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
751 to 800 of 1,765 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

Well, here's the thing- we're talking about the social contract not the rules in terms of what options are fine and which are not.

Certainly the Magus, the Oracle, and the Swashbuckler are not core options, but does anybody honestly ask their GM if they can play an Oracle? Or an Aasimar? Or take an Archetype? In practice there are a great number of things which are not core that are expected to be available unless someone says otherwise.

And the "someone says otherwise" entitles the GM to prohibit "core" options at their discretion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like goblins as a PC option, and I'm fine with Paizo's inclusion of them as a core race. I *really* don't think they're saying, "There are now well-respected goblins in every town and city, and no one has a problem with them anymore."

That *would* be way out of flavor and not make much sense based on what's previously been established about them.

That said, it's 2018. It'd be cool if people were less racist, even in fantasy settings. Just because they're short, green, and have pointy teeth doesn't mean they're inherently a menace. The *people* in Golarion might be racist and assume all goblins are monsters, but the rulebook shouldn't be.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry Jason, I'm just not convinced.

1) I feel it's too late for any feed back to actually make a difference now.

2) You're finalizing the book and not taking info until the playtest, which is going on now. I'm assuming public playtest then but that seems rather late to make a change.

3) I suppose this makes sense. But at the same time with no info we'll just fill in the gap with our own ideas and expectations that will have to be pried out when the full info comes out.

4) No other race is as Iconic to pathfinder and explifies the game. So we're putting them front and center now as a fully playable race. This still sounds like a marketing idea or favoritism for the most "iconic" race.

I'm not saying Jason is lying or being dishonest or anything mean here. I just remain unconvinced and this goes into the "maybe" pile when it comes to picking up 2e.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't think it unreasonable to mention "double check with the GM" in the character creation process. Not all campaigns are the same, and everyone should be on the same page before diving in.

If you make communication an established part of the process, a lot of these worrysome problems go away.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Twitchy Boom Boom wrote:

TWITCHY:

New things to taste

RONK:
We’ll lay them to waste

BOTH:
Just you and me!

...

...sniff...

*quickly turns away and stirs kettle frenetically*

Sneaky Gobbo wrote:

*quietly dabbing eyes with a handkerchief*

Bigwort always cry this part. So beautiful.

Oh not again, Bigwort! Always the slobbering romantic.. You ever gonna fix those holes in that bucket o' yours?

*sobs*

Just... Just look what happens; the onions always turn out bad when you sing like that and Bigwort starts leaking! And... And the juice just always gets in my eyes!

*wipes eyes with shaking hands and loudly blows nose into kitchen apron*

And don't you dare complain 'bout your burned baby stew bein' too salty now!

....

On topic, I've never had any issues with goblin PCs, or with any of the far more exotic creatures rather frequently seen at my table. And I kinda like gobbos, as villains as well as unlikely PC heroes. So personally I certainly don't mind putting them in the CRB.

But I don't think it jams well with the Golarion setting as a whole, and even less with how goblins have been portrayed in Paizo APs (We Be Goblins included). Which unfortunately makes the decision to make them core seem hasty, short-sighted and ultimately also self-defeating to me.

IME, a major part of the reason why goblins in general and goblin PCs in particular are popular, is precisely because 99.999% of the ones PCs encounter or hear about in the setting are crazy little ugly baby-eating and trash-collecting homicidal pyromaniacs singing happy tunes about bloody murder in raspy smurf voices. Or in other words, they're popular precisely because they're practically never encountered or heard of as anything even remotely resembling heroes in the setting, and precisely because they're not primarily presented or supported as a PC race in player rules and setting material.

So the more recognized non-stereotypical goblins become in the setting, and the more support such goblins receive in player fluff material, the less unique and interesting goblins become as a PC race.

This wouldn't be an issue if goblins had as rich and diverse history and as many famous and varied heroes and villains as say elves in the setting (and in famous similar standard fantasy fiction). They could've been the eternal underdogs who constantly struggles against prejudice because of their small stature, funny "monster-cute" looks and odd quirks. But since such a background hasn't been properly established, while their villainous background certainly has, I suspect they'll quickly lose much of their attraction and soon fade into the background as just another drow. All while another similarly "edgy" and colorful monster race assumes the goblins' former role in the hearts and minds of players.

Let's hope I'm wrong, 'cause I wouldn't mind seeing gobbos grow beyond the stereotype while their attraction and popularity is kept intact.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, here's the thing- we're talking about the social contract not the rules in terms of what options are fine and which are not.

Certainly the Magus, the Oracle, and the Swashbuckler are not core options, but does anybody honestly ask their GM if they can play an Oracle? Or an Aasimar? Or take an Archetype? In practice there are a great number of things which are not core that are expected to be available unless someone says otherwise.

And the "someone says otherwise" entitles the GM to prohibit "core" options at their discretion.

I mean, I'd find it maybe annoying or at worst rude if a player doesn't check in with me about what they are playing before game. If only because I have a general idea of what all the characters are going to be as I have all the sheets/info. Along with how the setting is going to be. Like if someone showed up with an Undine but the game was sold as "Middle of the desert" that could cause problems. Heck I saw someone try to apply a Centuar to a Skull and Shackles game. My mind can't fathom how that works out well.

Never mind if they show up with an evil character but that's more an alignment thing.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm excited to have goblins as a playable race!

As long as PFS games are still "no evil alignments", then my only problem is coaching people to better use their imaginations and not behave in evil ways as a PC.

If people can't get over not being evil, then that seems like a player problem, not a rules problem.

and I cannot wait for the multitudinous new ballads from our non-evil friends as they fill the taverns with song, and our travels with sing-alongs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no problem with goblins being a PC race, but I also don't always use Golarion as my setting. If I use Golarion I don't see them being trusted in a party if I used the Golarion version. They cause too much trouble for the sake of causing trouble. As a GM I tend to use the Eberron version of goblins even in Golarion. I see kobolds since they are fairly weak anyway to be more like Golarion's goblins.

I know the Paizo's default setting is Golarion, but I'm wondering if the CRB for PF2 will be setting neutral. If so then goblins shouldn't be an issue as long as the GM explains that the CRB is setting neutral.

If it's not setting neutral I can see not allowing goblins as something that might cause problems in some groups.

edit:clarification


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, here's the thing- we're talking about the social contract not the rules in terms of what options are fine and which are not.

Certainly the Magus, the Oracle, and the Swashbuckler are not core options, but does anybody honestly ask their GM if they can play an Oracle? Or an Aasimar? Or take an Archetype? In practice there are a great number of things which are not core that are expected to be available unless someone says otherwise.

And the "someone says otherwise" entitles the GM to prohibit "core" options at their discretion.

I've often seen races/classes excluded. What I HAVEN'T seen is core classes/races on that list past the very niche games as I listed in previous posts. Most everyone starts with core and THEN excludes things: it's going to change the dynamics if core isn't a standard anymore and there is NO assumption of base availability.

KingOfAnything wrote:
I don't think it unreasonable to mention "double check with the GM" in the character creation process.

For the VAST amount of pathfinder games [and I've been in a LOT online], core didn't require a "double check with the GM". Core was assumed usable out of the box unless the DM goes out of the way to exclude them for some reason. THAT is the reason people are losing their minds here. Core equates to common and expected all the time.

Grand Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Nothing stop them to add the line "Goblins are hard to roleplay, and may not be appropriate in all campaign, ask your DM before playing one."
Hell, Iron Kingdom is a setting that have elves, goblins (gobbers), trolls (trollkins), and ogres (ogruns) and druids (this one is a class, I know)... Both elves and druids are discouraged to play, not the other 3, because in that world, the Elves are almost all witch hunters that kill anything doing magic on sight, and druids are so anti-civilizations that they tend to try to raze cities to the ground in a regular basis. These two are still in the core book.
So yeah, having a special closes saying some goblins are not THAT bad and can be adventurers, I'm ok with that (also, as I said before, one of my player made it easy for me to implement it in my game, EVEN if there is no major shift in the lore.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I have no problem with goblins being a PC race, but I also don't always use Golarion as my setting. If I use Golarion I don't see them being trusted in a party. They cause too much trouble for the sake of causing trouble.

I know the Paizo's default setting is Golarion, but I'm wondering if the CRB for PF2 will be setting neutral. If so then goblins shouldn't be an issue as long as the GM explains that the CRB is setting neutral.

If it's not setting neutral I can see not allowing goblins as something that might cause problems in some groups.

One of the touted features of PF2E is marrying the rules to Golarion more closely. Jason himself said earlier upthread that the reason they're adding Goblins to core is precisely their iconic status within Golarion.

With that in mind, I doubt the CRB is going to be setting neutral. At the very least, not quite as setting neutral as the original CRB was.

EDIT:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Nothing stop them to add the line "Goblins are hard to roleplay, and may not be appropriate in all campaign, ask your DM before playing one."

Hell, Iron Kingdom is a setting that have elves, goblins (gobbers), trolls (trollkins), and ogres (ogruns) and druids (this one is a class, I know)... Both elves and druids are discouraged to play, not the other 3, because in that world, the Elves are almost all witch hunters that kill anything doing magic on sight, and druids are so anti-civilizations that they tend to try to raze cities to the ground in a regular basis. These two are still in the core book.
So yeah, having a special closes saying some goblins are not THAT bad and can be adventurers, I'm ok with that (also, as I said before, one of my player made it easy for me to implement it in my game, EVEN if there is no major shift in the lore.)

Correction: Druids are core only in the later expansion that precisely deals with the uncivilized parts of Western Immoren. An expansion that the developers themselves have pointed out is not thematically supposed to be meshed with the Civilised part of the IK.

Also, Trollkin aren't Trolls. And Trolls are definitely not considered PC races. Similarly, not all Iosans are members of the Retribution. Not only that, but the Core specifically calls out adventuring Iosans as rarities.

Same for Ogrun, who aren't Ogres. And Gobbers, who are goblins but not actually goblins (those are the Bogrins).

But you are discouraged to play Bogrins/Tharn/Farrow/Gatormen in any sort of game where the players are expected to have regular dealings with civilised portions of the setting because the animosity between those lands and the Wilds is too high.

You know, kinda how the animosity between nearly everyone and goblins has always been presented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

I'm excited to have goblins as a playable race!

As long as PFS games are still "no evil alignments", then my only problem is coaching people to better use their imaginations and not behave in evil ways as a PC.

If people can't get over not being evil, then that seems like a player problem, not a rules problem.

and I cannot wait for the multitudinous new ballads from our non-evil friends as they fill the taverns with song, and our travels with sing-alongs.

"Oh can't be evil. Aw man. Wait what's this then? Chaotic Netural? Tell me more."

In my experience, you can get away with being Evil even if you aren't in PFS. Or at the least, a disruptive jerk.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bruno Mares wrote:
There are A LOT of other more interesting races to add. Aasimars, Tieflings (maybe not so much...), catfolks, tengus, kistunes...

Picking on this one because I keep seeing the point brought up that "But I wanted Aasimar/Tieflings/Flying Purple Hippomen!"

More interesting? Well, that's a matter of personal opinion (Catfolk? Nope, nope, nope, never heard of 'em, no idea what you're talking about...)

More ubiquitous? Nope.

Unlike just about everybody except humans and maybe halflings, goblins are pretty much everywhere- in-setting and out of it.

While I want a bit more in-setting justification for how they can walk down a street without being attacked by dogs/concerned citizens/the town watch, goblins are actually a perfectly sound choice insofar as they're everywhere.

In addition, regardless of some of the kvetching here, goblins are identified with Paizo in general- and Pathfinder in particular- to a breathtaking degree. They went from being the pathetic mini-orcs D&D inherited from Tolkien to something far more... distinctive. If there's one creature type Pathfinder really made its own, it's the goblin. The closest runner-up? Gnomes.

Now- this ubiquity has thus far been in a hostile form. They're depicted as worshiping Lamashtu and/or Barghest hero-deities. Nobody in-setting seems to like them very much. The entire nation of Isger is a shattered hulk because of the Goblinblood Wars. Putting aside what they do to other creatures, they raise their own offspring in friggin' cages.

In published Paizo material, we have by now seen more nonevil drow than nonevil goblins- even the relatively benign Tup is still evil.

While I am basically onboard with goblins as a PC option, and can even see people tolerating a well-behaved specimen in their community, it must be said, there are going to be some growing pains.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is "celestial" and "fiendish" (or the various flavors of such) going to be "unique ancestry" options for humans or are they going to wait for splat?


graystone wrote:
I've often seen races/classes excluded. What I HAVEN'T seen is core classes/races on that list past the very niche games as I listed in previous posts. Most everyone starts with core and THEN excludes things: it's going to change the dynamics if core isn't a standard anymore and there is NO assumption of base availability.

I mean, where I play "check with the GM" is standard but those things which are explicitly forbidden are most commonly things in the core rules since those things outside of the core rules which are inappropriate are usually caught in the "check with" step. After all, there are a great number of options and the GM can't be expected to know all of them off the top of one's head.

So the only classes I have seen straight out disallowed more than core classes are the Summoner and Gunslinger. I haven't seen any race more commonly disallowed than core races (notably elves, gnomes, and half-humans).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, here's the thing- we're talking about the social contract not the rules in terms of what options are fine and which are not.

Certainly the Magus, the Oracle, and the Swashbuckler are not core options, but does anybody honestly ask their GM if they can play an Oracle? Or an Aasimar? Or take an Archetype? In practice there are a great number of things which are not core that are expected to be available unless someone says otherwise.

And the "someone says otherwise" entitles the GM to prohibit "core" options at their discretion.

Personally i expect an entire list of what is allowed or isnt.

Usually, "core" is a common thing to be perfectly valid.

Im betting on the future something like: "Core, less Goblin" will not be uncommon like another poster said previously, but who knows.

Ultimately like they just said they will take in feedback, lets see how that goes. Personally i would make 100% sure that every player understood that it is important to check with the GM while making choices like "Goblin".

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Including goblins in the 2e CRB doesn't bother me. I'll probably only allow Goblins as a PC race in very limited circumstances regardless.

Threads like this, though, really causes me to wonder whether the playtest process is worth the grar around here.

-Skeld


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:
Nothing stop them to add the line "Goblins are hard to roleplay, and may not be appropriate in all campaign, ask your DM before playing one."

Which is a great way of saying "These should not be a core race."

Core races should not be difficult to play. They should be appropriate in nearly every game by default. You should not have to ask the GM's permission to play anything core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:
Nothing stop them to add the line "Goblins are hard to roleplay, and may not be appropriate in all campaign, ask your DM before playing one."

That's exactly what they did for non-core races in pathfinder... That's KIND of the point, as that's WHY people do not want them as core [as core DOESN'T have that proviso].

PossibleCabbage wrote:
So the only classes I have seen straight out disallowed more than core classes are the Summoner and Gunslinger. I haven't seen any race more commonly disallowed than core races (notably elves, gnomes, and half-humans).

you have a much different experience with pathfinder than I do then. The times I've seen core disallowed can be counted on one hand while the number I've played in total runs into the dozens.

Maybe online games are different but the most common 'rules' for games is core plus x, minus z: core itself is very rarely tampered with.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I don't mind evil races being cleaned up for core. But there's a difference between something like hobgoblins or kobolds, which are orderly and have civilization, vs something like Paizo goblins, which are the living definition of murder-hobo.

Remember, the Paizo conception of a goblin came from Pathfinder's early days, when they were establishing themselves as a grittier alternative setting. A setting where all ogres are explicitly rapists and necrophiliacs. Paizo goblins:

  • Literally eat babies.
  • Set people on fire for fun.
  • Would carve you up and eat pieces of you in front of you while you are alive and conscious.
  • Have never been portrayed as clever, witty, strong-willed or strong-of-personality in the slightest as would be implied by a Charisma bonus.
  • Would rape you just because it makes you unhappy without even being horny or attracted to you, right after forcefeeding you your dog.

As Paizo themselves has constructed them, they are for all intents and purposes weak demons but from the Material Plane instead of the Abyss.

Now, individual heroic members of a race can have Driz'zt syndrome, whatever. That can be fun. Put stats for playable goblins in the Bestiary, even give them racial ancestry feats there, I don't care. But the Paizo Goblin does not in any way meet any kind of qualification for being a core race. Not in comparison to any number of other more deserving races who aren't consistently portrayed by Paizo, in setting as going around committing mass murder and burning down towns for fun.

Now, if they're going to actually retcon the setting, remove the omnirapist ogres, make other changes like that... then sure. That's fine. Retconned Goblins can be whatever you want because it's literally a different setting at that point. But at that point, haven't you changed the whole reason Goblins were popular in the first place? If they're just socially awkward (yet somehow still +2 Cha because reasons?) Gnomes with an...

i am not sure if you know the meaning of the term murder hobo.

it was coined because most d&d games were a group of players with no home "hobos" traveling around killing monsters and taking there stuff "the murder part of the name"
, and that was all they did,
it has nothing to do with killing npcs or the like though murder hobos can certainly also do that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems trivially easy to just say "no goblins". After all, this is the prerogative of a GM. So doing so should not cause any problems.

What I hope, however, is that people aren't going to just do this without trying goblins on for size first. Maybe people have ideas for iconoclastic gobbos that would be great in play. I mean, on the message boards people will seek out the most destructive examples of goblin behavior as a means to back up their point of "Goblins bad". But a player who wants to play one is most likely going to approach things from the opposite perspective- how can I make this a memorable character that everybody enjoys- and so will assiduously avoid baby eating and the like. It is, after all, trivially easy for a goblin player to handwave away any potentially problematic goblin behavior as "those not typical, only stupid goblins do that" or similar.

Scarab Sages

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

Hey there all,

I have to admit, I am really disappointed with the tone of some of the posters in this thread and the way that some of you feel is appropriate to talk to fellow members of this community. I can understand that some do not agree with the decision to make goblins a core part of our game, and that disagreements can lead to passionate debate, but that is no excuse for this sort of behavior.

That said, I want to add a few notes to the discussion.

1. NO decision in this game is final. We have ordered art, its true, but that does not mean that anything is set in stone. We playtest because we want your feedback, we want your ideas, and yes, we want your criticism. Anyone who played through the Alpha and Beta of the first version knows that the comments made significant changes to the game... the fighter got reworked from the ground up, the skill system got replaced. We take playtesting very seriously and we will be incorporating the feedback the surveys and these boards when making our final decisions. This includes feedback on the goblin.

2. That said, these previews are just that. Previews. We are still in the process of finalizing the book right now (he says with the ancestry chapter open right now). We do not collecting data at this point to help inform our decisions. There will be a time for that once the playtest begins. This is not me trying to squash comments, I just want to manage expectations.

3. There is more to the shift in goblins that I can honestly talk about here. Some of it would be a spoiler for things that are still in the planning phases, making them way to premature to talk about. Even if I could, I would not want to ruin the reveals.

4. Finally, there have been a lot of comments here about more appropriate ancestries to add to the game, and from the perspective of what would make an easier player character addition, you are absolutely right. Goblins are a bit of a challenge, but of all the creatures in the game, there is none that is more iconic to our world,...

If there is an AP (final PF1 or 1st PF2) or a module that will explain how these "new" goblins started coming into prominence, and there is a canon design space giving all the story reasons why they aren't just psychotic annoying creatures, then I'm all for it.

But the 10 years of precedence really has me reticent to accept this addition to the core races as valid for PCs to play on a fundamental level (Caveat: An evil campaign might be different.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

Including goblins in the 2e CRB doesn't bother me. I'll probably only allow Goblins as a PC race in very limited circumstances regardless.

Threads like this, though, really causes me to wonder whether the playtest process is worth the grar around here.

-Skeld

To be fair, I do actually think it's a lose-lose set up.

Tell us nothing, and I think most would shocked at the changes when the book lands. And the ln the hate and dislike stats about how they didn't consider the played with others being able to get over the intial shock.

Tell us some, and we get topics now going back and forth about how good it is, how bad it is, this breaks the lore, you want the game easier, you want to min/max, etc etc.

Tell us everything, and well that makes it seem like it's set in stone and complaing is pointless which make people complain more about it.


Corrik wrote:
I didn't change the location to make it more likely for some races, I said the demographic of said tavern would change based on location. I said SEVERAL times that it would not be uncommon to see any of the core races in your average tavern. In fact, I defined being a member of a core race as being a common sight at your average tavern. Is an average tavern in Korvosa going to be filled with Half-Orcs? Unlikely. Is anyone going to look twice at a Half-Orc in an average tavern? Unlikely. This is now apparently true of goblins.

No, no--you got all wrong! Gobbos not INSIDE tavern: Dem OUTSIDE tavern at horsie buffet at weirdly-named 'hitching post' thingee!

In fact, dis display o' goodwill from longshanks be WHY some gobbos now willing to be friends wit' longshanks who previously killed us on sight! TA-DA! Dere yer reason fer gobbo PCs! Yay!

P.S. - In future, maybe kill an' cook horsies fer us beforehand, OK? Would appreciate it! But...baby steps.

Will Save to Avoid eating baby that made steps: 1d20 - 1 ⇒ (8) - 1 = 7

"Nom, nom, NOM! Move 'long--nuttin' ta see here!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of playable Pathfinder goblins, but you all are taking this a bit too seriously. Out of all the changes in PF2, this is pretty much the least important one. A race can be banned if your GM doesn't like it, but dealing with issues with the core game mechanics is a much bigger deal. Can we please just focus our energy on the game mechanics instead?

(That said, I would have much rather have had a Kitsune core race ;) )


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Goblins are a bit of a challenge, but of all the creatures in the game, there is none that is more iconic to our world,...

I would actually disagree here.

If I said "Goblins are vicious little things that breed like rats, love to play with fire, and sing screeching songs while killing horses" to a room filled with generic pen and paper RPG players, I don't think there would be many people that would immediately go "Oh, thats Pathfinder!".

However, if you said "Gnomes are weird anime haired characters that have to be weird and eccentric or they die of boredome" under the same situation, a LOT more people would correctly go "Anime hair gnomes? Thats definitely Pathfinder."

While Piazo may have made the goblin their mascot, the Pathfinder interpretation of the goblin is honestly pretty stock standard stuff. Only difference is in their looks. Though I suppose if you asked that room full of geeks "Which setting has goblins that look like they came out of Hey Arnold! with their football shaped heads?" you'd get a lot more bites.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

God, this is such a non issue. Like, the most controversial thing thus far is the least consequential. I honestly can't wrap my head around this. There truly is no outrage like the kind seen from outrageous gamers. Like, just don't play a Goblin, and let others have fun with Goblins. Is that... is that really too much to ask? I hesitate to use the phrases sacred cow or wrongbadfun, but man, I seriously don't see any argument not mired in "legacy, legacy, legacy." Yeah, it's a change, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Yeah. Like that'll convince anyone.

Well, ya'll can be upset. It only fuels the fire in my soul. My lust for goblinhood is insatiable.

I shall make a Goblin PC that is a Fighter who crafts his own pointy, metal fire sticks and flaming junk armor. Whenever battle approaches, he'll start quaking feverishly, eyes twitching and spastically blinking from the excitement, so happy he gets to poke people with fire sticks. His mouth drooling from the thought of tantalizing flesh filled with cortisol from stress and fear grinding in his gnashing teeth. His catch phrases will be, "It's for people with money and power instead of just for fun, making my desire for wonton slaughter not only okay, but treasured," and, "Jawsome!!" whenever he crits with a bite.

You know what? This change is jawesome.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:
These goblins are fantastic and if a player wants a goblin character in my game, the Trashpicker tribe living outside the city is going to be the source of "our tame goblins.". Of course, they won't be 100% respectable, but they will be cautiously tolerated.

Well, the issue here is this:

As a core race, they are now an integral part of all aspects of life on Golarian. They are not fringe, they are not unique, there are going to have to be goblins living in every city, every major town, every nation in the world. And every GM is going to have to accept it, if they want to or not, because it is a core race.

You don't see anyone really being able to get away with "There are no half-orcs in my games" and having people just go "Meh, okay."

By putting it in the core book as a default option, it becomes a default option for everyone, everything, everywhere.

Now you're just making stuff up.

"The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter fo the rules, the Pathfinger RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contributre their thoughts when the rules are in doubt"
- Pathfinder Core Rulebook, page 9.

You don't like a rule? Don't use it.
Can we move on now?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

"Oh can't be evil. Aw man. Wait what's this then? Chaotic Netural? Tell me more."

In my experience, you can get away with being Evil even if you aren't in PFS. Or at the least, a disruptive jerk.

Again, disruptive jerks are a player problem, not a rules problem, no matter what alignment they claim they are playing.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Man this thread moves fast.

Some people have mentioned that they'd like to see orcs as core, and I could more easily get behind that than goblins. Some orcs already have a society. It's fragmented and a bit unstable, but the head tribe in Belkzen has actually conducted trade with neighboring countries. There's a precedent for enough orcs that can temper themselves to make a society where things like morals to develop.
Not really so with goblins.

The Exchange

Well, ever since I ran Rise of the Goblin Guild, I have hoped to get a boon sheet to play a Goblin! I could totally see how one of the NPC in that PFS scenario would have chosen to apply/come to the Pathfinder Lodge, maybe starting as a mascot and working up to full member. I think it will be fun to see how people RP their Goblin heroes. I have several ideas. I know I will have at least one Goblin PC. I think it will be fun to role play them as a character as well as how they strive against bigotry and hatred while trying to change peoples minds!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
Pathfinder goblins are pretty standard goblins in any other setting.

...

Goblins that fear dogs and horses, have a superstitious dread of the written word, make weapons out of the garbage of others and subsist on the fringes of other cultures, often clumsily imitating them, are "pretty standard goblins in any other setting"?

There is more to goblins than pyromania and a lack of appreciation for safety features.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Corrik wrote:
As a core race, they are now an integral part of all aspects of life on Golarian. They are not fringe, they are not unique, there are going to have to be goblins living in every city, every major town, every nation in the world. And every GM is going to have to accept it, if they want to or not, because it is a core race.

Now you're just making stuff up.

You don't like a rule? Don't use it.
Can we move on now?

Tell me, when was the last time you told a player they couldn't play a half-orc?

Or that "You can't be a half-orc from Cheliax, because there aren't any half-orcs in Cheliax"?

Half-orcs are supposed to be fairly rare, they're generally the lowest % of any core race presented in a city statblock. More often they get lumped under "other".

But no one ever had to justify playing one. No one ever had to have a suitable backstory to win the GM over before they were allowed to play a half-orc. Why? Because they're core. If its core, its allowed by default.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
LuniasM, about 10 pages ago wrote:
I also don't get why people thought the blog post was going to elaborate on setting details. Paizo has already stated that future products address the changing interpretation of goblins in the Golarion setting. What else were they supposed to do, spoil plot elements of upcoming content prior to its release date and ruin the surprise? That's really not a good idea, even if it would alleviate some people's apprehensions in the short term.
Jason Buhlman, like, one page ago wrote:
3. There is more to the shift in goblins that I can honestly talk about here. Some of it would be a spoiler for things that are still in the planning phases, making them way to premature to talk about. Even if I could, I would not want to ruin the reveals.

Holy cow, I'm prophetic! I oughtta quit my day job!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It seems trivially easy to just say "no goblins".

Is it though? Core races get the most support so more resources are going to a race I'm not using. As core, they'll have more of a footprint in modules, adventures and AP's that have to be sanitized. Saying no to PC's isn't the same as removing 'common' goblins from the game is it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

"Oh can't be evil. Aw man. Wait what's this then? Chaotic Netural? Tell me more."

In my experience, you can get away with being Evil even if you aren't in PFS. Or at the least, a disruptive jerk.

Again, disruptive jerks are a player problem, not a rules problem, no matter what alignment they claim they are playing.

And giving the jerks a in universe, in game, living embodiment of Chaotic Evil/Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Jerk race to openly play and use the rules/setting a fully fledged published shield?

Again this will vary from table to table, group to group. I for one have the popcorn ready for the train wreck stories in bound.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Half Orc is more common than they were in 3.0, as they bread true, which is the default for all three of the half races. (Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Halfling)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:


Tell me, when was the last time you told a player they couldn't play a half-orc?

Or that "You can't be a half-orc from Cheliax, because there aren't any half-orcs in Cheliax"?

Half-orcs are supposed to be fairly rare, they're generally the lowest % of any core race presented in a city statblock. More often they get lumped under "other".

But no one ever had to justify playing one. No one ever had to have a suitable backstory to win the GM over before they were allowed to play a half-orc. Why? Because they're core. If its core, its allowed by default.

I thought you said that a race being included in core meant they were now integral to the setting, and that we would see said core race in every major city, every nation. If that's not the case for Half-Orcs in Golarion, why would it be for Goblins now?

Anyhow, if the GM so desires, I doubt banning half-orcs from a campaign would be that big of a deal. I'm having a very hard time seeing any problem here.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's really interesting coming to a comments section hours late... the tone shift between page 1 and 15 sure is a thing.

I don't understand the flames around goblins being a PC race. Sure they're generally evil, but goblin PCs existed in 1E too. They're just a race of chaotic goofy monsters.

If you don't want to play a goblin, don't play a goblin. If someone else wants to play a goblin, why not? As long is everyone is having fun, who cares? If someone else having fun means you aren't having fun, maybe some introspection is in order.

Sigh.


Well, personally i think i will have to house rule the core rule book anyway, so it doesnt annoy me as much as some others here.

But yeah, i do find weird that new GM mostly would take up a system where they need to cut stuff out from the get go, then again, maybe because they are new to PF they wont have as much as those of us here longer against goblins.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm rather ambivalent about the Goblin being core. As someone who extensively DM'ed Planescape back in AD&D 2nd Ed. days, I'm open to diversity but our group usually applies the following rule: non-standard choices can mean that the character will encounter prejudice.

To give an example, a fellow DM from my group is very fond of Ustalav and the Cthulhu Mythos. He loves having us meet superstitious villagers (the kind that are more likely to think that the Sarenite paladin vouching for the goblin is in fact some fallen demon-worshipper).So, given the species' reputation, the survival probability of a Goblin PC is rather low there and may very well end with the group having to kill villagers to save their own lives.

So with the info we currently have, including the fact the timeline only advanced by a decade or so, I see no way to justify Goblins being accepted in most places. I'm willing to see what the dev will suggest but it's likely I will discourage players from taking it in my campaigns.

Regarding the mechanics, I like the principle of allowing greater customization. We will however need more to see how well it balances with the rest, so we'll see in August.


Zonto wrote:

It's really interesting coming to a comments section hours late... the tone shift between page 1 and 15 sure is a thing.

I don't understand the flames around goblins being a PC race. Sure they're generally evil, but goblin PCs existed in 1E too. They're just a race of chaotic goofy monsters.

If you don't want to play a goblin, don't play a goblin. If someone else wants to play a goblin, why not? As long is everyone is having fun, who cares? If someone else having fun means you aren't having fun, maybe some introspection is in order.

Sigh.

"I had fun lighting the bird the old one keeps on his shoulder on fire, what do you mean it isn't a snack?"

Again it'll vary from table to table but given Goblins seem to be as close as you can get to the embodiment of chaos outside of the elemental plane of it(Or Warhammer games), I can see problems coming.

Just how wide spread those problems are? We'll have to see. Which is why it goes in the 'maybe' for me.

751 to 800 of 1,765 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards