Originally Posted by Dustmen
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
In fact, these are obvious things, but this does not cancel the double standards - the children of some rational beings can be killed because they are evil, while the children of others hypocritically cannot, because they are "good". Why can't I kill those nasty tieflings who robbed me? Stealing from the main character is as much a motive to attack as goblin children throwing stones at a bear.

Or maybe I'm playing as a complete scumbag and want to personally execute Arabella to show the shadow druids what a bastard I am. Why not? Why can't you kill good children, but you can kill bad children in this game?

Although a gang of teenage tiefling thieves can't be called "good", they can't be dealt with just because of their race...

Either make everyone immortal, or give the ability to kill everyone. Both options are good, I don't mind if the goblin kids just run away with 1 hp

I completely agree with you on this. I never liked unkillable NPCs. If you want to have children running around to make your world more believable, then you need to take the risk that someone might kill them all. My answer would be not to give them immunity, but to make it pointless. 0 Exp and no loot on any bodies of a character under age. Repercussions would be against your reputation. Maybe a forced expulsion from the Grove, but at least one merchant tells you what a great job you did and that they will be happy to work with you out of the cave that you find that druid in. Making people unkillable is lazy. Making consequences for killing people you don't want killed is harder.


Originally Posted by GM4Him
There is, of course, the possibility that the game designers might just feel guilty about killing tiefling kids, but goblins, who are traditionally evil, they have no problems with.

Maybe, for the sake of the consciences of those making the game, we can even just accept it for what it is.

I'm putting myself in the shoes of Larian employees. I, as a DM, would have a REAL hard time letting my players be butchers of kids who are not evil. However, man-eating kids who are evil, yeah, I'd have a bit of a problem with, but I'd allow it. There's a big difference between killing the mischievous thieving tiefling kids and the man-eating goblin kids. A BIG difference. Larian is DM. If they don't feel right about it, then they don't feel right about it.

Larian, as DM, put themselves into that position though. :|

In a TT game, the general campaign etiquette and mannerism will usually be discussed at session 0 and there the players and DM will usually bring up any clear "dos" and "don'ts" they might have. Since Larian is not a live DM, we do not get a session 0 and thus we can only go on the options that are granted ingame. And the facts are that Larian allows evil PCs and evil intentions - that much is clear from the options that we are given in dialogues and within the story. I find it really weird that Larian would signal that these options are okay, and then *choose to create* the encounter with these tiefling children that actively provoke the PC by stealing, deceiving and/or threatening them. If I, as a DM, would not be okay with killing or hurting children but in general would be okay with evil alignment that is borderline murderhobo - then I would never put my players in a position where there SHOULD be a possible response for their characters to simply kill the children for their ignorance or at least forcefully take the stolen belongings back while giving them a good smack - options that almost any DM would allow if it was an adult gang - but then simply not allow it because I, as a DM, am uncomfortable with that behavior towards children. It really does not make any sense to me. If you allow a party of evil alignment characters, then do not put those characters in a position that is obviously provoking the characters to do something that you are not comfortable with.

Should there be consequences? Absolutely, consequences are important in DnD. Hells, I'd even be totally fine with them all transforming into red dragons and murdering the party. But the OPTION should be there since it is CLEARLY in line with the options that Larian usually provides in similar situations.

Allow me to illustrate - imagine if you had a session 0 with your DM, me, regarding a completely homemade campaign, and I say "this campaign will not allow the PCs to eat bread, because I once had a terrible experience after consuming expired garlic bread." but, since I do not want to limit your player creativity too much - you are most definitely allowed to play a gluttonous duck or professional baker - and you and the other players are like "yeah okay, that's fine. No big deal." One of you choose to play a very gluttonous duck, and throughout the first sessions there are plenty of opportunities that I represent to the duck where he can explore his RP persona by devouring corn, ice cream, vegetables, oats and rice.

BUT, during session 4-5 you are asked by an important NPC to wait a few hours until the King of Coffee Beans come back from their parade in Vanilla Yogurt Lane, and while describing the surroundings, I describe the smell of freshly baked bread and tell you all of a lovely and very cozy bakery right next to the PCs before asking you all what you would like to do while waiting for the king. Obviously, I decline you the option to simply sit down at the bakery and enjoy a freshly baked sandwich while waiting for the king because I am traumatized by garlic bread. Would you, as a player, not find it slightly weird that I, as a DM, put you in that position when I obviously was never going to let you enjoy your freshly baked sandwich? Wouldn't you, as a player, wonder why I didn't simply choose to use a tavern with freshly cooked meals instead?

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