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
1,351 to 1,400 of 1,765 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling.

This is one of my absolute favorite kinds of stories and a big part of why I wanted to play Pointy in the first place.

Paizo Employee Developer

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Crager Muldoon wrote:

I blame Lundeen for this - not Bulmahn. This is exactly the kind of stuff Lundeen would pull when he was a Living Greyhawk campaign administrator back in the early 2000s. And then he's usually kill the thing he gave you in spectacular fashion.

Lundeen's a lawyer - so he knows how to screw over the players legally. And now he's got the biggest audience of them all. (shakes fist) Darn you Lundeen! Darn you to Heck!!!!!

Oh, those were the good ol' Living Greyhawk days, indeed. I'm presently blameless, sorry to tell you, but I am watching this thread with interest.

And I've left the lawyering behind to be a professional game developer--although I'm finding a startling amount of crossover in the skill sets of both!

Paizo Employee Starfinder Society Developer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Ron Lundeen wrote:
Crager Muldoon wrote:

I blame Lundeen for this - not Bulmahn. This is exactly the kind of stuff Lundeen would pull when he was a Living Greyhawk campaign administrator back in the early 2000s. And then he's usually kill the thing he gave you in spectacular fashion.

Lundeen's a lawyer - so he knows how to screw over the players legally. And now he's got the biggest audience of them all. (shakes fist) Darn you Lundeen! Darn you to Heck!!!!!

Oh, those were the good ol' Living Greyhawk days, indeed. I'm presently blameless, sorry to tell you, but I am watching this thread with interest.

And I've left the lawyering behind to be a professional game developer--although I'm finding a startling amount of crossover in the skill sets of both!

You see!? He's already weaving words to confuse you....

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:

Goblins? 99.9% of Goblins (and I may be being optimistic on that 0.1% there) are destructive and evil in nature. They may be somewhat inept but that doesn't lessen the fact that by and large they are evil and capricious humanoids. If given a chance to lord it over a weaker human they will... up until they kill the human. If a strong human is in a position of forcing them to obey human laws? Then they will obey those laws but break the smaller laws that they can get away with. Usually concerning food theft.

0.1% does not make for a good foundation for a Core Ancestry.

Is there some percent that does? Is it 1%? 5%? 10%? How many more examples of not-murderous goblins are required?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
3. People who just hate Golarion goblins and their weird evil-cuteness and the idea that eating babies and burning people alive is supposed to be really funny or something, which is how they're usually written/presented/drawn. Their being a core race guarantees goblins will show up far more frequently in rulebooks, iconics, APs and Modules, and associated fiction, etc. Which limits what 2e materials those folks will want to buy.

I think I'm pretty much in this camp, and I was troubled by one thing Jason wrote ...

"We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not, but we do want to make them more than what they are. Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero."

Paizo's goblins don't do "mischief," they do atrocities.

I played one goblin module and was repulsed by it, and I've never played another. Up until now, I've never thought twice about goblins because they weren't thrust into my face. However, the possibility that they will a feature of the PF2e core rule book and thus probably organized play has mobilized me as it were. I'm concerned that something I find appalling is about to be thrust into my face.

I suspect that there are probably a lot of folks like me who didn't like Paizo's goblins, didn't like the goblin modules, but didn't say or do much because it was easy to avoid goblins. I think a lot of the opposition being voiced in this and other threads is based on the fact that Paizo looks to be making it harder to ignore the little horrors which are their goblins.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Goblins? 99.9% of Goblins (and I may be being optimistic on that 0.1% there) are destructive and evil in nature. They may be somewhat inept but that doesn't lessen the fact that by and large they are evil and capricious humanoids. If given a chance to lord it over a weaker human they will... up until they kill the human. If a strong human is in a position of forcing them to obey human laws? Then they will obey those laws but break the smaller laws that they can get away with. Usually concerning food theft.

0.1% does not make for a good foundation for a Core Ancestry.

Is there some percent that does? Is it 1%? 5%? 10%? How many more examples of not-murderous goblins are required?

Given that the other core races are at ~50%, I can imagine what it would take.


Corrik wrote:
The issue is that the overwhelming majority of published material does not support them being promoted to core. Especially over other monster races that better fit the bill.

