Killing kids: why and why not?

[Swigen]

I’d like all of it. The only reason it won’t happen is like Mr Shackleford said, ‘cause of monetary reasons. A lot of people coming at it from a moral standpoint ‘autta keep in mind all of these “taboo themes” are explored in novels their mom’s and granny’s regularly buy and read from the grocery store. Dunno why a book or a movie should be any different to a vidya game.

 

[JarlFrank]

being able to kill everyone has never made a game better/ game world more realistic.

And the funniest thing is the whiners who want to be able to finish the game no matter whom they killed

Being able to kill everyone can make a game better if it's done well. The playstyle usually is pursued by players who want to see how much shit they can wreck before fucking up the game completely. And allowing for alternative ways of progress when quest-essential NPCs have been killed is good game design. The more choices a player has, the more replay value the game has. If killing NPCs carries consequences, but some NPCs can be killed without preventing you from finishing the game, it's good game design.

In Morrowind you can kill essential NPCs and screw your chances to finish the game normally. Yet there still is a backdoor way of finishing the game. It's very obscure and needs some pre-knowledge to find it, but it exists, which is great.
In Arcanum you can often kill NPCs that have important information for you, then find the information by other means, like looting their file cabinets. Having alternatives to progress after fucking up is good game design.

 

[Sacred82]

being able to kill everyone has never made a game better/ game world more realistic.

And the funniest thing is the whiners who want to be able to finish the game no matter whom they killed

Being able to kill everyone can make a game better if it's done well. The playstyle usually is pursued by players who want to see how much shit they can wreck before fucking up the game completely. And allowing for alternative ways of progress when quest-essential NPCs have been killed is good game design.

m-hm

I kill the quest giver: no reason not to fail the quest

I kill a person I was tasked to protect: no reason not to fail the quest

I kill a person with information vital to the quest before getting that information: no reason not to fail the quest

I kill a person whose demise would make the quest giver hostile if he catches wind of it: no reason not to fail the quest

now, that's just one quest ofc. But the same principle applies to main quests, really.

Main quests tend to be this super epic stuff. They revolve around arcane secrets, or making deals with the gods, or getting into contact with other high profile entities. It's all about privileged information and privileged access to areas.

If the main quest is simply "get powerful enough to kill the dragon that you could have confronted all along", welp, maybe there's no clear failstate here. As long as I retain a powerbase in the world from which I can keep accumulating XP and items, I can reach that goal eventually. Anything more complex, you're likely to fuck it up by just killing everyone.

How many important tasks could you achieve on this planet if you killed everyone except yourself?

 

[Norfleet]

Why killing kids? Because, well, children DIE. This is one of those things that happens.

Why not? Well, it limits your sales since many countries ban depictions of this sort of thing, so you can't sell your game there.

That's pretty much it. The only real reason you can't kill kids in games is pretty much because it would be illegal to sell this game in many countries if you could.

How many important tasks could you achieve on this planet if you killed everyone except yourself?

ALL OF THEM. Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god! What could possibly be more important than being a motherfucking GOD?

Rape is an extreme example and I wouldn't expect any RPGs to include it, for it would require the coding of a new gameplay mechanic, or at the very least new animations, just to be edgy and controversial.

That, or Japanese. It's apparently a common core gameplay element in Japanese games, based on what I see posted here.

 

[Trashos]

The RPG industry is trying to attract female players by making women characters ugly. They would probably be much more successful if they simply allowed the killing of kids.

 

[howlingFantods]

The RPG industry is trying to attract female players by making women characters ugly. They would probably be much more successful if they simply allowed the killing of kids.

Haha that’s terrible! Dear old mom can finally put the “son” in poison (and vice versa...)

 

[JarlFrank]

being able to kill everyone has never made a game better/ game world more realistic.

And the funniest thing is the whiners who want to be able to finish the game no matter whom they killed

Being able to kill everyone can make a game better if it's done well. The playstyle usually is pursued by players who want to see how much shit they can wreck before fucking up the game completely. And allowing for alternative ways of progress when quest-essential NPCs have been killed is good game design.

m-hm

I kill the quest giver: no reason not to fail the quest

I kill a person I was tasked to protect: no reason not to fail the quest

I kill a person with information vital to the quest before getting that information: no reason not to fail the quest

I kill a person whose demise would make the quest giver hostile if he catches wind of it: no reason not to fail the quest

now, that's just one quest ofc. But the same principle applies to main quests, really.

Main quests tend to be this super epic stuff. They revolve around arcane secrets, or making deals with the gods, or getting into contact with other high profile entities. It's all about privileged information and privileged access to areas.

If the main quest is simply "get powerful enough to kill the dragon that you could have confronted all along", welp, maybe there's no clear failstate here. As long as I retain a powerbase in the world from which I can keep accumulating XP and items, I can reach that goal eventually. Anything more complex, you're likely to fuck it up by just killing everyone.

How many important tasks could you achieve on this planet if you killed everyone except yourself?

Then the main quests should just be designed in a more modular way, rather than the typical "you need to tackle this sequence of quests in order" affairs.

Of course, there's no need to make the main quest completely unfailable. If you dick around too much and purposely break quests, you might get stuck in an unwinnable state, yes.
But putting in alternative approaches for finishing the game is always a good thing and a sign of good game design.

Again, Morrowind is a great example for it. You have one failsafe alternative solution if you kill, accidentally or purposely, NPCs important to the main quest. And even that one can fail if you kill certain characters (IIRC you can't kill Yagrum Bagarn or you're screwed entirely).

Arcanum tends to supply the most alternatives for its main quest:
- finding out who the ring belongs to leads you to P. Schuyler and Sons; they use dwarven zombies as slave laborers and if you have Magnus in your party he gets super angry and wants to kill the bastards; you need information from them though; you can talk to them to get the information, which will piss Magnus off if you have him; you can kill them all, then use conjure spirit to bring the spirit of their father back from the relam of the dead to give you the information you need; you can rifle through their archives to find a document containing the information you need
- you usually work for Gilbert Bates, but if you kill the guy the main quest isn't busted: you can still work for his rival Cedric Appleby, offering you an alternative
- when you need to travel to the Isle of Despair you gotta get a boat; now, I'm not 100% sure if this approach works since I haven't tried it myself yet, but if you kill the captain of the boat that is supposed to bring you there, you might be able to get there by acquiring the ship of ghost pirate Stringy Pete

There are always some alternatives. Services that are required to progress might be offered by different people. Information held by people might be contained in documents or wall inscriptions. Etc.

 

[theSavant]

Imagine you are a terrorist and the only thing preventing you from setting off that bomb is that you could hurt some kids. But then you remember Skyrim which has shown you that kids are immune to any and all attacks. They're practically immortal. Relieved from the burden and in peace of mind you set off the bomb...

 

[howlingFantods]

Imagine you are a terrorist and the only thing preventing you from setting off that bomb is that you could hurt some kids. But then you remember Skyrim which has shown you that kids are immune to any and all attacks. They're practically immortal. Relieved from the burden and in peace of mind you set off the bomb...

Haha, so I’m a kid-loving terrorist that plays Skyrim? You would be an excellent DM, I must say. Or I guess PC since you built the character

 

[luj1]

 

[a Goat]

What I hate in games is when they don't force you to kill children.

 

[theSavant]

Imagine you are a terrorist and the only thing preventing you from setting off that bomb is that you could hurt some kids. But then you remember Skyrim which has shown you that kids are immune to any and all attacks. They're practically immortal. Relieved from the burden and in peace of mind you set off the bomb...

Haha, so I’m a kid-loving terrorist that plays Skyrim? You would be an excellent DM, I must say. Or I guess PC since you built the character

huh, what? I was talking in a general way about the topic question.

 

[luj1]

Immortal kids are a big mistake in modern RPGs.

 

[alyvain]

Children lack the life experience and complexities required to be compelling characters. I can't think of a single memorable child character

"Pathologic" was fine in this regard. IIRC, killing them was an option and they were treated just like adult characters, so it may actually have helped.

 

[Norfleet]

Imagine you are a terrorist and the only thing preventing you from setting off that bomb is that you could hurt some kids. But then you remember Skyrim which has shown you that kids are immune to any and all attacks.

I've actually exploited this in games before: Because kids were invincible in the face of any and all attacks and damage, they could be used as impenetrable shields, and no combat was complete without a proper baby-shield.

 

[mondblut]

Rape is an extreme example and I wouldn't expect any RPGs to include it, for it would require the coding of a new gameplay mechanic, or at the very least new animations, just to be edgy and controversial.

Why animations?

Because it's more fun with animations.

 

[Jack Of Owls]

Hey. Sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

 

[Cael]

I don't particularly mind giving the players choices to do whatever the hell they want. Rape and murder? Sure, why not? Kids? OK, if that is your cup of tea.

What I do mind is the game not reacting to that kind of stuff. "Oh, you killed a kid? Whatever, man." "Raped and murdered someone? Oh well, too bad, here's your next quest."

There should be consequences to those actions, and if the game is in any way remotely like real life, those kind of actions would get the hammer dropped on the PC hard. Arcanum sort of had that, and beyond a certain part of the main quest, you are basically locked into the Evil ending and lose two entire chapters of the game. Fallout had it also in that you get the Childkiller or Slaver reputation and a lot of things are closed to you.

 

[Norfleet]

There should be consequences to those actions, and if the game is in any way remotely like real life, those kind of actions would get the hammer dropped on the PC hard. Arcanum sort of had that, and beyond a certain part of the main quest, you are basically locked into the Evil ending and lose two entire chapters of the game. Fallout had it also in that you get the Childkiller or Slaver reputation and a lot of things are closed to you.

In Fallout, it actually made LESS sense, because those were, in fact, criminal scum who deserved it, and the world is a harsh, unforgiving wasteland in which people meet brutish and nasty ends all the time. Would be far more reasonable in a setting and time where people give a shit about these things, but not Fallout. Fallout is a setting where people are routinely robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered, and there is no meaningful communication network beyond word of mouth from the few travellers on the wastes, who are turn kind of shady characters, so all but the most heinous atrocities ought to pass without much notice. Killing ONE thieving street urchin ought to be a complete non-event! Those kids don't even belong to anyone!

 

[laclongquan]

Being able to kill everyone is cater to the lowest level of gamers.

Why? Because "I cant kill this NPC and it irk me" sentimentality just say it all about that gamer.

Yet an unkillable NPC is just reek of bad design.

Why? Because of realism, duh. When that NPC stuck in a battle raging between PC and hostiles or other dire situation, unkillable showcase "what a fine specimen of game design... NOT"..

 

[Norfleet]

I think the bigger issue comes when you are offered the clear OPTION to attack them, but yet they're unkillable. Nobody thinks too much about unkillable NPCs if the only time you encounter them is in areas where the option to attack stuff isn't even presented to the player as a choice. Plenty of NPCs exist in areas of games where there simply isn't any combat control at all: Nobody outside of a few deranged individuals even tries to kill NPCs there. The issue arises when you're offered the opportunity to attack them, but this is a fake option and they cannot actually be killed even though you can attack them.

If you're not actually going to let us kill them, don't offer us the option or real motive to even attack them at all. If you're goin to put an NPC in the game that either lights up as an attackable, or really, really, warrants a whooping and gives us no actual reason NOT to, then he damn well better be killable. Otherwise, don't put NPCs that provide us with the opportunity and/or motive to directly attack them.

Although it WOULD be hilarious to have a game, perhaps with a procedurally generated world (and therefore suitably bland) that straight up acknowledges that you are a murderhobo.

 

[Sacred82]

How many important tasks could you achieve on this planet if you killed everyone except yourself?

ALL OF THEM. Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god! What could possibly be more important than being a motherfucking GOD?

if the task is being a god ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

not to mention you'd be a god to yourself alone, with powers that are now useless (because there's no one left to kill). Boyo, you could have had it easier if you just wanted to entertained that delusion.

Then the main quests should just be designed in a more modular way, rather than the typical "you need to tackle this sequence of quests in order" affairs.

like I said, it's often about following a trail of information. If you stumble on something going on right away, it's useless for you to go back and do another quest that would have led to information to pinpoint you to that other place. If you get access to some place on your own, it's useless to go back to some other quest that would have allowed you to get in there by some other means.

So killing NPC's left and right could be a tactic to brute force your way into places you'd otherwise get no access to. Not a problem with that. It happened regularly that way with Fallout or Arcanum. Thing is, if you brute force your way inside some location, there shouldn't necessarily be a way to do the same things as you could have done if they had let you enter willingly. And it's absolutely fine if killing NPC's in one place closes off other places to you as well.

We can assume information travels in the game world independently of you. I think that's one of the things whiners can't wrap their heads around, they believe if they left no witnesses, then what they did in one location should never affect another location. Except by the game's lore, those places aren't shut off from the rest of the world. Just because you don't see NPC's travelling between locations, doesn't mean it's not happening by the game's logic.

Of course, there's no need to make the main quest completely unfailable. If you dick around too much and purposely break quests, you might get stuck in an unwinnable state, yes.
But putting in alternative approaches for finishing the game is always a good thing and a sign of good game design.

Again, Morrowind is a great example for it. You have one failsafe alternative solution if you kill, accidentally or purposely, NPCs important to the main quest. And even that one can fail if you kill certain characters (IIRC you can't kill Yagrum Bagarn or you're screwed entirely).

Alternative solutions are gud, we know them from the real world. OTOH, killing people you have need of is one of the biggest fuckups in reality too.

Maybe you could say the "problem" in games is that people seem irreplacable too often; if one NPC has privileged information due to their status in some hierarchy, and I kill that guy, there should be a successor who's going to have access to the same information. Unless the information wasn't put down in writing but supposed to be bestowed by old guy on new guy. You'd be opening a whole new can of worms that way though, because how is new guy going to react to you if word got around that you killed his predecessor?

Arcanum tends to supply the most alternatives for its main quest:
- finding out who the ring belongs to leads you to P. Schuyler and Sons; they use dwarven zombies as slave laborers and if you have Magnus in your party he gets super angry and wants to kill the bastards; you need information from them though; you can talk to them to get the information, which will piss Magnus off if you have him; you can kill them all, then use conjure spirit to bring the spirit of their father back from the relam of the dead to give you the information you need; you can rifle through their archives to find a document containing the information you need
- you usually work for Gilbert Bates, but if you kill the guy the main quest isn't busted: you can still work for his rival Cedric Appleby, offering you an alternative
- when you need to travel to the Isle of Despair you gotta get a boat; now, I'm not 100% sure if this approach works since I haven't tried it myself yet, but if you kill the captain of the boat that is supposed to bring you there, you might be able to get there by acquiring the ship of ghost pirate Stringy Pete

I actually liked how Arcanum supposedly let you resurrect anyone. Supposedly.

The problem becomes evident at the crash site:

So you talk to some ghost that just randomly appears. You want information from the guy, but how are you going to get that? Friendly Ghost delivers himself into your hands by saying that he won't find rest until you've avenged him. It's not going to be that easy every time, or is it?

Fast forward to Shrouded Hills, you kill a weak NPC (like the Herbalist), resurrect them... nothing. No dialogue. Even though that NPC later turns out to have had vital information for the main quest.

There are always some alternatives. Services that are required to progress might be offered by different people. Information held by people might be contained in documents or wall inscriptions. Etc.

how many times in this world have you found a vital piece of information written on a wall?

That's exactly the problem, alternative solutions may exist, or they may not exist. And when they seem to obvious it gets cheesy.

 

[Dorateen]

Champions of Krynn didn't mess around.

 

[c2007]

If you kill kids, Lord British is gonna get off his throne and come for you.

It doesn't matter what game you are playing.

But you can kill them. If the mechanic exists to kill NPCs on a whim, children ought to be included. Force Choke Anyone was popular enough as a KotOR mod that I updated it for TSL last year.

... I killed everyone in Castle Brittannia countless times and have yet to kill a jester, child, prisoner, guard or cook IRL.

... Rape has to be restricted by age I think, and frankly just not something I'm interested in. Rape/power fantasy is not my bag.

 

[c2007]

I’d like all of it. The only reason it won’t happen is like Mr Shackleford said, ‘cause of monetary reasons. A lot of people coming at it from a moral standpoint ‘autta keep in mind all of these “taboo themes” are explored in novels their mom’s and granny’s regularly buy and read from the grocery store. Dunno why a book or a movie should be any different to a vidya game.

Balanced take.

Maybe because unlike a book/show, in a game you actively choose things?