It's different. So it's "more fun" because of this. Surely this is more entertaining (and useful) then "yet another goblin to kill". "Just being goblins for the sake of being goblins" isn't a good enough reason for the goblins to be there IMO. At least the game Shadow of War gives personality to the orcs. One that want to be friendly. Ones that sing. Ones that have great comebacks. Ones that actually really are insane and can't even form a setence. Variety. Is. Key. Context is key. It makes the in game world come to life.

The entertainment from games is there BECAUSE it reflects real life. In the Witcher 3 for example one of the points it makes is that "Humans are monsters". We all are. Some are just honest about it. Batman would say it. Going to argue with Batman? he knows he used go "I know best for you" too much. He says it when he's odler and wiser. it's a nice touch to the character. I like it when games and TV display this. The "self reflection". It gets us to relate to them.

In Nevewinter Nights 1 I also get to see the other side of the kobolds when I don't kill them (which you can). The CHOICE is there. The OPTION is there. This is back around the year 2000. It might be one of the first games that put kobolds in a "Don't just kill them" light. Now we got kobolds being pretty popular. So take that for what it's worth. If kobolds started becoming more populer around the year 2000 then Neverwinter Nights 1 might have had a hand in it. One was even a pet to a dragon. That you're not forced to kill and can convinced to be peaceful. Options. If I want to turn into a frost giant and attack him then that option is there too (it's even tying in with a quest). When a player has options upon options suddenly they're more and more in control of it all. Best. Feeling. Ever.

In the game Pathfinder: Wrath of the RIghtious, if I want to kill angels trapped inside of a crystal and uneleash fallen ones devoid of hope that are angry I can do that. If I want to kill them all I can do that. If I want to save them all I can do that. The CHOICE is there. On all accounts. This is religion here. representing christianity. So if we're talking morals I'm talking morals. If I want to be a genoicidal swarm that walks and consume everyone I come across then even that option is there. It's not the most fun because it lacks more communication then other ways I can play. But it's an option. It's basically the "I've played the game so often I'm just going to clean house" mythic. Why do people kill everyone in Skyrim? Same reason.

Course, if you kill everyone you come across then there's a lack of plot. So the game has to take this into account too. Which is why the swarm thing I mentioned above is done much later in the game. Still, any reason a game can't basically do a Undertale genocide run? We ARE the kid there. Murdering everything in our path.

After typing all this out I've suddenly got a newfound respect for games that show the darker side of events. So yes, I want more of that in BG3 too. Make dark have a point. Make light flawed. And just for laughs have a snot nosed goblin bake me a pie in the kitchen. I'll keep you save from the wrath of humans if you're useful you little welp. Mush!