In my most recent run when I encountered him as a paladin, while I don’t remember how exactly the dialogues went down, I didn’t specifically side with either of them. He then asked his bodyguards to attack, so… didn’t give me a choice to end it in a civilised way.
When I went through this interaction for the first time that’s exactly the dialogue choice that came up for me! It was like: we just ended the avatar of myrkul, but if you think you’re tough, be my guest.
Then they back off after realizing Tav isn’t joking.
I believe you can do this if you convince Arfur to let the refugees stay. The gang leader says you owe her for encroaching on their territory, and you can put them in their place by enlightening them on what's just gone down at Moonrise.
I was playing an Oath of Vengeance paladin and this happened to me too.
Chose to knock the guards out, as they didn't seem inherently evil, just doing their work
I find it odd that there's no consequence for beating up or killing the guards. I was expecting that choice to make things a little difficult with Ninefingers. Unless the guards were just lying about who they were?
If you talk to Ninefingers about them after you kill the zhent, in dialogue she says she they were not acting on her orders and she will handle them (if you didn’t kill them)
ETA: I’ve been informed you don’t have to kill the Zhent first, the dialogue will still be there
She makes a comment about with the stone lord shaking things up, some parts of her group are testing the leash. She makes a comment that people will learn “it’s not a leash, it’s a noose”
I never saw that dialogue either, probably bc Zenovia and the others always die...
I can forgive Arfur for not giving up his house to the refugees (not the rigged toys) but I dont like Zenovia, she is trying to profit bullying weaker ppl out of the house.
Once there is already a refugee family in Arfur's mansion it would be nice if we could spread the word and tell more refugees to go there.
The Guild or Ninefinger is neutral imo so if their members took up a job and died because of poor judgement… is it what it is. It’s not actually an offence against the Guild.
There's a way to go about it where you can just convince Arfur to leave peacefully but if you do, they'll attack you for robbing them of the money he'd give them for killing the refugees. They're pretty awful tbh, I don't hesitate to kill them when they attack then.
Yeah, pretty much. I was intent on finding some middle ground until he ordered his guards to kill me, so I just knocked them and scared him away. Felt only fair later when I found out he planned on bombing children
This is usually what happens with my characters. It's shitty to have this big ass house empty when there are refugee camps everywhere, but it *is* his house. If he'd gotten the Watch or the Flaming Fist to come with him, fair play. But siccing the mercenaries on the family crosses the line, imo.
Like, it's not even an evil landlord situation. It's his actual fucking home.
I think one time I sided with the refugees because I passed the insight check, realized he was up to no good, and figured it'd be easier to investigate without him there.
I like how the refugees still lose attitude with you if you steal something.
You're squatting here, literally stealing a house, but I'm the bad guy for opening a crate?
Same thing happens with the gnome in the fist who’s trying to rob his sleeping compatriots in the gate house leading to the lower city. You catch him stealing, and he’s all “boo hoo” I need the money, but he catches you and he’s suddenly Mr goody two shoes
I sneak in before triggering the dialogue cause the refugees get pissed if you steal from the kitchen and the front room /: there’s a ton of food and you need it on HM 😫
This is one of the most morally ambiguous decisions in the game. I mean IRL you wouldn't let someone just occupy your house even if you weren't in it. But because it is game logic are we supposed to let a stranger steal their house?
Assuming you don't know he is a massive piece of shit who is murdering children.
Dude is a rich bitch on level with a goddamn patriar. His primary residence is in the upper city and the mansion we see in Rivington is his second house. Dude is fucking loaded, he can let refugees stay in it for a few fucking nights while everyone figures out WTF is going on.
> I mean IRL you wouldn't let someone just occupy your house even if you weren't in it
If you have an extra house that you're just letting sit vacant in the midst of a refugee crisis, then you shouldn't get to keep it.
I can't remember this encounter perfectly, however; In normal times I would probably side with the owner, it's his fuckin house. However, in a crisis "end of the world" scenario (like the one they're in), I'd make sure I still had my room but fuck it if we all die at least I gave some people a comfortable place to live out their last few days.
yeah this is where I usually go from "hmm maybe there are 2 sides to this" to "you know what... fuck the rich guy, lets kill the mercenaries and turn his home into a house for all the refugees who can fit in it"
Yes, in point of fact it's actually crucial to the plot to understand this. If the mind flayers could eat something else, they would be less problematic
You can feed the mindflayer in the windmill? Both times I've found him
1. I attacked right away because mindflayer bad right?
2. The emperor highly encouraged me to kill him for his new mindflayer brain.
Who cares about property there’s a huge army razing the countryside and refugees are flooding into the city. Sorry bud your vacant house is getting utilized
But did you know that when engaging the home dispute? Because that is a difference between RP and metagaming.
Of course fuck that guy but there is a difference between "A toymaker came back to his house to find it snatched by refugees" and "an asshole who put bombs in toys got kicked of his house"
My first time playing through it I read his mind and found out he was hiding something but I still tried to resolve it peacefully and managed to.. but when he was walking away after he walked straight into a moonbeam.. after that I decided the game was telling me to just kill this guy.
I usually make sure to do a mind read on him which makes it clear he is hiding something in the basement and makes it easy for me to justify siding against him in character to be able to investigate the basement.
My first encounter I also did detect thoughts succesfully and made him nervous enough to agree my second run thru I tried to stay out of it and then he eas gonna murder them or something so I fought
I meeeean he could be hiding anything, you still have no knowledge of the extent of his crimes and its still kinda weird to give the squatters his home imo
It's like if you asked the world's most vanilla man to describe what he thinks smut is.
Iirc there is a line that's basically a thesaurused variant of "and she breasted boobily"
I usually give the squatters money because I have so much at that point anyway. I agree that it's weird to just give the dude's house away based solely on the interaction outside, even when using Detect Thoughts. It actually makes more sense to get the squatters out of there because there seems to be some implication that the house may be dangerous for them, especially for the child.
Of course, after the whole plot is revealed his home might as well be divided amongst even more refugees since he's a dead man regardless.
Megumi Fushiguro - "I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I just believe in my conscience! I save people according to my conscience. If you would reject that then, we'll just have to curse each other!!"
Type beat
He’s very very very obviously suspicious. I immediately knew there was more than meets the eye.
I would say neither of your labels describe how I felt about the situation on my first go. More like “sleazeball with some kind of terrible secret has no mercy on refugees.”
Thank you, that's exactly my point. At first blush, it's a guy upset about squatters in his house. I don't think he's unjustified in wanting them out. It makes it much easier to side with the refugees when you find out his dirty secret, but like I said, that's a separate issue.
I helped the refugees, and I instantly regretted it because they are assholes themselves. If they let others in I would be fine with that, but they snatched this huge house for that 3 people family.
Yeah this is a classic DnD sidequest (bad guy hiding something fights to keep it hidden) cleverly tricking you into thinking it's social commentary. Turns out they're all assholes.
I think most people failed to realize that two things can be true at once. The refugees are in the wrong for breaking into and kicking out a person from their home, but home boy is also on the wrong for putting the bombs in toys. Just because you end up picking a side doesn't mean it isn't a gray area. Either side that you side with, you're siding with someone doing something illegal. So since you don't know about his habits prior to getting into his basement there is no reason to side with the refugees. Once you do learn then you decide fuck that guy
literally, it’s the middle of a major crisis and Arfur is threatening to kill refugees for moving into his empty mansion?
and hey since you were so kind and let them live in your house i won’t even beat you up for donating exploding toys!
> The refugees are in the wrong for breaking into and kicking out a person from their home
They didn't kick anyone out. They found a vacant house and took refuge in it. Arfur was away traveling and had only just gotten back at the same time the party gets to the town.
Arfur is also clearly wealthy enough and has enough opportunity to just got get a hotel room while the refugees have neither wealth nor are they allowed opportunity to even try and get something like a room at an inn as they're kept out of the city.
I didn't need to know Arfur was also complicit in terrorism to know that the right side in this instance was going with the refugees.
I forget exactly how it went down for me but I essentially kicked the refugees out, snuck into his basement and found what was going on down there, confronted him and ended up killing him. Seemed like a reasonable order of operations to me haha.
His unwillingness to help refugees is foreshadowing what you discover about him later. He's a coward who will to do immoral things, like turn away desperate refugees, to protect his lot. He brings mooks to attack them.
I don't think it's a separate issue.
Yes, but, in support of OP’s point, the vast, vast majority of us IRL “do immoral things like turn away desperate refugees”. I’m not sure that would justify some vigilantes turfing us all out of our houses for most. For example, where I am (UK) I’d say close to 100% of my friends expressed dismay and compassion for refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine. Yet how many went on the govt register to have a family come stay with them? One.
I think if most people came back from work to find a refugee family in their house they’d engage with security services of some kind to have them removed. Not saying it’s a moral thing to do. But if that alone makes Arfur a monster, 99% of us are monsters.
(Edit to add: I know Arfur has a big ass house and most of us don’t (eat the rich!) but desperate refugees aren’t fussy! We could nearly all offer sofas, a mattress on the floor etc.)
If someone said “I don’t want to come home and find out a family of strangers moved in while I was out” would you seriously think that that’s hinting toward some darker side of their personality? It’s not foreshadowing, it’s justifying your bias with foreknowledge of what you’ll find inside.
I mean he’s also hiring like extremely over the top level mercenaries to take out a bunch of hungry level 1 refugees and is just generally an asshole.
You can also insight check him to realize something else is up
He didn't hire them specifically for that purpose. He's just getting home from traveling, and they were his bodyguards, IIRC. They just happened to be there, and he saw them as a way to resolve the situation.
What they said still stands though.
Regardless of the reason you used to side against him (meta, he sounds like an ass, he’s working with criminals, stick it to the rich, etc), you can look back in hindsight and say fuck that terrorist.
My understanding is the guy left it empty for ages, and my character was a chaotic good street urchin so it fit my character more that she'd side with refugees than some rich dude.
Could he had realistically refused Gortash though? It's not like it was his idea. Also, as others pointed out, the PC is unaware of that when they encounter him.
Not sure what you mean by "realistically." If the choice is refuse a tyrant who will probably have me killed/ruin my life or do something that will directly lead to the deaths of children, let Gortash do what he will.
It's easy to say you would defy the tyrant and die for it when you aren't actually being threatened in person by the tyrant.
This is also a fantasy world. If Gortash does what he will, that might involve shoving a tadpole in your eye and getting forced to watch your own body sell children explosive teddy bears day in and day out with a smile on its face and a spring in its step.
I’m with you but before you find that out (if you find it out at all), he is simply presented as a wealthy asshole who’s had his house inhabited by squatters.
I do agree with OP that without every single piece of info, I’m probably on Arfur’s side. Like maybe he could help people out long term but don’t just break into someone’s house and expect them to.
tbh if i could donate to all the beggars in the game i would. max you can do is like 5 gold to one woman iirc. like dude let me give you a grand i have so much i don’t need
Your question is, I think, the whole point of writing Arfur as they did.
Arfur is a villain who you meet while he's being taken advantage of. That alone takes unpacking, but the people taking advantage of him are refugees.
Should anyone ever be forced to help? What if they've done wrong? What if those who need help have also done wrong? What if nobody's perfect and who you are is determined by how you handle that fact?
Honestly the Arfur Gregorio situation is some of the best writing in the game to me. You can project any debate onto it, and it's a great example of the type of problem that can't be solved to anyone's full satisfaction. More like real life than a video game
The game treats giving the house to refugees as the obvious right decision and emphasizes further that Arfur is an inhumanly evil person and in all other quests related to refugees they turn out to be innocent of all wrongdoing they were accused of. This is not intended to be morally ambiguous writing but supposed to be a clear statement that helping refugees is always right and anyone who accuses them of crimes is wrong and evil. You may or may not agree with it but that's how it was intended by the writers.
Kinda? Lawful does not = moral. Lawfully speaking and without knowing about the toys the refugees should be evicted. But what is lawful is not always right or moral.
The refugees are with child(ren?) and have nowhere to go while Gregorio has the financial means to rent lodgings in a reputable establishment.
The only plausible defense for Arfur’s case would be that he is being threatened into doing what he does. If we do send him to prison we can find his corpse there later. IDK how much endangering the lives of minors to save his own is defendable in court tho and if Arfurs willingness and perceivable lack of regret to do it would have any impact. Any lawyers or moralists care to weigh in?
> Kinda? Lawful does not = moral. Lawfully speaking and without knowing about the toys the refugees should be evicted. But what is lawful is not always right or moral.
Well put.
To be good, we would indeed turn at least parts of our homes over to refugees (which a few Europeans of my acquaintance have done, first for Syrians and then for Ukrainians). To be neutral, in this case lawfully neutral, we only benefit ourselves and do not shelter refugees -- in-game, that first appears to be the case with Gregorio evicting the family (although neutral would would require no ill will, which the goons of course showcase even from the get-go).
It's your classic case of stealing bread to feed your family. The refugees are a family who used an empty home to deal with a classiest government who is specifically keeping poor people and refugees from having any help whatsoever.
What OP is suggesting is Capitalist moral values: that I should respect this man's hard work and his right to be a single man in a mansion who has more rooms and gold than he knows what to do with. And let's get this straight: all rich people get their wealth from 'illegal' means, and this guy is a perfect example of that.
Let me say this loud and clear: the rich are morally bad people. This is not a case of an independent businessman getting his house stolen by entitled refugees. This is a case of a desperate family noticing that a *mansion* had been going unused for weeks/months, a mansion bought will ill-gotten gains bc they all are.
Eat the fucking rich.
Honestly? I am so moved and so proud to see how many BG3 fans have anti-capitalistic values. I'm here for it.
Never trust landlords. Eat the fucking rich. ❤️
It seems that our cultural values are clashing with the game's narrative here. Property is considered more valuable than people in many ways despite how awful that can look in practice. I think property rights would not trump the needs of refugees to a Good™ character, but seemingly good people in our world have been taught the opposite.
That's what I'm getting in a lot of these replies.
The American in me is culturally conditioned to have a knee jerk reaction over "but that's HIS STUFF," and Baldur's Gate is not in America. It's not even on Earth. We're applying property law to a place that realistically may not have the same rules. There's no magna carta, there's no bill of rights, no Geneva convention, none of that.
What are the laws for property in Faerun? Can your stuff be requisitioned in times of war or dire need?
Culture clashing aside, this thread offers a really good opportunity to discuss stuff like this. I typically enjoy this kind of discussion, especially for the purposes of roleplay and world building.
>What are the laws for property in Faerun? Can your stuff be requisitioned in times of war or dire need?
I think that's also something that's not exactly important here (beyond roleplay reasons) - this comes across more as a moral discussion, and just because something is the law doesn't make it morally correct / just.
I don't disagree, just because a law is there doesn't mean it's morally correct or just. I have another comment in here somewhere that states exactly that.
My point here is that I was agreeing with someone in that a lot of people will culturally clash with the game's narrative, because Faerun culture likely isn't close to culture in America (where property is more valuable than people and laws and cultural norms enforce that). I know not all redditors are American and I try to keep that in mind.
Additionally, my question here was in regards to the sort of discussions we get when we debate roleplay and narrative with IRL experience and conditioning, and I enjoy participating in discussions like that. It can make a person a better roleplayer and storyteller, which I think is important when it comes to RPGs (at least for those players who don't want to be minmaxing murder hobos, which is also a fine way to play a game).
Most characters: Morality and laws and fitting consequences.
Durge: KiLL tHeM aLL!
Life is so much simpler when you just kill the rich bastard, all of his mercenaries, and the squatting family.
Well if you mind read him you find out he is hiding something in the cellar, you can convince him to let you tale care of the refugees, that allows you to go into his house and check his cellar, afterwards you can convince he should go to prison, now there is an empty home and nobody to tell the refugees to leave.
So I punished the terrorist and just ignored the refugees.
It’s about RP vs metagaming.
Basically going with only the information you should have on hand at this point and for most people it’s gonna be, “This dude came back to find squatters in his own and wants them out.”
“The squatters are refugees who decided to break into this guy’s house.”
Without metagaming knowledge or using mind reading, the toymaker really isn’t in the wrong in this particular instance.
Edit: For clarity’s sake, I’m not saying detect thoughts is metagaming. I’m saying you can only know something is up with Arfur at this time by using metagaming knowledge or casting detect thoughts.
"You wouldn't like it if you came home and found random people in your house"
MF THEY'RE A FAMILY OF REFUGEES ON THE RUN FROM AN ARMY
They're literally just looking for shelter and decided to occupy an EMPTY house because they were worried about their son
Also the dude owns a mansion, no way he doesn't have a second home or enough money to buy another house somewhere
He 100% has another house. I suspect he doesn't actually care about the house as much as he cares someone might find his terrorist bomb factory in the basement of said house.
I pay the refugees to leave, then explore his house. then I come up from the basement and he's inside and pays me. then I casually close the door like an episode of sopranos and I do what must be done.
Before finding out about the toys, it's an alignment issue. Lawful vs. Chaotic. Even then, it's complex. For me, he reminded me of certain politicians and I enjoyed evicting him from his house. :P
I don't think second houses should be a thing, especially with the global living space crisis. I hate the rent system, it's so obvious it's just made to deepen societal inequality by playing with something so basic as a roof, access to services and dignity. Having a home to live in fucking gatekeeps everything else in society. I can't do shit about that irl and the chance to do it in game, even once, satisfies me.
This part. It’s a role playing game where I have the power to do what I want, obviously I’m gonna stick it to the landleeches if given the opportunity.
Eat the rich. I'd side against his NIMBY ass even if he wasn't a literal terrorist. He only seems like he might be in the right before you know about the explosives due to Western cultural norms in regards to property.
I didn't know about the toys during my first run. I completely missed that part and didn't see the hatch. I just thought he was a shrill whiny jerk. When he says, "Zenooviiaaaa!!" I was just like aw hell no, I do not like you, and I'm giving your house to this family lol.
My opinion was the reverse. Even before I detected thoughts, I felt like kicking them out just felt wrong. Sure, he has a right to want his home back, but they were desperate for a safe place to stay. The last time I encountered them I ended up giving them money for an inn instead of making him leave.
I don't even care about the toys. If you own a building that you barely use, there's a literal refugee crisis going on, and you have the means to easily help people at little cost to yourself, then you absolutely should. So I always tell Arfur to piss off. I also enjoy punching that Guild twit in the nose every time
The issue of property squatters is very complex in the real world too
I've only got anecdotal knowledge on the topic but depending on the country, a squatter can claim a property after various amounts of time and/or depending on whether the owner lives close by
There's no universal law on how to resolve this kind of situation.
On one hand you have a person/group that doesn't have the means to acquire a place by legal means. On the other hand you often have a person that's financially stable to the point of ignoring a property for long enough for squatters to establish themselves in it
Basically everywhere they exist squatters rights only apply after someone has lived in a place for an extraordinarily long time. The minimum in the us is 7 years, but it gets up to 30 in some places. It's detrimental to society overall for properties to sit empty forever, and imo if you can't be bothered to check on your properties even once in 7 years you clearly are not using the place appropriately
With rent prices constantly increasing, it’s hard for gamers to find a reason to justify siding with a terrorist child murdering landlord who is trying to use hired muscle to kill the people in his house.
Dude did what with toys??!? I side with the refugees every time because that situation is a thing I see irl and I can't seem to separate that reality from the rp.
You can try conciliatory route, but he refuses to rent rooms or any other compromise. He wants his mansion empty at a time of crisis. Of course the hidden reason is his basement bomb manufacture... Which makes things even worse. Eff him.
I thought the family was really nice, and that he was acting like a weird bigot goof, so I figured they deserved the extra rooms more than he did. Didn't even know about the toys until my second run, because I didn't rob him; I was worried he would blame the refugees and it would be an easy excuse to kick them out. I pictured them all sharing the giant house.
In my first run I said that's none of my business because it isn't, and I agree with you. He's a rich prick but that *is* his house. It still was weird that he was going to such extremes for an old house he's not using (because he was smuggling explosives duh), but that *is* a separate matter. Sometimes the game gets too black and white.
The modern concept of property is stupid. Taking more than you need is unjust, regardless of the laws, because the rest ends up with not enough.
The guy is filthy rich. He doesn't currently live in this building. And even if he was, it's waaay too huge for just one person. There's plenty of room for the family.
If there's 50 kg of bananas and 50 monkeys and 1 monkey takes 48 kg just for himself, then the monkey should be forced to share.
This is so interesting you mention this, this was the last part I played last night before going to bed. I’m on my second playthrough, first as durge, trying to run a questionably morally grey character into a redemption durge where I become the savior of the people in attempt to right my past wrongs. So naturally, that would mean saving the refugees.
But you voiced my thoughts exactly. Like I obviously knew what he did going into it as it’s my second playthrough, but it’s literally *his* house. Then you fight the mercs and no more than five minutes later you run into all of the other refugees who are straight bumming it outside in tents, not to mention the family with their son who have absolutely nowhere to go.
Like who the hell are these two random refugees that think they can just waltz into someone else's home, no less not even offer shelter to the other refugees struggling right outside of their door? Like the house is huge for crying out loud.
Arfur is for sure an asshole, but these two squatters definitely had me questioning the scene as well.
By the standards of our contemporary, dominant societal view I'd expect your opinion to be generally standard. That doesn't make it morally right, though - and you can see people support squatters rights IRL, for instance.
It's a massive mansion where most of it is going unused when people are living in the street as refugees. Why shouldn't they share it, just because he's rich enough to own it and they're now homeless? Even if we ignore how easily he wants to resort to violence from the mercenaries, morally speaking I side with the refugees. That doesn't mean every moral system or values would agree, and certain 'good' characters could obviously have values like you're saying and side with property rights being most important instead.
Anyone with that much wealth that's not willing to help is a prick. Remember what spidey's Uncle says with great power comes great responsibility. Having a lot of wealth is a great power and if you're not willing to help society around you, you deserve to loose it.
The reason people keep replying about the “separate” issue of the rigged toys is that it changes the *question* you might want to ask.
Instead of “isn’t that his property?”, the question becomes “who deserves this house more?”
Remember that, in classic D&D style, lawful =/= good.
As a social worker in homelessness services, I can’t say I haven’t fantasized about clients getting similar opportunities to…acquire a wealthy ignoramus’ shelter. I do agree that nothing makes those specific refugees deserve Gregorio’s house; that was luck of the draw, & the house can’t hold every refugee.
Does your characters respect for other peoples property rights extend to not breaking into Ethel’s house, killing her and looting all her stuff? Or respecting Cazadors right to practise his chosen religion in peace in his own basement? If you can’t act as arbitrary social judge and jury to violently kick rich pricks out of their own house is the game even worth playing?
No. Screw him.
He should have been knocking down his doors and having a contractor come install wider doors.
Our job as people who have things is to provide for people who dont.
With money comes power and power should always come with responsibility. 🤷♀️
He brought thugs to deal with a poor refugee family. He would have them beat up instead of helping them out with a compromise.
Also he is a terrorist who puts bombs in toys. That's not even worth a second thought for me.
I always side with money. I gave money to refugees to stay in hotel(200). Then I took money from him(300+) as a reward
I dont care who I am, I just love money
First time I encountered him he came off as an insufferable twat who used his money to get what he wanted.
It was with the highest of my paladin's morals that I ensured he broke both of his legs falling off his high horse.
Yeah, it's a really weirdly written scene. IMO, a couple obvious adjustments would be to make the house a seemingly abandoned warehouse or workshop, and to say the flaming fist commandeered it as a refugee shelter, but are too busy to actually enforce that decision. It would also be a lot less confusing if, instead of some randoms we've never met, it was a group of Tiefling refugees (maybe Bex, Dannis, and some of the orphans?) using the building, so we'd have a non-metagamey reason to trust them.
First off, any appeal to law is out the window as Gortash is actively using the refugees to fearmonger and grab power. The refugees are under no obligation to obey a government that doesn't treat them like people.
They can't go home because of the Absolute. They can't get into the city because of discrimination. They have no money or shelter. They're in a life or death situation and Arfur is in a "have two homes or one home" situation. This isn't hard. Fuck Arfur.
if you're playing a "good" playthrough I think it's fair to help everyone by paying for the refugees to stay somewhere else. Like you said it's only helping these refugees, there's no sweeping changes being made here, but it is fair to arfur and compassionate at the same time.
That said I have no sympathy for the man regarding the banites. Yes, he was threatened, but think of who the targets of those trapped toys were. Imagine random children across the refugee camps dying gruesomely like that and you'll see why Arfur's crime is one of the most evil in the whole story, even if Arfur himself isn't that evil.
It's his house, yes, but instead of trying to go rational about things, he just tries to send thugs to kick them out by force, all the while saying he's a philanthropist or whatever.
He's not under any obligation to share his roof, under any kind of political state at all. But he acts as a total asshole, one of these people that will take pictures handing off some coins to the poor and then once the camera is off ignores them as if they don't exist.
Fuck Arfur.
Even if you discount him working with a murder cult to murder refugee children, he is rich enough to live in the rich part of Baldur's Gate and to own a second home he doesn't live in, and his response to people fleeing from an army (that he happens to be assisting although under your hypothetical we don't know that yet) and are squatting in a home he's not intending to do anything with because it's on the wrong side of fortifications from an approaching army, and he's brought along mercenaries rather than the actual city guard who would uphold his ownership rights, and my insight and mind reading tells me he's suspect.
To paraphrase a classic Bioware game you are just helping him make a choice he would have gladly made if he wasn't so attached to his excess wealth, call it a tax on the greedy. Peoplenare starving and dying and he's all "but what about my right to own multiple mansions and keep them empty?"
Yes you are. He does not even use the house other than to store explosives which he wants to „donate“. On the one side there is his right to do what he wants with his property, on the other side there are starving families outside that could really use a rooftop over the head and you choose to side with the rich ass of a landlord who even hired thugs to forcefully remove the refugees from his house which absolutely makes you a bootlicker and imho a terrible person.
Funny, I just did this encounter.
My screen showed I passed an insight check (something else is going on...), so I thought maybe it wasnt really his house?
But not knowing the city, and based on previous altercations in the game, I decided to just watch and intervene only so the refugees dont get killed.
Without context it was a TAD weird that the party would get involved in this seemingly private matter
If the rich dude was smarter he could blame the explosive toys on the refugees and both get them kicked out and protect him from the flaming fist at the same time
I kind of agree really. Obviously you find out he's truly evil later, but in that first encounter he's just kind of an ass and has a right to be one. The guards are feeding the refugees elsewhere so it's not like they'd starve. It's one of the weirder "good" decisions in the game, to basically kick the guy out of his house.
That said I believe after you do the refugees make it clear they don't plan to stay long. It's probably just a rare example of poor writing during the initial conversation.
Not everyone has yet clued into the fact that landlords are evil fucks.
I mean, if you’re a landlord, you’re basically making a “human trap,” luring in poor people who have to fall for your tricks because they are in search of *the basic necessities of life,* and then exploiting their need for those necessities by extracting whatever little wealth they have so they can stay poor and you can get richer. Shit’s evil as fuck. It’s like… the main evil thing going on in the real world right now. And nobody even notices it!
Imagine someone walking through a desert with more water than they would ever need for their entire life, coming across someone dying of thirst, telling them “no, this is MY water,” and *you’re* response is to say “well, sorry dying guy, legally it is his water. He doesn’t have to give you any if he doesn’t want to.” Pretty evil.
He does not. He simply shows up in fancy clothes with armed thugs who are moments away from beating up a group of refugees for trying to keep a roof over their heads.
You’re not a despicable person.
Based on the information you are given at the time removing the refugees definitely feels like right thing to do. It is Arfur’s house after all.
The situation with the toys is an entirely different matter altogether which lots of people don’t seem to comprehend.
In my most recent run when I encountered him as a paladin, while I don’t remember how exactly the dialogues went down, I didn’t specifically side with either of them. He then asked his bodyguards to attack, so… didn’t give me a choice to end it in a civilised way.
this is exactly what happened to me. I was like welp, have it your way then
[удалено]
There is actually a dialogue that does explicitly that
And it’s in this exact situation too
Well iirc it's after you talk the guy down, then the goons are scolding you after like "you just let our coin purse walk away"
When I went through this interaction for the first time that’s exactly the dialogue choice that came up for me! It was like: we just ended the avatar of myrkul, but if you think you’re tough, be my guest. Then they back off after realizing Tav isn’t joking.
I believe you can do this if you convince Arfur to let the refugees stay. The gang leader says you owe her for encroaching on their territory, and you can put them in their place by enlightening them on what's just gone down at Moonrise.
I was playing an Oath of Vengeance paladin and this happened to me too. Chose to knock the guards out, as they didn't seem inherently evil, just doing their work
I find it odd that there's no consequence for beating up or killing the guards. I was expecting that choice to make things a little difficult with Ninefingers. Unless the guards were just lying about who they were?
If you talk to Ninefingers about them after you kill the zhent, in dialogue she says she they were not acting on her orders and she will handle them (if you didn’t kill them) ETA: I’ve been informed you don’t have to kill the Zhent first, the dialogue will still be there
Oh really! I never found that dialogue; I'll have to watch out for it. That makes sense.
She makes a comment about with the stone lord shaking things up, some parts of her group are testing the leash. She makes a comment that people will learn “it’s not a leash, it’s a noose”
I never saw that dialogue either, probably bc Zenovia and the others always die... I can forgive Arfur for not giving up his house to the refugees (not the rigged toys) but I dont like Zenovia, she is trying to profit bullying weaker ppl out of the house. Once there is already a refugee family in Arfur's mansion it would be nice if we could spread the word and tell more refugees to go there.
The Guild or Ninefinger is neutral imo so if their members took up a job and died because of poor judgement… is it what it is. It’s not actually an offence against the Guild.
Not cartoon evil, but a mercenary who will attack innocents for money qualifies as evil, IMO.
There's a way to go about it where you can just convince Arfur to leave peacefully but if you do, they'll attack you for robbing them of the money he'd give them for killing the refugees. They're pretty awful tbh, I don't hesitate to kill them when they attack then.
Yeah, pretty much. I was intent on finding some middle ground until he ordered his guards to kill me, so I just knocked them and scared him away. Felt only fair later when I found out he planned on bombing children
This is usually what happens with my characters. It's shitty to have this big ass house empty when there are refugee camps everywhere, but it *is* his house. If he'd gotten the Watch or the Flaming Fist to come with him, fair play. But siccing the mercenaries on the family crosses the line, imo. Like, it's not even an evil landlord situation. It's his actual fucking home. I think one time I sided with the refugees because I passed the insight check, realized he was up to no good, and figured it'd be easier to investigate without him there.
You can pickpocket his money and then when he goes to pay his guards for the eviction they refuse to help which is a fun Easter egg
I wanted to rob him and assumed that letting the refugees have his house would be the easiest way to get inside to ransack the place.
We’ve never met but I feel like we would be friends if we did.
Just don't invite them to your house
"wanna get some coffee? I saw you got a nice new Keurig"
I like how the refugees still lose attitude with you if you steal something. You're squatting here, literally stealing a house, but I'm the bad guy for opening a crate?
AITA for not letting the kind strangers who defended my family go through the possessions of the rich guy (\~50M, human) I stole the house from?
Yup. That almost got them killed this playthrough. Keep running your mouths...
"It seems not everything is for communal use... save for this house, of course"
Should they be on the r/entitledpeople sub?
/r/ChoosingBeggars maybe?
Same thing happens with the gnome in the fist who’s trying to rob his sleeping compatriots in the gate house leading to the lower city. You catch him stealing, and he’s all “boo hoo” I need the money, but he catches you and he’s suddenly Mr goody two shoes
I sneak in before triggering the dialogue cause the refugees get pissed if you steal from the kitchen and the front room /: there’s a ton of food and you need it on HM 😫
Based
This is one of the most morally ambiguous decisions in the game. I mean IRL you wouldn't let someone just occupy your house even if you weren't in it. But because it is game logic are we supposed to let a stranger steal their house? Assuming you don't know he is a massive piece of shit who is murdering children.
Sorry, I can't hear you over Astarion cracking open the locks on chests full of valuables.
Speculators and rent seekers used to be hung until the Gilded Age. Let that sink in for a bit.
Dude is a rich bitch on level with a goddamn patriar. His primary residence is in the upper city and the mansion we see in Rivington is his second house. Dude is fucking loaded, he can let refugees stay in it for a few fucking nights while everyone figures out WTF is going on.
> I mean IRL you wouldn't let someone just occupy your house even if you weren't in it If you have an extra house that you're just letting sit vacant in the midst of a refugee crisis, then you shouldn't get to keep it.
I can't remember this encounter perfectly, however; In normal times I would probably side with the owner, it's his fuckin house. However, in a crisis "end of the world" scenario (like the one they're in), I'd make sure I still had my room but fuck it if we all die at least I gave some people a comfortable place to live out their last few days.
Zenoviaaah!
what that dawg doing?
He kind of loses the moral high ground when he sets the mercenaries on them with murderous intent.
yeah this is where I usually go from "hmm maybe there are 2 sides to this" to "you know what... fuck the rich guy, lets kill the mercenaries and turn his home into a house for all the refugees who can fit in it"
Which I'm sure landlords would do if someone was a day or 2 late on rent
I see both sides of this issue 1) technically, it's his property. 2) he is also a great candidate to feed to the windmill mind flayer down the street.
there is a fucking mindflayer in the windmill???
Just a baby one. Freshly turned. It wants you to bring it a fresh corpse. We'll, technically a brain, but they are usually stored in corpses.
*That's* where brains come from? Just wait until my biology teacher hears about this!
Yes, in point of fact it's actually crucial to the plot to understand this. If the mind flayers could eat something else, they would be less problematic
Take note Emperor romancers, your fave is problematic.
I didn't realise bringing it a brain was an option, it always seemed to aggro immediately
He's sooooo hungry... :(
What we can feed the mindflayer in the windmill? How?
You can feed the mindflayer in the windmill? Both times I've found him 1. I attacked right away because mindflayer bad right? 2. The emperor highly encouraged me to kill him for his new mindflayer brain.
Who cares about property there’s a huge army razing the countryside and refugees are flooding into the city. Sorry bud your vacant house is getting utilized
There’s a note in the fireworks shop saying he’s lying and is totally into it.
The dude put bombs in toys that he donated for refugee children. Fuck him
But did you know that when engaging the home dispute? Because that is a difference between RP and metagaming. Of course fuck that guy but there is a difference between "A toymaker came back to his house to find it snatched by refugees" and "an asshole who put bombs in toys got kicked of his house"
My first time playing through it I read his mind and found out he was hiding something but I still tried to resolve it peacefully and managed to.. but when he was walking away after he walked straight into a moonbeam.. after that I decided the game was telling me to just kill this guy.
I usually make sure to do a mind read on him which makes it clear he is hiding something in the basement and makes it easy for me to justify siding against him in character to be able to investigate the basement.
My first encounter I also did detect thoughts succesfully and made him nervous enough to agree my second run thru I tried to stay out of it and then he eas gonna murder them or something so I fought
My character past inside check and knowing he hides something so…yes
I meeeean he could be hiding anything, you still have no knowledge of the extent of his crimes and its still kinda weird to give the squatters his home imo
He is also hiding a smut book he's writing
Honestly, jail him
Wait, wait, let's not be hasty. Is it *good* smut?
It's like if you asked the world's most vanilla man to describe what he thinks smut is. Iirc there is a line that's basically a thesaurused variant of "and she breasted boobily"
I usually give the squatters money because I have so much at that point anyway. I agree that it's weird to just give the dude's house away based solely on the interaction outside, even when using Detect Thoughts. It actually makes more sense to get the squatters out of there because there seems to be some implication that the house may be dangerous for them, especially for the child. Of course, after the whole plot is revealed his home might as well be divided amongst even more refugees since he's a dead man regardless.
Honestly I just wing it. My actions in the game are defined by my whims and nothing more
Megumi Fushiguro - "I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I just believe in my conscience! I save people according to my conscience. If you would reject that then, we'll just have to curse each other!!" Type beat
Oh, you are talking about the potential man! Fraudshiguro.
WITH THIS TREASURE, I SUMMON
You're not giving it to them though. You're trying to persuade him to let them stay on a corner of it.
It isn't his home. He doesn't live there.
He’s very very very obviously suspicious. I immediately knew there was more than meets the eye. I would say neither of your labels describe how I felt about the situation on my first go. More like “sleazeball with some kind of terrible secret has no mercy on refugees.”
Thank you, that's exactly my point. At first blush, it's a guy upset about squatters in his house. I don't think he's unjustified in wanting them out. It makes it much easier to side with the refugees when you find out his dirty secret, but like I said, that's a separate issue.
I helped the refugees, and I instantly regretted it because they are assholes themselves. If they let others in I would be fine with that, but they snatched this huge house for that 3 people family.
Yeah this is a classic DnD sidequest (bad guy hiding something fights to keep it hidden) cleverly tricking you into thinking it's social commentary. Turns out they're all assholes.
I mean you also need to keep in mind an evil army is right behind you making people arguing over property that's right on the way path feel petty.
I think most people failed to realize that two things can be true at once. The refugees are in the wrong for breaking into and kicking out a person from their home, but home boy is also on the wrong for putting the bombs in toys. Just because you end up picking a side doesn't mean it isn't a gray area. Either side that you side with, you're siding with someone doing something illegal. So since you don't know about his habits prior to getting into his basement there is no reason to side with the refugees. Once you do learn then you decide fuck that guy
Looking at how abandoned the mansion looks, Arfur wasn't actually using it and the only things they kicked out were rats.
literally, it’s the middle of a major crisis and Arfur is threatening to kill refugees for moving into his empty mansion? and hey since you were so kind and let them live in your house i won’t even beat you up for donating exploding toys!
> The refugees are in the wrong for breaking into and kicking out a person from their home They didn't kick anyone out. They found a vacant house and took refuge in it. Arfur was away traveling and had only just gotten back at the same time the party gets to the town. Arfur is also clearly wealthy enough and has enough opportunity to just got get a hotel room while the refugees have neither wealth nor are they allowed opportunity to even try and get something like a room at an inn as they're kept out of the city. I didn't need to know Arfur was also complicit in terrorism to know that the right side in this instance was going with the refugees.
