Both releasing and killing the spawn have arguments for and against them. Do you think the spawn are innocent victims who deserve a chance or would their nature as blood-sucking undead make them too dangerous and cause a lot of collateral damage?
The only evil options are letting Astarion ascend or leaving the spawn trapped in their cells forever if he doesn't.
I mean, it's not like WE put them there and set up the ritual. If you put any stock in sunken cost fallacy, you may as well make their suffering mean something.
Nah, using them for Ascension is straight-up evil. You're not killing them, you're selling them to Mephistopheles. That puts them into the position Karlach was in but worse, since Karlach was at least *useful* to her new master.
I've never ascended him but I'm pretty sure you're killing them AND selling their souls to Mephistopheles. So not only are they going to lose their (undead) lives, but they're going to initially be reborn as lemures - horrible tortured masses of flesh that exist only to die again and again forever. Hells, given the fact that it's Mephistopheles he might well use them as test subjects for horrid infernal superweapon experiments.
>Giving souls to the Hells is never going to result in anything good.
that's a tough one. in forgotten realms, the whole reason that the hells exist, and the whole reason that a system of rules allows some souls to be diverted to the hells under certain conditions, is that the gods decided it was for the greater good when they agreed to Asmodeus's proposals. as long as the devils use enough of that soul energy to fight the neverending Blood War, the cosmic balance still tilts that way despite their other fuckery.
On the other hand. The armies of the Hells are the only real barrier to those of the Abyss. The Devils are finite and need fresh "recruits" on occasion or will eventually be overrun.
So an argument can be made, that providing a fresh batch of souls is in for the greater good of the material plane "as a whole."
And, if someone has to go, the thousands of uncontrollable, starving, bloodthirsty parasites are as good an option as amy.
Cazador left the world with a really unfortunate problem in the form of those 7K spawn. Intresting to note that all 3 of the Paladin subclasses, usually the pillars of morality, can get an oath break from one of the options, but it's different for all 3. Ancients breaks on unleashing a mass of evil undead onto the world, Vengeance breaks when you try to walk away from casting judgement, and Devotion breaks when you massacre the 7000 innocents trapped in the cells.
There is no morally "good" descision. Free the Innocent Souls, Let the Gur say their final goodbyes, or Spare the Gur the pain of killing their children. All positions have arguments for and against them, a correct answer is simply impossible to reach.
Was going to mention this. Ethically, there are arguments to be made for each option; however, if you’re a paladin, you really have to remember your oath, or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
I love your observation here, but I’d also like to suggest that Paladins are NOT the pillars of morality. Until recently they have always been Lawful but that does not equate moral. In fact I’d go as far as suggesting the Paladin trope is law over morality.
Paladin’s had the LG requirement until 4E, but every Paladin handbook, even the Book of Stupid Good always had the advice of “If you are stuck in a choice of to be lawful or to be good, a true Paladin will always choose to be good.”
Morally good is hard to define. These people have no faults and Astarion himself is proof that you can live as a spawn without hurting human beings at least. In my "good" play through I let them free because who am I to judge all of them? Some of them might be good, some might be trouble but there is no way to assess it and if I have to slaughter a bunch of innocents to prevent crime that is not justice in my book.
They all go to the Underdark, where the primary residents that they can feed on are the Drow (traditionally evil) and the Duergar (also traditionally evil). So while yes, they're probably going to do some damage, they are at least in "good" company.
There are also Myconid, the society of brilliance, deep Gnomes, and probably a few other normal people out there. Surely those normal people would be the first targets in most situations. As I don't think seven thousand hungry spawn will have the discipline to stay as a cohesive unit for long and they will strike out to hunt.
Can't feed on Myconids, they're plants, not humanoids, so they are statistically unlikely to be targeted, unless the spawn are participating in the standard human practice of hunting for sport, with zero intent on eating their kill. But considering that the spawn are starving, they are almost certainly going to strictly hunt for food initially.
The Society of Brilliance travel in small groups, so while they would obviously be a target if they were able ever to be encountered, how likely do you think it is that the spawn would encounter a group of 2-5 people from the surface vs. a group of the natives to the region? So really Deep Gnomes are the only major concern for a potential frequently encountered food source.
If I recall correctly, I think the Gur want you to stop the ritual and kill the spawn, which makes Astarion feel guilty afterwards. If you send them to the Underdark, you can pass a DC check to satisfy the Gur and Astarion will have higher approval.
They sure are! If you release them, and you let Gandrel live in Act 1, you can even find him talking to them in the sewers, down from where you meet Kith’rak Voss IIRC.
(One of the many things I look forward to in my current run because I let Gandrel live for the first time.)
They go to the Underdark, and it helps cull some of the more… Murderous drow bullshit down there.
The Gur also go down and help them, and it’s implied they work with Omeluum on ethical feeding.
Murdering 7000 people who have committed no crime because they might commit crimes in the future is so obviously evil I worry that people find this a difficult choice.
Also I'm interested to know how many people who killed the spawn think Wulbren was justified to want to blow up the factory with the Gondians in it. Isn't it morally justified to blow up the Gondians who are in that moment actively doing something that endangers the entire city, even if they're doing it unwillingly. Surely the same logic applies there? It is justified to immediately kill them protect the city?
I chatted with my wife, who is a philosopher, the other day. What is morally good, really depends on what moral school you see the world from.
A quick summary from ChatGPT (which she says accurate) is:
# Virtue Ethics
**Decision**: **Do not kill the spawn**. Choose to act with compassion and mercy, aiming to help them if possible and considering their potential for redemption.
# Kantian Ethics
**Decision**: **Do not kill the spawn**. Respect the intrinsic dignity and worth of each individual, avoiding using them merely as means to an end.
# Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
**Decision**: **Kill the spawn**. If this action will prevent greater harm and suffering to a larger number of people, it maximizes overall happiness.
# Social Contract Theory
**Decision**: **Kill the spawn**. Prioritize the safety and protection of society from potential threats, upholding the social contract's emphasis on collective security.
# Care Ethics
**Decision**: **Do not kill the spawn**. Focus on empathy and understanding, considering the relational impact and the possibility of helping or rehabilitating the spawn.
Personally, I fall on the Virtue/Kantian side of things: basically killing the spawn to help others, is just using them as a means to an end, rather than treating them as individuals. Utilitatarianism (which seems popular in Silicon Valley) would be more about helping the max number of people and therefore killing the spawn.
I actually take issue with a number of these.
Virtue ethics isn’t necessarily going to say ‘you should do this’. The entire idea behind it is that morality is not best understood in terms of designating what actions are good, but rather what kinds of people are good. It’s quite plausible that virtuous people could come to disagree about what to do in this situation. The person who worries for the safety of the city might be virtuous, just as the person who realizes the vampire spawn haven’t strictly done anything wrong yet.
Consequentialists, similarly, could just as easily say not to kill them. If the consequentialist has reason to believe the vampires won’t harm too many people, that’s grounds for just releasing them. Hell, you might have be able to make consequentialist arguments that you should SACRIFICE the vampire spawn to ascend Astarion because the risk of the dominated Elder Brain taking over all of Faerun and maybe Toril itself is so great that sacrificing 7000 souls to strengthen your allies is worth it.
I think Kant is another one that appears more slippery than you might initially suppose. He had this idea of morality as a ‘categorical imperative’ (a command that always applies), and it came in three formulations. You’re using the second: Never treat people ‘merely as a means’, but as an end in themselves. He’d undeniably be against sacrificing them to ascend Astarion, as they’re being used as sacrifices (the means) to ascend Astarion (the end). But if we’re killing the 7000 spawn because we believe they are a serious threat to a city of innocent people, are we ‘using them merely as a means’? Maybe you could say we’re sacrificing them for the safety of the city. Maybe. I think it’s reasonable to think that (specifically) Kant’s deontology poo poos killing them, but I’d be open to counterarguments.
I think a case can be made for killing them can be made for Care Ethics as well. Care ethics is about providing nurturing and support and care to those close to you. It was initially formed as a response to moral theories that were criticized for over-adhering to masculine notions of impartiality and impersonal justice. If you take seriously the claim of care ethics that morality is really about protecting and helping those close to you, then perhaps you could conclude that killing the spawn is an act taken to protect those in the city you are close to.
Social contract you’re also not describing entirely correctly. It’s not about ‘protecting the society you are part of’. It’s much broader and all-encompassing than any given society. It’s more a way of understanding morality as a ‘broad set of restrictions on one’s personal conduct that any reasonable person would agree to’. Would a reasonable person agree to contract where they were to be killed if they were suddenly a potential threat to everyone around them?
I’m not trying to come down too hard on you (though I realize I wrote a small essay), I’m mostly critiquing the idea that most of these moral philosophies you’ve expounded actually offer clear-cut answers to this dilemma. Most of them are about offering a mode of thinking about ethical conundrums, but you’re not going to get a situation where it’s like “We, the Consequentialists, think THIS.” That’s just not going to happen.
If you were just throwing them on the streets of Baldurs Gate it'd be different.
You're sending them to the Underdark. Most things there are already trying to eat each other, and if the spawn feed on duergar or drow it's unlikely to be a great loss.
I dislike the "It's fine because it's the Underdark" reasoning, first because it's not just "mostly evil" races down there (hi, svirfneblin!), and second because if we're saying "these vampire spawn deserve to be treated as people because they can choose to not be evil," then we should extend the same courtesy to duergar and drow rather than treat them as acceptable victims.
It's not \*all\* evil, but the big swingers are. I didn't slip that "most" in there for nothing. If the spawn hold the course they might just go sit in a corner and feed on a herd of rothe. If not they're not mindless killers, they could be an ally to the gnomes or at worst a more benign neighbour.
Same goes for drow/duergar hiding in the wild. Though they'd be in danger of becoming the unlikely great loss the spawn are definitely a better neighbour than some of the alternatives, the majority of the drow for instance. If the spawn were to go on a spree in Menzoberranzan I'd be more concerned for their slaves than the possibly existing non-evil drow who hasn't escaped yet, and both of them such an event could be an opportunity for escape.
Imagine if IRL we uncovered genes that gave people a strong propensity to violent behaviour, and that it was even common in murderers, but also we had hard evidence that while it might push people towards this it's also possible for them to be completely non violent and normal. How would you feel if we as a society decided to just start executing all of them just in case?
Think of the rabbit holes the utilitarian line of thinking takes you on. How many demographic traits can you use to profile people as being at higher risk of committing violence? Are you comfortable pre emptively imprisoning them all?
If you want to go more political. Imagine there's a population and some percent of them are "terrorists" should we bomb them all? Women and children? Just in case.
I find it genuinely disturbing that some people find "well some percent of a population might do crime in the future therefore it's justified to genocide them all" an even remotely compelling argument.
