Goblins!

Monday, April 2, 2018

Ever since the goblin song from page 12 of 2007's Pathfinder Adventure Path #1: Burnt Offerings, goblins have been a key part of what makes Pathfinder recognizable as Pathfinder. When we first started looking at what would become the ancestries in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, we knew that we wanted to add something to the mix, to broaden the horizon of what it meant to be a hero in Pathfinder. That naturally brought us to goblins.

The trick was finding a way to let you play a goblin who has the feel of a Pathfinder goblin, but who is also a little bit softer around the edges—a character who has a reason to work with a group of "longshanks," as opposed to trying to light them on fire at the first opportunity. Let's look at an excerpt from the goblin ancestry to find out a bit more.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

As a people, goblins have spent millennia feared, maligned, and even hunted—and sometimes for understandable reasons, as some rural goblin tribes still often direct cruelty, raiding, and mayhem toward wandering or vulnerable creatures. In recent decades, however, a new sort of hero has emerged from among these rough-and-tumble tribes. Such goblins bear the same oversized heads, pointed ears, red eyes, and jagged teeth of their crueler kin, but they have a noble or savvy streak that other goblins can't even imagine, let alone understand. These erstwhile heroes roam Golarion, often maintaining their distinctive cultural habits while spreading the enthusiasm, inscrutable quirkiness, love of puns and song, and unique mirth that mark goblin adventurers.

Despite breaking from their destructive past, goblin adventurers often subtly perpetuate some of the qualities that have been characteristics of the creatures for millennia. They tend to flock to strong leaders, and fiercely protect those companions who have protected them from physical harm or who offer a sympathetic ear and sage advice when they learn of the goblins' woes. Some goblins remain deeply fascinated with fire, or fearlessly devour meals that might turn others' stomachs. Others are inveterate tinkerers and view their companions' trash as components of gadgets yet to be made. Occasionally, fellow adventurers find these proclivities unsettling or odd, but more often than not goblins' friends consider these qualities endearing.

The entry in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook has plenty more to say on the topic, but that should give you a sense of where we are taking Pathfinder's favorite troublemakers.

In addition to the story behind the goblin, its ancestry entry has a lot of other information as well to help you make a goblin player character. It includes the base goblin ability boosts (Dexterity and Charisma), ability flaw (Wisdom), bonus Hit Points (6), base speed (25 feet), and starting languages (Common and Goblin), as well as the rules for darkvision (an ability that lets goblins see in the dark just as well as they can see in normal light). Those are just the basics—the rules shared by all goblins. Beyond that, your goblin's unique ancestry allows you to choose one ability score other than Dexterity or Charisma to receive a boost. Perhaps you have some hobgoblin blood and have an additional boost to Constitution, or you descend from a long line of goblin alchemists and have a boost to Intelligence. You could even gain a boost in Wisdom to negate your flaw!

Then you get into the goblin ancestry feats, which allow you to decide what type of goblin you want to play. Starting off, let's look at Burn It. This feat gives you a bonus to damage whenever you cast a fire spell or deal fire damage with an alchemical item. On top of that, it also increases any persistent fire damage you deal by 1. Goblins still love watching things burn.

Next up is one of my favorites, Junk Tinkerer. A goblin with this feat can craft ordinary items and weapons out of junk and scrap they can find almost anywhere. Sure, the items are of poor quality and break easily, but you will never be without a weapon if you have this feat.

We could not have goblins in the game without adding the Razor Teeth feat. This grants you an attack with your mouthful of razor-sharp teeth that deals 1d6 piercing damage. To be honest, the target of your attack should probably also attempt a Fortitude save against whatever you ate last night that is still stuck between your teeth, but we'll leave that for the GM to decide.

Finally, there is the appropriately named feat Very Sneaky. This lets you move 5 feet farther when you take an action to sneak (which normally lets you move at only half your normal speed) and potentially renders your target flat-footed against a follow-up strike!

There are plenty of other goblin feats for you to choose from, but that's all we have time for today. Come back on Friday when we'll look at some of the feats from the other ancestries in the game!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
1,251 to 1,300 of 1,765 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm becoming a fan of the "Half-Breed" for a separate race. Would allow for Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Tiefling, and Aasimar, all pretty nicely, I think.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aldarc wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Where was all the detail for the good and neutral goblins in Goblins of Golarion?
Does this matter when you can play every single Paizo AP as a Chaotic Evil party?

