why tf I'm unable to kill Mol?

[.pleasures]

I hate those thief-lings kids as hell. Especially Mol, who is the epitome of evil. If only Kagha stated children as the main reason to get rid of tieflings, I would be on her side in every playthrough. There's not even a way to report their crimes to adults. I mean, why? At the same time when Mol complains to the guards that I was in the thieves' lair they immediately run to put me in jail. Even though I saved the grove from goblins, saved one of their children from Kagha, saved their another child from harpies, and so on and so forth. It's just ridiculous. And even when Thorm steals her, she ends up free without your involvement, for some inexplicable reason.

Let's assume that you simply can't kill children in this game, as in many other games. So why is it okay to kill goblin children? Moreover, the game forces you to kill them if you choose to save Halsin. They are many times less evil than Mol, which deliberately sends two other children to certain death.

[.pleasures]

Publicado originalmente por zero:

Publicado originalmente por RasaNova:

What's the difference? Tieflings and goblins are sentient humanoid races with hopes and dreams. What it it about being part devil, that would make a morally bankrupt tiefling more deserving of life than a goblin who was taught to be vicious?

one is a monster in the monster manual designed to be killed by the players, the others are designed to be "humans" so to an ESRB rating killing children directly tends to be a no.

i get you are trying to argue a semantic and i do get your point, but it mostly just comes down to one is a monster enemy and one is, functionally a human child.

That's a good point, but technically both tieflings and goblins are far from human. Both are sentient, half-human beings. Does the rating really forbid killing tiefling kids? I don't think so.
Let's say that because of ESRB it is true that it is forbidden to kill Tiefling children, but you can kill goblin children. But in such a non-linear game, why is there no way to punish them somehow?
Turn them over to the guards, let the druids kill them (like Arabella) or turn them over to adult tieflings to make the kids clean the oxen stall and so on. They are bullying me and good NPCs and I can't do anything wtf. It's like it's forbidden to even teach "human" children good manners. Every dialog in the game has a choice, as long as it doesn't involve talking to tiefling children.

[Jormungandr]

Publicado originalmente por 61:

I hate those thief-lings kids as hell. Especially Mol, who is the epitome of evil.

Sir, he is a child who looks out for other children. Thieving is bad but when you are a small child orphan with no orphanage nearby you need a way to survive and just not starve to death

Publicado originalmente por 61:

Let's assume that you simply can't kill children in this game, as in many other games. So why is it okay to kill goblin children? Moreover, the game forces you to kill them if you choose to save Halsin. They are many times less evil than Mol, which deliberately sends two other children to certain death.

Sir, did you kill those children without a thought? Bc I let them get away and had zero trouble with this issue.

[GrandMajora]

Publicado originalmente por Kwai:

Publicado originalmente por Wiegs:

"But officer they stole a few coins from me, i must rid the earth of these children, they are the most evil creatures to exist" He said while bathing in children blood

Also the questline is broken if you let them take from you. I even gave bad review to this game due to the game breaking questline. How many years this game was in EA ? And ACT I still has such a major bug. If ACT I has it, im afraid theres going to be even more stuff like that.
No wonder why OP is upset and wants to 'delete' them all lol

Act 1 and 2 are stable for the most part, but during act 3, stuff really seems to fall apart.

This is because a bunch of stuff from act 3 had to be gutted or cut content, and whoever was in charge of piecing the game back together afterwards turned it into a Frankenstein monster.

I've encountered multiple instances in which scenes play out in the wrong order, or even play the wrong scene entirely, because the game is triggering the wrong scripts.

When the game actually works, BG3 is awesome. But to anybody who hasn't spent the last 3 years in EA, I would recommend holding off on purchasing the game for a few months, until Larian has time to fix this mess.

[GrandMajora]

Publicado originalmente por 61:

Goblin children are simply under the bad influence of adults who approve of this behavior. While no one teaches Mol to do bad things, she makes her own decisions. Sending one child to the lair of the harpies and the other to the druids... She doesn't look stupid, I think she knew very well how it would end for the children.

Goblin children reach physical adulthood within 6 years, where as Tieflings mature at the same rate as humans.

In other words, these kids are basically 'toddlers', who have already developed a taste for murder.

[.pleasures]

Publicado originalmente por Jormungandr:

Publicado originalmente por 61:

I hate those thief-lings kids as hell. Especially Mol, who is the epitome of evil.

Sir, he is a child who looks out for other children. Thieving is bad but when you are a small child orphan with no orphanage nearby you need a way to survive and just not starve to death

Publicado originalmente por 61:

Let's assume that you simply can't kill children in this game, as in many other games. So why is it okay to kill goblin children? Moreover, the game forces you to kill them if you choose to save Halsin. They are many times less evil than Mol, which deliberately sends two other children to certain death.

Sir, did you kill those children without a thought? Bc I let them get away and had zero trouble with this issue.

Honestly, it doesn't look like they're starving. Tieflings live well, apart from the dangers outside. They have enough food for everyone. Thieving comes from their greed. Of course, that's just my opinion. Yet Mol sends two children to their deaths, she obviously knows the consequences for them. She's certainly not doing it because the harpy's nest and the druid idol are their only chances of survival. She's absolutely evil.

As for the goblin children, they run away and call for help. In any game when one of the enemies is about to raise the alarm, he becomes your main target. I'm sure most of players kill goblin children to save Halsin without provoking the entire temple against you.

[GrandMajora]

Publicado originalmente por Venox:

Your way of arguing makes zero to no sense.
No one ever said the game tries to force you to kill goblin children. Who ever said that?

The person I was quoting said that, if you'd actually read the entire quote.


Bottom paragraph:



"Let's assume that you simply can't kill children in this game, as in many other games. So why is it okay to kill goblin children? Moreover, the game forces you to kill them if you choose to save Halsin. They are many times less evil than Mol, which deliberately sends two other children to certain death."

[zero]

Publicado originalmente por RasaNova:

Publicado originalmente por zero:

one is a monster in the monster manual designed to be killed by the players, the others are designed to be "humans" so to an ESRB rating killing children directly tends to be a no.

i get you are trying to argue a semantic and i do get your point, but it mostly just comes down to one is a monster enemy and one is, functionally a human child.

Nothing semantic whatsoever, the semantics would be the distinction of calling one a "monster" and one a "person" (assuming that's what you mean by saying human) And it's not relevant anyway since in tabletop there would be nothing short of a DM ruling to prevent you from killing a tiefling child.

I still stand by it being inconsistent. If it's a young humanoid that looks like a child, talks like a child, behaves like a child, then it's a child and any imposed morality (or more likely, liability) should apply either way.

i mean morality doesn't really come into play with the matter, one is just seen as an actual child and one is seen as a monster, cause thats how D&D is designed.

the same thing applies to the owlbear cub.

killing children is generally just not a thing done in video games, not directly anyway, but we also excuse it if its a monster or animal.

[Jack]

Publicado originalmente por 61:

Publicado originalmente por zero:

one is a monster in the monster manual designed to be killed by the players, the others are designed to be "humans" so to an ESRB rating killing children directly tends to be a no.

i get you are trying to argue a semantic and i do get your point, but it mostly just comes down to one is a monster enemy and one is, functionally a human child.

That's a good point, but technically both tieflings and goblins are far from human. Both are sentient, half-human beings. Does the rating really forbid killing tiefling kids? I don't think so.
Let's say that because of ESRB it is true that it is forbidden to kill Tiefling children, but you can kill goblin children. But in such a non-linear game, why is there no way to punish them somehow?
Turn them over to the guards, let the druids kill them (like Arabella) or turn them over to adult tieflings to make the kids clean the oxen stall and so on. They are bullying me and good NPCs and I can't do anything wtf. It's like it's forbidden to even teach "human" children good manners. Every dialog in the game has a choice, as long as it doesn't involve talking to tiefling children.

BTW: you should dig a bit deeper in Tiefling lore, what you are presenting is extreamly surface level and uninformed :D

Quick version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agagf69TUBI&t=754s

[Jormungandr]

Publicado originalmente por 61:

Honestly, it doesn't look like they're starving. Tieflings live well, apart from the dangers outside. They have enough food for everyone. Thieving comes from their greed. Of course, that's just my opinion. Yet Mol sends two children to their deaths, she obviously knows the consequences for them. She's certainly not doing it because the harpy's nest and the druid idol are their only chances of survival. She's absolutely evil.

As for the goblin children, they run away and call for help. In any game when one of the enemies is about to raise the alarm, he becomes your main target. I'm sure most of players kill goblin children to save Halsin without provoking the entire temple against you.

I'm not sure about Tiefling children living well. I mean, they live in a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ cave and no adult cares about where the children are since some of them can just get away from the settlement and nobody would notice. I swear only a handful of tiefling children actually have a guardian. As to why they live well? Prob got good at thieving, most of them prob don't even want to be a thief since Mattis was so excited when they got legitimate shop in Last Light inn. And Mol is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ child he probably didn't even know it was dangerous to begin with.

Yeah. I can see your point with goblin children but if you didn't want to kill them - you wouldn't.

[GrandMajora]

Publicado originalmente por RasaNova:

Nothing semantic whatsoever, the semantics would be the distinction of calling one a "monster" and one a "person" (assuming that's what you mean by saying human) And it's not relevant anyway since in tabletop there would be nothing short of a DM ruling to prevent you from killing a tiefling child.

I still stand by it being inconsistent. If it's a young humanoid that looks like a child, talks like a child, behaves like a child, then it's a child and any imposed morality (or more likely, liability) should apply either way.

Your mistake is that you presume just because a creature is intelligent (or more specifically, sapient in this case), that they must be the same as humans. You are forgetting that this is a fantasy setting, where there can be intelligent creatures who are objectively and categorically different to humanity. Perhaps even going so far as to call them 'alien'.

Take the Mindflayer for example. These creatures have an intelligence score of 19-20, which makes them 'super geniuses' as far as ability scores are concerned. They also have a Wisdom score of 17-18, meaning that they are practically enlightened as far as we're concerned.

And yet, despite their hyper evolved brains, the game tells us repeatedly that mind flayers have no souls, and are incapable of feeling emotions or possess empathy towards others. They are cold, calculating sociopaths, who view others as nothing more than pawns to be manipulated for their own ambitions.

[Shadow Wizard Money Gang]

Publicado originalmente por GrandMajora:

Publicado originalmente por RasaNova:

Nothing semantic whatsoever, the semantics would be the distinction of calling one a "monster" and one a "person" (assuming that's what you mean by saying human) And it's not relevant anyway since in tabletop there would be nothing short of a DM ruling to prevent you from killing a tiefling child.

I still stand by it being inconsistent. If it's a young humanoid that looks like a child, talks like a child, behaves like a child, then it's a child and any imposed morality (or more likely, liability) should apply either way.

Your mistake is that you presume just because a creature is intelligent (or more specifically, sapient in this case), that they must be the same as humans. You are forgetting that this is a fantasy setting, where there can be intelligent creatures who are objectively and categorically different to humanity. Perhaps even going so far as to call them 'alien'.

Take the Mindflayer for example. These creatures have an intelligence score of 19-20, which makes them 'super geniuses' as far as ability scores are concerned. They also have a Wisdom score of 17-18, meaning that they are practically enlightened as far as we're concerned.

And yet, despite their hyper evolved brains, the game tells us repeatedly that mind flayers have no souls, and are incapable of feeling emotions or possess empathy towards others. They are cold, calculating sociopaths, who view others as nothing more than pawns to be manipulated for their own ambitions.

Not only that in this world aligments are a thing. Being good isnt some esoteric value that is ephemeral and cannot be defined. No. Gods literally smite their Paladins of their power when they break an Oath. Creatures are born inherently aligned with a good or bad morality. As such because Tieflings are born of the Hells and their creators being Devils I would argue that inherently they are evil beings. Now obviously you can change alignments but some things are inherently bad. This is literally show by the Tieflings not able to help themselves from stealing from those who gave them shelter and refuge.

[GrandMajora]

Publicado originalmente por ꧁Ƭєηgєη꧂:

Not only that in this world aligments are a thing. Being good isnt some esoteric value that is ephemeral and cannot be defined. No. Gods literally smite their Paladins of their power when they break an Oath. Creatures are born inherently aligned with a good or bad morality. As such because Tieflings are born of the Hells and their creators being Devils I would argue that inherently they are evil beings. Now obviously you can change alignments but some things are inherently bad. This is literally show by the Tieflings not able to help themselves from stealing from those who gave them shelter and refuge.

One can either be born a tiefling, or you can be transformed into a tiefling through infernal pacts. Yes, the founder of the tiefling bloodline may be the one who initially signed the deal, but I don't think the devil is just going to let it end there. The contractee's entire bloodline from that point on is now going to carry the mark of their founder's sin upon them. So why wouldn't the devil seek to capitalize on this by manipulating and exploiting future generations to serve their goals?

As for them stealing, it's not just the kids who are at fault, the adults have sinned as well. Every time somebody attempts to discipline these kids in any capacity, one or more of the adults comes to their defense and threatens violence against them if they lay a hand upon their children.

Children who under any other circumstance, are allowed to run around unsupervised because "they're orphans."

Neglecting to discipline a child's bad behavior, and actively defending said behavior are two entirely different situations.

It's because of this that I can't find myself able to sympathize with the tieflings' plight. Kagha is right in calling them parasites, and the mercenaries aren't far off the mark with their accusations either.

The tieflings need to be kicked out, since they clearly don't appreciate Halsin's charity.

[Larry]

Publicado originalmente por Greebo:

'Why can't I kill children' asked the edgelord.

But you can kill kids... if they're goblins...

[FreshRevenge]

Publicado originalmente por 61:

Publicado originalmente por FreshRevenge:

Mol has plot armor on because later in the game she gets kidnapped in the second act. Plus she is making a deal with Raphael

It doesn't make any sense. What would have changed if she hadn't been kidnapped? She is far from a key character in the game. And you can kill much more important characters like Halsin, Isobel, Jaheira, and others.

That whole scene when you talking Isobel and I think his name is Markus or someone shows up, there was a whole cinematic and Mol was part of that cinematic. Also it was revealed that there was content cut that expands on what happened to Mol. When you reach the third act, they make her say that it was easy for her to escape or some nonsense. But it was more complicated then just finding her in the Thieves Guild.

[Xeno Repo]

You're confined to the retardation of the writer's. You're forced to watch your character's model react hard for one thing or another, in complete contrast to many times to how you've acted beforehand. You have a different opinion to them when it comes to some things? Too bad, you stepped onto the train a long time ago.