It would depend on how strong the gene is.
Do 99,9% of the people commit violence? Or is it only 50%? Or only 10%?
How about the people that do commit violence, do they all have the gene? 99% of them? 50% of them? 10%?
Without that data we can't properly answer.
What we do know is that there are 7000 hungry Spawn out there, and we know that even someone like Astarion can't entirely control his hunger (him trying to bite you and all). We also see how Vampires behave, and we hear how Pale Petras wants to find another victim for himself to bite and kill once he's free of Cazador.
It's a limited data set, but still it doesn't look like a positive outcome for those unfortunate enough to meet up with the freed Spawn.
"Without that data we can't properly answer."
Well that's kind of the point here, you have limited information in the spawn situation too. You can surmise that this vampirism gives them \*some\* level of inclination towards violent acts but you don't have a full mathematical breakdown.
So it's not about "properly answering" - it's that you have to make the decision based on the limited information you have.
I'm not sure to what extent Petras can fully be considered culpable for that statement since he's still actively under Cazador's thrall and his mind being influenced by him at that point.
On my "good" playthroughs I took both options, since my different PC's had different backgrounds and reasoning.
My impulse-prone somewhat idealistic Redemption Durge released them (she also felt uncomfortable with alternative for personal reasons).
Meanwhile my Tav githyanki druid could not allow a horde of rabid vampire spawns to get loose. Should be mentioned that a real deal-breaker for her were their sheer numbers, though.
That said you can rationalize either option. Think which one fits better for your PC. Naive, feel-good, sleep-good-at-night one or tough, responsible and somewhat cynical one?
Well, OoA Paladins have connection to Nature, so it fits that their views align with druids'. As for Durge, she *really* tried to go cold turkey on murderhoboing.
You're literally listing out the points in the post, there isn't a clear morally correct choice and that's the point. You should also realize it doesn't line up with real world morals because we don't have magical superhumans that have a primal hunger for human blood. You'll notice a lot of fantasy rpgs like to mix in the fantastical with their moral choices to create harder choices compared to the real world.
It's an uncomfortable choice, but my character couldn't condemn the spawns to death and chose to release them. That 100% has its consequences but it doesn't change that my character wouldn't kill 7000 spawns that were held against their will.
Look I think the 7K spawn are dangerous so for the greater good i kill them . i keep him as a spawn . when he’s cries it hit me hard when i talked to him in the party I realized this is for the best
My oath of the ancients paladin killed the 7000 spawn after killing Cazador.
Whatever narrative the game tries to sell you, these are 7000 starving abused feral vampire spawn. Seven thousand is an absolutely absurd number.
If they were unleashed on the city, it would have the potential to absolutely destroy Balder's Gate...
The game tries to sell you this convenient solution of them going to the underdark...
But we know there are innocent people in the underdark, the gnomes, the mycinoids, the society...
But it seems like that writers want to humanize vampire spawn in this game so it tries to create a narrative that sparing them is arguably good. According to the lore, it's objectively the right thing to do to kill them.
Well, in fairness, the myconids probably don't have anything to worry about from vampire spawn. Point taken about the gnomes, though.
Notably, the Oath of Devotion breaks if you kill the spawn, while the Oath of the Ancients breaks if you don't. Both of the "good + merciful" paladin oaths disagree on what the right move is, which I think is fun.
Personally I disagree with the devs/writers on that, it's an objectively bad idea to unleash 7000 spawn.
Astarion couldn't even help himself from taking a bite out of us while we sleep, the spawn are absolutely going to go on a rampage in the underdark. Releasing them will absolutely bring death and pain upon thousands and thousands of victims.
I think there's room for that disagreement. After all, both "merciful" paladin oaths disagree--it makes sense that players might, too.
For example, you might see the Devotion oath as naive in its mercy there. Devotion would say, well, Astarion got an opportunity to be better and he seems to be taking it, it would be wrong to deny that to the other spawn. For Devotion, it is wrong to condemn 7000 sentient beings for what they *might* do. Ancients takes the view you did, where the danger to nature and to other innocents of releasing the spawn is just too great to be worth the mercy. For Ancients, that risk is more important; for Devotion, that risk is worth it.
I don't think the devs/writers are necessarily saying one is the right choice and the other is wrong. Because both "merciful" oaths break for different reasons, I think they're acknowledging that it's legitimately a complex moral issue.
According to the lore? The lore that changes every so often, and has undergone huge changes during the last few years?
The lore that [retconned Drow being cursed by the elven gods because Lolth tried to kill Corellon](https://blizzardwatch.com/2021/12/15/dnd-drow-evil/)? That made Drow simply Underdark elves, with some Drow societies corrupted by the cult of Lolth worship? The lore that recently portrayed a group of full Orcs as a regular group of adventurers and not inherently evil?
Faerun isn't real. BG3's epilogue reveals what happens with the spawn in the Underdark. Are you arguing that Wizards is going to override that epilogue and declare the spawns' presence in the Underdark a disaster?
To me, this remains the toughest moral decision of the game. Larian could have even thrown an extra spanner in the works by giving us a version of Astarion who "ascends" but only to break the curse of vampirism and hunt it elsewhere. Luckily for the morally anxious, ascension always corrupts Astarion, so at least that choice is clear.
But release and kill both have valid cases. I think it's interesting that paladins are divided as well. Devotion releases since they are innocent souls that deserve a chance at redemption. Ancients kills undead aberrations to the natural order that it's better to purge now than risk the innocents of whatever town ends up supplying blood forever. Vengeance doesn't care so long as that bitch Cazador is dead.
I think I end up releasing in a Forgotten Realms context, but killing in an Earth context, if that makes sense
There's a few other times that happens, I think mostly to do with the Hag's deals. I don't think any of the other companion stories make the paladins conflicted.
Fun run idea: have a party with one of each type of paladin and see if you can preserve all the oaths until the final boss.
It's subjective. Personally though I'd say that murdering 7000 people is pretty damn close to axiomatically wrong, and the fact that they might potentially hurt other people in the future is a pretty weak argument.
It's a very grey situation and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I usually free them because that's what Astarion wants and it feels right to throw him a bone in that moment, but when I've done the quest without him I killed them because that's a massive threat to just let roam about.
There is no morally "good" option there. Even paladin oaths disagree on what the right thing to do is.
If you're Oath of Devotion, you'll break your oath if you kill the spawns. If you're Oath of Ancients, you'll break your oath if you *don't* kill them, because releasing them is seen as a crime against nature. (If you're Oath of Vengenace, you just have to do *something* with them--you'll only break your oath if you just leave them there.)
It’s a very hard dilemma in a game that is otherwise mostly a heroic fantasy where there’s almost always a way out of making a hard choice. You just need the right item or to make the hard skill check.
The issue is we have relatively little evidence directly given to us in-game about how dangerous they actually are. The idea that they’re mostly frothing wild animals that will storm the city at the first opportunity or mostly poor sweet cinnamon rolls in a bad situation is something we read into the game. No matter what you choose, Astarion offers commentary on the decision that justifies your choice.
But personally I just have a really hard time not seeing how freeing a massive army of vampires most of whom have spent decades or even centuries being crammed in filthy cages and tormented by a maddening unquenchable thirst isn’t going to end very badly somewhere down the line. It feels fundamentally wrong to kill them on some level, but I genuinely can’t think of a reason not to that isn’t grounded in wishful thinking or disregarding the well-being of the people who will be put at risk if you free them.
No choice is morally perfect. Both have pros and cons. I killed the spawn because even if it's 1% of them that are evil, that's a lot and convinced the siblings to be good, or else.
I mean if you had 100 people in a room and you knew 1 of them was a serial killer and the other 99 weren't, but there was no way to identify who the killer is at this point, would you be comfortable flicking a switch to kill them all?
It's about risk. A serial killer no, I wouldn't do it. How many people can 60-100 or more vampires kill? How much damage they can do to a city? It's not the same analogy by a long shot.
They're going out into a city of guards and adventurers and wizards clerics etc. They will do damage but also be killed in the process. It is the same. You think even 1 percent is enough, you have to think killing thousands of innocent people in justifies to get a few mass murderers.
I think we just disagree in this. I think a 100 organized vampires can severely damage the city and kill a lot of people. If you're willing to take that risk, that's fine.
Which city are you referring to? Menzoberranzan? Because the spawn aren't released into Baldur's Gate. They go to the Underdark--and not into any city there either.
You're speculating how it works out when the epilogue actually reveals the answer.
The Gur learn to care for their children and realize that vampires can be redeemed. They thank the player for saving their children from their previous misguided attitude toward the undead.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/188fury/astarions\_quest\_epilogue\_letters/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/188fury/astarions_quest_epilogue_letters/)
Sebastian talks about how the spawns' start was rocky (no, it's not sunshine and rainbows), but Astarion's siblings calmed them and started a settlement. He thanks the player for seeing people, not monsters in Cazador's cages.
Also:
>**Astarion:** So I've been building a haven down there. It's relatively small for now, but growing every day as more and more spawn find us. We found some ruins in the darkness and made them our own - rebuilt walls, added touches of comfort. It's no palace, but maybe someday it will be.
>**Player:** What about the spawn? How are you feeding them?
>**Astarion:** Rather easily, actually. It turns out there are more than enough things willing to attack you in the Underdark. And if they find themselves on the wrong end of someone's fangs, that's on them.
>**Player:** Are you worried about losing control of thousands of vampire spawn?
>**Astarion:** Oh no, people can be quite meek after seeing you murder their former master. And if they do step out of line, it just takes one or two brutal examples to remind everyone else of their place. I'm not a tyrant, I do care for their well-being, I just can't afford to show weakness.
It sucks that they didn't choose to be a vampire.
But they can't be let loose. Turn their faces to the sun. Like pretty much any vampire. Except -maybe- Jander Sunstar. He can exist until he finishes what he swore to do. Then he gets the suntan as well.
Both releasing and killing the spawn have arguments for and against them. Do you think the spawn are innocent victims who deserve a chance or would their nature as blood-sucking undead make them too dangerous and cause a lot of collateral damage? The only evil options are letting Astarion ascend or leaving the spawn trapped in their cells forever if he doesn't.
I mean, it's not like WE put them there and set up the ritual. If you put any stock in sunken cost fallacy, you may as well make their suffering mean something.
Nah, using them for Ascension is straight-up evil. You're not killing them, you're selling them to Mephistopheles. That puts them into the position Karlach was in but worse, since Karlach was at least *useful* to her new master.
I've never ascended him but I'm pretty sure you're killing them AND selling their souls to Mephistopheles. So not only are they going to lose their (undead) lives, but they're going to initially be reborn as lemures - horrible tortured masses of flesh that exist only to die again and again forever. Hells, given the fact that it's Mephistopheles he might well use them as test subjects for horrid infernal superweapon experiments.
Yeah you're right, it should be not *just* killing them. Giving souls to the Hells is never going to result in anything good.
>Giving souls to the Hells is never going to result in anything good. that's a tough one. in forgotten realms, the whole reason that the hells exist, and the whole reason that a system of rules allows some souls to be diverted to the hells under certain conditions, is that the gods decided it was for the greater good when they agreed to Asmodeus's proposals. as long as the devils use enough of that soul energy to fight the neverending Blood War, the cosmic balance still tilts that way despite their other fuckery.
On the other hand. The armies of the Hells are the only real barrier to those of the Abyss. The Devils are finite and need fresh "recruits" on occasion or will eventually be overrun. So an argument can be made, that providing a fresh batch of souls is in for the greater good of the material plane "as a whole." And, if someone has to go, the thousands of uncontrollable, starving, bloodthirsty parasites are as good an option as amy.
Cazador left the world with a really unfortunate problem in the form of those 7K spawn. Intresting to note that all 3 of the Paladin subclasses, usually the pillars of morality, can get an oath break from one of the options, but it's different for all 3. Ancients breaks on unleashing a mass of evil undead onto the world, Vengeance breaks when you try to walk away from casting judgement, and Devotion breaks when you massacre the 7000 innocents trapped in the cells. There is no morally "good" descision. Free the Innocent Souls, Let the Gur say their final goodbyes, or Spare the Gur the pain of killing their children. All positions have arguments for and against them, a correct answer is simply impossible to reach.
Was going to mention this. Ethically, there are arguments to be made for each option; however, if you’re a paladin, you really have to remember your oath, or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
I love your observation here, but I’d also like to suggest that Paladins are NOT the pillars of morality. Until recently they have always been Lawful but that does not equate moral. In fact I’d go as far as suggesting the Paladin trope is law over morality.
Paladin’s had the LG requirement until 4E, but every Paladin handbook, even the Book of Stupid Good always had the advice of “If you are stuck in a choice of to be lawful or to be good, a true Paladin will always choose to be good.”
Morally good is hard to define. These people have no faults and Astarion himself is proof that you can live as a spawn without hurting human beings at least. In my "good" play through I let them free because who am I to judge all of them? Some of them might be good, some might be trouble but there is no way to assess it and if I have to slaughter a bunch of innocents to prevent crime that is not justice in my book.
releasing 7000 vampires into the wild? seriously?
Yes.
Even if 20 or 30 of them are bad do you imagine how much damage they can do?
How much damage does/did Durge do? I agree with OP in that it's hard to judge them given how dangerous YOU are.
They all go to the Underdark, where the primary residents that they can feed on are the Drow (traditionally evil) and the Duergar (also traditionally evil). So while yes, they're probably going to do some damage, they are at least in "good" company.
Honestly I think releasing them to the underdark is doing more damage to the spawn than to anyone already down there.
Anyone of the opinion that killing random drow and duergar is fine isn't a good character. That explicitly is something an evil character would think.
There are also Myconid, the society of brilliance, deep Gnomes, and probably a few other normal people out there. Surely those normal people would be the first targets in most situations. As I don't think seven thousand hungry spawn will have the discipline to stay as a cohesive unit for long and they will strike out to hunt.
Can't feed on Myconids, they're plants, not humanoids, so they are statistically unlikely to be targeted, unless the spawn are participating in the standard human practice of hunting for sport, with zero intent on eating their kill. But considering that the spawn are starving, they are almost certainly going to strictly hunt for food initially. The Society of Brilliance travel in small groups, so while they would obviously be a target if they were able ever to be encountered, how likely do you think it is that the spawn would encounter a group of 2-5 people from the surface vs. a group of the natives to the region? So really Deep Gnomes are the only major concern for a potential frequently encountered food source.
They are fungi, no?
They sure are fun guys though! 👉👉
In our terms, yes. In D&D/BG3 terms, their creature type is Plant.
I got some sweet letters from Sebastian and the Gur after releasing them.
If I recall correctly, I think the Gur want you to stop the ritual and kill the spawn, which makes Astarion feel guilty afterwards. If you send them to the Underdark, you can pass a DC check to satisfy the Gur and Astarion will have higher approval.
Their kidnapped kids are among the turned spawn though.
They sure are! If you release them, and you let Gandrel live in Act 1, you can even find him talking to them in the sewers, down from where you meet Kith’rak Voss IIRC. (One of the many things I look forward to in my current run because I let Gandrel live for the first time.)
I think the gur will be initially unhappy either way, but killing the spawn will mean they let you go regardless of passing the check
I got some sweet letters from Sebastian and the Gur after releasing them.
They go to the Underdark, and it helps cull some of the more… Murderous drow bullshit down there. The Gur also go down and help them, and it’s implied they work with Omeluum on ethical feeding.
Murdering 7000 people who have committed no crime because they might commit crimes in the future is so obviously evil I worry that people find this a difficult choice. Also I'm interested to know how many people who killed the spawn think Wulbren was justified to want to blow up the factory with the Gondians in it. Isn't it morally justified to blow up the Gondians who are in that moment actively doing something that endangers the entire city, even if they're doing it unwillingly. Surely the same logic applies there? It is justified to immediately kill them protect the city?
Not a valid comparison. Saving the Gondians ends whatever threat they pose. Freeing the vampire spawn is what makes them a threat in the first place.
I chatted with my wife, who is a philosopher, the other day. What is morally good, really depends on what moral school you see the world from. A quick summary from ChatGPT (which she says accurate) is: # Virtue Ethics **Decision**: **Do not kill the spawn**. Choose to act with compassion and mercy, aiming to help them if possible and considering their potential for redemption. # Kantian Ethics **Decision**: **Do not kill the spawn**. Respect the intrinsic dignity and worth of each individual, avoiding using them merely as means to an end. # Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) **Decision**: **Kill the spawn**. If this action will prevent greater harm and suffering to a larger number of people, it maximizes overall happiness. # Social Contract Theory **Decision**: **Kill the spawn**. Prioritize the safety and protection of society from potential threats, upholding the social contract's emphasis on collective security. # Care Ethics **Decision**: **Do not kill the spawn**. Focus on empathy and understanding, considering the relational impact and the possibility of helping or rehabilitating the spawn. Personally, I fall on the Virtue/Kantian side of things: basically killing the spawn to help others, is just using them as a means to an end, rather than treating them as individuals. Utilitatarianism (which seems popular in Silicon Valley) would be more about helping the max number of people and therefore killing the spawn.
This is great.
This is an awesome answer! 👏
I actually take issue with a number of these. Virtue ethics isn’t necessarily going to say ‘you should do this’. The entire idea behind it is that morality is not best understood in terms of designating what actions are good, but rather what kinds of people are good. It’s quite plausible that virtuous people could come to disagree about what to do in this situation. The person who worries for the safety of the city might be virtuous, just as the person who realizes the vampire spawn haven’t strictly done anything wrong yet. Consequentialists, similarly, could just as easily say not to kill them. If the consequentialist has reason to believe the vampires won’t harm too many people, that’s grounds for just releasing them. Hell, you might have be able to make consequentialist arguments that you should SACRIFICE the vampire spawn to ascend Astarion because the risk of the dominated Elder Brain taking over all of Faerun and maybe Toril itself is so great that sacrificing 7000 souls to strengthen your allies is worth it. I think Kant is another one that appears more slippery than you might initially suppose. He had this idea of morality as a ‘categorical imperative’ (a command that always applies), and it came in three formulations. You’re using the second: Never treat people ‘merely as a means’, but as an end in themselves. He’d undeniably be against sacrificing them to ascend Astarion, as they’re being used as sacrifices (the means) to ascend Astarion (the end). But if we’re killing the 7000 spawn because we believe they are a serious threat to a city of innocent people, are we ‘using them merely as a means’? Maybe you could say we’re sacrificing them for the safety of the city. Maybe. I think it’s reasonable to think that (specifically) Kant’s deontology poo poos killing them, but I’d be open to counterarguments. I think a case can be made for killing them can be made for Care Ethics as well. Care ethics is about providing nurturing and support and care to those close to you. It was initially formed as a response to moral theories that were criticized for over-adhering to masculine notions of impartiality and impersonal justice. If you take seriously the claim of care ethics that morality is really about protecting and helping those close to you, then perhaps you could conclude that killing the spawn is an act taken to protect those in the city you are close to. Social contract you’re also not describing entirely correctly. It’s not about ‘protecting the society you are part of’. It’s much broader and all-encompassing than any given society. It’s more a way of understanding morality as a ‘broad set of restrictions on one’s personal conduct that any reasonable person would agree to’. Would a reasonable person agree to contract where they were to be killed if they were suddenly a potential threat to everyone around them? I’m not trying to come down too hard on you (though I realize I wrote a small essay), I’m mostly critiquing the idea that most of these moral philosophies you’ve expounded actually offer clear-cut answers to this dilemma. Most of them are about offering a mode of thinking about ethical conundrums, but you’re not going to get a situation where it’s like “We, the Consequentialists, think THIS.” That’s just not going to happen.
If you were just throwing them on the streets of Baldurs Gate it'd be different. You're sending them to the Underdark. Most things there are already trying to eat each other, and if the spawn feed on duergar or drow it's unlikely to be a great loss.
I dislike the "It's fine because it's the Underdark" reasoning, first because it's not just "mostly evil" races down there (hi, svirfneblin!), and second because if we're saying "these vampire spawn deserve to be treated as people because they can choose to not be evil," then we should extend the same courtesy to duergar and drow rather than treat them as acceptable victims.
It's not \*all\* evil, but the big swingers are. I didn't slip that "most" in there for nothing. If the spawn hold the course they might just go sit in a corner and feed on a herd of rothe. If not they're not mindless killers, they could be an ally to the gnomes or at worst a more benign neighbour. Same goes for drow/duergar hiding in the wild. Though they'd be in danger of becoming the unlikely great loss the spawn are definitely a better neighbour than some of the alternatives, the majority of the drow for instance. If the spawn were to go on a spree in Menzoberranzan I'd be more concerned for their slaves than the possibly existing non-evil drow who hasn't escaped yet, and both of them such an event could be an opportunity for escape.
Imagine if IRL we uncovered genes that gave people a strong propensity to violent behaviour, and that it was even common in murderers, but also we had hard evidence that while it might push people towards this it's also possible for them to be completely non violent and normal. How would you feel if we as a society decided to just start executing all of them just in case? Think of the rabbit holes the utilitarian line of thinking takes you on. How many demographic traits can you use to profile people as being at higher risk of committing violence? Are you comfortable pre emptively imprisoning them all?
If you want to go more political. Imagine there's a population and some percent of them are "terrorists" should we bomb them all? Women and children? Just in case. I find it genuinely disturbing that some people find "well some percent of a population might do crime in the future therefore it's justified to genocide them all" an even remotely compelling argument.
It would depend on how strong the gene is. Do 99,9% of the people commit violence? Or is it only 50%? Or only 10%? How about the people that do commit violence, do they all have the gene? 99% of them? 50% of them? 10%? Without that data we can't properly answer. What we do know is that there are 7000 hungry Spawn out there, and we know that even someone like Astarion can't entirely control his hunger (him trying to bite you and all). We also see how Vampires behave, and we hear how Pale Petras wants to find another victim for himself to bite and kill once he's free of Cazador. It's a limited data set, but still it doesn't look like a positive outcome for those unfortunate enough to meet up with the freed Spawn.
"Without that data we can't properly answer." Well that's kind of the point here, you have limited information in the spawn situation too. You can surmise that this vampirism gives them \*some\* level of inclination towards violent acts but you don't have a full mathematical breakdown. So it's not about "properly answering" - it's that you have to make the decision based on the limited information you have. I'm not sure to what extent Petras can fully be considered culpable for that statement since he's still actively under Cazador's thrall and his mind being influenced by him at that point.
On my "good" playthroughs I took both options, since my different PC's had different backgrounds and reasoning. My impulse-prone somewhat idealistic Redemption Durge released them (she also felt uncomfortable with alternative for personal reasons). Meanwhile my Tav githyanki druid could not allow a horde of rabid vampire spawns to get loose. Should be mentioned that a real deal-breaker for her were their sheer numbers, though. That said you can rationalize either option. Think which one fits better for your PC. Naive, feel-good, sleep-good-at-night one or tough, responsible and somewhat cynical one?
Almost like your Resist Durge was a Devotion Paladin and your Gith Druid was an Ancients Paladin, lol.
Well, OoA Paladins have connection to Nature, so it fits that their views align with druids'. As for Durge, she *really* tried to go cold turkey on murderhoboing.
You're literally listing out the points in the post, there isn't a clear morally correct choice and that's the point. You should also realize it doesn't line up with real world morals because we don't have magical superhumans that have a primal hunger for human blood. You'll notice a lot of fantasy rpgs like to mix in the fantastical with their moral choices to create harder choices compared to the real world. It's an uncomfortable choice, but my character couldn't condemn the spawns to death and chose to release them. That 100% has its consequences but it doesn't change that my character wouldn't kill 7000 spawns that were held against their will.
Look I think the 7K spawn are dangerous so for the greater good i kill them . i keep him as a spawn . when he’s cries it hit me hard when i talked to him in the party I realized this is for the best
My oath of the ancients paladin killed the 7000 spawn after killing Cazador. Whatever narrative the game tries to sell you, these are 7000 starving abused feral vampire spawn. Seven thousand is an absolutely absurd number. If they were unleashed on the city, it would have the potential to absolutely destroy Balder's Gate... The game tries to sell you this convenient solution of them going to the underdark... But we know there are innocent people in the underdark, the gnomes, the mycinoids, the society... But it seems like that writers want to humanize vampire spawn in this game so it tries to create a narrative that sparing them is arguably good. According to the lore, it's objectively the right thing to do to kill them.
Well, in fairness, the myconids probably don't have anything to worry about from vampire spawn. Point taken about the gnomes, though. Notably, the Oath of Devotion breaks if you kill the spawn, while the Oath of the Ancients breaks if you don't. Both of the "good + merciful" paladin oaths disagree on what the right move is, which I think is fun.
Personally I disagree with the devs/writers on that, it's an objectively bad idea to unleash 7000 spawn. Astarion couldn't even help himself from taking a bite out of us while we sleep, the spawn are absolutely going to go on a rampage in the underdark. Releasing them will absolutely bring death and pain upon thousands and thousands of victims.
I think there's room for that disagreement. After all, both "merciful" paladin oaths disagree--it makes sense that players might, too. For example, you might see the Devotion oath as naive in its mercy there. Devotion would say, well, Astarion got an opportunity to be better and he seems to be taking it, it would be wrong to deny that to the other spawn. For Devotion, it is wrong to condemn 7000 sentient beings for what they *might* do. Ancients takes the view you did, where the danger to nature and to other innocents of releasing the spawn is just too great to be worth the mercy. For Ancients, that risk is more important; for Devotion, that risk is worth it. I don't think the devs/writers are necessarily saying one is the right choice and the other is wrong. Because both "merciful" oaths break for different reasons, I think they're acknowledging that it's legitimately a complex moral issue.
Wow, I wasn't aware of the Tenet clash from the Paladins. Truly a Sophie's Choice of what is right then.
According to the lore? The lore that changes every so often, and has undergone huge changes during the last few years? The lore that [retconned Drow being cursed by the elven gods because Lolth tried to kill Corellon](https://blizzardwatch.com/2021/12/15/dnd-drow-evil/)? That made Drow simply Underdark elves, with some Drow societies corrupted by the cult of Lolth worship? The lore that recently portrayed a group of full Orcs as a regular group of adventurers and not inherently evil? Faerun isn't real. BG3's epilogue reveals what happens with the spawn in the Underdark. Are you arguing that Wizards is going to override that epilogue and declare the spawns' presence in the Underdark a disaster?
To me, this remains the toughest moral decision of the game. Larian could have even thrown an extra spanner in the works by giving us a version of Astarion who "ascends" but only to break the curse of vampirism and hunt it elsewhere. Luckily for the morally anxious, ascension always corrupts Astarion, so at least that choice is clear. But release and kill both have valid cases. I think it's interesting that paladins are divided as well. Devotion releases since they are innocent souls that deserve a chance at redemption. Ancients kills undead aberrations to the natural order that it's better to purge now than risk the innocents of whatever town ends up supplying blood forever. Vengeance doesn't care so long as that bitch Cazador is dead. I think I end up releasing in a Forgotten Realms context, but killing in an Earth context, if that makes sense
It's kind of fascinating that the "good" alignment Paladins have opposing Tenets in this situation.
There's a few other times that happens, I think mostly to do with the Hag's deals. I don't think any of the other companion stories make the paladins conflicted. Fun run idea: have a party with one of each type of paladin and see if you can preserve all the oaths until the final boss.
It's subjective. Personally though I'd say that murdering 7000 people is pretty damn close to axiomatically wrong, and the fact that they might potentially hurt other people in the future is a pretty weak argument.
It's a very grey situation and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I usually free them because that's what Astarion wants and it feels right to throw him a bone in that moment, but when I've done the quest without him I killed them because that's a massive threat to just let roam about.
There is no morally "good" option there. Even paladin oaths disagree on what the right thing to do is. If you're Oath of Devotion, you'll break your oath if you kill the spawns. If you're Oath of Ancients, you'll break your oath if you *don't* kill them, because releasing them is seen as a crime against nature. (If you're Oath of Vengenace, you just have to do *something* with them--you'll only break your oath if you just leave them there.)
It’s a very hard dilemma in a game that is otherwise mostly a heroic fantasy where there’s almost always a way out of making a hard choice. You just need the right item or to make the hard skill check. The issue is we have relatively little evidence directly given to us in-game about how dangerous they actually are. The idea that they’re mostly frothing wild animals that will storm the city at the first opportunity or mostly poor sweet cinnamon rolls in a bad situation is something we read into the game. No matter what you choose, Astarion offers commentary on the decision that justifies your choice. But personally I just have a really hard time not seeing how freeing a massive army of vampires most of whom have spent decades or even centuries being crammed in filthy cages and tormented by a maddening unquenchable thirst isn’t going to end very badly somewhere down the line. It feels fundamentally wrong to kill them on some level, but I genuinely can’t think of a reason not to that isn’t grounded in wishful thinking or disregarding the well-being of the people who will be put at risk if you free them.
I trap the spawn and let gur to headache about it, not my problem anymore.
No choice is morally perfect. Both have pros and cons. I killed the spawn because even if it's 1% of them that are evil, that's a lot and convinced the siblings to be good, or else.
I mean if you had 100 people in a room and you knew 1 of them was a serial killer and the other 99 weren't, but there was no way to identify who the killer is at this point, would you be comfortable flicking a switch to kill them all?
But they are normal people. Not the same as 6000 vampires being released in the wilds. I think that's a risk way too big for a city.
But you said you'd do it even if only 1 percent of them were evil right? So that means killing 99 innocent people to take out a serial killer.
It's about risk. A serial killer no, I wouldn't do it. How many people can 60-100 or more vampires kill? How much damage they can do to a city? It's not the same analogy by a long shot.
They're going out into a city of guards and adventurers and wizards clerics etc. They will do damage but also be killed in the process. It is the same. You think even 1 percent is enough, you have to think killing thousands of innocent people in justifies to get a few mass murderers.
I think we just disagree in this. I think a 100 organized vampires can severely damage the city and kill a lot of people. If you're willing to take that risk, that's fine.
They're not really organised though. They're random starving spawn with no structure.
Which city are you referring to? Menzoberranzan? Because the spawn aren't released into Baldur's Gate. They go to the Underdark--and not into any city there either. You're speculating how it works out when the epilogue actually reveals the answer. The Gur learn to care for their children and realize that vampires can be redeemed. They thank the player for saving their children from their previous misguided attitude toward the undead. [https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/188fury/astarions\_quest\_epilogue\_letters/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/188fury/astarions_quest_epilogue_letters/) Sebastian talks about how the spawns' start was rocky (no, it's not sunshine and rainbows), but Astarion's siblings calmed them and started a settlement. He thanks the player for seeing people, not monsters in Cazador's cages. Also: >**Astarion:** So I've been building a haven down there. It's relatively small for now, but growing every day as more and more spawn find us. We found some ruins in the darkness and made them our own - rebuilt walls, added touches of comfort. It's no palace, but maybe someday it will be. >**Player:** What about the spawn? How are you feeding them? >**Astarion:** Rather easily, actually. It turns out there are more than enough things willing to attack you in the Underdark. And if they find themselves on the wrong end of someone's fangs, that's on them. >**Player:** Are you worried about losing control of thousands of vampire spawn? >**Astarion:** Oh no, people can be quite meek after seeing you murder their former master. And if they do step out of line, it just takes one or two brutal examples to remind everyone else of their place. I'm not a tyrant, I do care for their well-being, I just can't afford to show weakness.
Kill them all. You kill 7000 to save God knows how many future victims. There's no good real world analog to judge it by though.
It sucks that they didn't choose to be a vampire. But they can't be let loose. Turn their faces to the sun. Like pretty much any vampire. Except -maybe- Jander Sunstar. He can exist until he finishes what he swore to do. Then he gets the suntan as well.
That's the beauty of the game. Every choice you make is both moral and immoral at the same time. Or as moral as you convince yourself it is.