Do details justifying a change that goes against the majority of published material matter? Yes.


wraithstrike wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
If there's one creature type Pathfinder really made its own, it's the goblin.

Not really.

Pathfinder goblins are pretty standard goblins in any other setting.

I mean, they're basically identical to Magic: The Gathering goblins, both in terms of personality, how they live, and their fondness for things the burn/go boom.

The only really distinct thing about Pathfinder goblins is their Hey Arnold! shaped football heads. Honestly, beyond that, they are stock standard fantasy goblins.

Forgotten Realms. Eberron, and many other D&D settings disagree. Goblins were trouble makers, but in Golorians their psychopaths who burn things down and kill with no reason. Even if a bunch of goblins in FR wanted your loot they likely not kill you, just to kill you, nor would they set you on fire for no reason.

They also weren't afraid of writing.

These goblins are not stock goblins at all except for the fact that they cause trouble and kill people, which can be applied to any evil creature.

Yeah and if I recall in Eberron all the goblinoid races are the remnants of a fallen empire that used to rule the land before humans came to power. So they were more the "fallen" ancient empire theme.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Where was all the detail for the good and neutral goblins in Goblins of Golarion?

Golarion's got a lot of things in it that haven't been explicitly described in a book yet (like the entire continent of Arcadia). Just because something has not yet been highlighted in no way indicates that it isn't there.

Like 8 years in universe have passed between the printing of "Goblins of Golarion" and the release of PF2.0. I figure that's practically a goblin generation and those books are generally framed with "this is what is popularly understood or what scholars think" and are not omniscient.

Not having printed material after 10 years does, in fact, indicate that it isn't there. Which is why you need the handwavium to justify the change.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of the logic of goblins being core. Them being core has the implication that they should be more common in games than the other races to come. There hasn't really been a shift in the lore to support goblin adventures being more common than the Outsider-kin or beast races from my view point. While it is certainly not impossible for a goblin to be good and/or adventurous it seems unlikely that people living in the world will just accept them without good reason. There is also the fact the goblins disdain for writing, dogs and horses has not been addressed what so ever when those will be big obstacles to being a hero in the setting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to echo the sentiment that the attacks on Sandpoint in RotRL were an exception. Goblins have always been portrayed as fire loving dweebs. And they have been portrayed in various lights over the years.

And, at the end of the day, they are moving the setting forward. Events of some Adventures are now Canon. This means that some adventurers have completed their quests.

In a very metagamey way, that means that there has absolutely been goblin heroes along the way. It strikes me as a very Kojima way of advancing the story, so I dig it.

At the end of the day, maybe Paizo is not drawing a big line between core and not core anymore. I still cannot fathom how this has become such a big deal for some people.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Not having printed material after 10 years does, in fact, indicate that it isn't there. Which is why you need the handwavium to justify the change.

I'm sort of confused why you keep implying that words in a book that explain how something is or came to be are "handwavium" considering the entire game is words most of which are about imaginary people in an imaginary place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
I'm becoming a fan of the "Half-Breed" for a separate race. Would allow for Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Tiefling, and Aasimar, all pretty nicely, I think.

So, I guess Half-Dwarf will finally become available through the back door...so to speak.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another issue came to mind. Not sure if someone brought it up since the post count of this thread is groving faster than I can read up as I write this.

Onto the point anyway.

There is another reason I don't want goblins in the core. And that is that I hate golarion goblins. I also hate gnomes, kender too. I have no use nor desire to have that sort of stuff in my rpgs. If people wanna play slapstick humour rpgs no skin of my back. But the less I see of it the happier I will be. No your character is not funny no they are nor quirky or adorable. They are annoying. If I see any of said races in a game I would be part of I am likely to simply walk away.(assuming the setting didn't change them to something of worth.)

And yes this is totally selfish reason for not wanting them in the core. I see it as encouraging a playstyle that I loathe to be part of. And the less it is encouraged the more likely I am to see the type of gaming I enjoy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:
There is another reason I don't want goblins in the core. And that is that I hate golarion goblins. I also hate gnomes, kender too. I have no use nor desire to have that sort of stuff in my rpgs.

I mean, do you allow gnomes in your game? I've seen gnome-haters ban gnomes from their games quite frequently. I don't see why anybody couldn't handle goblins just like they handle gnomes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Does everyone play their heroes as having severe ptsd by 6th level? Because given the literal horrors parties deal with on a regular basis, they would be a mess mentally a fraction of the way through a typical adventure path.

Sure seems like it most of the time. I am not a kind creator and my DM puts us through the ringer. Gathering up most of the NPCs we'd befrinded and using explosive rune and dominate to turn them all in to suicide bombers as an opening move in an ambush is my DM's idea of a random encounter.

Current PC was specifically designed to not be batman. He is currently batman with a drinking problem. DM fully admits he has no one to blame but himself.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Does everyone play their heroes as having severe ptsd by 6th level? Because given the literal horrors parties deal with on a regular basis, they would be a mess mentally a fraction of the way through a typical adventure path.

Sure seems like it most of the time. I am not a kind creator and my DM puts us through the ringer. Gathering up most of the NPCs we'd befrinded and using explosive rune and dominate to turn them all in to suicide bombers as an opening move in an ambush is my DM's idea of a random encounter.

Current PC was specifically designed to not be batman. He is currently batman with a drinking problem. DM fully admits he has no one to blame but himself.

PTSD is not universal. It's a fairly common (and fairly awful) response to trauma, but not a universal one. Having a particular character not suffer from it is not unrealistic.

And, on a real world note, the idea that everyone who suffers trauma gets PTSD is pretty toxic and devalues the experiences of those who don't. Rape survivors without the symptoms people expect often get disbelieved, for example.

So...let's not do the whole 'all people who experience trauma get PTSD' thing, okay?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm looking forward to having players at my table play goblins, as my players have already expressed their joy over the inclusion of goblins as a core race. Goblins won't change our stories for the worse, break our immersion, or otherwise ruin our experience. As GM, I realize I'm in control of my world and have final say on what's in and what's out, and goblins don't pose any threat to my sovereignty. Thankfully, my group isn't opposed to more options. If and when we come across aspects of the game that we don't like, we simply ignore it or replace it, as we've always done.

I've always appreciated how Pathfinder provides me the options and tools to tell the kind of story I want to tell. If you include other RPGs, I've lived through more than a dozen edition changes, and never has my table suffered for it. Thank you, Paizo, for providing my table with more shiny toys with which to tell stories.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Not having printed material after 10 years does, in fact, indicate that it isn't there. Which is why you need the handwavium to justify the change.
I'm sort of confused why you keep implying that words in a book that explain how something is or came to be are "handwavium" considering the entire game is words most of which are about imaginary people in an imaginary place.

A complete shift in pre-established history is not normal, regardless of imaginary status.

But since it is an imaginary setting, it is handwavium because everything written is intentional.

Just as bad players aren't bad because of the race but due to them intentionally chosing to make those bad choices.
I'm not saying the core goblins is bad because it's not possible, it's bad because of how unlikely it is. Goblins being acceptable is an act of handwaving. An intentional deviation of the norm.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Does everyone play their heroes as having severe ptsd by 6th level? Because given the literal horrors parties deal with on a regular basis, they would be a mess mentally a fraction of the way through a typical adventure path.

Sure seems like it most of the time. I am not a kind creator and my DM puts us through the ringer. Gathering up most of the NPCs we'd befrinded and using explosive rune and dominate to turn them all in to suicide bombers as an opening move in an ambush is my DM's idea of a random encounter.

Current PC was specifically designed to not be batman. He is currently batman with a drinking problem. DM fully admits he has no one to blame but himself.

PTSD is not universal. It's a fairly common (and fairly awful) response to trauma, but not a universal one. Having a particular character not suffer from it is not unrealistic.

And, on a real world note, the idea that everyone who suffers trauma gets PTSD is pretty toxic and devalues the experiences of those who don't. Rape survivors without the symptoms people expect often get disbelieved, for example.

So...let's not do the whole 'all people who experience trauma get PTSD' thing, okay?

I think you replied to the wrong guy. He never implied that all people who experience trauma get PTSD.

There's nothing wrong with him having his character roleplay, it's his character and if the players in his game were fine with it than it's fine. It's their matter anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As for the 'rule of consequences'...do NPCs hound half-orcs regularly in your games? The majority of half-orcs, after all, were raised in Belkzen and participate in its violent, perpetually warring and raiding culture. Orcs are every bit as violent and cruel as goblins, if not more so (for all that they worship Lamashtu, Goblins have never generally been characterized as rapists, for one--and say what you will about the tenets of Lamashtu, at least its an ethos. Rovagug offers only death and destruction), and orcs are considerably more dangerous--and arguably, large-scale orc raids are *more* common than the same from goblins. Half-orcs are specifically noted in their description as being largely distrusted because of their bestial appearances and ancestry, that many feel that violence is 'in their blood'. Yet we've seen a town that lives right on the edge of Belkzen and has a tradition where every adult carries a knife to commit suicide with if they are taken captive by orcs--and they, as written, have zero prejudice towards half-orcs, to the point that one of their most prominent citizens is a half-orc, and half-orc spies are able to infiltrate the town easily on behalf of an orc tribe planning a raid.

Gnomes aren't really from this plane of existence, their ancestors literally didn't have a concept of mortlity, and they can be prone to doing irrational and dangerous things because they dread being bored literally more than anything. Logically, there should be all sort of stories of gnome serial killers and arsonists (they have their own possible racial trait for being pyromaniacs!) and any other unsavory thing that someone could get a rush out of--their first write-up in the 3.5 version of the campaign setting played heavily on the dark side of their whimsy in introductory flavor text.

Tieflings aren't core, but are commonly suggested as a better option to addto core, are a hugely popular option, and are rarely percieved as disruptive so far as I understand. They are literally the spawn of Satan, and a substantial percentage of them serve the spreading apocalypse of the Worldwound. Yet even in Mendev, they're not (generally) condemned to the stake on sight.

'Consequences' are what the GM makes of them, basically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Not having printed material after 10 years does, in fact, indicate that it isn't there. Which is why you need the handwavium to justify the change.
I'm sort of confused why you keep implying that words in a book that explain how something is or came to be are "handwavium" considering the entire game is words most of which are about imaginary people in an imaginary place.

It's the difference between having 5 years of published material laying the ground work for a story that organically sits in the setting, and saying "I don't know, a god sent a memo" to justify an idea you came up with 5 minutes ago.

Liberty's Edge

Laird IceCubez wrote:

I think you replied to the wrong guy. He never implied that all people who experience trauma get PTSD.

There's nothing wrong with him having his character roleplay, it's his character and if the players in his game were fine with it than it's fine. It's their matter anyway.

To clarify, I was more responding to the original comment than Corrik's. Though I was also responding somewhat to Corrik's lack of disagreement with it.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Does everyone play their heroes as having severe ptsd by 6th level? Because given the literal horrors parties deal with on a regular basis, they would be a mess mentally a fraction of the way through a typical adventure path.

Sure seems like it most of the time. I am not a kind creator and my DM puts us through the ringer. Gathering up most of the NPCs we'd befrinded and using explosive rune and dominate to turn them all in to suicide bombers as an opening move in an ambush is my DM's idea of a random encounter.

Current PC was specifically designed to not be batman. He is currently batman with a drinking problem. DM fully admits he has no one to blame but himself.

PTSD is not universal. It's a fairly common (and fairly awful) response to trauma, but not a universal one. Having a particular character not suffer from it is not unrealistic.

And, on a real world note, the idea that everyone who suffers trauma gets PTSD is pretty toxic and devalues the experiences of those who don't. Rape survivors without the symptoms people expect often get disbelieved, for example.

So...let's not do the whole 'all people who experience trauma get PTSD' thing, okay?

Well my firebender in Reign of Winter certainly didn't have PTSD. The Ninja and him turned that in to a lighthearted adventure shonen. He honestly thought of Irrisen as something of a theme park. Campaign fell through but end game was for him to ask Baba Yaga to be a bit easier to live since some people weren't having as much fun as him and the monsters. More magic plants that grow in the snow, blizzards that just aren't as cold, monsters being more polite, more winter wolves to wrestle with, etc.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Mogo the Goblin wrote:
Actually a Goblin in RotRL has a vested interest in stopping the plot of RotRL, because if the longshanks get organized and come after the goblin tribes that's bad news for the goblins. They gotta stop that crazy lady from getting goblin heads stuck in a tighter pickle jar than they can get it out of.

Maybe.

It would still not stop the NPCs from sandpoint to try to skin them alive if they could.

So it would bring abou the challenge, how would the goblin PC perform all those city parts of the adventure, while running from every guard in the city and being hunted by half the quest NPCs... Interesting conundrum.

Guess if he is also a master of alter self from lvl 1...

its pretty easy, as a dm you choose not to chase the characters around , if maybe use it as a roleplaying opportunity for the goblins to talk to the town guards or leadership and get a grudging allowance to prove them selves


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laird IceCubez wrote:
A complete shift in pre-established history is not normal, regardless of imaginary status.

Sure it is- the entire premise of a roleplaying game, as opposed to a war game, is that narrative and setting details can and do change either in response to player action or to spur/enable character action. It's the basic mechanism for how these things work.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

43 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets all drop some of the hyperbole here.

We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.

And here is the thing...

I think a slower shift is good. I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling. That is part of the reason we are doing this. We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not, but we do want to make them more than what they are. Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero.

That change is not going to happen overnight. Its not going to happen by decree. The best we can do with this story, is give you the tools to make it part of your game, your world. As with everything else we make, whether or not you decide to use it, is up to you.

Hope that helps here everybody.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

A new core race option appears inconsistent with "slower shift" to me. But we will see I suppose.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Lets all drop some of the hyperbole here.

We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.

And here is the thing...

I think a slower shift is good. I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling. That is part of the reason we are doing this. We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not, but we do want to make them more than what they are. Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero.

That change is not going to happen overnight. Its not going to happen by decree. The best we can do with this story, is give you the tools to make it part of your game, your world. As with everything else we make, whether or not you decide to use it, is up to you.

Hope that helps here everybody.

This makes me assume then, that there won't be much in the way of future material prior to August 2019 that facilitates a new outlook on Goblins by the average "good" folk of Golarion. But rather, this is going to be something created for PF2 that shows a burgeoning new outlook at its infancy.

I'm not completely opposed to that idea. I hope that PFS leads don't make the Goblin immediately available for play though. I know that unless there is a storyline where it makes sense (maybe Ironfang Invasion could make sense), I'll probably not allow goblin PCs in home games I run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Lets all drop some of the hyperbole here.

We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.

And here is the thing...

I think a slower shift is good. I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling. That is part of the reason we are doing this. We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not, but we do want to make them more than what they are. Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero.

That change is not going to happen overnight. Its not going to happen by decree. The best we can do with this story, is give you the tools to make it part of your game, your world. As with everything else we make, whether or not you decide to use it, is up to you.

Hope that helps here everybody.

This makes me assume then, that there won't be much in the way of future material prior to August 2019 that facilitates a new outlook on Goblins by the average "good" folk of Golarion. But rather, this is going to be something created for PF2 that shows a burgeoning new outlook at its infancy.

I'm not completely opposed to that idea. I hope that PFS leads don't make the Goblin immediately available for play though. I know that unless there is a storyline where it makes sense (maybe Ironfang Invasion could make sense), I'll probably not allow goblin PCs in home games I run.

What I'm really hoping for is that one of the last PF1 APs will introduce goblin tribes banding together to help save the world from some other threat, which opens up other people to being more accepting of goblins without having to change any of their current lore.

Of course, other cultures or certain countries or cities may not believe the stories of gobmin tribes stepping up to the plate to save the world, but those counties directly involved with the alliance know better.

That would be awesome.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What I'm concerned about is that a some people here seem fundamentally opposed to the very idea of "a goblin PC finds redemption and earns the trust of people not inclined to trust a goblin".

I would suggest, in good faith, we instead consider how one can enable these stories- what mechanisms can a goblin PC use in order to earn the trust of NPCs? What forces might drive goblins in significant numbers to seek out this kind of thing?

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Correct me if i'm mistaken but the vast majority of Golarian has not been explored. We have mainly had adventures centered around the Inner Sea Region with the exception of Tian Xing...

Who is to say that there aren't Goblins from elsewhere in the world that are different?

Aside from that my theory is that we have a lot of people not wanting to use their imaginations in a game of imagination. I can think of a million and one ways a player can be a Goblin even in 1E. In my games players are exceptions to the norm, not simple reconstructions of the race description in a book. Now that doesn't mean that goblin characters should hinder the progress of the game and story just because they are a goblin and "i'm just playing my race." But if that does happen then it is a player issue and not a "lore" issue. That is when I would address and help the player find other means of achieving that gobliny flavor and still be a contributing member to a team oriented game.

Saying that player Goblins are or should be the stereotypical example of their race entry is a line of thought I do not enjoy. That is one of the reasons i don't enjoy 5E. Characters, for the most part, feel like stereotypes in that game. Nothing wrong with that but there is a reason why I personally never made the jump to the game. Pathfinder has always given me tools to create fun, original, and unique characters as well as allow me to be the stereotype.

As for me and my players we are ecstatic about the opportunity to play goblins....even if players have been playing goblins for many years now in 1E. I guess this is just a weird thing for so many to be THAT upset about in my opinion. But to each their own i suppose.


scary harpy wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
I'm becoming a fan of the "Half-Breed" for a separate race. Would allow for Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Tiefling, and Aasimar, all pretty nicely, I think.
So, I guess Half-Dwarf will finally become available through the back door...so to speak.
edduardco wrote:
Drow and Duergar maybe should be included as ancestries options for Elf and Dwarf

In-setting elves who become evil transform into drow. Duergar perhaps are the same in-setting? I don't really know.

I do like the idea of transformative ancestries, whether one begins play as such or later acquires/undertakes the transformation.

Natural lycanthropes are another possible ancestry, whereas afflicted lycanthropy is an acquired template/ancestry. Can afflicted lycanthropes 'pass on' the curse, spawning natural lycanthropes that way? I don't know.

"Hybrid" races come across as ideally suited to being ancestries: aasimar, duergar, drow, half-dwarves, half-elves, the elemental half-folk, natural lycanthropes, half-orcs, half-hobgoblins, half-ogres, you name it.

Presuming not all ancestries are equal - which is a Good Thing - and that it is perhaps possible to be of a "tossed salad ancestry" (elf of human and angelic ancestry, for example). Certain ancestries may be equivalent to (and thus 'cost' one's 1st level feat) a general feat whereas others may prove extraordinarily potent, "taxing" a portion of XP earned. Or, if I understand the fixed XP per level correctly, instead increases that character's XP cost per level.

Instead of describing modules, AP chapters, et al around character level, they can be described as "XP earned" or somesuch.

Example: Chapter 2 of the Great Gobbo Concert Tour Adventure Path is written for 4-5 characters that have earned 4,000 xp. The 'normal' characters without 'costly ancestries' are 4th level, those who have a higher XP cost-per-level are correspondingly lower level.


I expect more Kobold and Sahagins to replace the Goblin slot now.

Side note; there's alternates to goblins, such as the Monkey Goblin and Grindylows. Will they too be suddenly heroes(or steadily accepted) or more like, ancestry choices?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Lets all drop some of the hyperbole here.

We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.

And here is the thing...

I think a slower shift is good. I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling. That is part of the reason we are doing this. We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not, but we do want to make them more than what they are. Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero.

That change is not going to happen overnight. Its not going to happen by decree. The best we can do with this story, is give you the tools to make it part of your game, your world. As with everything else we make, whether or not you decide to use it, is up to you.

Hope that helps here everybody.

Well said. Will you communicate this message to the players in the 'lore bit' to prevent arguments (such as this thread) at public gaming tables?

P.S. Please read the PM I sent you. A reply in the style of "I read it and you are a gnomehead" is acceptable :)

This....doesn't actually support your side of the argument? If anything, it's saying:

"Yes, the change has barely begun, and goblins will have it pretty hard everywhere for quite a while. But we think exploring that will be worth it."

And, ok, more power to them, but it does seem weird to make a race in that position Core. At least half-orcs only have prejudices, Goblins have ton of evidence against them to get over.

Also:

"Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero."

I wouldn't qualify what Goblins usually do as "mischief" to be honest. They're far worse than that.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Goblins aren't monsters anymore, they're an icon of the game now, just as much as anything else, the popularity of the We Be Goblins line is proof enough of that.

So, it's about time, if you ask me.

Aint the we be Goblins line the one were you do potentally nasty things to people that dont deserve it at a couple of points.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Wild Spirit wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
The reason Goblins are included is because they are part of Paizo's and Golarion's Identity people associate them with the game, its not a publicity stunt is just them asserting that part of their identity.
No, it's them shoving their mascot in to core.
To be fair, it's THEIR world, not Gygax's.
Then why leave the rest of the core races unaffected and while just shoving in their mascot? Why not change things, update them so it better matches their world?
Maybe they are doing those things. In fact with the whole Ancestry feats making races something you can actively grow into and embody, I believe they will have to in some degree or another. We have seen one ancestry titbit so far. To say edition changes won't change other ancestries as well seems a bit naive.
I didn't say that, but nice reach for the insult. Tell me then, what races might be added or subtracted to the core races based on the current list and ancestry?

Oh sorry I thought you meant changes to the other cores races, as in the Elf write up will be different and their mechanics will be different. I see now you meant larger changes to the ancestry roster.


MerlinCross wrote:

I expect more Kobold and Sahagins to replace the Goblin slot now.

Side note; there's alternates to goblins, such as the Monkey Goblin and Grindylows. Will they too be suddenly heroes(or steadily accepted) or more like, ancestry choices?

They could be 'qualified' ancestries. In the terms of APs, certain variant ancestries such as grindylow could be an ancestry that is qualified for a given campaign. Grindylow would qualify for appropriately-themed campaigns/APs such as Skull and Shackles or the Ruins of Azlant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Lets all drop some of the hyperbole here.

We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.

And here is the thing...

I think a slower shift is good. I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling. That is part of the reason we are doing this. We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not, but we do want to make them more than what they are. Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero.

That change is not going to happen overnight. Its not going to happen by decree. The best we can do with this story, is give you the tools to make it part of your game, your world. As with everything else we make, whether or not you decide to use it, is up to you.

Hope that helps here everybody.

Regardless of where I personally stand on this, I want to take a moment here to thank you for responding directly.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
And, ok, more power to them, but it does seem weird to make a race in that position Core. At least half-orcs only have prejudices, Goblins have ton of evidence against them to get over.

I don't think it weird. I think those make for interesting characters.

Quote:
I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:

"Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero."

I wouldn't qualify what Goblins usually do as "mischief" to be honest. They're far worse than that.

The non-violent stuff (and fire is violent) can mostly fall under mischief. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that goblins who qualify as a hero aren't gonna run around killing innocent people.

Or to put it another way: Evil Goblins go beyond mischief. Good Goblins tone it down to the mischief level.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, someone asked if goblins did indeed eat babys or it was just a song.
Well, in Burnt Offerings, a starving one tries to eat a boy alive. He then kills the boy's father and eats him.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladinosaur wrote:

So, someone asked if goblins did indeed eat babys or it was just a song.

Well, in Burnt Offerings, a starving one tries to eat a boy alive.

Pretty sure he eats the fathers face although that may have been toned down for the aniversary edition.

Liberty's Edge

Kevin Mack wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:

So, someone asked if goblins did indeed eat babys or it was just a song.

Well, in Burnt Offerings, a starving one tries to eat a boy alive.
Pretty sure he eats the fathers face although that may have been toned down for the aniversary edition.

Nope, edited my post to include that. It is still in the Anniversary Edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
And, ok, more power to them, but it does seem weird to make a race in that position Core. At least half-orcs only have prejudices, Goblins have ton of evidence against them to get over.

I don't think it weird. I think those make for interesting characters.

Quote:
I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling.

You can do that with....any race? You can do that now with Half-Orcs?

Tieflings fall into the same category.

My point was, those races don't have the giant baggage in-universe Goblins have. Goblins aren't "misunderstood" they're Evil. They're mistrusted for very, very good reasons.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

"Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero."

I wouldn't qualify what Goblins usually do as "mischief" to be honest. They're far worse than that.

The non-violent stuff (and fire is violent) can mostly fall under mischief. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that goblins who qualify as a hero aren't gonna run around killing innocent people.

Or to put it another way: Evil Goblins go beyond mischief. Good Goblins tone it down to the mischief level.

So essentially....PC Goblins are Green Gnomes? Except, their reason for being quirky isn't to stave off the Bleaching, it's just...cus they're Goblins.

So Kenders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Mack wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:

So, someone asked if goblins did indeed eat babys or it was just a song.

Well, in Burnt Offerings, a starving one tries to eat a boy alive.
Pretty sure he eats the fathers face although that may have been toned down for the anniversary edition.

It's not toned down.

The goblin had been trapped under the house and was driven mad by the barking of the boy's young dog (which the goblin kills before he attacks and tries to eat the boy by biting his arm). So there are some... extenuating circumstances.

But "driven mad" can also be seen as "driven to the point of no longer having fear" as it goes after four PCs without a care at this point with what's essentially a shiv. And it DOES murder the father and rip off enough chunks of the guy's face that it's a closed casket funeral.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
Aldarc wrote:
Corrik wrote:
So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Sure. Why not? I'd be perfectly fine with that. Would you mind throwing in Orcs and Aasimar into the mix as well?

A part of me wants to echo the sentiment that half-elves and half-orcs should be absorbed into the ancestries of humans, elves, and orcs, but then I remember that half-elves in Eberron have essentially become their own ancestry with their own heritage, set of cultures, and lore.

No, nor would I have had as much issue if they had switched around the core races more. But keeping the status quo except now goblins just does not work.

does not work for you is not the same as does not work.

it works fine for example for me and has for years.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

With "We Be Goblins" being so popular, this makes sense. It's not like there's a "We Be Orcs" or "We be Tieflings".

There's been a desire to play goblins in Pathfinder for YEARS.

We Be Goblins is popular because players all get to play psychopathic pyromaniacs together in a one-shot with no long-term consequences. Can you imagine what it would be like to play one of the pre-gens in an AP with a group of core races?

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:

You can do that with....any race? You can do that now with Half-Orcs?

Tieflings fall into the same category.

My point was, those races don't have the giant baggage in-universe Goblins have. Goblins aren't "misunderstood" they're Evil. They're mistrusted for very, very good reasons.

You are arguing against your own points, now.

Goblins face more obstacles than either half-orcs and tieflings. They are still worth redeeming.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

22 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Lets all drop some of the hyperbole here.

We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.

And here is the thing...

I think a slower shift is good. I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling. That is part of the reason we are doing this. We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not, but we do want to make them more than what they are. Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero.

That change is not going to happen overnight. Its not going to happen by decree. The best we can do with this story, is give you the tools to make it part of your game, your world. As with everything else we make, whether or not you decide to use it, is up to you.

Hope that helps here everybody.

Jason, outside a lot of the hype and grar... I think the disconnect some people are experiencing is in part that, regardless of words, Paizo's actions so far do not indicate a slow shift. At least not with the information we are working with.

Bear with me as I explain (and note I'm trying to capture a concern I see others expressing):
For the last 10 years, to the best of my knowledge/experience, goblins have been largely presented in Paizo's products as completely, irrevocably, irredeemably, and universally evil. They literally eat babies and torture people solely for the joy of it. My interpretation is that Paizo's original presentation of these creatures was for the game to have a very monstrous monster race that any PC could feel okay about slaughtering, no matter how altruistic said PC would be. (Caveat: I haven't read any recent Golarion goblin tales, just seen how they have been presented in the campaigns I've played in.)

For 10 whole years we have been in this paradigm, and now you are asking your fanbase to accept, yes, more or less overnight, that, "Oh, never mind, actually they are as many and varied as sentient playable races to the point that they should now be as common a hero in a campaign as an elf, halfling, or dwarf."

That is NOT a slow shift. That is a rapid, whiplash-inducing heel-face-turn.

I RECOGNIZE you and the other developers may have come up with a really great story about how some goblins are changing and evolving and the whole thing about them being irredeemable sadist murdermonkeys was all hyperbole. And I trust that it is a great story.

But given we have had 10 years of "totally irredeemable" and now you are giving us a few months to accept, "oh, actually some of them are fine and should be seen in regular society on a regular basis" --- that is NOT slow. No matter how GOOD the story is (and again, I'm sure it's great), it is NOT slow.

Now, if the goblins are NOT regular adventurers that should be seen on a regular basis amid society...

Then why are they core?

Core means we will see them regularly not only as PCs, but as NPCs. Major characters in APs will be goblins. Iconics will include goblins. The fiction will include more goblins, and not just as PC cannon fodder. It means they will suddenly have a much, much more significant role in every aspect of gameplay AND campaign lore AND associated fiction. If they DON'T, then they shouldn't be core. (ETA: and while you say that their use is up to us, it is my understanding Paizo relies a lot on Adventure Path subscriptions specifically to stay afloat; this means the largest and most financially-valuable-to-you customer base are AP customers, and if goblins are core, they are going to be showing up way more in APs--which means for many of your player base, discarding them will NOT be an option--at least not an easy one.)

If you want to keep them as core, then you need to own that this is not a slow change and that you are asking folks to reconsider a somewhat, if not large, then iconic chunk of how your setting's paradigm works. And that's particularly hard for gamers, a race- *cough* ancestry of creatures who are notably and often infuriatingly averse to change. :) So it's gonna be a rough adjustment.

I am all for slow shifts. I think slow shifts are a great idea. I do not believe the information you have supplied us in any way indicates a slow shift.

NOTE: I do not really personally have a dog in this race. As I said earlier, I deeply dislike goblins, but I'll buy into 2e regardless. I don't think it's the end of all gaming or it will turn my players into terrible people or anything. I'm just trying to gauge what a number of folks are feeling and I think a lot of it is lore whiplash and that needs to be acknowledged a bit more.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since Goblins are core, will Goblin dogs be both animal companions in core book and mounts?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Serum wrote:
Can you imagine what it would be like to play one of the pre-gens in an AP with a group of core races?

Yes. However, it is not having the effect you might be suggesting it should have on me.

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,765 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards