Oh dear. Each time people bring up "but PEOPLE are the real evil!" like it is some kind of hot new thing, I get reminded of that this was revolutionary about... Well, early 19th century when Frankenstein was written. The vast majority of modern horror focuses on the evil of man instead of including monsters, so yeah. Most people probably got the message by now.

Originally Posted by Ragitsu
"Goblins are evil. They're monsters". PEOPLE are often monsters.

In the real world, people are people and actions are evil, good or (most often) somewhere in-between. Goblins are actual monsters; monsters are fictional creations not bound by reality. Stop pushing this "monsters are human too" agenda.

I am with Ragitsu on this one tbh. Constantly trying to frame man/humanoids as the evil-doers (excluding obvious humanoid antagonists) in universes where there clearly are monsters that seek to harm humans/humanoids/other living things for no particularly good reason is really not revolutionary in any way, and - in my personal opinion - it is quite boring.

Like Dexai said -
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Taramafor
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?

A popular take, but utterly wrong. Goblins aren't the victims, they are the perps. It's not humans who pick on goblins, it's goblins who target humans. It's not humans who can't live with goblins, it's goblins who rove off of humans. It's like blaming the sheep for shunning the wolf. It's humans who fear goblins, not the other way around.

Goblins are not afraid of humans - they chase down both humans and other living beings. There are even multiple in-game notes on this from Halsin and some other NPCs. We are not hunting peaceful goblins that are trying to exist in their own little village without harming anyone, we are hunting goblins that are terrorizing human settlements, travelers and other living beings for sports.

I mean, you obviously do find enjoyment in all the shades of grey aspects that could possibly fit into the story - which obviously is fine and all - but some people do not. Personally I am so extremely tired of movies, books, games and whatnot trying to push the "but is the hero REALLY a hero? HMMM?"-setting that by now I simply roll my eyes when I see it. Small bits and pieces, sure. That can work as pretty good character development. But constantly trying to push character that obviously try their best to be good towards the grey or even evil spectrum is just so very boring and has been done in every single possible way there is as that take is very popular in modern entertainment because some people find it so "compelling" and "realistic".


Originally Posted by Taramafor
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).

I don't think any fantasy fan would find your wishes for a romance with a dragon very "sick and twisted" (I mean, what? Why would we? Dragon and human romance has been a thing for ages) - especially not in the DnD setting where there are so many different dragons. The idea of dragons having humanoid lovers is not really revolutionary either - although I am not quite sure about the "gaining the ability turn into a dragon myself"-part... But I suppose fantasy is fantasy so if that is what you'd feel compelled by then by all means. Go you!

And options - absolutely. I agree. Options are great - the more the better (as long as the game can "handle" the options and respond accordingly). Not sure what to think about the statement behind "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"-part. I know venting is important and have proven very healthy for gamers in general - as you say, having an outlet is good - but let's not pretend like there is a lack of games (and irl physical activities) where you can have your outlet (in so many varying shapes and forms). That said, if the argument you're trying to push is "it's important to have a functional and satisfying evil path" then sure. Most people here have already argued for Larian to improve their evil path. In a RPG, the entire point is being able to roleplay as different characters, obviously this would include evil characters.

TL;DR - There's a lot of text in your comment, and I agree in some things that you say, while disagreeing with other things you say. Much of what you say is just opinion-based - which is fine, obviously, most of us just have opinions here. All in all, I prefer having a balance to it all. Some good alignment, some evil alignment. Evil monsters are fine, redeemable/misunderstood monsters are fine. It's all about moderation.

Hoot hoot, stranger! Fairly new to CRPGs, but I tried my best to provide some feedback regardless! <3 Read it here: My Open Letter to Larian