Goblins!

Hostile NPC wrote:

The so-called "core" races are deemed such because they are the ones that are most widely accepted in most nations. They have the distinction of "core" because they have the full capacity to decide their morality person by person. They are "core" because they make up the fabric of civilized society. Finally, regardless of my utter disdain for the adventuring profession, "core" races are those with the greatest inherent capacity to function as adventurers in a vast array of circumstance and setting. To be "core" is to be representative of what is typical, expected, and accepted.

Huh, you must have a different printing of the Core Rulebook than I have, because most of that isn't anywhere in the races chapter. In fact, in my Core Rulebook there's even a reference saying that you can play other races than the 7 listed... and wouldn't you know it, goblin is one of the examples given that are good choices as they're close in power with the other ones.

So one could technically say that goblins have been in the core rules of PF1 all along.

It's almost as if the core rules intentionally didn't make them a core race on purpose by listing them as an example of a non-core race.

How- Why are you in my house?! HELP! GUARDS!

{leaves a couple pickles, flees in terror}

So far I like it.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

All of your responses are coming from pretend people from an imaginary world. If you can't imagine a world where some goblins steal livestock, and some don't and people can give some goblins the benefit of the doubt if they aren't doing anything suspicious then that's a failure of imagination on your part, not a failure of the game.

And YOUR replies aren't from the point of view of the average citizen, commoner or merchant. They don't CARE if the odd goblin might 'buck the trend' of their race. All they know is that the majority are psycho, pyro murdering bastards. Making a mistake in IDing the difference is life and death to them. If there is a failure of imagination, it's your for not understanding the point of view from the average person. THEY don't have the luxury of high moral arguments on 'free will': what they know is 'those guy like to burn thing and kill livestock' and that MORE than enough for them to react with hostility.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like as long as goblins make some sort of effort to be tolerable neighbors, some people are going to learn to live with them.

THIS is the biggest stumbling block to me. Single isolated non-crazy goblins I can see. A concerted effort by LOTS of goblins to be nice neighbors? That's SO against character that I just don't see it other than maybe a single 'unit' like an orphanage that raised them that way but that's be super rare and only relate to an incredible small location. Move 10 miles away and I wouldn't expect anyone to know about 'those goblins' let alone have it make a sea change in the whole world.

All that matters is how people treat a goblin in the places that the campaign you running is in. As a GM you decide what story reason there is for people not murdering goblins on sight.

In fact Rise of the Runelords #1 presented an unusual situation. Goblins don't normally raid, murder and attack villages. They aren't organized enough for that. Usually they can be seen combing the beach for junk. Trying not to anger the dangerous longshanks.

It's been 12 years since Rise of the Runelords, probably 6 years since Jade Regent. There's at least a goblin generation between then and now. Sandpoint citizens might remember the last goblin attacks, but for the most part goblins stick the swamps and forests, and comb the beach for junk. If a goblin comes into town looking to buy or sell stuff the guards might grouse, but a diplomacy check can let the past the gate, people might cross the street at first. But you'll be amazed how fast people normalize "otherness". Some people might cling tightly to prejudices, but your average shopkeeper doesn't even own a sword. And the guards are as close-minded as the GM makes them.

A goblin does not need to constantly be setting fire to things, or doing violence to be a goblin. Just as a bard doesn't need to speak in constant verse, and a dwarf without a beard is still a dwarf.

A goblin can still prefer fire attacks to sword attacks, can give horses a wide berth, bark at dogs that bark at them, and not be doing anything disruptive in the town.

Nowhere in the description of goblins does it state: "You must be this disruptive to be a goblin".

Goblins even in core, can still be the exception to the rule of monstrous goblins. Because monstrous goblins go in the Bestiary.

In the same way that a player who is a human bandit, probably won't try setting fire to the watch-house unless they were being a jerk about it.

eddv wrote:

I am already going to lose 4 regular players over the edition change and several other players have preemptively drawn a line in the sand over goblins. The new edition may get lots of new people but if it completely ravages my playerbase as a cost then I dont think its worth doing and that's not something I want.

Is this with respect to PFS? Cause if not, why would an edition change have any impact on your gaming group at all? Just continue to run PF1E. I went through a similar experience when D&D3E was released. My home group refused to change and we just continued playing 1/2E for a number of years, even converting some of the 3E modules back to 2E because the content was good. It wasn't until after v3.5 that we warmed up to the "better" rules and converted.

Yeah this is in regards to my regular PFS crowd.

GentleGiant wrote:

Hostile NPC wrote:

The so-called "core" races are deemed such because they are the ones that are most widely accepted in most nations. They have the distinction of "core" because they have the full capacity to decide their morality person by person. They are "core" because they make up the fabric of civilized society. Finally, regardless of my utter disdain for the adventuring profession, "core" races are those with the greatest inherent capacity to function as adventurers in a vast array of circumstance and setting. To be "core" is to be representative of what is typical, expected, and accepted.

Huh, you must have a different printing of the Core Rulebook than I have, because most of that isn't anywhere in the races chapter. In fact, in my Core Rulebook there's even a reference saying that you can play other races than the 7 listed... and wouldn't you know it, goblin is one of the examples given that are good choices as they're close in power with the other ones.

So one could technically say that goblins have been in the core rules of PF1 all along.

It's almost as if the core rules intentionally didn't make them a core race on purpose by listing them as an example of a non-core race.

It's almost as if PF1 was just keeping the standard number of races of 3.5. Now that list is being expanded with one of the races that were suggested as perfectly playable races. That way you don't have to go looking for it in the other core book, but you have a perfect example of a race/ancestry that functions on the same level as the ones presented in PF1.

There are three somewhat problematic players at my local Pathfinder Society game store group...

I don't mean to be argumentative, but if other players and GMs are not taking issue with these three, then perhaps the issue is simply a personality conflict between them and you and not an issue of disruptive play? Is it possible that maybe you are just not tolerant of their play style? If their actions do border on disruptive, have you or others had conversations with them? If so, and they continue, then it is perfectly reasonable to escalate them to the organizer or VO. At least then the complain would be "on record" and if they continue to disrupt games whether its only with certainly characters or not, action could and should be taken.

Important to read these comments and questions with no intended tone or accusations. I routinely investigate claims of bad table behavior and many of them do turn out to be nothing more than a player v player personality conflict. Course, more often than not, the accusations are true and the player in question is being unreasonably disruptive. I draw no conclusions without a thorough investigation.

Weirdly, people have no problem with Rogues in their campaigns, but if you aren't constantly stealing from people or murdering or yelling expletives at the guards then are you even playing a rogue right?

Like rogues, steal and break into houses and backstab. Everyone knows this is the established flavor. Surely there is no other way to play a rogue correctly.

How disruptive rogues must be. I can see the argument for including rogues in a later source book, but including them in CORE doesn't make sense. Player characters are only allowed to be non-disruptive, productive citizens.

Laird IceCubez wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

Hostile NPC wrote:

The so-called "core" races are deemed such because they are the ones that are most widely accepted in most nations. They have the distinction of "core" because they have the full capacity to decide their morality person by person. They are "core" because they make up the fabric of civilized society. Finally, regardless of my utter disdain for the adventuring profession, "core" races are those with the greatest inherent capacity to function as adventurers in a vast array of circumstance and setting. To be "core" is to be representative of what is typical, expected, and accepted.

Huh, you must have a different printing of the Core Rulebook than I have, because most of that isn't anywhere in the races chapter. In fact, in my Core Rulebook there's even a reference saying that you can play other races than the 7 listed... and wouldn't you know it, goblin is one of the examples given that are good choices as they're close in power with the other ones.

So one could technically say that goblins have been in the core rules of PF1 all along.

It's almost as if the core rules intentionally didn't make them a core race on purpose by listing them as an example of a non-core race.

It's almost as if PF1 was just keeping the standard number of races of 3.5. Now that list is being expanded with one of the races that were suggested as perfectly playable races. That way you don't have to go looking for it in the other core book, but you have a perfect example of a race/ancestry that functions on the same level as the ones presented in PF1.

And they've built a world for the past 10 years based off those standard number of races, a world that isn't suited for core goblins.

Don't get me wrong, goblins are perfectly playable, they're just not core material.

So... people actually think they will play goblins, but not be treated like a pest/problem often by pretty much everyone...

Actually yes. They have said there are plans for the campaign such that society will look upon them more favorably. Within the scope of organize play, the assumption is goblins will be just as okay to play as any other race, so no, they should not be universally treated like a pest/problem. In your home game OTOH, you are free to rule it however you want, or simply remove them as a player option.

Weirdly, people have no problem with Rogues in their campaigns, but if you aren't constantly stealing from people or murdering or yelling expletives at the guards then are you even playing a rogue right?

Like rogues, steal and break into houses and backstab. Everyone knows this is the established flavor. Surely there is no other way to play a rogue correctly.

How disruptive rogues must be. I can see the argument for including rogues in a later source book, but including them in CORE doesn't make sense. Player characters are only allowed to be non-disruptive, productive citizens.

You're right, might as well have anti-paladins be in core classes since paladins are in too.

Or maybe we shouldn't, because they have a history of being disruptive and non-productive?

And they've built a world for the past 10 years based off those standard number of races, a world that isn't suited for core goblins.

Don't get me wrong, goblins are perfectly playable, they're just not core material.

According to what metric?

Laird IceCubez wrote:

And they've built a world for the past 10 years based off those standard number of races, a world that isn't suited for core goblins.

Don't get me wrong, goblins are perfectly playable, they're just not core material.

According to what metric?

So far I haven't seen anyone be able to explain what "core" means, with actual references from the rulebook.

Core means that aside from niche books like Blood of the Beasts, most NPCs or story elements will be using or of the core races.

There are no non-core race iconics, most settlement stats contain only core race statistics, most racial archetypes and racials feats are for the core races.

I posed a couple of questions earlier (and I'll expand on them a bit), but no one seemed to want to answer them.

Is goblins as an ancestry going to make the game mechanically unplayable to you? If so, how?
Is the inclusion of goblins somehow going to limit the non-goblin characters that you can make?
All the other races that you had in the PF1 Core Rulebook are still there, so how does adding one extra ancestry pose a problem?
If we're talking dislike due to "flavour", what keeps you from just either ignoring it (and we don't actually fully know what the "it" is yet) or just changing at the table (like the inclusion of a goblin, I mean gnome or halfling NPC - see how little effort that took?).
If your opposition is due to playing in PFS and you think the inclusion of goblins will "generate" more problem players, how is that different than dealing with problem players in PFS now (and isn't the problem then players and not the rules)?

I should just forget about it because my GM doesn't really like them that much

Actually yes. Assuming we are talking about a home game and not organized play, the GM has the final say what is/not allowed in their campaign regardless of what the individual players like/dislike. Certainly, a good GM will listen to what the players like and try to be accommodating, but in the end the decision is there's. If goblins are out, they're out. You choice is to move on to a different character or choose not to play in the campaign.

Banning core material feels weird doesn't it?

Sometimes it has its place. I was in a campaign once where travel from place to place was a major story component. So, the GM banned all teleportation and plane-walking magic. All planar travel occurred through special gates that came and went like strange environmental occurrences. Surely, that is less common than perhaps the urge to ban a core race from your game, but there are times when it's appropriate.

Is goblins as an ancestry going to make the game unplayable to you? If so, how?

Do you mean literally unplayable or unacceptable? I'll assume you mean the latter. Because it doesn't make sense having goblins now be a major part of civilization, they've always been on the outskirts or servants.

None of this would even begin to matter to me if this wasn't Golarion-infused.

Is the inclusion of goblins somehow going to limit the non-goblin characters that you can make?

If you want to be pedantic about it, then yes. If they removed goblins as core, they'll have more book space for different material of options for non-goblin stuff. So yeah, it does limit my characters.

All the other races that you had in the PF1 Core Rulebook are still there, so how does adding one extra ancestry pose a problem?

Because it doesn't make sense. See above.

If we're talking dislike due to "flavour", what keeps you from just either ignoring it (and we don't actually fully know what the "it" is yet) or just changing at the table (like the inclusion of a goblin, I mean gnome or halfling NPC - see how little effort that took?).

Because it's in the Golarion setting. It's not my flavour, it's their flavour.

What's stopping you from changing gnomes and halflings into goblins? You seem to be particularly more adept at it.

If your opposition is due to playing in PFS and you think the inclusion of goblins will "generate" more problem players, how is that different than dealing with problem players in PFS now (and isn't the problem then players and not the rules)?

I don't play PFS.

I mean gnome or halfling NPC - see how little effort that took?).
If your opposition is due to playing in PFS and you think the inclusion of goblins will "generate" more problem players, how is that different than dealing with problem players in PFS now (and isn't the problem then players and not the rules)?

With the exception of people who are problem players for things that have nothing to do with the game (people who think that PFS is a dating service for instance), there aren't really these mythical 'problem players'. There are however, problematic player options that can be not so fun to deal with in the hands of players who can sometimes be less than super fun to run for. I view monstrous PCs to be right there alongside evil PCs and PvP, all of which should be pretty rare imo to limit opportunities for well-intentioned chicanery.

If they choose to seismically shift the story of the game in such a way as Bob is suggesting that's fine - but I still think we're going to end up with people wanting to play Reta Bigbad and me having to be the bad guy about reacting to such behavior. There's nothing WRONG with Reta. I like her. I just don't think she is suitable for Pathfinder Society.

Yeah this is in regards to my regular PFS crowd.

I presume then that they are familiar with the PFS FAQ for 2E and that PFS1 will continue to be sanctioned that despite that, they are choosing to leave. If so, yes, I really have nothing to say other than I'm sorry to hear it. But, maybe the new 2E rules will be exactly what some other people are looking for and you can replace those that leave with new players. The "new shiny" often has the affect of drawing the attention of gamers and after a session or two they could be hooked. Good luck!

I'm curious how you'll evaluate feedback on the inclusion of goblins as a core race

I don't think any of us are really in a position to evaluate the inclusion of the goblin as a core race until we find out how they plan to explain it in the campaign narrative. Perhaps they have an idea so amazing, so unexpected that we all say, "huh, didn't see that coming. Now I get it" and accepting goblins becomes a no-brainer. Probably not, but still :-)

For those who love the current presentation of the goblin and do not want to see it changed, it probably doesn't matter what Paizo does, those people will be disappointed even if the new "cannon" makes the inclusion as a core race reasonable because they aren't Paizo goblins anymore.

Or maybe we shouldn't, because they have a history of being disruptive and non-productive?

Actually, I think its because they are inherently evil, like assassins. Sure other classes can be evil, but anti-paladins are deeply evil, like devils/demons are evil. I would guess generally speaking that anti-paladins are very productive and only disruptive if the player plays them as such.

If we're talking dislike due to "flavour", what keeps you from just either ignoring it (and we don't actually fully know what the "it" is yet) or just changing at the table (like the inclusion of a goblin, I mean gnome or halfling NPC - see how little effort that took?).
If your opposition is due to playing in PFS and you think the inclusion of goblins will "generate" more problem players, how is that different than dealing with problem players in PFS now (and isn't the problem then players and not the rules)?

I can try to provide an answer here though I speak for my self mainly.

It will vary from NPC to NPC. As an example, the tavern maid that gives info to NPCs could be human, half elf, half off maybe or even halfling. The expert elven tracker that will help lead you through his people's lands? Well that be a bit odd to see a dwarf there now wouldn't it. Or even a human.

A Standard Goblin NPC can be swapped with no problem at least to me. The more the NPC is there for "Goblin" reasons the less it could make sense to swap to another race. Or more work. This will vary from NPC to NPC and we have no examples from Paizo yet so this is just guessing.

As for PFS, well they don't "now" tend to have a race that "being crazy" is part of their description. Or at the very least with poor impluse control. The problem players would still be problems with Goblins. With, well I see them being encouraged by Paizo to wreck games now.

Never mind the new players that come in and then ask "What I'm not supposed to play it like this?". Along with PFS more than likely getting a boost after release. And those problem players coming back(because it's a new edition let's break it) and given an in universe pass, I expect a number of bad first games and some new players walking away.

The actual numbers I can't provide though. It's a guess and a paranoid one. But I know at least two guys at my Local store who are probably looking forward to lighting things on fire as goblins. And I expect them to play in PFS. As a note, they had a practice of getting someone killed and taking their stuff. Or offing their own character and having the other take most everything. Against PFS? Maybe, but they'd rule haggle their way out of it.

Also Shahagins as core when Paizo?

Because it doesn't make sense

I think it would be more accurate to say "Because it doesn't make sense given the current narrative. Jason has said they intent to provide more details as to why goblins as a core race makes sense. If that means there is going to be a significant shift in how goblins are viewed across Golarion because of the narrative in upcoming APs, then perhaps it will make perfect sense, or at least more sense than it currently does.

eddv wrote:

Yeah this is in regards to my regular PFS crowd.

I presume then that they are familiar with the PFS FAQ for 2E and that PFS1 will continue to be sanctioned that despite that, they are choosing to leave. If so, yes, I really have nothing to say other than I'm sorry to hear it. But, maybe the new 2E rules will be exactly what some other people are looking for and you can replace those that leave with new players. The "new shiny" often has the affect of drawing the attention of gamers and after a session or two they could be hooked. Good luck!

They are aware of it yeah, and they're people I am pretty fond of and only see at PFS events, so it does bum me out.

I am putting together some events to try and draw new people with the new system - here's to hoping it all works out, but currently I can't help but be a little blue about it.

The actual numbers I can't provide though. It's a guess and a paranoid one. But I know at least two guys at my Local store who are probably looking forward to lighting things on fire as goblins. And I expect them to play in PFS. As a note, they had a practice of getting someone killed and taking their stuff. Or offing their own character and having the other take most everything. Against PFS? Maybe, but they'd rule haggle their way out of it.

I'm sorry you and your local lodge had to deal with that and may have to again. If the actions are as blatant as you describe, the GM should have taken action and if the behavior continued, it should have escalated to the organizer and VOs.

One of the biggest problems that we have to deal with in organized play isn't necessarily the "bad" players, they are actually fairly easy to deal with, its the players around them that tolerate their behavior for whatever reason long enough for it to cause people to quite playing. If we can identify these problems early and nip them in the bud, we have a much better chance of saving both the "problem" player and those they come in contact with.

But, that is a bit off-topic. Sorry

Laird IceCubez wrote:

Or maybe we shouldn't, because they have a history of being disruptive and non-productive?

Actually, I think its because they are inherently evil, like assassins. Sure other classes can be evil, but anti-paladins are deeply evil, like devils/demons are evil. I would guess generally speaking that anti-paladins are very productive and only disruptive if the player plays them as such.

Yeah I just meant that anti-paladins have a bad rep just like goblins do. You wouldn't want a normal goblin in your party, just as you wouldn't want a normal anti-paladin.

People are arguing that goblins increase my "choices", then why should I limit myself to non-evil characters. There are no rules forbidding an evil character to be in party.

Just cause you can role-play one, doesn't mean it should be in core.

I think it would be more accurate to say "Because it doesn't make sense given the current narrative. Jason has said they intent to provide more details as to why goblins as a core race makes sense. If that means there is going to be a significant shift in how goblins are viewed across Golarion because of the narrative in upcoming APs, then perhaps it will make perfect sense, or at least more sense than it currently does.

You are absolutely right. If there is a significant shift in narrative that isn't just nonsense, then yes, I will be perfectly fine with it.

Okay, I'm kind of a thousand posts late to get noticed, but here's my two cents:

1) A dex/cha race? Really? They're a dime a dozen in PF1, and I somehow doubt they'll be any less common in PF2 once some of those races get converted. Part of what made the goblins cool was that they had a unique stat line that was completely different from any other race. This is a disappointment. At least we'll have the chance to swap that around this time, but that's still as boring as you can get for the default.

2) 25 move speed... 25 move speed!? Such an awkward number, and on a race that traditionally was defined by having the unusual combination of good movement speed on a small race.

I'm on the side of the fanbase that is excited for core goblins, but these two things took a lot of the wind out of my sails.

To be honest, it wasn't a good time for the store as a whole. Some games weren't selling, new owner and management, all sorts of problems to the point I think most of us thought it would go under. So a lot of bad practices started to creep in as people stopped caring it seemed

Yes outside circumstances but it's made me disinterested in PFS and bitter at worst. Only times I play PFS is if my friend runs it and even then I find it stiff. But this is a topic for goblins, not PFS. I'll stop here.

2) 25 move speed... 25 move speed!? Such an awkward number, and on a race that traditionally was defined by having the unusual combination of good movement speed on a small race.

PF2 Humans also have a move speed of 25, so Goblins are as comparatively fast as ever.

I wonder why that is anyway.

I expect its because 5 and 10 are rounder numbers than 6 and 12 but that feels really silly to me.

Then again, so does continuing to represent move speeds in terms of feet rather than squares in the first place but that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

I wonder why that is anyway.

I expect its because 5 and 10 are rounder numbers than 6 and 12 but that feels really silly to me.

Then again, so does continuing to represent move speeds in terms of feet rather than squares in the first place but that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

Up to 3 moves in a round instead of 2. Distance goes from 60 ft to 75 instead of 90. Cutting move to 20 probably wouldn't go down well.

Personally, I like the idea of 20 feet being the "standard" move rate given the new three action economy system. I like that mobility should become more prevalent in 2E, but I'm also concerned that being able to move 75 feet in a round, standard, or 50 feet and still attack is a bit too much. Assuming they abandon the iterative attack system in favor of something like Starfinder, I expect a lot more move/attack/move sequences that are really going to favor creatures with speeds greater than 25 and make it extremely challenging on PCs without AoO-type reactions.

It just came to my mind that the ancestry-entries in the core rulebook will take a bit more space because ancestry feats have to be included.

Unfortunately, this might lead to playable ancestries not being part of the monster manual because those options take too much space for a regular monster entry, right?

Will we have to wait for an Advanced Ancestries Guide or something like that to get playable Aasimars, Tieflings, Skinwalkers, Ratfolk and the like?

When you put it that way, I do wonder why it wasnt dropped to 20 and made completely standard.

I wonder how all of this will dovetail with mounts?

Ryan Freire wrote:

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.

An all goblin module series being popular is not the same as a core rulebook race. Its a false comparison.

While correct, you statement makes no sense.

-----
(I will keep defending Goblins for as long as you campaign against them. For the love of both of us, please stop so that we can get some sleep.)

The goblin modules are popular with many (though not with me) because they allow and even encourage players to do things they would never do as regular characters. For this reason, I think the statement makes perfect sense and really goes to the heart of the problem.

It just came to my mind that the ancestry-entries in the core rulebook will take a bit more space because ancestry feats have to be included.

Unfortunately, this might lead to playable ancestries not being part of the monster manual because those options take too much space for a regular monster entry, right?

Will we have to wait for an Advanced Ancestries Guide or something like that to get playable Aasimars, Tieflings, Skinwalkers, Ratfolk and the like?

For thinks like skinwalkers and ratfolk, very possibly. Aasimar and Tieflings might be human heritages, but with Half-Elfs and Half-Orcs still a thing, I would doubt it.

Part of the problem with Goblins in core is they don't seem to be making any other changes to core. It isn't "There are 10 members now and no more half-humans" to change things up. Instead it's "The status quo is the same except goblins, the race even other monstrous races think are too much, hired a PR firm".

As long as one of the options in the poll is "none of the above" its fine with me. I would prefer not to expand the core races at all. No matter that we put in goblin, tiefling, aardvark, its going to be monstrous or at least non-standard and therefore, IMO should be in a future expansion release.

Also, I think one of the reasons why we act like stupid murder monkeys when playing the goblin mods is because that is exactly what we've been conditioned to think they are. That, and we rarely get an opportunity to act that way, so why not embrace it fully. The experience is fun and can be cathartic. I would expect that after the initial run on goblin characters, most players will settle into their "normal" play mode and goblins will lose their position as the new shiny toy, especially if the narrative shifts their role in the campaign.

tl;dr most of the comments. my take:

I have always loved golarion goblins (and yes kender)! I love adding them as a core race. I even love the way ancestry seems to be adding up. Their new stats seem to make more sense to me. Penalty to wis? That should have been in 1e!

HOWEVER..... the way you guys are adding goblin adventurers seems hamfisted at best.

As long as one of the options in the poll is "none of the above" its fine with me. I would prefer not to expand the core races at all. No matter that we put in goblin, tiefling, aardvark, its going to be monstrous or at least non-standard and therefore, IMO should be in a future expansion release.

Also, I think one of the reasons why we act like stupid murder monkeys when playing the goblin mods is because that is exactly what we've been conditioned to think they are. That, and we rarely get an opportunity to act that way, so why not embrace it fully. The experience is fun and can be cathartic. I would expect that after the initial run on goblin characters, most players will settle into their "normal" play mode and goblins will lose their position as the new shiny toy, especially if the narrative shifts their role in the campaign.

We've been conditioned to think that way because that is the majority of the way Paizo has presented goblins. And yeah, it is fun to act like a stupid murder monkey with no consequence. Which is why shoving them in a role with consequence and/or removing the things that make them murder monkeys is a bad idea. What is the point of Pathfinder goblins if they are just more stabby Gnomes?

I'm actually fine with some changes to core. Add a few more races in as standard options. With the ancestry rules, they also could have trimmed some fat. But instead they just shove the murder mascot in.

Ever since this blog post, I've theory crafted and "practice role-played" several Goblin PCs. I never knew I needed these little bastards in my RPG life so bad.

And if that's wrong, well I don't wanna be right.

Leyren wrote:

It just came to my mind that the ancestry-entries in the core rulebook will take a bit more space because ancestry feats have to be included.

Unfortunately, this might lead to playable ancestries not being part of the monster manual because those options take too much space for a regular monster entry, right?

Will we have to wait for an Advanced Ancestries Guide or something like that to get playable Aasimars, Tieflings, Skinwalkers, Ratfolk and the like?

For thinks like skinwalkers and ratfolk, very possibly. Aasimar and Tieflings might be human heritages, but with Half-Elfs and Half-Orcs still a thing, I would doubt it.

Part of the problem with Goblins in core is they don't seem to be making any other changes to core. It isn't "There are 10 members now and no more half-humans" to change things up. Instead it's "The status quo is the same except goblins, the race even other monstrous races think are too much, hired a PR firm".

Oh well. My entire point supposed to be: "Will we need a separate book to get new ancestries opposed to just using a "xy as player characters" sidebar in the *monster manual* because they need more space with all those options now.

Ever since this blog post, I've theory crafted and "practice role-played" several Goblin PCs. I never knew I needed these little bastards in my RPG life so bad.

And if that's wrong, well I don't wanna be right.

They were already in your life. The issue is not Goblins as an option, the issue is with Goblins as a core race.

Frosty Ace wrote:

Ever since this blog post, I've theory crafted and "practice role-played" several Goblin PCs. I never knew I needed these little bastards in my RPG life so bad.

And if that's wrong, well I don't wanna be right.

They were already in your life. The issue is not Goblins as an option, the issue is with Goblins as a core race.

It’s not as big an issue as it’s being made out to be.