But the new ancestry system will make it much easier to include all "monster races" without it creating massive power-gaming dynamics, and so all the other deserving ancestries can be available as soon as you want them to be. Probably the developers would be much more receptive to arguments in favor of other ancestries than they are to the relentless bashing of the one they chose to show of the differences of the ancestry system to the old "race" system, one which happens to occupy an iconic and unique place in the lore and mythos of Pathfinder.

It might take a month or two, but if the players make it clear that they want lots more ancestries supported as quickly as possible, the developers will oblige.
There is no published material for the new system yet. Just some precursory glances in at what could be, and the promise that it will build upon the rich world that Golarion has already become.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Goblins? 99.9% of Goblins (and I may be being optimistic on that 0.1% there) are destructive and evil in nature. They may be somewhat inept but that doesn't lessen the fact that by and large they are evil and capricious humanoids. If given a chance to lord it over a weaker human they will... up until they kill the human. If a strong human is in a position of forcing them to obey human laws? Then they will obey those laws but break the smaller laws that they can get away with. Usually concerning food theft.

0.1% does not make for a good foundation for a Core Ancestry.

Is there some percent that does? Is it 1%? 5%? 10%? How many more examples of not-murderous goblins are required?

50% - works for half-orcs, so it works for goblins. When they are up to the half-and-half for murderous or can be integrated into society, then they can be Core. :P ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Goblins are like the Paladins of PF2 Ancestry, full of potential fun and endless controversy.

If Paladins have been a core part of the game for decades, being the source of many moral debacles and alignment issues (which I hope gets more clear in this edition), then I'm sure people can handle Goblins as an Ancestry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Do note: In all likelihood I am going to purchase 2nd Edition Pathfinder anyway. I like what I've seen so far. It seems to balance things and doesn't overpower one aspect over the other. And I'll wait and see in any event.

But I would prefer it if I don't need a caveat for Pathfinder 2 of "you guys can play anything in Core... except X" (with X being Goblins in all likelihood). This appears to be a fairly well thought-out improvement to the game. But Goblins seems to be one of those elements of "this sounds cool, let's go for it!" without thinking things through.

From a storytelling perspective and from a GMing perspective... Goblins as Core just doesn't work. Could I see four half-orcs walk into most communities and be accepted? Sure! Four dwarves? Yes! Four gnomes or four halfings? Yes! Four goblins? The city guard would be there so fast heads would spin and there'd be a confrontation against this "raiding party."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

I am against them, but this conversation has just been a giant tumbleweed. Going in circles over and over going nowhere. Just mostly repeating at this point.... Then again, just about a 100 more posts and the conversation about goblins being core will have more posts then the announcement of second edition, so that is kind of neat, and puts into prospective how passionate people are about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder goblins have a very distinct character. Acknowledging how this character may be an issue as a common player option is not archaic. It respects a mythos that was purposely created.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pappy wrote:

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

and my group who have all ben gaming since the early or mid 80's have all liked it, i do not see pro or anti goblin preference to be an issue with how long people have been gaming

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
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.
Edymnion wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Lets see how it goes once they start to actually take in feedback during the play test, since apparently nothing should be set in stone.
I honestly don't buy that.

If the Director of Game Design at Paizo says that there is no decision set in stone regarding a rulebook scheduled for release 16 months from now, I am certainly going to believe him.

Entire books have been taken off the schedule because it was decided they weren't ready for release. That pales in comparison to having to reorder a few pieces of art.

Jason is spending a spectacular amount of time and effort getting this playlets ready, and it's all work he'll have to do twice. The entire point of having a playlets a year before release is that anything can be changed if it needs to.

Everything can't be changed. There isn't time to tear out and alter every single element of the game.

But my experience with the Starfinder RPG tells me any given thing can be changed, even very late in the process, if that is what is determined to be best for the game.

This is now an old post but.. just because artwork for goblin PCs has been commissioned and ordered means very little.

1) They'll use it in this playtest, so right there getting about half their intended use out of it.

2) Even if it's removed from core or as a PC option entirely, I find it hard to imagine there being much difficulty finding use for the artwork regardless. So that iconic is gone... now he features instead as an NPC in the new Pathfinder Society.. or becomes the Goblin Alchemist Villain or NPC of some sort in an Adventure Path. Or they hold onto it for the PF2 Advanced Races Guide and drop it in there. Etc.. it's artwork of Goblins and a Goblin Alchemist.. it's not like they are getting rid of Goblins entirely at any point, ever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
jimthegray wrote:
Pappy wrote:

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

and my group who have all ben gaming since the early or mid 80's have all liked it, i do not see pro or anti goblin preference to be an issue with how long people have been gaming

I hear you. And this will always be the limitation of anecdotal "my gaming group" stories. Even players with similiar experience will see things differently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Loving goblins as a playable race. Lots of opportunities for fun roleplay.

