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.

[MrsJekill]

Originally posted by 61:

Originally posted by Greebo:

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

I wouldn't be asking this question if you couldn't kill goblin children. Are they worse than Mol or what? Either allow all children to be killed or forbid all children to be killed. It's not fair at all.

You obviously don't watch anime

[Empukris]

Kagha is not wrong in calling them parasite. Her method is extreme but she is not wrong. Mol send a few innocent kids on a suicide mission to steal that statue instead of planning one massive heist herself. She also send you to steal those statue instead of doing it herself. Those kids know what they are doing is wrong, they make use of it to play victim.

Some kids are really innocent but not Mol. She know what she is doing, so saying they are just kids not going to cut it. The goblin kids are far more innocent than Mol is. But I got to admit that she is fair at least. I stole silvanus idol for her and I stole it back from her immediately after. She said begrudgingly someone stole the idol from her and she want to recruit whoever stole it from her for her new guild. She is evil.

[ℕatas Ҝhan}HvC{2.0]

just kill the fkin grove, there. problem solved. Mol was a thorn in my side to, it was the straw that broke the proverbial horses back and sealed the fate of EVERYONE In the grove.....atleast for my first playthrough.....i plan to just ignore the little ♥♥♥♥♥ next play through otherwise i feel that if i interact with the brat(and by extension the other brats) i'll wind up killing the grove yet again.

[Smoosh]

You can kill Mol and her whole gang, well not you but indirectly in the grove.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Smoosh:

You can kill Mol and her whole gang, well not you but indirectly in the grove.

Sorry, but I don't take credit for other people's murders. If the blow wasn't delivered by my hands, then I'm not the one who killed them.

[Aedel91]

It's news to me that little goblings could be killed. I did kill some in EA, but in post-release playthrough they just fled the pens and I never saw them again.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Jack:

Thought their tags where humanoid.

human as in "not designed and specifically put in the monster manual to be used as a monster to fight", you can have tiefling enemies sure, but they would be "bandits" or some such, not "tieflings" in the encounter, but goblins are an encounter of goblins

Strange. I still play 3.5 and they are considered monsters in that edition.

They are playing character in 5e because Wizards of the Coast made them. Not because it is convenient. Find another fictional loophole to hammer at, friend.

[The Konrad]

I think most people are looking at this the wrong way...

You don't need to kill children, but you should be able to beat their bottoms to within an inch of their life or something.

This should be a Ritual Action and should not use up a spell slot and should also be applicable to several well deserving camp members as well...

[zero]

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Originally posted by zero:

human as in "not designed and specifically put in the monster manual to be used as a monster to fight", you can have tiefling enemies sure, but they would be "bandits" or some such, not "tieflings" in the encounter, but goblins are an encounter of goblins

Strange. I still play 3.5 and they are considered monsters in that edition.

They are playing character in 5e because Wizards of the Coast made them. Not because it is convenient. Find another fictional loophole to hammer at, friend.

this isn't 3.5e this is 5e and in the PHB are the playable races (seen as humans) and in the monster manual are the monsters.

if you do not believe me thats fine, but honestly its not really a complicated idea, its the same in skyrim or any other rpg, you simply cannot kill children, yet animal children or monster kids are free game.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Strange. I still play 3.5 and they are considered monsters in that edition.

They are playing character in 5e because Wizards of the Coast made them. Not because it is convenient. Find another fictional loophole to hammer at, friend.

this isn't 3.5e this is 5e and in the PHB are the playable races (seen as humans) and in the monster manual are the monsters.

if you do not believe me thats fine, but honestly its not really a complicated idea, its the same in skyrim or any other rpg, you simply cannot kill children, yet animal children or monster kids are free game.

It is not that I don't believe you. In fact, I already know this to be facts.

The point is that it doesn't matter in the least that Tieflings are playable characters. Or non human.

[Pax Empyrean]

"Also, if you REALLY have a desire to kill children in a video game, that's a bit weird."

If they're going to put cheeky little ♥♥♥♥♥ that steal from you into the game, the least they can do is let me put a timed explosive in my inventory for them to steal. Fallout 2 did this right.

[RasaNova]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Strange. I still play 3.5 and they are considered monsters in that edition.

They are playing character in 5e because Wizards of the Coast made them. Not because it is convenient. Find another fictional loophole to hammer at, friend.

this isn't 3.5e this is 5e and in the PHB are the playable races (seen as humans) and in the monster manual are the monsters.

if you do not believe me thats fine, but honestly its not really a complicated idea, its the same in skyrim or any other rpg, you simply cannot kill children, yet animal children or monster kids are free game.

But whether or not they are printed in the pages of the monster manual is not relevant to why they can not be killed in the game. Unless it's a rule in 5e that no children can be harmed?

[FlashXAron ☕ (Alex)]

Originally posted by 61:

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

There is a reason. She made a deal with Raphael. You can even find her contract in his house.

Oh, okay. I missed it. But my question is still there.

I even gave her the contract back and told her that I killed him, so it is not valid anymore. She hated me for that and said, she will get me for this ... normal at that point, she should be killed ... wait at that point she isn't protected anymore, I really should have tried it ... maybe teleport her to a place, where you could toss her into a deep hole ... is there a lava in the underground :-)

[zero]

Originally posted by RasaNova:

Originally posted by zero:

this isn't 3.5e this is 5e and in the PHB are the playable races (seen as humans) and in the monster manual are the monsters.

if you do not believe me thats fine, but honestly its not really a complicated idea, its the same in skyrim or any other rpg, you simply cannot kill children, yet animal children or monster kids are free game.

But whether or not they are printed in the pages of the monster manual is not relevant to why they can not be killed in the game. Unless it's a rule in 5e that no children can be harmed?

its a rule in most video games that kids cannot be killed directly, yes.

standard ESRB stuff there.

[Cl∅VER]

Originally posted by 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.

Goblins and other "Monster Races" are playable since Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's implying that Goblins are just as human as the other races