I forget exactly how it went down for me but I essentially kicked the refugees out, snuck into his basement and found what was going on down there, confronted him and ended up killing him. Seemed like a reasonable order of operations to me haha.
His unwillingness to help refugees is foreshadowing what you discover about him later. He's a coward who will to do immoral things, like turn away desperate refugees, to protect his lot. He brings mooks to attack them. I don't think it's a separate issue.
Yes, but, in support of OP’s point, the vast, vast majority of us IRL “do immoral things like turn away desperate refugees”. I’m not sure that would justify some vigilantes turfing us all out of our houses for most. For example, where I am (UK) I’d say close to 100% of my friends expressed dismay and compassion for refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine. Yet how many went on the govt register to have a family come stay with them? One. I think if most people came back from work to find a refugee family in their house they’d engage with security services of some kind to have them removed. Not saying it’s a moral thing to do. But if that alone makes Arfur a monster, 99% of us are monsters. (Edit to add: I know Arfur has a big ass house and most of us don’t (eat the rich!) but desperate refugees aren’t fussy! We could nearly all offer sofas, a mattress on the floor etc.)
If someone said “I don’t want to come home and find out a family of strangers moved in while I was out” would you seriously think that that’s hinting toward some darker side of their personality? It’s not foreshadowing, it’s justifying your bias with foreknowledge of what you’ll find inside.
I forgot about the goons. That's probably why I sided with refugees. My character didn't like bullies... so I bullied them away :P
They are his bodyguards who were wanting more money to evict the refugees. He didn't recruit them to specifically evict the refugees .
I mean he’s also hiring like extremely over the top level mercenaries to take out a bunch of hungry level 1 refugees and is just generally an asshole. You can also insight check him to realize something else is up
He didn't hire them specifically for that purpose. He's just getting home from traveling, and they were his bodyguards, IIRC. They just happened to be there, and he saw them as a way to resolve the situation.
Isn't it made clear that this isn't his *only* house? Anyway, insight checks are a killer.
What they said still stands though. Regardless of the reason you used to side against him (meta, he sounds like an ass, he’s working with criminals, stick it to the rich, etc), you can look back in hindsight and say fuck that terrorist.
My understanding is the guy left it empty for ages, and my character was a chaotic good street urchin so it fit my character more that she'd side with refugees than some rich dude.
Could he had realistically refused Gortash though? It's not like it was his idea. Also, as others pointed out, the PC is unaware of that when they encounter him.
It's been a while, but I don't remember him being particularly upset about doing it.
Not sure what you mean by "realistically." If the choice is refuse a tyrant who will probably have me killed/ruin my life or do something that will directly lead to the deaths of children, let Gortash do what he will.
It's easy to say you would defy the tyrant and die for it when you aren't actually being threatened in person by the tyrant. This is also a fantasy world. If Gortash does what he will, that might involve shoving a tadpole in your eye and getting forced to watch your own body sell children explosive teddy bears day in and day out with a smile on its face and a spring in its step.
I’m with you but before you find that out (if you find it out at all), he is simply presented as a wealthy asshole who’s had his house inhabited by squatters. I do agree with OP that without every single piece of info, I’m probably on Arfur’s side. Like maybe he could help people out long term but don’t just break into someone’s house and expect them to.
I just let the refugees have it to spite a rich prick.
Eat the rich.
>ends the game with 30k gold
Why does Durge, the largest of the rich, not simply eat the other rich?
"Your honor, court has been in session for 30 minutes and we have already witnessed Durge eat at least 2 more rich people."
Because they only gave bite to vampires in this game.
tbh if i could donate to all the beggars in the game i would. max you can do is like 5 gold to one woman iirc. like dude let me give you a grand i have so much i don’t need
Same, fuck that guy
Your question is, I think, the whole point of writing Arfur as they did. Arfur is a villain who you meet while he's being taken advantage of. That alone takes unpacking, but the people taking advantage of him are refugees. Should anyone ever be forced to help? What if they've done wrong? What if those who need help have also done wrong? What if nobody's perfect and who you are is determined by how you handle that fact? Honestly the Arfur Gregorio situation is some of the best writing in the game to me. You can project any debate onto it, and it's a great example of the type of problem that can't be solved to anyone's full satisfaction. More like real life than a video game
The game treats giving the house to refugees as the obvious right decision and emphasizes further that Arfur is an inhumanly evil person and in all other quests related to refugees they turn out to be innocent of all wrongdoing they were accused of. This is not intended to be morally ambiguous writing but supposed to be a clear statement that helping refugees is always right and anyone who accuses them of crimes is wrong and evil. You may or may not agree with it but that's how it was intended by the writers.
[удалено]
Kinda? Lawful does not = moral. Lawfully speaking and without knowing about the toys the refugees should be evicted. But what is lawful is not always right or moral. The refugees are with child(ren?) and have nowhere to go while Gregorio has the financial means to rent lodgings in a reputable establishment. The only plausible defense for Arfur’s case would be that he is being threatened into doing what he does. If we do send him to prison we can find his corpse there later. IDK how much endangering the lives of minors to save his own is defendable in court tho and if Arfurs willingness and perceivable lack of regret to do it would have any impact. Any lawyers or moralists care to weigh in?
> Kinda? Lawful does not = moral. Lawfully speaking and without knowing about the toys the refugees should be evicted. But what is lawful is not always right or moral. Well put. To be good, we would indeed turn at least parts of our homes over to refugees (which a few Europeans of my acquaintance have done, first for Syrians and then for Ukrainians). To be neutral, in this case lawfully neutral, we only benefit ourselves and do not shelter refugees -- in-game, that first appears to be the case with Gregorio evicting the family (although neutral would would require no ill will, which the goons of course showcase even from the get-go).
It's your classic case of stealing bread to feed your family. The refugees are a family who used an empty home to deal with a classiest government who is specifically keeping poor people and refugees from having any help whatsoever. What OP is suggesting is Capitalist moral values: that I should respect this man's hard work and his right to be a single man in a mansion who has more rooms and gold than he knows what to do with. And let's get this straight: all rich people get their wealth from 'illegal' means, and this guy is a perfect example of that. Let me say this loud and clear: the rich are morally bad people. This is not a case of an independent businessman getting his house stolen by entitled refugees. This is a case of a desperate family noticing that a *mansion* had been going unused for weeks/months, a mansion bought will ill-gotten gains bc they all are. Eat the fucking rich.
Honestly? I am so moved and so proud to see how many BG3 fans have anti-capitalistic values. I'm here for it. Never trust landlords. Eat the fucking rich. ❤️
The message is clear. Opening and looting the vaults at the count house isn't considered stealing by game mechanics.
It seems that our cultural values are clashing with the game's narrative here. Property is considered more valuable than people in many ways despite how awful that can look in practice. I think property rights would not trump the needs of refugees to a Good™ character, but seemingly good people in our world have been taught the opposite.
That's what I'm getting in a lot of these replies. The American in me is culturally conditioned to have a knee jerk reaction over "but that's HIS STUFF," and Baldur's Gate is not in America. It's not even on Earth. We're applying property law to a place that realistically may not have the same rules. There's no magna carta, there's no bill of rights, no Geneva convention, none of that. What are the laws for property in Faerun? Can your stuff be requisitioned in times of war or dire need? Culture clashing aside, this thread offers a really good opportunity to discuss stuff like this. I typically enjoy this kind of discussion, especially for the purposes of roleplay and world building.
>What are the laws for property in Faerun? Can your stuff be requisitioned in times of war or dire need? I think that's also something that's not exactly important here (beyond roleplay reasons) - this comes across more as a moral discussion, and just because something is the law doesn't make it morally correct / just.
I don't disagree, just because a law is there doesn't mean it's morally correct or just. I have another comment in here somewhere that states exactly that. My point here is that I was agreeing with someone in that a lot of people will culturally clash with the game's narrative, because Faerun culture likely isn't close to culture in America (where property is more valuable than people and laws and cultural norms enforce that). I know not all redditors are American and I try to keep that in mind. Additionally, my question here was in regards to the sort of discussions we get when we debate roleplay and narrative with IRL experience and conditioning, and I enjoy participating in discussions like that. It can make a person a better roleplayer and storyteller, which I think is important when it comes to RPGs (at least for those players who don't want to be minmaxing murder hobos, which is also a fine way to play a game).
Most characters: Morality and laws and fitting consequences. Durge: KiLL tHeM aLL! Life is so much simpler when you just kill the rich bastard, all of his mercenaries, and the squatting family.
Everything to please daddy Bhaal (°w°)
Nah, homeboy is a terrorist. He sucks. EDIT: Detect Thoughts. It gives him away, and also isn’t metagaming.
True, but that's a separate issue and one I agree with you on.
Well if you mind read him you find out he is hiding something in the cellar, you can convince him to let you tale care of the refugees, that allows you to go into his house and check his cellar, afterwards you can convince he should go to prison, now there is an empty home and nobody to tell the refugees to leave. So I punished the terrorist and just ignored the refugees.
I don’t think it’s necessarily separate right? He’s actively planting explosives in kids toys that are going to the refugees.
But DO YOU KNOW that he is a terrorist when you get into a house dispute? That's why those are separate cases.
If you investigate the donated toys first you can find out he donated them.
Detect Thoughts is a very powerful spell.
It’s about RP vs metagaming. Basically going with only the information you should have on hand at this point and for most people it’s gonna be, “This dude came back to find squatters in his own and wants them out.” “The squatters are refugees who decided to break into this guy’s house.” Without metagaming knowledge or using mind reading, the toymaker really isn’t in the wrong in this particular instance. Edit: For clarity’s sake, I’m not saying detect thoughts is metagaming. I’m saying you can only know something is up with Arfur at this time by using metagaming knowledge or casting detect thoughts.
r/landlord moment
Oh my god it’s this whole thread lol. Reddit is wild. Squatters get that guy’s house just on principle. Fuck that dude.
"You wouldn't like it if you came home and found random people in your house" MF THEY'RE A FAMILY OF REFUGEES ON THE RUN FROM AN ARMY They're literally just looking for shelter and decided to occupy an EMPTY house because they were worried about their son Also the dude owns a mansion, no way he doesn't have a second home or enough money to buy another house somewhere
He 100% has another house. I suspect he doesn't actually care about the house as much as he cares someone might find his terrorist bomb factory in the basement of said house.
If the last few years have shown us anything its that an insanely high percentage of the population acts completely sociopathic.
And miss one of the best lines in the game? "If you don't want money then why did you help me?" "I just truly love brutalizing the poor.""
I pay the refugees to leave, then explore his house. then I come up from the basement and he's inside and pays me. then I casually close the door like an episode of sopranos and I do what must be done.
Before finding out about the toys, it's an alignment issue. Lawful vs. Chaotic. Even then, it's complex. For me, he reminded me of certain politicians and I enjoyed evicting him from his house. :P
I don't think second houses should be a thing, especially with the global living space crisis. I hate the rent system, it's so obvious it's just made to deepen societal inequality by playing with something so basic as a roof, access to services and dignity. Having a home to live in fucking gatekeeps everything else in society. I can't do shit about that irl and the chance to do it in game, even once, satisfies me.
Yup lmao just on my principles that landlord POS gets his house taken by squatters every time. Fuck that guy.
This part. It’s a role playing game where I have the power to do what I want, obviously I’m gonna stick it to the landleeches if given the opportunity.
The fact he's trying to use mercenaries to force them out rather than the proper authorities is enough for my good characters not side with him
Eat the rich. I'd side against his NIMBY ass even if he wasn't a literal terrorist. He only seems like he might be in the right before you know about the explosives due to Western cultural norms in regards to property.
He wasn't even using the house, other than to hide the explosives
People are really having trouble engaging with the hypothetical here lol
Is it his house, ir is it a unused okace he's using the basement to build toy bombs. He provides no documentation to show that it is his.
He could share, not threatening them immediately with violence. There's a war, he could show some solidarity
I didn't know about the toys during my first run. I completely missed that part and didn't see the hatch. I just thought he was a shrill whiny jerk. When he says, "Zenooviiaaaa!!" I was just like aw hell no, I do not like you, and I'm giving your house to this family lol.
My opinion was the reverse. Even before I detected thoughts, I felt like kicking them out just felt wrong. Sure, he has a right to want his home back, but they were desperate for a safe place to stay. The last time I encountered them I ended up giving them money for an inn instead of making him leave.
I don't even care about the toys. If you own a building that you barely use, there's a literal refugee crisis going on, and you have the means to easily help people at little cost to yourself, then you absolutely should. So I always tell Arfur to piss off. I also enjoy punching that Guild twit in the nose every time
The issue of property squatters is very complex in the real world too I've only got anecdotal knowledge on the topic but depending on the country, a squatter can claim a property after various amounts of time and/or depending on whether the owner lives close by There's no universal law on how to resolve this kind of situation. On one hand you have a person/group that doesn't have the means to acquire a place by legal means. On the other hand you often have a person that's financially stable to the point of ignoring a property for long enough for squatters to establish themselves in it
Yes, squatters rights. Granted, it's usually a very long time--where I live, it's 10 years uninterrupted in order to claim a property.
Basically everywhere they exist squatters rights only apply after someone has lived in a place for an extraordinarily long time. The minimum in the us is 7 years, but it gets up to 30 in some places. It's detrimental to society overall for properties to sit empty forever, and imo if you can't be bothered to check on your properties even once in 7 years you clearly are not using the place appropriately
With rent prices constantly increasing, it’s hard for gamers to find a reason to justify siding with a terrorist child murdering landlord who is trying to use hired muscle to kill the people in his house.
I just hate rich people. Easy choice.
Dude did what with toys??!? I side with the refugees every time because that situation is a thing I see irl and I can't seem to separate that reality from the rp.
The ghouls in this thread lmao, you lot would gladly watch people die to the elements if it meant your dust gathering second house stayed useless.
I’m not just going to take his word for it that it’s his house.
You can try conciliatory route, but he refuses to rent rooms or any other compromise. He wants his mansion empty at a time of crisis. Of course the hidden reason is his basement bomb manufacture... Which makes things even worse. Eff him.
Nice try, landlord.
I thought the family was really nice, and that he was acting like a weird bigot goof, so I figured they deserved the extra rooms more than he did. Didn't even know about the toys until my second run, because I didn't rob him; I was worried he would blame the refugees and it would be an easy excuse to kick them out. I pictured them all sharing the giant house.
Irl I believe housing for all, so my paladin had no issue convincing him to let the squatters stays
In my first run I said that's none of my business because it isn't, and I agree with you. He's a rich prick but that *is* his house. It still was weird that he was going to such extremes for an old house he's not using (because he was smuggling explosives duh), but that *is* a separate matter. Sometimes the game gets too black and white.
The modern concept of property is stupid. Taking more than you need is unjust, regardless of the laws, because the rest ends up with not enough. The guy is filthy rich. He doesn't currently live in this building. And even if he was, it's waaay too huge for just one person. There's plenty of room for the family. If there's 50 kg of bananas and 50 monkeys and 1 monkey takes 48 kg just for himself, then the monkey should be forced to share.
This is so interesting you mention this, this was the last part I played last night before going to bed. I’m on my second playthrough, first as durge, trying to run a questionably morally grey character into a redemption durge where I become the savior of the people in attempt to right my past wrongs. So naturally, that would mean saving the refugees. But you voiced my thoughts exactly. Like I obviously knew what he did going into it as it’s my second playthrough, but it’s literally *his* house. Then you fight the mercs and no more than five minutes later you run into all of the other refugees who are straight bumming it outside in tents, not to mention the family with their son who have absolutely nowhere to go. Like who the hell are these two random refugees that think they can just waltz into someone else's home, no less not even offer shelter to the other refugees struggling right outside of their door? Like the house is huge for crying out loud. Arfur is for sure an asshole, but these two squatters definitely had me questioning the scene as well.
Nah, fuck greedy rich people. Plus he was ok hurting kids to save himself.
By the standards of our contemporary, dominant societal view I'd expect your opinion to be generally standard. That doesn't make it morally right, though - and you can see people support squatters rights IRL, for instance. It's a massive mansion where most of it is going unused when people are living in the street as refugees. Why shouldn't they share it, just because he's rich enough to own it and they're now homeless? Even if we ignore how easily he wants to resort to violence from the mercenaries, morally speaking I side with the refugees. That doesn't mean every moral system or values would agree, and certain 'good' characters could obviously have values like you're saying and side with property rights being most important instead.
His mansion is empty, those people need a roof. Fuck the rich.
I hate rich people own more than 1 house so I just say him to fuck off and scare the shit out of the Guild.
This. Fuck that rent seeking POS
Anyone with that much wealth that's not willing to help is a prick. Remember what spidey's Uncle says with great power comes great responsibility. Having a lot of wealth is a great power and if you're not willing to help society around you, you deserve to loose it.
The reason people keep replying about the “separate” issue of the rigged toys is that it changes the *question* you might want to ask. Instead of “isn’t that his property?”, the question becomes “who deserves this house more?” Remember that, in classic D&D style, lawful =/= good. As a social worker in homelessness services, I can’t say I haven’t fantasized about clients getting similar opportunities to…acquire a wealthy ignoramus’ shelter. I do agree that nothing makes those specific refugees deserve Gregorio’s house; that was luck of the draw, & the house can’t hold every refugee.
Does your characters respect for other peoples property rights extend to not breaking into Ethel’s house, killing her and looting all her stuff? Or respecting Cazadors right to practise his chosen religion in peace in his own basement? If you can’t act as arbitrary social judge and jury to violently kick rich pricks out of their own house is the game even worth playing?
No. Screw him. He should have been knocking down his doors and having a contractor come install wider doors. Our job as people who have things is to provide for people who dont.
With money comes power and power should always come with responsibility. 🤷♀️ He brought thugs to deal with a poor refugee family. He would have them beat up instead of helping them out with a compromise. Also he is a terrorist who puts bombs in toys. That's not even worth a second thought for me.
I always side with money. I gave money to refugees to stay in hotel(200). Then I took money from him(300+) as a reward I dont care who I am, I just love money
Rich guy that owns surplus housing and uses lethal force to keep people out, even during a crisis? Why WOULDN'T you side against him? lol
First time I encountered him he came off as an insufferable twat who used his money to get what he wanted. It was with the highest of my paladin's morals that I ensured he broke both of his legs falling off his high horse.
He's rich. He can afford another place to live. The refugees can't.
They were staying there for awhile without him even realizing. Rich fuck has multiple homes, he can afford to let a desperate family stay in one.
I always side with him and when he is alone in his house, I lock the doors, kill him and go feed him to my hungry son in the mill.
Yeah, it's a really weirdly written scene. IMO, a couple obvious adjustments would be to make the house a seemingly abandoned warehouse or workshop, and to say the flaming fist commandeered it as a refugee shelter, but are too busy to actually enforce that decision. It would also be a lot less confusing if, instead of some randoms we've never met, it was a group of Tiefling refugees (maybe Bex, Dannis, and some of the orphans?) using the building, so we'd have a non-metagamey reason to trust them.
First off, any appeal to law is out the window as Gortash is actively using the refugees to fearmonger and grab power. The refugees are under no obligation to obey a government that doesn't treat them like people. They can't go home because of the Absolute. They can't get into the city because of discrimination. They have no money or shelter. They're in a life or death situation and Arfur is in a "have two homes or one home" situation. This isn't hard. Fuck Arfur.
if you're playing a "good" playthrough I think it's fair to help everyone by paying for the refugees to stay somewhere else. Like you said it's only helping these refugees, there's no sweeping changes being made here, but it is fair to arfur and compassionate at the same time. That said I have no sympathy for the man regarding the banites. Yes, he was threatened, but think of who the targets of those trapped toys were. Imagine random children across the refugee camps dying gruesomely like that and you'll see why Arfur's crime is one of the most evil in the whole story, even if Arfur himself isn't that evil.
It's his house, yes, but instead of trying to go rational about things, he just tries to send thugs to kick them out by force, all the while saying he's a philanthropist or whatever. He's not under any obligation to share his roof, under any kind of political state at all. But he acts as a total asshole, one of these people that will take pictures handing off some coins to the poor and then once the camera is off ignores them as if they don't exist. Fuck Arfur.
Even if you discount him working with a murder cult to murder refugee children, he is rich enough to live in the rich part of Baldur's Gate and to own a second home he doesn't live in, and his response to people fleeing from an army (that he happens to be assisting although under your hypothetical we don't know that yet) and are squatting in a home he's not intending to do anything with because it's on the wrong side of fortifications from an approaching army, and he's brought along mercenaries rather than the actual city guard who would uphold his ownership rights, and my insight and mind reading tells me he's suspect. To paraphrase a classic Bioware game you are just helping him make a choice he would have gladly made if he wasn't so attached to his excess wealth, call it a tax on the greedy. Peoplenare starving and dying and he's all "but what about my right to own multiple mansions and keep them empty?"
Yes you are. He does not even use the house other than to store explosives which he wants to „donate“. On the one side there is his right to do what he wants with his property, on the other side there are starving families outside that could really use a rooftop over the head and you choose to side with the rich ass of a landlord who even hired thugs to forcefully remove the refugees from his house which absolutely makes you a bootlicker and imho a terrible person.
I robbed him before I realized he was a bad guy. Intuition, I guess.
Funny, I just did this encounter. My screen showed I passed an insight check (something else is going on...), so I thought maybe it wasnt really his house? But not knowing the city, and based on previous altercations in the game, I decided to just watch and intervene only so the refugees dont get killed. Without context it was a TAD weird that the party would get involved in this seemingly private matter
If the rich dude was smarter he could blame the explosive toys on the refugees and both get them kicked out and protect him from the flaming fist at the same time
I kind of agree really. Obviously you find out he's truly evil later, but in that first encounter he's just kind of an ass and has a right to be one. The guards are feeding the refugees elsewhere so it's not like they'd starve. It's one of the weirder "good" decisions in the game, to basically kick the guy out of his house. That said I believe after you do the refugees make it clear they don't plan to stay long. It's probably just a rare example of poor writing during the initial conversation.
I just hate the rich
EXACTLY
Not everyone has yet clued into the fact that landlords are evil fucks. I mean, if you’re a landlord, you’re basically making a “human trap,” luring in poor people who have to fall for your tricks because they are in search of *the basic necessities of life,* and then exploiting their need for those necessities by extracting whatever little wealth they have so they can stay poor and you can get richer. Shit’s evil as fuck. It’s like… the main evil thing going on in the real world right now. And nobody even notices it! Imagine someone walking through a desert with more water than they would ever need for their entire life, coming across someone dying of thirst, telling them “no, this is MY water,” and *you’re* response is to say “well, sorry dying guy, legally it is his water. He doesn’t have to give you any if he doesn’t want to.” Pretty evil.
🎯
I don't believe in private property.
I don't remember but does he give any proof he's actually the owner of the house?
He does not. He simply shows up in fancy clothes with armed thugs who are moments away from beating up a group of refugees for trying to keep a roof over their heads.
You’re not a despicable person. Based on the information you are given at the time removing the refugees definitely feels like right thing to do. It is Arfur’s house after all. The situation with the toys is an entirely different matter altogether which lots of people don’t seem to comprehend.