We befriended a huge tribe of goblins in the Reign of Winter AP. A blast working with those little maniacs. They were just trying to survive; we helped them survive by providing them with better tools and weapons. They enthusiastically and suicidally fought with us against winter wolves and ice trolls, both of whom viewed them as food. We went from the enemy of my enemy is my friend to us actually being friends once they realized trade with the Ulfen settlements was in their best interests.

Shadow Lodge

The Great Troll King wrote:

Loving goblins as a playable race. Lots of opportunities for fun roleplay.

We befriended a huge tribe of goblins in the Reign of Winter AP. A blast working with those little maniacs. They were just trying to survive; we helped them survive by providing them with better tools and weapons. They enthusiastically and suicidally fought with us against winter wolves and ice trolls, both of whom viewed them as food. We went from the enemy of my enemy is my friend to us actually being friends once they realized trade with the Ulfen settlements was in their best interests.

You went off script in an interesting way! I imagine this happened around level 5-6?


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

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

Onto the point anyway.

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

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

What always frustrate me is the notion that Gnomes are FORCED to be "funny" or slapstick humor to shave off the bleaching. NO, they need to find NEW INTERESTING things. Not funny things! That most of them tend toward the funny is true, but some ends up evil and do horrible things to protect themselves from the bleaching.

Myself, I even made a doll-like gnome that obsessed about knowing EVERYTHING, and started by trying to learn the whole future, because the past was always there to learn later, but the future will one day be the past! And really, she want to be the first to learn these things, so learning them before they happen, well, guarantee that she will be first!
You know want comments I got about that character?
She wasn't disruptive, she wasn't slapstick comedy, she wasn't grating on the nerves of anyone. I got "creepy", "a bit disturbing", "WHY DID SHE HAVE TO LOOK LIKE A DOLL!?"... Also some: "The fact she is so eerily calm make me fear her". You know what followed all these comment? "... and she was awesome! Play more as here! We want to meet her more often!" Also, she didn't quite realize it, but she had quite a traumatic past (and it's because most of it happened before she was old enough to understand).
Another one I played was ex-slave Halfling that had to kill her owner to get away. She almost never spoke, but was almost the most active character in the group during roleplay sessions. She was also not an "Happy-go-lucky-whatever" Halfling.
As I see it, I'm playing the two races exactly as I should: as individuals that have genetics and cultural predispositions, but with unique stories that shaped their behaviors in some way that is entirely them.
My point is that if my DMs had banned these races, I would never have played those, and lot of great memories wouldn't have been made.

bookrat wrote:

[...]

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

Of course, other cultures or certain countries or cities may not believe the...

That's exactly what I bet on somewhere else in the forums (probably even on this same thread, but it is surely buried under all that chaos).

Subparhiggins wrote:

[...]

If it's agreed upon between player and GM, and both parties consent that discrimination be part of the PCs backstory or ongoing story... Thats a-okay, and there is interesting character development to explore there.

Having, "I will make the lives of this race as hard as possible in order to discourage my players from ever picking this option again" is not a-okay. Even "I will let you play this race only on the condition that you allow me to insert very real, heavy, and damaging hardship into whatever character you have planned. Otherwise it's banned." sucks. I've run into that latter one often enough when attempting to play uncommon races.

I once had a misogynistic DM... I didn't know beforehand and made a female character. Holy Shish-kebab, was that a mistake. Every time she tried to speak, the NPCs said things like "Woman/Whore, SHUT UP!", once I cast charm monster to make one orc help protect me against the others... he then raped me because the DM said that's how he would get "friendly" with a woman... Seriously, that's the first game I walked away from. I'm ok if a couple of NPCs act like this, be it either gender or race, but every single one of them? The problem is not the the NPCs, it's the DM. >_>

And really, the goblins are mostly worth a kick from time to time, maybe a broom or two waved at them with "GO AWAY VERMIN!"... But if they are with heroes, the best most NPCs will do will be an angry/doubtful sideways glance.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
jimthegray wrote:
Pappy wrote:

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

and my group who have all ben gaming since the early or mid 80's have all liked it, i do not see pro or anti goblin preference to be an issue with how long people have been gaming

Goblins in Pathfinder are a very different breed than those in previous incarnations of D&D. Yes, they are still troublemakers and still raid and make up one of the most common level 1 threats in the game. But they are clownish, silly, pun slinging creatures. It's a flavor and style which Paizo has infused into this classic creature, for better or worse, which makes it such an iconic race to their setting and their game. Much like the Kender of Dragonlance which, really, are mostly a reflavored version of halflings.

Because this is a classic creature, and a very common one, it is not at all surprising to me that they'd want to give it more of a highlight in their new edition. And one way of doing this is to make them available as a PC race. No, they are not common as adventurers but core does not mean common. If one looks at the racial demographics of Golarion's population centers, half-orcs make up less than 1% of that demographic, yet they are a core race. In fact, other than humans, no core race accounts for more than 4% of the population of any of Golarion's population centers. Yes, Goblins will be drastically less but we can not by any stretch call any of the non-human races 'common'.

For reference, this is based off a spreadsheet which collects all of the population data from PathfinderWiki.
Related Reddit post: Link
Spreadsheet: Link

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thurston Hillman wrote:
Ron Lundeen wrote:
Crager Muldoon wrote:

I blame Lundeen for this - not Bulmahn. This is exactly the kind of stuff Lundeen would pull when he was a Living Greyhawk campaign administrator back in the early 2000s. And then he's usually kill the thing he gave you in spectacular fashion.

Lundeen's a lawyer - so he knows how to screw over the players legally. And now he's got the biggest audience of them all. (shakes fist) Darn you Lundeen! Darn you to Heck!!!!!

Oh, those were the good ol' Living Greyhawk days, indeed. I'm presently blameless, sorry to tell you, but I am watching this thread with interest.

And I've left the lawyering behind to be a professional game developer--although I'm finding a startling amount of crossover in the skill sets of both!

You see!? He's already weaving words to confuse you....

what level of esquire do you need to be to cast that?

Sovereign Court

Darius Alazario wrote:
jimthegray wrote:
Pappy wrote:

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

and my group who have all ben gaming since the early or mid 80's have all liked it, i do not see pro or anti goblin preference to be an issue with how long people have been gaming

Goblins in Pathfinder are a very different breed than those in previous incarnations of D&D. Yes, they are still troublemakers and still raid and make up one of the most common level 1 threats in the game. But they are clownish, silly, pun slinging creatures. It's a flavor and style which Paizo has infused into this classic creature, for better or worse, which makes it such an iconic race to their setting and their game. Much like the Kender of Dragonlance which, really, are mostly a reflavored version of halflings.

Because this is a classic creature, and a very common one, it is not at all surprising to me that they'd want to give it more of a highlight in their new edition. And one way of doing this is to make them available as a PC race. No, they are not common as adventurers but core does...

Thank you. That is a great way to look at it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Goblins? 99.9% of Goblins (and I may be being optimistic on that 0.1% there) are destructive and evil in nature. They may be somewhat inept but that doesn't lessen the fact that by and large they are evil and capricious humanoids. If given a chance to lord it over a weaker human they will... up until they kill the human. If a strong human is in a position of forcing them to obey human laws? Then they will obey those laws but break the smaller laws that they can get away with. Usually concerning food theft.

0.1% does not make for a good foundation for a Core Ancestry.

Is there some percent that does? Is it 1%? 5%? 10%? How many more examples of not-murderous goblins are required?

Not many considering the fact that the core races are meant for the creation of a player character who is supposed to be an adventurer.

How many humans are becoming adventurers? Most of them do not. Same with goblins. That's the whole point.

Liberty's Edge

Frosty Ace wrote:


Regardless, this is happening. So if you're a player, don't play them, if a compatriot of yours plays one, that's fine too, and if you wanna ban them in your games, then you go ahead and limit your players' choices because of an archaic idea, the same anachronism you acknowledge in Orcs, but refuse to acknowledge in Goblins because... you don't like them...?

Pretty much this.

Lol, how the heck are you people going to tell people you're playing with, which is most likely your FRIENDS, that they can't play something in the core rulebook because you just don't like them? I'd bail so hard, then again I wouldn't have to since my friends are not going to force me to not to play a certain race from the CBR just because they don't agree with it for the story or AP.

You people do what you want for your home games. But thankfully nobody can dictate stuff like that at society games. Lol, if someone sits down with a Goblin character you'll either have to suck it up or leave.


To be fair, even with the population numbers, I expect to see Goblins commonly from Paizo itself. If only as a push for "Hey look we're different" or "Hey look at the new race you can play". At the very least because "Goblins are our favorite so let's put them in more"

But I'd expect this from any race that won out into Core


6 people marked this as a favorite.
geekjosh wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:


Regardless, this is happening. So if you're a player, don't play them, if a compatriot of yours plays one, that's fine too, and if you wanna ban them in your games, then you go ahead and limit your players' choices because of an archaic idea, the same anachronism you acknowledge in Orcs, but refuse to acknowledge in Goblins because... you don't like them...?

Pretty much this.

Lol, how the heck are you people going to tell people you're playing with, which is most likely your FRIENDS, that they can't play something in the core rulebook because you just don't like them? I'd bail so hard, then again I wouldn't have to since my friends are not going to force me to not to play a certain race from the CBR just because they don't agree with it for the story or AP.

You people do what you want for your home games. But thankfully nobody can dictate stuff like that at society games. Lol, if someone sits down with a Goblin character you'll either have to suck it up or leave.

Sounds like a great argument for why they shouldn't be Core.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
geekjosh wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:


Regardless, this is happening. So if you're a player, don't play them, if a compatriot of yours plays one, that's fine too, and if you wanna ban them in your games, then you go ahead and limit your players' choices because of an archaic idea, the same anachronism you acknowledge in Orcs, but refuse to acknowledge in Goblins because... you don't like them...?

Pretty much this.

Lol, how the heck are you people going to tell people you're playing with, which is most likely your FRIENDS, that they can't play something in the core rulebook because you just don't like them? I'd bail so hard, then again I wouldn't have to since my friends are not going to force me to not to play a certain race from the CBR just because they don't agree with it for the story or AP.

You people do what you want for your home games. But thankfully nobody can dictate stuff like that at society games. Lol, if someone sits down with a Goblin character you'll either have to suck it up or leave.

That was the line of thought at mine. And I did leave. Glad to know that attitude still exists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Great Troll King wrote:

Loving goblins as a playable race. Lots of opportunities for fun roleplay.

We befriended a huge tribe of goblins in the Reign of Winter AP. A blast working with those little maniacs. They were just trying to survive; we helped them survive by providing them with better tools and weapons. They enthusiastically and suicidally fought with us against winter wolves and ice trolls, both of whom viewed them as food. We went from the enemy of my enemy is my friend to us actually being friends once they realized trade with the Ulfen settlements was in their best interests.

They were already a playable race. How do you feel about them being one of the core races for the Inner Sea?

Sovereign Court

Corrik wrote:
geekjosh wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:


Regardless, this is happening. So if you're a player, don't play them, if a compatriot of yours plays one, that's fine too, and if you wanna ban them in your games, then you go ahead and limit your players' choices because of an archaic idea, the same anachronism you acknowledge in Orcs, but refuse to acknowledge in Goblins because... you don't like them...?

Pretty much this.

Lol, how the heck are you people going to tell people you're playing with, which is most likely your FRIENDS, that they can't play something in the core rulebook because you just don't like them? I'd bail so hard, then again I wouldn't have to since my friends are not going to force me to not to play a certain race from the CBR just because they don't agree with it for the story or AP.

You people do what you want for your home games. But thankfully nobody can dictate stuff like that at society games. Lol, if someone sits down with a Goblin character you'll either have to suck it up or leave.

Sounds like a great argument for why they shouldn't be Core.

What argument exactly? It doesn't fit to what you think the game should be? I think everyone should have the right to be excited about existing or even new options in the games they want to play. He obviously wants to play a goblin and if he is in a situation where he isn't allowed to play one at a home game he can at least go and play one at a society game. Everyone should have that right. Goblins at a society game aren't going to effect it because the same rules of cooperation apply to all races them included.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Goblins at a society game aren't going to effect it because the same rules of cooperation apply to all races them included

Save for Goblins, to by proxy Gnome, have Shinanagins as part of their race description basically.

Sovereign Court

MerlinCross wrote:
Quote:
Goblins at a society game aren't going to effect it because the same rules of cooperation apply to all races them included
Save for Goblins, to by proxy Gnome, have Shinanagins as part of their race description basically.

Another way to put it is "evil characters are not allowed in the society" and thus Goblins in society play obviously shows that there are those that are not evil...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eoseph wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Quote:
Goblins at a society game aren't going to effect it because the same rules of cooperation apply to all races them included
Save for Goblins, to by proxy Gnome, have Shinanagins as part of their race description basically.
Another way to put it is "evil characters are not allowed in the society" and thus Goblins in society play obviously shows that there are those that are not evil...

"I'm not evil, I'm CN.". "I'm a Paladin, it makes sense for me to stonewall my team due to it being unlawful. Oh but I can totally judge Dredd people cause I'm a Paladin." "I'm sorry I lit the Inn on fire guys, I was just playing with my fire bombs. Why are you hating me, I'm a goblin it's what we do"

Don't need to be evil to disrupt games and handing them another race with a built in reason to cause problems, well..

ITs not even Goblins themselves, it the idea of including an option that has "Causes problems" as basically a race feature. Swap with Orc and I'd expect more rude interactions in RP, random killing of NPCs, and Barbarian usage to go up. Drow we d have similar issuses though we'd get a bunch of Drizzt clones, with a good number doing it out of Irony. And the Edge we'd get if it was Teifling.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Eoseph wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Quote:
Goblins at a society game aren't going to effect it because the same rules of cooperation apply to all races them included
Save for Goblins, to by proxy Gnome, have Shinanagins as part of their race description basically.
Another way to put it is "evil characters are not allowed in the society" and thus Goblins in society play obviously shows that there are those that are not evil...

"I'm not evil, I'm CN.". "I'm a Paladin, it makes sense for me to stonewall my team due to it being unlawful. Oh but I can totally judge Dredd people cause I'm a Paladin." "I'm sorry I lit the Inn on fire guys, I was just playing with my fire bombs. Why are you hating me, I'm a goblin it's what we do"

Don't need to be evil to disrupt games and handing them another race with a built in reason to cause problems, well..

Sounds like a problem with your player to me...

I can behave that way regardless of race...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eoseph wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Eoseph wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Quote:
Goblins at a society game aren't going to effect it because the same rules of cooperation apply to all races them included
Save for Goblins, to by proxy Gnome, have Shinanagins as part of their race description basically.
Another way to put it is "evil characters are not allowed in the society" and thus Goblins in society play obviously shows that there are those that are not evil...

"I'm not evil, I'm CN.". "I'm a Paladin, it makes sense for me to stonewall my team due to it being unlawful. Oh but I can totally judge Dredd people cause I'm a Paladin." "I'm sorry I lit the Inn on fire guys, I was just playing with my fire bombs. Why are you hating me, I'm a goblin it's what we do"

Don't need to be evil to disrupt games and handing them another race with a built in reason to cause problems, well..

Sounds like a problem with your player to me...

I can behave that way regardless of race...

And yet they tend to stick to certain races as an excuse/justify themselves. Sure there's one that out there but have yet to see a "That guy" pure blood elf.


Looking at that spreadsheet, Nagaji have both the numbers and, in my opinion, Paizo-esque feel to be a great core race candidate.

Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Goblin
Half-Breed (Half-Elf, Half-Orc, etc.)
Halfling
Human
Nagaji

? That might be cool

EDIT: And in my opinion Reptilian races are sadly under... -utilized? -represented?
I don't know. Something negative...


I dont even know what the hell a Nagaji is...


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
I dont even know what the hell a Nagaji is...

Basically, lizardmen.

[url]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMbIQ6Tje0IErhCQDMeCb bDFvVlPIAqHppgZ359XCWFqtSeAbq[/url

"Bred in the ancient past by nagas seeking a servitor race that combined the loyalty of a slave with the versatility of the human form, the nagaji have long since developed into a vibrant and proud race."
Naga-ji, naga-people... :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ya know, it's really annoying. I just get through telling my friends, "If it were Goblins, or no new Core races at all, I'd personally have picked no new Core races" but then of course my stupid brain has to start poking at me, "Hey. Hey. I know you juuuust finished saying a thing... but wouldn't this idea here be a fun character to play?" G*! d&@n it brain.


But it says nagaji seem to call Tian Xia home so what event would cause them to get all the way to the more "normal" setting?

I say as normal setting has pirates, ice witches, Arabia Nights and Conan vs Robots, as setting pieces.

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,765 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards