What do we know about children?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Jesus Titty ****ing Christ, why does every damn topic about children devolve into discussions on the merit of killing them?

[Silent Winter]

For me it's not about going on a killing spree, it's about needing to limit myself during village combat.

 

I mentioned this in another thread about 'evil' paths but:

In BG, I was fighting the cultists in Ulgoth's Beard.  I was in trouble and let rip with a fireball.  Unbeknownst to me, at the edge of the fog of war, one of the UB boys got hit by the fireball.

Now, I defeated the cultists but felt pretty bad about the 'collateral damage'.   Plus the rest of the village were hostile to me.  I didn't reload though, just kept it as part of the tragedy.

 

If there's a quest with combat inside a town, then the 'good' players (or those wishing support from Faction X) would need to limit themselves to targetted spells / melee to avoid hitting the townsfolk.  On the other hand, the 'bad' players (or those who only care about Faction Y) would be able to let loose the fireballs.

(this isn't specifically about kids though - any killable  v. invulnerable NPCs).

 

The argument about 'some things will always be impossible' is fine but this isn't about adding a new mechanic to add choices, it's about simply using a different model in game as an NPC and NOT flagging it as invulnerable.

If there are no kids in game, that's fine.  If there are only kids in non-combat zones (like in NWN), that's ok (I dislike 'non-combat zones' - though it does prevent you killing that important NPC).  If there are kids (or any NPCs) in combat zones then they should be the same as everyone else.

[pseudonymous]

  Clamoring on and on about how you want to be able to kill kids in the game makes you look sick in the head.

 

 

Nope, it's just an easy troll that get's some people's knickers in a twist.  Remember, this is Obsidian, any child companion would have tons of emotionally engaging dialogue that would lead up to the character's death in a cut-scene and all of the resurrect scrolls in your inventory would be ignored because STORY.

[teknoman2]

 

why should it be fine if i can kill the farmer and his wife and all his workers and animals for no reason, but unacceptable to be able to kill his son too? is it wrong to kill only if the victim is not an adult?

 

(I'm really growing allergic to this kind of question.)

No, it's not acceptable to kill the farmer and all the workers. And you're not supposed to. You can kill them all because you might want to kill one of them. The game doesn't allow you to do this because it wants you to go on a killing spree. Maybe you should think about why you want to kill all these NPCs and their children. Is there a reason for this? Or is it just for the lulz?

And yes, it's even less acceptable to kill their child. Because children embody innocence and vulnerability at the same time, and we have a natural, hardwired instinct to protect children, and because society (and most people living in it, minus the sociopaths) finds it morally reprehensible, period.

 

But why am I growing allergic to these questions? Because they're the standard questions that always come up in all these discussions about morality, and they're always completely beside the point. You can agree with me in that paragraph up there or not, but the point remains that society at large sees a difference, a huge difference, between killing children and killing adults, whether you find it logical or not (hint, it's not logical and it doesn't have to be - it's emotional and natural). And the point remains that video games can't allow themselves to include this kind of stuff anymore, which is why even GTA doesn't have children, like I said before. The point also remains that there are possibilities to put children in the game without triggering any political scandals while making the world believable and immersive - as long as you don't go on a psychopathic killing spree.

 

And also you completely missed the point of my list up there. The game allows me to be a thief, so why can't I break into a house in a certain way that would be possible in real life? Why can I pick the lock, but not smash the window? Why can I have a high-intelligence character but cannot go to university to finally discover quantum mechanics? Why can I kill adults but not kill children?

It's exactly the same kind of question and the answer is always the same: because there are good reasons. Not because it's logical. But because this is the only feasible way to make a game.

 

And yeah, I'd like to hear some answers to Karkarov's question, other than "because logically it should be possible" or "I want to play a psychopath".

Because you do have to try and kill children before you notice that you can't do it.

 

@JFSOCC: That's exactly what I said. They had brutal torture, but they stopped and said "okay but we can't allow the players to kill children".

Is that self-censorship? Are all video games since Fallout 2 self-censored and have lost their integrity? I don't think so. Because there was no need for that kind of feature at all.

 

@Sacred_Path: Yeah well. What I said. You instantly see when a town doesn't look right, but you have to try and kill a child to see that you can't. So why would you want to kill a child.

 

but that is the point right there. if you are not supposed to kill him, the devs should deny you the option to attack, and put him in god mode to prevent him from accidentally dying if you fight enemies near him. if they allow you to attack anything you want and be a mass murderer, then it is wrong to keep something out of harms way. so children should be like all other npc in their interaction with the player (either all npc are invulnerable or all can be killed), or they should not be in the game at all

[motorizer]

Well a realistic and immersive consequence of killing a kid in a setting like this is getting your head chopped off. A child killer would most likely never be allowed to walk free again...

So if you want to talk realism, killing kids and getting caught in the act would realistically be game over..

[Sacred_Path]

It doesn't matter; its a video game which has to have a fairly well defined operational parameters.  There will always be arbitrary things you can't do because they're outside of the scope of the game.  I see no particular reason to treat one arbitrary thing you can't do from a different arbitrary thing you can't do.

 

But then I really don't give a crap about having all the NPC's killable in the first place (unless the game in question is a serial killer simulator, in which case that would be entirely within the scope of the game)

You may not realize it, but you're arguing for more arbitrarity in the game, which seems very odd at best.

 

Anyways, this argument is pretty weak, as the inclusion of killable children is one aspect of verisimilitude that is very easy to achieve. Other things, like a believable economy and its related aspects like architecture are much harder to simulate realistically.

[Fearabbit]

Jesus Titty ****ing Christ, why does every damn topic about children devolve into discussions on the merit of killing them?

Umm, because that IS the topic? Look at the OP and the poll options.

 

Anyway. You guys keep repeating your arguments while still not giving any motivation other than "I want to be able to go on realistic killing sprees", with a very narrow definition of "realistic".

 

One point was made about having to restrain oneself as a good guy when children are around... I like the idea behind it but how often do we fight in places crowded with innocents anyway? And wouldn't I try to restrain myself for the adult innocents anyway?

I think people give this and their logical reasoning concerning it too much weight. As a normal player you won't ever notice the children or try to interact with them. Because there will be all that awesome stuff to do. You won't fight in crowded places but spend most of your time on adventures.

 

By the way, I recommend that everyone here read the blog entry in the link a couple of posts above (can't see the name of the guy right now), it's excellent.

Especially because it made me realize that the same people who didn't want to have to repair their gear now want killable children because of immersion.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Fearabbit

[teknoman2]

here's a hypothetical situation. someone asked some mercs to kill me and my party, and i bump into them in the middle of a crowded street. i have the option to fight them with single target spells and attacks to avoid colateral damage, or go full aoe with fireballs, hailstorms etc for a faster and easier win, but i risk involving the civilians. if i choose the second option, why would it be ok for adult bystanders to get blown to bits by my or the enemy's spells (the enemy would use aoe anyway) but children be imune to the attacks?

it's not that we who voted the 1st option like to kill children or want to... we just want consistency. if any npc can die during a battle, intentionally or by accident, so should the children. i dont see the reason for them to be magically imune to harm... in this case it would be better to keep them off the game entirely and be done with it

[Sacred_Path]

Umm, because that IS the topic? Look at the OP and the poll options.

 

Anyway. You guys keep repeating your arguments while still not giving any motivation other than "I want to be able to go on realistic killing sprees", with a very narrow definition of "realistic".

Children should be killable so you can kill them. It's kind of self evident. It also doesn't beg any clarfication, because since when do you need a particular reason to play around with a game? BTW, the only arguments against this ITT have been "there can be no reason, ever, to kill a child NPC", "I don't roleplay in a way that would includes the killing of children so other people shouldn't be allowed to do it either", and "not everything about a fantasy world can be realistic or internally consistent so nothing in the game should be realistic or internally consistent".

 

Especially because it made me realize that the same people who didn't want to have to repair their gear now want killable children because of immersion.

Nop. I liked the crafting skill and item repair. I'd also like to see children in the game; and if they are in, they better be just as killable as any other NPC.

 

Like I said before, immersion really is the one reason why you'd want characters of different ages in the game; it simply helps to bring the setting to life, and it also adds more possibilites to the writing. It also single-handedly does more for the maturity of the game if reproduction is a thing rather than everyone being full of magical contraceptives and engaging in cutscene secks without it having any consequences.

 

If there had been a good argument made ITT why children should be in the game but not be killable I'd try to refute that now, but that's not the case.

[Pipyui]

We already know that there are going to be soulless children in the game, as guinea pigs for awful soul experiments, turning them into monsters. Besides the interactive and choice elements involved in personally killing children, I personally can't see it as too much worse.

 

My only real opinions on this matter are that, yes, I'd like to see children in the game. Whether or not I can kill them is only particularly important if there is a WHOLE FRIGGIN CITY OF THE BASTARDS THAT I CANNOT TOUCH (little lamplight).

 

If the kids run away or are untargetable, that's fine; so long as they don't just take hits like target dummies. Maybe there could be reason to give all the kids super guardian souls, I don't know.

 

Kids: yes. Killable: sure, maybe; doesn't matter once the mod comes around.

[Karkarov]

So I only see three direct responses to my question.

 

1: Immersion.  Seriously?  The game doesn't make me stop to eat every 5-7 hours, use the bathroom, or even make me obey some of the basic laws of physics.  I can't even do crafting anymore, and they actually planned that to be in game at first.  I don't see people complaining about those things breaking immersion.  Immersion is the weakest argument that has, or ever will, exist for the inclusion of a feature in an RPG.  It is what people use when they have no legitimate argument or point.

 

2: Exp.  Well considering Dragon's don't give exp for killing them I am pretty sure a defenseless child who can't fight back and dies in one hit won't either.

 

3: I find invulnerable kids obnoxious.  So you aren't in fact asking for killable children at all, you are asking for no invulnerable children in the game.  Works for me, we do like was said before.  Don't have children period, or put them only in areas where you can't attack them.  Like in the King's Throne room where drawing your weapon without approval causes powerful magical wards to instantly make your head explode.

 

The only time I could see a killable child in game is like the Dragon Age: Origins situation where the kid was possessed by a demon.  You don't kill the kid but if you don't jump through XYZ hoops first killing the demon results in the kid dying with him.  Something that is logical and makes story sense where the player has a legitimate motivation (beyond for the lulz/I am a jerk) is perfectly fine.  That is up to Obsidian to include that in game though and it is likely a one off event.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Karkarov

[GhoulishVisage]

I personally think that Fallout 1/2's approach is good.
Want to kill a child? Fine, but your name is now forever besmirched and there is nothing that you can do to unsmirch it.

[PrimeJunta]

I can think of only one good reason to put unkillable children into the game: because making them killable would be too much of a reputation risk for the company. That kind of thing can spin out of control, and e.g. make it much more difficult for Obsidian to work with publishers – which they need to do. (It would be kind of interesting to see what would happen, though. The discussion over which is more inappropriate, child-killing sprees in Eternity or Grand Jew Wizards and Mr. Slave in South Park: Stick of Truth.)

 

Overall I prefer greater verisimilitude. Category violations damage it. So for example if everything is killable except children, that's jarring and I don't like it.

 

IOW, I would prefer either everything, including children, to be killable, or things to be categorized into non-killable and killable according to some not-completely-arbitrary criterion. Most games of this type flag critters as friendlies or hostiles, and it's simply not possible to attack friendlies; that hasn't bothered me much before. Alternatively you could have a category of "background atmospheric critters" like dogs and cats and bunny rabbits and cows and sheep and cute little birdies, and make those unkillable. That would have the additional advantage of making them cheaper to make, since you wouldn't have to worry about fight or death animations, so you could have more variety for the same price.

[John Forseti]

I can't even do crafting anymore, and they actually planned that to be in game at first.

 

Wut? When did that happen?

[Karkarov]

 

I can't even do crafting anymore, and they actually planned that to be in game at first.

 

Wut? When did that happen?

 

Pretty sure it was there and they took it out because of some illogical and mostly dumb forum war after they announced it in an update.  The official party line was "they felt it wasn't useful in and out of combat and didn't meet their base concept for all player skills".  Or something to that effect.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Karkarov

[Pipyui]

We already know that there are going to be soulless children in the game, as guinea pigs for awful soul experiments, turning them into monsters. Besides the interactive and choice elements involved in personally killing children, I personally can't see it as too much worse.

 

My only real opinions on this matter are that, yes, I'd like to see children in the game. Whether or not I can kill them is only particularly important if there is a WHOLE FRIGGIN CITY OF THE BASTARDS THAT I CANNOT TOUCH (little lamplight).

 

If the kids run away or are untargetable, that's fine; so long as they don't just take hits like target dummies. Maybe there could be reason to give all the kids super guardian souls, I don't know.

 

Kids: yes. Killable: sure, maybe; doesn't matter once the mod comes around.

 

Aaaand, now I'm on a list somewhere.  Fantastic.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Pipyui

[John Forseti]

 

Pretty sure it was there and they took it out because of some illogical and mostly dumb forum war after they announced it in an update.  The official party line was "they felt it wasn't useful in and out of combat and didn't meet their base concept for all player skills".  Or something to that effect.

 

 

I'm almost entirely certain that was item durability, not the entire crafting system.

[mcmanusaur]

 

It doesn't matter; its a video game which has to have a fairly well defined operational parameters.  There will always be arbitrary things you can't do because they're outside of the scope of the game.  I see no particular reason to treat one arbitrary thing you can't do from a different arbitrary thing you can't do.

 

But then I really don't give a crap about having all the NPC's killable in the first place (unless the game in question is a serial killer simulator, in which case that would be entirely within the scope of the game)

You may not realize it, but you're arguing for more arbitrarity in the game, which seems very odd at best.

 

Anyways, this argument is pretty weak, as the inclusion of killable children is one aspect of verisimilitude that is very easy to achieve. Other things, like a believable economy and its related aspects like architecture are much harder to simulate realistically.

 

 

Perhaps so, and even as someone who has suggested the kinds of things you mention I can admit that their relevance to the game is arguable. But I don't think the ease of inclusion is necessarily a justification for their inclusion; instead, I think that a discussion of relevance is necessitated in that regard. The pertinent question is then, "does including this feature facilitate a worthwhile role?". My case for a somewhat realistic economy is contingent on the notion that "roleplaying games" shouldn't be inherently limited to combat situations, and if this premise is granted it follows that the presentation of different social institutions is important. Personally, the argument for the relevance of a serial killing role doesn't resonate as much with me.

[mcmanusaur]

If there had been a good argument made ITT why children should be in the game but not be killable I'd try to refute that now, but that's not the case.

Children should be killable so you can kill them. It's kind of self evident.

 

BTW, the only arguments against this ITT have been "there is no reason to kill a generic, non-quest-related child NPC", "I don't think that killing everything in sight constitutes roleplaying", "not everything about a fantasy world can be realistic or internally consistent, but certain unrealistic or internally inconsistent aspects are ultimately irrelevant to particular games", and "the reason that people want to be able to kill children is not for immersion but for player agency power tripping".

Allow me to fix that for you.

[Failion]

 

We already know that there are going to be soulless children in the game, as guinea pigs for awful soul experiments, turning them into monsters. Besides the interactive and choice elements involved in personally killing children, I personally can't see it as too much worse.

 

My only real opinions on this matter are that, yes, I'd like to see children in the game. Whether or not I can kill them is only particularly important if there is a WHOLE FRIGGIN CITY OF THE BASTARDS THAT I CANNOT TOUCH (little lamplight).

 

If the kids run away or are untargetable, that's fine; so long as they don't just take hits like target dummies. Maybe there could be reason to give all the kids super guardian souls, I don't know.

 

Kids: yes. Killable: sure, maybe; doesn't matter once the mod comes around.

 

Aaaand, now I'm on a list somewhere.  Fantastic.

 

ya there iss souless children in the game but can you work with evil person that made them souless in the first place. How about instead of KILLINGS KIDS WHICH IS AWESOME we go around convincing and corrupting mothers into getting addicted to ABORTIONS. Food for thought. 

[PrimeJunta]

@Karkarov, they took out the dedicated crafting skill, not crafting itself. The original idea was that the Crafting skill also affected item durability. After the discussion they decided that durability was more of a drag than a gameplay improvement, so they took that out. That left the Crafting skill without sufficient gameplay value, in their assessment, so they took that out as well. The upshot was that crafting is not associated with a dedicated skill, but instead crafting different types of items is connected to different types of other skills with other gameplay uses.

 

So the mechanics are the same and crafting is still in, just not item durability, nor a dedicated skill. 

[Pipyui]

ya there iss souless children in the game but can you work with evil person that made them souless in the first place. How about instead of KILLINGS KIDS WHICH IS AWESOME we go around convincing and corrupting mothers into getting addicted to ABORTIONS. Food for thought.

 

Meh, I'm not so sure I'm really in the "child killing" camp.  I'm okay either way - it only bothers me when kids (a la skyrim) are immortal meat puppets.  I can understand why Obsidian would shy away from it; if this thread is any indication, the topic is a hotbed for heated debate and bad PR.

 

I don't know, it doesn't bother me if I can kill children in games.  It doesn't bother me if I can't kill children in games.  I don't need the fulfillment of power to know that I can garrote anything and everything that moves, including harmless human larvae (larvae, right?).  The option is nice I suppose, if just because I believe that censorship to accomodate bleeding-hearts is unneccessary.  On the other hand, I acknowledge that putting certain types in control to flesh out their darker fantasies may be a little dangerous.  I'm kinda neutral on the issue, and if Obsidian wants to avoid a potential PR ****storm by sidestepping it, that's a-ok with me (as above, so long as children are not immortal meat puppets).

 

Child murder and abortion are two sepparate issues, and I don't think the latter has any place on these forums.  The first removes exceptions from a mechanic (of killing things), the latter adds unnusually specific scenarios to mechanics (which would be pretty creepy in this context).  I'm not advocating that we should be power juggernaughts in this game, (GTAV's got that covered, and the PR storm to verify), but we also shouldn't be all too quick to throw ourselves against content that incites reaction and a little introspection into the darker side of our egos.

[JFSOCC]

@Sacred_Path: Yeah well. What I said. You instantly see when a town doesn't look right, but you have to try and kill a child to see that you can't. So why would you want to kill a child.

The child witnessed something you did and will report the foul deed, or the child was in the way when my area of effect spell did damage to the three bandits. Or three bandits held the child hostage, I don't negotiate with terrorists so I killed the child to make my point.

 

Or maybe I just didn't like the stupid child's damn face. Maybe his paperdoll was blocking my way, maybe killing the child serves as motivation for my victims, I mean subjects.

 

Maybe it was an infected patient zero.

 

Who cares what the reason is, I don't think you can make an arbitrary distinction between children and adults. Why would it be OK to code immortality for innocent children, but not innocent adults? Life isn't fair, and I'm OK with the game reflecting the harsh realities of life in the colonies.

[Nonek]

Ten minutes of joy, twenty years of misery.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Ten minutes of joy, twenty years of misery.

Don't forget that terrible nine months.