Hello,
I am not sure that I understand the question very well, so I hope this post makes sense. I think I see two different issues.
1. As I tried to explain in the book, the mechanical term Goal only applies to the trollbabes. Other characters have "goals," in play, i.e., what they say they want, or what they are trying to do, but the content has no mechanical presence in the game.
In other words, if I am GM, and I have my character try to kill your trollbabe, and you fail the roll, this has nothing to do with your character dying. The roll only has to do with what you say her Goal is, for instance, "kill him," "knock him down," "throw him in the river," or anything else. She will succeed or fail in her Goal based on the roll. The attacker will succeed or fail in his intentions based on how the outcome is handled mechanically.
The only exception to this point arises when the player poses a negative Goal for the trollbabe, like "stop him from killing her." In this case, the player has deliberately chosen to put the attacker's victim at risk from the roll's outcome.
2. If the GM describes a character killing another character, and neither is a trollbabe, and if this description does not lead the player to starting a conflict about the result, then the event happens as described. There is no conflict, no roll, no mechanics.
Please let me know if this post was helpful. You may need to explain the question again if I have misunderstood the issues.
Best, Ron