PossibleCabbage wrote:
SortHac wrote:
I really don't want goblins in Core primarily because they are described as few in number. While it may or may not be written down, Core races/ancestry have the distinction of being some of the most common races to be seen as adventurers, as well as being not uncommon sights in taverns.
Aren't goblins incredibly common on the face of Golarion, whereas things like "Half-Orcs" are terribly rare? I don't understand this argument.
If you're saying "Goblin Adventurers were rare" then sure, I agree with that but all kinds of adventurers are pretty rare, and "adventurer demographics" have nothing to do with population demographics.
I mean we've already experienced things like "new kinds of Changelings are printed, so we get kinds of Changelings as adventurers that never were previously adventurers" already and can deal with it. For most of Pathfinder 1.0 there were no Shifters or Vigilantes, but suddenly they were always there.
Well, for the record, I actually didn't know Half-Orcs were that rare. Moreover, after reading the blog-post again, I'm not sure where I got that impression from. Hmm...
After thinking on it, I've narrowed down some of my problems with Goblins as Core (not as PC races, I'm perfectly fine with them.)
1.) Goblins are still considered as born inherently evil. (I draw this reasoning from the fact that they can and will eat each other as children/in the womb) I would much rather this be changed to 'culturally lean towards evil/chaotic'.
2.) There are no confirmed Good/Neutral goblin *communities*. If we were to have confirmed by Paizo that in the last ten years such a community were to exist, I'd be perfectly fine with that.
3.) As others have stated, why is it that Goblins made it in as the first PF core monster race? If you want monster races that can be reasoned with, why not Kobolds? Or Hobgoblins? Why not Catfolk or Lizardfolk or even Ratfolk? Jason himself has stated that it is *not* because of the popularity of Goblins, so then why them?