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
1,201 to 1,250 of 1,765 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
If only there was an opportunity to weave examples of these new good goblins into an upcoming AP...
Coming up with an excuse after the fact doesn't do much good. That's one of the things that makes it handwavium.

Those APs will be published before second edition, though...

Immediately before. Where have all of these hero goblins been in the Paizo material before this? Telling me a god passed out a memo making goblins core just in time for 2e hardly disqualifies for handwavium. This is an idea thought up after the fact, with little to no current in-universe explanation or evidence. What little there is, is better demonstrated by other options.

This is the option they chose to explore, it doesn't really matter if others would be easier to justify.

You might not be able to imagine which seeds they'll pull from to pull goblins into core, but the writers and developers can. Every goblin proprietor or reformation-minded playwright pushed us a little more in this direction.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

One problem I have with Goblins as a Core PC race is I go with the Rule of Consequences. In short: your actions have consequences. If you rob people then you will end up likely in jail if caught and if not caught then there will be a lot more tension in the community due to the "crime wave" that is going on.

But it goes further than that. Let's say there are a couple of halflings in the group. One is a Rogue and is committing robberies. And the halfling is glimpsed but in disguise enough that they are not IDed. Then the rule of consequences is that BOTH halfling PCs are going to be accused of being thieves and mistreated even if they have alibis.

Goblins will be facing the same consequences. Goblins will waylay lone travelers. They will raid herds and take the young and sickly (as those are less likely to escape) (and do note the hatred of ranchers toward wolves despite the fact wolves take down the weak and diseased... in a rancher's eyes that is an investment that was taken from them, even if that investment wouldn't be sellable on the market). They will steal what isn't hammered down and if they find a crowbar they'll pry up what was hammered down and steal the nails as well.

If The Red Gobbo, Swashbuckling Hero, were to help face down the goblins that raided Sandpoint with plenty of witnesses to see Gobbo's heroism, there would still be plenty of people in Sandpoint who would call for Gobbo's death, be driven out of town, and state Gobbo is not trustworthy! This may seem unfair but Sandpoint just suffered an invasion by goblins. People died. Animals died. Property was destroyed and damaged. Things were stolen. How do they know Gobbo wasn't a double agent trying to lure the townsfolk into a false sense of security? How do they know this isn't some trick? If Gobbo turned on their own people... well, what's to keep Gobbo from turning on Sandpoint next?

If I were running a Runelords or a Jade Regent campaign, I would be insisting on consequences. Any good GM would. And that makes the game unfair to someone wanting to play a goblin even if the player knew ahead of time that this was a bad idea. It even draws away from the other players and their RP because prejudice and hate against The Red Gobbo would be constant and ongoing which drags everyone else into this rather than let them have their own plots and stories to tell.

Sure, you could say "well then don't allow goblins for a Runelords game" but that runs into problems because? They are a Core Race. The player will insist they are allowed Core races and Core classes even if these elements are disruptive to the game... because it is Core. And then if you use logical consequences and have this bite that character in the bottom? They will either feel unfairly put upon or it will get in the way of other people's roleplaying.

Monstrous races should not be Core races. Yes, Goblins are cute (in their own odd twisted way). They are iconic. But they are monsters and thus disrupt the game in a way that none of the core races from 1st Edition ever did.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Consequences in roleplaying should be for actions, not for what color your skin is. If you insist on the people of Sandpoint harassing a Goblin PC, despite this goblin risking life and limb to defend the people of Sandpoint, you are not providing the appropriate consequence for the player's actions which are what you're supposed to provide consequences for. Nothing on a character sheet is anything I am going to single out for potential repercussions *EVER*

Sure I might run one or two scenes where the people are skeptical of the supposed hero goblin, but after that's settled *that's it*. NPCs should be quick to accept PCs because the game is about them.

Liberty's Edge

I definitely like the idea of mixed ancestries. We can get aasimars, ifrits, oreads, sulis, sylphs, tieflings, and undines for all ancestries! (Not just human!)

Replace the half-orc with the orc. Obviously!

Replace the half-elf with something else. Ooo, surprise!

So many more options!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Well, that's the reasons presented for why Drow, Duergar, and other "usually evil" races aren't core. (Not the exact reasons, but you get the picture.) But nobody is clamoring for those races to be Core. (Maybe they are, but I haven't noticed, and they certainly didn't get developer support like the Goblin has.) I just don't think they should use bandwagoning as an excuse to break a mold that may very well end up backfiring...

Drow and Duergar maybe should be included as ancestries options for Elf and Dwarf


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Corrik wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
If only there was an opportunity to weave examples of these new good goblins into an upcoming AP...
Coming up with an excuse after the fact doesn't do much good. That's one of the things that makes it handwavium.

Those APs will be published before second edition, though...

Immediately before. Where have all of these hero goblins been in the Paizo material before this? Telling me a god passed out a memo making goblins core just in time for 2e hardly disqualifies for handwavium. This is an idea thought up after the fact, with little to no current in-universe explanation or evidence. What little there is, is better demonstrated by other options.

This is the option they chose to explore, it doesn't really matter if others would be easier to justify.

You might not be able to imagine which seeds they'll pull from to pull goblins into core, but the writers and developers can. Every goblin proprietor or reformation-minded playwright pushed us a little more in this direction.

Other options wouldn't be easier, they would be better, more fitting withing currently established lore. And it doesn't matter if I imagine the specific "seeds" the writers use. They are planted in the soil of handwavium.

This doesn't feel like something that has been years in the making. This feels like an idea thought up after the fact, that doesn't fit, and has been given an excuse made to justify it. I don't care how "good" of an excuse they come up with. It's still an excuse and doesn't change the situation.

It's a magic world with gods. The explanation is that a god handed drawings to the goblins, telling them to be good and that it was safe to start reading. Then they sent a memo to everyone letting them know goblins are good. Now they are good and are treated as such. This is 100% something that could literally happen within the Pathfinder universe. It completely explains the change. Is this acceptable to you? Why or why not? If not, what would an accepting thing for them to make up for you? 4 gods did it? 17 gods? An alchemist set off a "Goblins be nice" bioweapon in the atmosphere?


edduardco wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Well, that's the reasons presented for why Drow, Duergar, and other "usually evil" races aren't core. (Not the exact reasons, but you get the picture.) But nobody is clamoring for those races to be Core. (Maybe they are, but I haven't noticed, and they certainly didn't get developer support like the Goblin has.) I just don't think they should use bandwagoning as an excuse to break a mold that may very well end up backfiring...
Drow and Duergar maybe should be included as ancestries options for Elf and Dwarf

To be clear, I was talking specifically about PF1 and prior, but while I do agree with this sort of design decision, they might still be their own race in the future.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Consequences in roleplaying should be for actions, not for what color your skin is. If you insist on the people of Sandpoint harassing a Goblin PC, despite this goblin risking life and limb to defend the people of Sandpoint, you are not providing the appropriate consequence for the player's actions which are what you're supposed to provide consequences for. Nothing on a character sheet is anything I am going to single out for potential repercussions *EVER*

Sure I might run one or two scenes where the people are skeptical of the supposed hero goblin, but after that's settled *that's it*. NPCs should be quick to accept PCs because the game is about them.

If only real life was that way.

Yes, we're playing a fantasy RPG here... but you know what? I still work to ensure a level of people acting realistically in them. So if a bunch of goblins attack a town, then you are going to see people calling for the heroic goblin's head, insisting any heroism is a trick or that they are going to turn on us at any moment, and on down the line. And from the mindset of those who didn't see that heroism? It is a perfectly valid argument.

This is even true to early depictions of our "favorite" forerunner for monstrous PCs, Drizzt Du'orden. This Drow went and committed acts of heroism for years. After helping various towns in the northern reaches fight off a barbarian tribe attack, one town leader was all set to slit Drizzt's throat when he found him unconscious simply because he was Drow. Nevermind the fact this Drow had been helping people for quite a few years, warned the towns of the barbarian invasion, and helped drive off the barbarians... there were people who were perfectly happy with killing Drizzt while he was unconscious simply because of his race.

We are talking about the very first book with Drizzt in it and this was going on. So do you honestly think that after people faced down a bunch of murderous goblins that there won't be people insisting for weeks afterward that the goblin be strung up? There would be. It's a fantasy trope ingrained with the Drow that helped catalyze the whole "reformed monsters as PCs" theme.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

And yet, people aren't murder happy every time a human comes around after dealing with bandits and invading barbarians.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One question in regard to goblins as arsonists: What do you do about ifrit player characters? According to the lore, most of them learn to cast Burning Hands before they reach puberty, with the result that nearly all of them have criminal records as arsonists. And yet ifrits are a freely available race in PFS.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My job as the GM is to ensure that the game is fun for the players, if avoiding things which are "realistic" but are also a bummer ensures my players have more fun I consider it my responsibility to do so.

So if the game now suggests "city guards aren't going to hassle goblins within city limits just because they are goblins" because that would be unfun for goblin PCs, that's what I'm going to do. Guards will just have to decide which goblins to hassle like they decide which elves or half-orcs to hassle.

A game world exists to serve the players and their story, not to exist as an independent object, after all.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing that has to be kept in mind is that, per Classic Monsters Revisited and other lore, situations like Sandpoint in Burnt Offerings are vanishingly rare. Goblin tribes are usually too cowardly to do anything resembling a mass offensive like that. In fact, a large part of the plot of Burnt Offerings is how weird this shit is.

So even going by realism, while there may be some murderous anti-goblin bigotry in an occasional small town (including one in Varisia named Sandpoint) and certainly is gonna be such prejudice in Isger (where the Goblinblood Wars are still within living memory), those are very much the exception, not the norm.

Goblins raid, sure, but it tends to be raiding for food, not attempts at mass murder or conquest, and rarely has much in the way of casualties. So, even going by your standards Tangent101, most games and locations should be fine for goblins...just maybe not Sandpoint during RotRL.

They'll come in for prejudice, sure, but not the kind that comes from 'we lost family to them'.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
And yet, people aren't murder happy every time a human comes around after dealing with bandits and invading barbarians.

Because that's not usually the norm? Not every human you meet is a bandit or a barbarian. Not even most of them. Meanwhile, nearly every goblin you meet is a murdering pyro.

And if it is the norm, I'd expect such a town to be very insular and very distrustful of strangers. It's only natural.

The problem with people bringing up humans as some sort of equal to a goblin in the realm of evilness is that there's books and books and books describing Good Human nations, Good Human societies, etc.

Goblins, meanwhile, do not. And in fact, the ARG, Goblins of Golarion and Inner Sea Races all paint them the same way: cruel, vicious, malicious. murderous little people. And they've been consistently depicted as such, and reacted to as such, for most of PF1. And while there's exceptions, they're just that, exceptions. Not enough to justify a setting-wide change in how Goblins are veiwed by Golarion at large.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, the more I'm reading, the more I'm a fan of a (semi-)overhaul of the core races. I feel like making Half-Elf and Half-Orc ancestry options is smart, and helps to distinguish Paizo and Pathfinder from... Another tabletop RPG. I think that the idea of adding other races that have a particularly Paizo-feel would be similarly wise. Specifically, I'm thinking of Tengu and Ratfolk. I also think Orcs and Kobolds are at least as reasonable as Goblins. So... Yeah. Those are my thoughts and feelings on the matter.


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.


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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I'm missing something here? I'm not sure why there is such an outrage of goblins being core? Is it related to Pathfinder society where the gm doesn't get input on the characters? Because in my groups home games, nothing is assumed to be included and excluded in campaigns... Core or not... so if a goblin doesn't fit into the current campaign the GM just says no goblins or humans or elves or whatever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
So even going by realism, while there may be some murderous anti-goblin bigotry in an occasional small town (including one in Varisia named Sandpoint) and certainly is gonna be such prejudice in Isger (where the Goblinblood Wars are still within living memory), those are very much the exception, not the norm.

Except it is quite likely people will know about "those Goblin wars in Isger" - vague rumors that inflate things but people still talk and merchants love to tell tales especially if it gets someone to buy stuff from them (you might need that weapon if the local gobbos decide to rise up after all). And when locals vanish and you've got goblins about it's pretty much assumed those damn gobbos did the deed.

The very write-up on goblins states they are cowardly except when a stronger leader forces them to wage war... and this sounds like something that isn't rare but happens all the time - in various parts of Golarion. And the traveling merchants will spread those stories. It will be known about the Demon-Goblin and his tribe that wiped out half of Mirewood before several adventurers came by and slew the demon-Goblin and sent the rest fleeing. Traveling bards will likely tell such tales as well - stories of heroes and wars and the like... and hey, goblins make for an easy target. They look funny, have a big head, you can even have Gobbo Bowling with lawn pins painted up as goblins looking scared at your oncoming ball.

Seeing Goblins are Neutral Evil, they tend to steal things when they can rather than trade. Sure, they mostly steal junk and rotting food but even so the braver goblins will try to sneak into town for more choice items and food. They are NOT going to be accepted in most societies.

Thematically? Goblins are not a good Core Ancestry choice for Golarion. The more I think about this, the more I have to say this is a bad choice. And I say this as someone who has allowed a goblin player in the past (with said person thinking he was a gnome with a skin condition).

-----------------

As for the Half-Breed Ancestries? I actually like the idea. I think this is positively brilliant. The problem though is that half-elves and half-orcs are now iconic for Pathfinder. So if you put the Half-Breed Ancestry as something a human or elf or orc can "buy" into then you will hear an outcry of "Pathfinder killed off the half-elves!" and the like.

Of course, you *could* have Half-Breed as its own distinct Ancestry and then have the player buy into whether they are an elven-human half-breed or an orc-human half-breed (or angelic-human or demonic-human)... but this might get confusing, especially as someone might not understand why they can't go with All The Ancestries and have a half-breed human-elf-orc-angel-demon. *eyerolls* There's always one person, you know that. ;)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Flamephoenix182 wrote:
I think I'm missing something here? I'm not sure why there is such an outrage of goblins being core? Is it related to Pathfinder society where the gm doesn't get input on the characters? Because in my groups home games, nothing is assumed to be included and excluded in campaigns... Core or not... so if a goblin doesn't fit into the current campaign the GM just says no goblins or humans or elves or whatever.

I think a lot of people have very set notions about "how goblins are and how they behave" and though they have been able to ignore all the goblin NPCs who live and are tolerated in cities in published material already, this is challenging their assumptions in a big way and they would prefer to push back rather than reconsider said assumptions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 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.

So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

One question in regard to goblins as arsonists: What do you do about ifrit player characters? According to the lore, most of them learn to cast Burning Hands before they reach puberty, with the result that nearly all of them have criminal records as arsonists. And yet ifrits are a freely available race in PFS.

Nearly all Ifrits are criminals? That does sound like they would be a poor candidate for a core race.

Yeah, I still don't want goblins to be core. They're worse than ifrits.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

I am incredibly disappointed with this cynical corporate mandated retcon, and I am frustrated and distressed to see people defending it. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose to suppose that a goblin could openly walk around any normal human City on Golarion not be at least confronted by the guards. Games with Goblin PCS will either have to constantly be distracted by the fact that that player is there, or completely abandon the idea that a serious story is being told in the same universe as pf1. Those same games will be plagued by horrible player misbehavior, as any GM not in a position to either ban Goblin PCS or harshly police player Behavior, two things that Pathfinder Society GM's cannot do, will struggle pathetically to stop players acting so disruptively as to worsen the experience for everyone except themselves.

That's not to say all goblins will be that way. However, having Goblin PCS as an option will put it in some players heads that that's how they're supposed to be acting if they want to role play their characters, and arm both those players and more malicious ones with an "it's what my character would do" excuse that no Society GM will be able to refute because it will be objectively true.

you say this, and yet there are adventures that have goblins in cities sometimes even as servants or employees.

it takes zero effort as a dm to not have the goblin pc being overly messed with and the only reason you might have horrible player misbehavior is if you have a problem player.


3 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.

Is them being iconic of the game AND monsters mutually exclusive?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
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.

So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Quite possibly. Drow and tieflings made core in 5e.

However, Paizo has stated they only want to include one additional race into core, so they had to pick one out of a mix of popular races. And they hose the one that they feel is most iconic to the Pathfinder brand.

In my personal opinion, I believe they should add those other two races and remove half elves and half orcs, instead making those a part of ancestry feats for humans. Heck, even tieflings could be a part of ancestry feats for humans, as with all the other "half" or "ancestor blooded" races. And then bring in rat folk! :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
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.

Is them being iconic of the game AND Monsters mutually exclusive?

Considering the most iconic thing about Dungeons and Dragons is, y'know, Dungeons and Dragons...

No, it's not mutually exclusive. You can be iconic and a monster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Well, if it were up to me, the core ancestries would be: Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Halflings, Humans, Aasimar, Androids, Catfolk, Changelings, Cacaelias, Dhampir, Drow, Fetchlings, Gathlain, Gillmen ,Ghorans, Goblins, Grippli, Hobgoblins, Ifrits, Kitsune, Kobolds, Localath, Merfolk, Oreads, Orcs, Samsarans, Ratfolk, Suli, Sylph, Tengu, Tieflings, Undines, Vishkanaya, Vanaras, Vine Leshies, Wayang, Wyvarans, and Wyrwoods... but there's only so much space in the book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
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.

So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

I don't see why not.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
Is them being iconic of the game AND monsters mutually exclusive?

Pathfinder is quite clear in that plenty of monsters are (or were) human.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Except it is quite likely people will know about "those Goblin wars in Isger" - vague rumors that inflate things but people still talk and merchants love to tell tales especially if it gets someone to buy stuff from them (you might need that weapon if the local gobbos decide to rise up after all). And when locals vanish and you've got goblins about it's pretty much assumed those damn gobbos did the deed.

The Goblinblood Wars were more than 20 years ago (as of PF2's timeline), and Isger is kind of an unpleasant place in a lot of ways (including being under Cheliax's authority), not very friendly to travelers. Assuming that people still use stories about this as 'bogeyman' stories is a huge assumption supported nowhere in canon. The merchant you mention is much more likely to use whatever the locals are already afraid of (and there's something, Golarion is dangerous) in order to sell them weapons than a weird war story from some place they've never been that happened 20 years ago.

Tangent101 wrote:
The very write-up on goblins states they are cowardly except when a stronger leader forces them to wage war... and this sounds like something that isn't rare but happens all the time - in various parts of Golarion. And the traveling merchants will spread those stories. It will be known about the Demon-Goblin and his tribe that wiped out half of Mirewood before several adventurers came by and slew the demon-Goblin and sent the rest fleeing. Traveling bards will likely tell such tales as well - stories of heroes and wars and the like... and hey, goblins make for an easy target. They look funny, have a big head, you can even have Gobbo Bowling with lawn pins painted up as goblins looking scared at your oncoming ball.

Except that it also explicitly states that people don't take them seriously viewing them as 'common pests'. So all of this is actually directly counter to canon. It's you attempting to justify something the book never says and, indeed, contradicts.

It's logical as a thing that could happen, but not as something that must and the books pretty clearly indicate that it mostly doesn't.

Tangent101 wrote:
Seeing Goblins are Neutral Evil, they tend to steal things when they can rather than trade. Sure, they mostly steal junk and rotting food but even so the braver goblins will try to sneak into town for more choice items and food. They are NOT going to be accepted in most societies.

Accepted? Not as a whole without something major happening in-universe, no. But such a thing could happen, and even if it doesn't an individual goblin could pretty readily be accepted, because people dislike them but aren't afraid of them. They are pests, not some horrible monster coming to kill you. And, while you might find the adventuring party with a goblin weird, they're not threatening, and so only come in for incidental prejudice.

Tangent101 wrote:
Thematically? Goblins are not a good Core Ancestry choice for Golarion. The more I think about this, the more I have to say this is a bad choice. And I say this as someone who has allowed a goblin player in the past (with said person thinking he was a gnome with a skin condition).

I disagree. Or perhaps just have more faith in the writers at Paizo. I think this is a change that demands an in-universe explanation, but that such an explanation is totally possible, and have faith they'll manage a good one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Flamephoenix182 wrote:
I think I'm missing something here? I'm not sure why there is such an outrage of goblins being core? Is it related to Pathfinder society where the gm doesn't get input on the characters? Because in my groups home games, nothing is assumed to be included and excluded in campaigns... Core or not... so if a goblin doesn't fit into the current campaign the GM just says no goblins or humans or elves or whatever.
I think a lot of people have very set notions about "how goblins are and how they behave" and though they have been able to ignore all the goblin NPCs who live and are tolerated in cities in published material already, this is challenging their assumptions in a big way and they would prefer to push back rather than reconsider said assumptions.

Ignoring? No, finding a few society NPCs to be lacking in comparison to the overwhelming majority of published Paizo material. The only ones ignoring anything are those pointing to the handful of exceptions while ignoring the far greater evidence to the contrary.

Again, a few society NPCs, a keep where 17 of them do menial labor, and not being killed on sight, but still hated, in 2 monsters cities. Not nearly enough, especially in comparison to the material available for other races.

Where was all the detail for the good and neutral goblins in Goblins of Golarion?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
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.

So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Yes.

But I'm also not going to complain if they're not core so long as they're eventually published, because *all* that actually means is they're in a different book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
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.

So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Would be fine by me.

Goblins being a pc race is only as much of a problem as you and your players make it. Heck ultimately if its a problem dont allow it. People disallow things in the core rules all the time. Or have we forgotten that Leadership was in the core pathfinder book, I know tons of dms who dont allow that, specific core spells, all sorts of stuff.

Paizo made a choice because though they originally portrayed them as psychopaths in Runelords, they morphed into something different over the years. Are people going to honestly try to sit here and tell me they didnt have fun playing we be golbins? Did everyone play that game as if the goblins were baby eating evil? I know my group didnt, and I love the idea of one of the weirder races being core. I am tired of it always being the same halfing, elf, human, halforc, dwarf gnome list. Something fresh is fantastic, and there isnt a paizo race more iconic then their takes on Goblins. And while yes there needs to be a little handwavium to get them sorted out, what game is lacking in handwavium? 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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


Corrik wrote:


Again, a few society NPCs, a keep where 17 of them do menial labor, and not being killed on sight, but still hated, in 2 monsters cities. Not nearly enough, especially in comparison to the material available for other races.

Where was all the detail for the good and neutral goblins in Goblins of Golarion?

I suspect it will be in material published after v2. Or do you feel that a new edition of the game can make NO changes to the lore? Those few npcs planted the seed, the popularity of things like we be goblins fertilized it, and we will see it bloom in 2.0. Where paizo feels free enough not to have to tie themselves to how things were in 3.5. There is definately a progression here. Its not out of no where.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


TheFinish wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
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.

Is them being iconic of the game AND Monsters mutually exclusive?

Considering the most iconic thing about Dungeons and Dragons is, y'know, Dungeons and Dragons...

No, it's not mutually exclusive. You can be iconic and a monster.

Right. So Goblins being an icon of the game doesn't mean they're not necessarily still monsters, in turn meaning they're not automatically the best candidate for new core race.

Not saying they are or aren't, one way or the other. Just pointing that out.


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.

Liberty's Edge

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

Yeah... I know weed is legal here in Washington but just how much must Paizo have been smoking when they decided to give Goblins a default bonus to Charisma..... Charisma?! Serious... what? *is so confused*

Other then that it looks pretty good though. :)

as said upthread goblins are bundles of personality , its like there main thing imho

that implies to good charisma.

there main issue is impulse control..which to me at least implies low wisdom


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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:

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 ;) )

The problem is that players dont like having things banned, it causes arguments at the table that wouldn't otherwise exist. I've never had really combative players, but I've stories on these boards. When the player is your friend it's not so easy to just boot them or leave the group.

What evidence do you have that this the least important change?


Revan wrote:
Corrik wrote:
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.

So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Yes.

But I'm also not going to complain if they're not core so long as they're eventually published, because *all* that actually means is they're in a different book.

And how much focus and additional options they get. Also their assumed role in the setting. Not to mention the likelihood at being allowed at the table.

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,765 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards