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
1,501 to 1,550 of 1,765 << first < prev | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sprain Ogre wrote:
I'd have much rather seen kobolds in the new core than goblins. Seems like this might decrease their utility as fun and crazed enemies to fight.

I basically feel the same. I understand Goblins are more fundamentally Pathfinder, but I also feel like Kobolds are a better fit for Core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly had no idea so many people even cared about kobolds. Like they literally don't exist in my homebrew and nobody has noticed yet.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It’s not that we care for them, just that we’ve seen them behave well enough to welcome them to our Kingdom in Kingmaker, for instance. When they’re introduced as enemies, it’s usually a tribe that’s “never given us any trouble so far” and that’s been whipped into violence by an external overlord...

Long live the sootscales!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblins are a no for me as well. Honestly I can't see a role for a goblin in party other than comic relief, if not disruptive play for the sake of it. Also, goblins always had a charisma penalty, so why remove that penalty and have a bonus instead? Cha bonus with Wis penalty just screams comic relief, when those pests are dangerous as a whole.
Unless I'm playing in a setting that displays them as civilized, playable characters (Eberron comes to mind), that "ancestry" is a core feature that won't belong in my games.
I'd rather have Aasimar, Tiefling and Genasi in core, or perhaps a new race like a construct one.

Sovereign Court

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

I’m starting the petition now for Vine Leshy as a core ancestry. Who is with me?

Second Seekers (Roheas)

5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I honestly had no idea so many people even cared about kobolds. Like they literally don't exist in my homebrew and nobody has noticed yet.

Between the Sewer Dragons of Absalom and the sootscales in Kingmaker a lot of us have really fond memories of kobolds.

The True Dragons of Absalom was a kobold pre-gen special in PFS which allowed a lot of us to play as kobolds and those ingenius little draconic trapmasters are a lot of fun.

They combine people who like short races, people who like reptilian races, people who like dragons, and people who like traps all in one. Its pretty cross-sectional appeal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krinn wrote:

Goblins are a no for me as well. Honestly I can't see a role for a goblin in party other than comic relief, if not disruptive play for the sake of it. Also, goblins always had a charisma penalty, so why remove that penalty and have a bonus instead? Cha bonus with Wis penalty just screams comic relief, when those pests are dangerous as a whole.

Unless I'm playing in a setting that displays them as civilized, playable characters (Eberron comes to mind), that "ancestry" is a core feature that won't belong in my games.
I'd rather have Aasimar, Tiefling and Genasi in core, or perhaps a new race like a construct one.

It's kind of a lack of imagination if you can't see them beyond jokes or disruptions.

There can certainly be light-hearted moments, but there's no reason you couldn't have a Goblin character with a striking character motivation and gripping past that leads into an emotional character arc.

As for why Charisma?

"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."

There are multiple aspects to Charisma. While many might not find them visually attractive in the traditional sense or amazing leaders normally, they exude personality, and they can both draw and hold attention quite well with said personality (an aspect of one's personal magnetism).

Or, to put it more simply, it's their character's charm and quirks compensating for their lack of non-traditional beauty.

If you have to pick a mental stat to give to Goblins, Charisma seems like the best fit.

I'm quite content with Goblin as an option (though I wouldn't mind a Svirfneblin as well, Deep Gnomes need love too).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I am a fan of the kodbold as well thier lawful bent, willingness to eat rats and keep the sewers flowing make them excellent sewer workers. Plus they are mini dragons at least in thier own minds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I honestly had no idea so many people even cared about kobolds. Like they literally don't exist in my homebrew and nobody has noticed yet.

Well, i never had a player even ask to play a goblin, not even ask, and yet here we are. Kobolts on the other hand come up from time to time as a funny option, but again nobody actually stopped to play one.

Makes you wonder how paizo checks the whole popularity thing.

Well, i imagine the playtest will make things clear.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m fine with goblins as a core race and as far as “all” goblins as pyromaniac douch canoes is like saying every 1/2 orc is the product of a brutal rape. Can a player play against stereo type and not be annoying? They can. For those who won’t “allow” a goblin pc in their game could be missing out on potentialy great role play in my opinion.

If a player goblin pc is being disruptive at the table then as a gm or even fellow players it’s up to you to tactfully ask the player to tone it down some. If they don’t or a positive solution can’t be reached than go from there.

I had a player as a goblin pc in a game and yes it presented challenges. He had to be reminded from time to time that he couldn’t burn the world as his only solution, but when the others let him loose for combat purposes he shined. Eventually the goblin and party would get discounts at certain inns because when they stayed the rat presence was dramatically reduced. Other places the goblin wouldn’t be allowed in at all, people don’t have to welcome goblins with open arms (you might just get a nipple bitten off) but at least use them as an rp experiance.

Of course your game is yours and your players and every table is different. No one is gonna hold a dagger +1 with acid drip to your head and demand you allow the little ankle bitters in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Makes you wonder how paizo checks the whole popularity thing.

Sales is a big part of it, I suspect.

Goblin themed products do well in their regular product lines and in their licensed stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Pappy wrote:
Most PF2 players are going to be from PF1. At least for the first few years.

If Paizo believed that, they probably would just tweak PF1.

Do you really believe that Paizo isn't counting on a large influx of new players, attracted by a new game?

They didn't say only PF1 players would be there for the first few years. They said "most", just like most of PF1's players were from 3.5 for a few years.

So his statement is likely correct.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mewzard wrote:
Krinn wrote:

Goblins are a no for me as well. Honestly I can't see a role for a goblin in party other than comic relief, if not disruptive play for the sake of it. Also, goblins always had a charisma penalty, so why remove that penalty and have a bonus instead? Cha bonus with Wis penalty just screams comic relief, when those pests are dangerous as a whole.

Unless I'm playing in a setting that displays them as civilized, playable characters (Eberron comes to mind), that "ancestry" is a core feature that won't belong in my games.
I'd rather have Aasimar, Tiefling and Genasi in core, or perhaps a new race like a construct one.

It's kind of a lack of imagination if you can't see them beyond jokes or disruptions.

There can certainly be light-hearted moments, but there's no reason you couldn't have a Goblin character with a striking character motivation and gripping past that leads into an emotional character arc.

As for why Charisma?

"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."

There are multiple aspects to Charisma. While many might not find them visually attractive in the traditional sense or amazing leaders normally, they exude personality, and they can both draw and hold attention quite well with said personality (an aspect of one's personal magnetism).

Or, to put it more simply, it's their character's charm and quirks compensating for their lack of non-traditional beauty.

If you have to pick a mental stat to give to Goblins, Charisma seems like the best fit.

I'm quite content with Goblin as an option (though I wouldn't mind a Svirfneblin as well, Deep Gnomes need love too).

You can substitute goblin for kender in your post and it would fit better.

"Striking character motivation and gripping past" are just an excuse, you can even roleplay an ogre or an awakened oak with that excuse. That doesn't mean that you'll ever see awakened oaks as a core race.
Goblins belong to optional races, because their description on paper fits a disruptive playing style better than anything else. Any goblin resembling a civilized person that won't be attacked on sight is a special snowflake just like an ogre paladin or an awakened oak blight druid.

I'd rather give goblins an Intelligence bonus (I remember their blue subrace of psionically gifted goblins) and a Charisma penalty, but my goblins are not Pathfinder goblins I guess... still, given their description in PF1, I expected a wisdom penalty right from the start, instead PF1 goblins have average wisdom and a penalty to charisma. Their difference from 3.x goblins didn't show in their stats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Telebuddy wrote:
I’m fine with goblins as a core race and as far as “all” goblins as pyromaniac douch canoes is like saying every 1/2 orc is the product of a brutal rape. Can a player play against stereo type and not be annoying? They can. For those who won’t “allow” a goblin pc in their game could be missing out on potentialy great role play in my opinion.

The "Possible Great RP" doesn't seem to sit well with; Paladins, Necromancers, other monsterous races used as dim witted can on fodder, playable undead, Summoners, Leadership, and far more than I'm willing to keep listing or even know of.

I don't understand why "Oh they might be good" is an excuse just for Goblins. By that reasoning, a DM I saw should have let a player have his Rogue. Centaur. In Skulls and Shackles. Because of the RP possibilities outweigh any confusion and balacening of "Oh does this work?"]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mewzard wrote:
Krinn wrote:

Goblins are a no for me as well. Honestly I can't see a role for a goblin in party other than comic relief, if not disruptive play for the sake of it. Also, goblins always had a charisma penalty, so why remove that penalty and have a bonus instead? Cha bonus with Wis penalty just screams comic relief, when those pests are dangerous as a whole.

Unless I'm playing in a setting that displays them as civilized, playable characters (Eberron comes to mind), that "ancestry" is a core feature that won't belong in my games.
I'd rather have Aasimar, Tiefling and Genasi in core, or perhaps a new race like a construct one.

It's kind of a lack of imagination if you can't see them beyond jokes or disruptions.

There can certainly be light-hearted moments, but there's no reason you couldn't have a Goblin character with a striking character motivation and gripping past that leads into an emotional character arc.

As for why Charisma?

"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."

There are multiple aspects to Charisma. While many might not find them visually attractive in the traditional sense or amazing leaders normally, they exude personality, and they can both draw and hold attention quite well with said personality (an aspect of one's personal magnetism).

Or, to put it more simply, it's their character's charm and quirks compensating for their lack of non-traditional beauty.

If you have to pick a mental stat to give to Goblins, Charisma seems like the best fit.

I'm quite content with Goblin as an option (though I wouldn't mind a Svirfneblin as well, Deep Gnomes need love too).

If anything i would have chosen intelligence for a mental stat to give a bonus to. Goblins have a knack for crafting stuff from nothing valuable (it screams intelligence). They know HOW to make fire (+2int), definetly DON'T know WHEN to use it (-2wis), many are pyros, not a particularly magnetic personality trait (no cha alterations).

I did played a goblin rogue once, it was very fun (and surprisingly resilient thanks to his bouncyness), but definetly wasn't a serious character, it was THE plucky comic relief of the group venturing through Rappan Athuk.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Chiming in real quick with agreeing that having Goblin adventurers doesn’t change the Lore. We’ll still have the a!@!$&% bitey-burny-stabby tribes, the tribes that stay away from everyone and everyone in turn stays away from them, and the random ass adventuring goblin. It was like this in First Edition, and continues into Second Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Third: Why did you choose Wisdom instead of Strength as the Stat Flaw, and why give Goblins a bonus to Charisma instead of Intelligence (seeing that in essence Goblins are getting a +4 net shift in Charisma as a result)?

If you don't mind me speculating... I suspect that we would first need to look at their original write-up in PF1. Goblins received a +4 Dex, which required some counter stat modifiers. Strength would have been fairly easy to choose for a small-builded ancestry. But Charisma was likely thrown in just because. In some retrospect, Wisdom works better as a flaw given Goblin Fact #6: Goblins are a little crazy. They are easily distracted and don't make the wisest of choices, such as hiding in an oven. (Of course, I also think that just giving small ancestries bonuses to Dexerity or flaws to Strength makes for repetitively lazy, if not boring, design.)

Quote:
Fourth: Will other Ancestries get some level of bonus hit points? (It seems almost like this is to help reduce the vulnerability of 1st level characters which is quite handy to be honest... and one reason why I always start people off at 2nd level.)

I recall them saying 'yes' to that.

Quote:
Fifth: How set in stone are you with existing Ancestries, seeing a number of people have suggested Half-Breed to encompass half-orcs and half-elves (and also Aasimar and Tieflings) and this actually sounds like a very good idea you might consider enacting?

Though merging half-elves and half-orcs into human, orc, or elf ancestries would likely make a lot of sense, I suspect that Paizo wants to preserve familiarity with their past ancestries. So if you were playing a half-elf/orc in PF1, they likely would want players to have an easy time just selecting that as a full-feature ancestry rather than having to discern where their half-elves/orcs went.

Orville Redenbacher wrote:
4E did it. It wasnt universally well received.

One of the core problems with 4E in regards to its ancestries was that it also left some out of the first PHB: i.e., half-orc and gnome. So there was a lot of resentment towards the ancestries that - in their mind - gave the PHB1-excluded ancestries the shove: e.g., tieflings, eladrin, dragonborn. And yet 5E, which has been widely well-received, kept the old (e.g., half-orcs, gnomes), preserved many of those new ancestries (e.g., dragonborn, tieflings), and included new ones, including core drow.

KingOfAnything wrote:
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.

Could you say more about this, please?

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

On a side note anyone else slightly annoyed at how Goblins are getting a 'Core' Iconic before half-orcs and technically Half-elves?

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kevin Mack wrote:
On a side note anyone else slightly annoyed at how Goblins are getting a 'Core' Iconic before half-orcs and technically Half-elves?

No.


Kevin Mack wrote:
On a side note anyone else slightly annoyed at how Goblins are getting a 'Core' Iconic before half-orcs and technically Half-elves?

Why should I? Paizo wants to show off the novelty of PF2 from its predecessor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Chiming in real quick with agreeing that having Goblin adventurers doesn’t change the Lore. We’ll still have the a*~@%@+ bitey-burny-stabby tribes, the tribes that stay away from everyone and everyone in turn stays away from them, and the random ass adventuring goblin. It was like this in First Edition, and continues into Second Edition.

I think the lore change here is how the goblins are precieved by the general public. Ofcourse you can have *anything* as adventurers, but being an adventurer doesnt mean they are "socially acceptable" per say as most of the social conflicts are solved by "Oh, he is with me" deal.

Which often state that this particular adventurer is a snowflake or that every Goblin adventurer must have a party or get chased off.

Though in this that "Goblins are now adventurers" would mean that they are now acceptable around people would imply the lore have changed for people to see them as less offensive than previously.

Honestly the "He is with me" que is the basic adventurer handwave anyway, considering you have parties going with armored battle tigers, Snakefolk warrior priests with stones flying around their head, summoners with alien looking monstrosities, Alchemists with tentacles and multiply arms. If anything it kind of implies that most adventures arent as "Adventurous" as your standard PC party.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:
Though in this that "Goblins are now adventurers" would mean that they are now acceptable around people would imply the lore have changed for people to see them as less offensive than previously.

Nobles in Absalom keep them as pets, the Hellknights let them join, they’re seen in bars. Snapjack helps a nice lady run her noodle cart. The lore hasn’t changed.

While they’re no Skittermanders, they’re not KoS, I don’t belive they ever were.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:


Sales is a big part of it, I suspect.

Goblin themed products do well in their regular product lines and in their licensed stuff.

I bet dragons and white walkers sell a lot of GoT swag as well, but you wouldn’t want one as a PC in a GoT game.

I’d vote for Tieflings and Aasimars as core ancestries. (And maybe make them less ridiculously good than in P1...)


Catharsis wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


Sales is a big part of it, I suspect.

Goblin themed products do well in their regular product lines and in their licensed stuff.

I bet dragons and white walkers sell a lot of GoT swag as well, but you wouldn’t want one as a PC in a GoT game.

I’d vote for Tieflings and Aasimars as core ancestries. (And maybe make them less ridiculously good than in P1...)

I fear dragons are more a kind of merch for the company run by the wizards that live near the shoreline

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

According to recent poll ran by d20pfsrd on ca. 10.000 players, apart from core, the most popular choices were: Aasimar and Tiefling (obviously candidates for being ancestries you can mix into other, thus also mitigating the "Aasi/Tiefs default to human ancestry, where's my Abysskin Halfling?" problem), Drow (duh), KITSUNE (wow) and then, Goblins!

Fun fact: Tieflings > Dwarves > Aasmiar > Halflings > Gneums.


Gorbacz wrote:

According to recent poll ran by d20pfsrd on ca. 10.000 players, apart from core, the most popular choices were: Aasimar and Tiefling (obviously candidates for being ancestries you can mix into other, thus also mitigating the "Aasi/Tiefs default to human ancestry, where's my Abysskin Halfling?" problem), Drow (duh), KITSUNE (wow) and then, Goblins!

Fun fact: Tieflings > Dwarves > Aasmiar > Halflings > Gneums.

Kitsune is a rather interesting race to play, though i wonder how people view the Pathfinder variant?

As in Pathfinder they can switch between the human and "fox-face" variant of themselves at will, though i think some players might play them as the "human with fox ears and tail" kind (like i have) which get a bit of the "anime-flak".

Of the "eastern mythos" characters i think you have the Kitsune and Tengu as the most popular ones?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tiefling Alchemist and Aasimar Oracle would have been a better fit for new core races and classes in my opinion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Maybe good questions for folks that were hoping for one or more specific ancestry to receive more general support in the new system would be: What plans do the developers have for introducing new ancestries? Will they be encoded into bestiaries? or will there be specific Ultimate Ancestries books that give new ancestries all the necessary support to be playable? And how long will the new system be operational before this material becomes readily available and adequately tested for balance and usability along side the ancestries provided in the initial rule book?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I honestly had no idea so many people even cared about kobolds. Like they literally don't exist in my homebrew and nobody has noticed yet.

Between the Sewer Dragons of Absalom and the sootscales in Kingmaker a lot of us have really fond memories of kobolds.

The True Dragons of Absalom was a kobold pre-gen special in PFS which allowed a lot of us to play as kobolds and those ingenius little draconic trapmasters are a lot of fun.

They combine people who like short races, people who like reptilian races, people who like dragons, and people who like traps all in one. Its pretty cross-sectional appeal.

I feel Kobold Press may have had an influence as well. (I really wish their next kickstarter would be a return of Kobold magazine.)


Gorbacz wrote:

According to recent poll ran by d20pfsrd on ca. 10.000 players, apart from core, the most popular choices were: Aasimar and Tiefling (obviously candidates for being ancestries you can mix into other, thus also mitigating the "Aasi/Tiefs default to human ancestry, where's my Abysskin Halfling?" problem), Drow (duh), KITSUNE (wow) and then, Goblins!

Fun fact: Tieflings > Dwarves > Aasmiar > Halflings > Gneums.

I was a bit surprised at first to see Tieflings rank above Aasimar. Because Aasimar are just so good. One of only 3 races with no negative stat. The others being Hobgoblins and the third merfolk who have 3 positive stats, but have problems walking. And the different Aasimar ancestries makes it so you can pick your stat bonuses. But I guess the flavor of Tieflings is enough to overcome the fact that they have a negative stat.

Kobolds are lower than I might expect from the forums here, but part of that is almost certainly because their stats are just plain horrible. Having a negative 4 is bad enough, but they get a second negative to add insult to injury and only a single +2. So anyone playing a Kobold now really is going for the flavor, because they're pretty bad mechanically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It seems to me that the hardcores on either side are not going to convince each other. Largely because the divide is wholly based on opinion.

If thats the case I kinda have to fall on the side that isn't advocating undoing work, removing semi complete content [to be pushed off to some undefined future date, we can't say for sure it'd be in the first Bestiary as ancestries seem more involved than races of old and thus they may not be including them as easily in bestiaries] and reducing [even if temporarily] the options for players who were excited for that content. For people grumping because the Goblins are taking up space that could be used for x, y or z other race, it's alright to be upset, but removing Goblins isn't going to suddenly give them time and resources to develop another ancestry and even if it was it might not be the one you want and even if it was you'd just be swapping the goblin wanters joy out for your own.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

How is this even a debate? If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

According to recent poll ran by d20pfsrd on ca. 10.000 players, apart from core, the most popular choices were: Aasimar and Tiefling (obviously candidates for being ancestries you can mix into other, thus also mitigating the "Aasi/Tiefs default to human ancestry, where's my Abysskin Halfling?" problem), Drow (duh), KITSUNE (wow) and then, Goblins!

Fun fact: Tieflings > Dwarves > Aasmiar > Halflings > Gneums.

I was a bit surprised at first to see Tieflings rank above Aasimar. Because Aasimar are just so good. One of only 3 races with no negative stat. The others being Hobgoblins and the third merfolk who have 3 positive stats, but have problems walking. And the different Aasimar ancestries makes it so you can pick your stat bonuses. But I guess the flavor of Tieflings is enough to overcome the fact that they have a negative stat.

Kobolds are lower than I might expect from the forums here, but part of that is almost certainly because their stats are just plain horrible. Having a negative 4 is bad enough, but they get a second negative to add insult to injury and only a single +2. So anyone playing a Kobold now really is going for the flavor, because they're pretty bad mechanically.

You know, with Rogue and Fighter being the most popular classes, I'm inclined to think that far fewer gamers really care about crunch and what is stronger than what than we are lead to believe by the gamist crowd.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am ok with goblins being playable characters, it's been done before and there generally is an understanding that the character is probably a rare case. I've always welcomed the idea of having a misfit and playing out how to integrate it.

However, setting/story telling "oh there are a bunch of good hearted goblins now" while most campaign setting having furthered the idea that they are a murderous, morale slack, sadistic, chaotic, arsonist, destructive bunch really does not lend to this new concept.

In short, it comes forward as forced and a little lazy writing. Looking forward to their full description to see how it really ties in. I would even buy that there is a tribe that is an exception that was hidden in a forest and had contact with some benevolent races that taught them a better path. Or something. They are good now! just does not cut it.

Also. Charisma. Ok.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Errant Mercenary wrote:

I am ok with goblins being playable characters, it's been done before and there generally is an understanding that the character is probably a rare case. I've always welcomed the idea of having a misfit and playing out how to integrate it.

However, setting/story telling "oh there are a bunch of good hearted goblins now" while most campaign setting having furthered the idea that they are a murderous, morale slack, sadistic, chaotic, arsonist, destructive bunch really does not lend to this new concept.

In short, it comes forward as forced and a little lazy writing. Looking forward to their full description to see how it really ties in. I would even buy that there is a tribe that is an exception that was hidden in a forest and had contact with some benevolent races that taught them a better path. Or something. They are good now! just does not cut it.

Also. Charisma. Ok.

I mean all those good hearted goblins that people have been playing for ages anyway had to come from somewhere. Seems like they are making efforts to match core with the reality of people playing the game. I've personally seen more adventurer goblins than I have gnomes at my tables (I know anecdotal evidence) so they've been apart of my world for almost a decade.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely took a step back from this thread when I realized that convincing someone on the other side of the fence just isn’t going to happen. Stupid me. It is the internet after all! It’s just an odd thing to be so upset about in my opinion. Goblins sound fun. That is what’ me and my players are here for. It has also been proven time and time on this thread that the lore is in tact so I still don’t see that particular issue some are having.

The most interesting part about all of this is seeing all of the different “philosophies” to table top gaming and how each person views how the game is to be ran. The wide variety of those differences are a testimony to the power of a game ran by imagination. I absolutely love paizo and their products! Can’t wait to try the playtest.....and play a goblin...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:


I mean all those good hearted goblins that people have been playing for ages anyway had to come from somewhere. Seems like they are making efforts to match core with the reality of people playing the game. I've personally seen more adventurer goblins than I have gnomes at my tables (I know anecdotal evidence) so they've been apart of my world for almost a decade.

Perhaps I have been a little out of the loop of we be goblins and stuff like that, since my table expectation is that goblins will still retain some malice the same as a Drow, and have seen this characters in grey moral APs.

I am up for getting some other races into core and giving them proper backgrounds, no matter how strange their sights. I'm just a stickler when it comes to good narrative. I dig the unusual adventurer, even a goblin paladin, sure. It's just that it sounds like there is a horde of adventuring goblins that have had a change of heart, and it'd be nice to see some smart writing to fit things together.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Errant Mercenary wrote:
I am up for getting some other races into core and giving them proper backgrounds, no matter how strange their sights. I'm just a stickler when it comes to good narrative. I dig the unusual adventurer, even a goblin paladin, sure. It's just that it sounds like there is a horde of adventuring goblins that have had a change of heart, and it'd be nice to see some smart writing to fit things together.

For the record, I'm basically totally in agreement with this. I just have faith that Paizo will do the necessary 'smart writing' and am thus less worried than some people seem to be.

Which is weird. Paizo's track record of justifying things in-setting is actually really good, so I'm a bit befuddled by how little faith people have that they can tie things together given a year of products.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Errant Mercenary wrote:

I am ok with goblins being playable characters, it's been done before and there generally is an understanding that the character is probably a rare case. I've always welcomed the idea of having a misfit and playing out how to integrate it.

However, setting/story telling "oh there are a bunch of good hearted goblins now" while most campaign setting having furthered the idea that they are a murderous, morale slack, sadistic, chaotic, arsonist, destructive bunch really does not lend to this new concept.

In short, it comes forward as forced and a little lazy writing. Looking forward to their full description to see how it really ties in. I would even buy that there is a tribe that is an exception that was hidden in a forest and had contact with some benevolent races that taught them a better path. Or something. They are good now! just does not cut it. I also would rather not see a race lore retconned because of popularity.

Also. Charisma. Ok.

Agreed and seconded and completely agree on the entire post. I would never stop a player from running a goblin or drow pc at my table. I would warn the player before the campaign begins that his character would for the first few levels face dislike and hatred because of his race. He has to prove to everyone around him and possibly including his group that he can be trusted. After a few levels and the player making a effort to show he really is different then he will slowly be accepted.

My take the reason the whole issue is divisive imo is that they made Goblins in the setting truly evil. Yes they were exceptions and those exceptions except those exceptions had to keep how they felt and acted hidden because the majority of goblins would and can kill them.

I also feel like Errant Mercenary that "oh there are a whole bunch of good goblins" is lazy writing and cop-out. Not to mention they would to redo the above art because imo if that is the art being used for Goblin pcs it's anything but promoting good goblins imo. Instead it feels more the goblin is waiting for someone to turn their back to cut off their head. Their are so many more Golarion setting appropriate races they could have included.

It's not something that will stop me from playing Pathfinder. I have to freely admit it's not something I am a fan of either.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Errant Mercenary wrote:
I am up for getting some other races into core and giving them proper backgrounds, no matter how strange their sights. I'm just a stickler when it comes to good narrative. I dig the unusual adventurer, even a goblin paladin, sure. It's just that it sounds like there is a horde of adventuring goblins that have had a change of heart, and it'd be nice to see some smart writing to fit things together.

For the record, I'm basically totally in agreement with this. I just have faith that Paizo will do the necessary 'smart writing' and am thus less worried than some people seem to be.

Which is weird. Paizo's track record of justifying things in-setting is actually really good, so I'm a bit befuddled by how little faith people have that they can tie things together given a year of products.

This is essentially how I feel. I mean, I'm a smidge nervous it won't happen 'smartly'. I know Paizo is capable of it. I just hope they do it.

Oh, and I'm still not convinced by the whole "Charisma is sheer force of personality."

Has no one but me known someone is very talkative, annoying, confident, strong-willed, and inconsiderate? Definitely a strong personality, but if someone called him/her charismatic... no, that'd be wrong. So yeah. Still not buying Charismatic Goblins. AS WRITTEN. After the explanation Paizo is gonna give, well, then, we'll see.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't think Charisma is just appearance. But I DO think it's a strong personality with some significant positive traits.

Someone who brings up divisive topics regardless of how it makes others feel because he/she wants to talk about them, cuts people off to make his or her points, doesn't nuance anything to appeal to his/her audience because he/she can't be bothered, and won't drop a topic when told to, is by no means a weak personality. But Charismatic? Nope. Don't see it.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm perfectly ok with this.

how many times have players encountered benevolent goblins in PFS and other campaigns? Multiple times. Just because a species of creature is listed as Chaotic Evil doesn't mean every single member of that species is Chaotic Evil.

First, I think it's safe to say there is a broad range within the alignment of Chaotic Evil. How many people have played or played with Chaotic Evil PCs of humans, etc.? I'm sure most mature people did and can play these characters in true fashion and keep in mind the team aspects of the game. I know my experience has shown this.

If you're a fan of playing Drow, and you don't like the fact that Goblins will be a core race, then get outta here.

Uh...half-orcs...

If you don't want players being a certain species/race, then simply ban them from play. Generally, the reason I see non-core races being banned or restricted is because they offer more power than a core race. I don't see this being an issue with goblins.

If player picks a Goblin and plays like a fool to the detriment of the group, then the group needs to re-evaluate why their playing with that person. Problem players exist no matter what race they are. Perhaps Paizo should include some sort of explainer for the Goblin race how how to play one and how to be mindful of others' experiences, but I really don't think this is a problem that is a big deal.

I do, however, wonder and worry how they will implement the dramatic shift of Goblins becoming "normal." If this doesn't end up making sense, then there will be an issue. While Goblins NPCs do show up occasionally, they certainly aren't common or even uncommon. For them to be a core race, this would, to me, imply quite a large population that have "sensibilities" akin to the civilized races. I don't know how they plan on implementing this aspect in so short a time and having it make sense, short of an AP inserting a group of previously-established Goblins from the underworld or some other plane, etc.

This is all coming from a person who is unlikely to ever play a Goblin character, by the way.

I'm not familiar with the Kender issue, but were Kender's a race that offered some benefits that core races did not? For instance, Aasimars and Tieflings have abilities that humans don't get, abilities that were very helpful. I'm assuming people won't pick a Goblin for it's above-and-beyond-human abilities.

Dαedαlus wrote:


Charisma!? Really?

Charisma isn't all about how one looks. Just look at some of the charismatic people in history, or look at any fiction character who's hideous but can exercise a lot of power based on how they hold themselves, or interact with others. Charisma is one of the hardest abilities to explain to someone in game terms, let alone real life.

Not to get political here, but look at President Trump. The man's got Charisma (even though I disagree with nearly everything he does). Please, just take this as an example, no more comments on politics with this statement.

Fuzzypaws wrote:
No one would accept a member of a race known for being murderous arsonist psychopaths.

This thought is absurd. Do you welcome necromancers into your party? Any undead minions? Do you send hirelings ahead of you into traps, or summon poor creatures from other planes to do your dirty work to die in your place? Does your group wander into creatures' homes and kill them just for loot? Give me a break!

pjrogers wrote:
I still think this is a very, very bad idea. Goblins are a sadistic, funny once joke that will encourage the worst in player behavior. Giving them an ancestry feat like "Burn It" and making the iconic alchemist a goblin is only going to make things worse.

So you're saying there are no sadistic humans. Please.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For all the people saying "no goblins in my games" did y'all not have players itching to play some of the weirdest stuff in PF1?

If you can handle PCs who are Androids, Tieflings, Gathlains, Ghorans, Ratfolk, Wyvarans, Nagaji, Tengu, Hobgoblins, Astomoi, Cecaelias, Merfolk, Strix, etc. then you can handle PC goblins.

Frankly "everybody freaks out at the monster in the party" gets tedious fast so you stop doing it if you even bothered to start.

THIS. ALL. DAY. LONG.

Cyrad wrote:

I love goblins. I love making goblin PCs. I love exotic races.

But goblins as a core race makes absolutely no sense to me. I can think of a dozen races I'd rather have as core races, such as kitsune, kobolds, tengu, tieflings, aasimar, geniekin, catfolk, etc. All of these races are way more commonplace as adventurers and residents of major cities. Why make a monstrous race core, but not any of these races?

How do we know these others races will never be "core?" PF 1e, these races aren't core, but did that stop people from playing them and having them be populous? NOPE.

Logically, arguments against Goblins are failing against the backdrop and experience of play.

Thebazilly wrote:


According to the D20PFSRD survey, goblins don't even crack the top 10, although some of that may be due to mechanical reasons.

This is exactly why it's ok for them to be Core. People won't pick them for their mechanical benefits like people tend to with other races. This is limit players picking them!

bartgroks wrote:
I love the idea of Goblins being a core race. The whole idea of "kill on sight" races is repugnant and I am glad to see v2 taking a step away from it. My first v2 PFS toon will likely be a goblin. Great idea and a great blog post giving us more details on it.

Yes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:

I am asking why is it now, and also, why Goblins, instead of other races who were in the same situation (Orcs, Drow) or races that were already widely accepted (Ratfolk, Catfolk, Aasimar, any of the elemental humanoids).

Because Goblins are iconic Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
I'm surprised how radical the rejection is in many posts on this thread. This is a fantasy game, I get folks are attached to their history (as I am), but are we all really this conservative?

Nothing to do with conservative, if Paizo had narrative-driven rationale for change I think many people would be more open to it. But they don't, they don't even pretend to have one (not to say it is distasteful when motives are concealed). It is simply based on "recognizable Paizo brand" so "naturally" they would use it as new PC race, in spite of it's "recognizability" hinged on anti-PC dysfunctionality.

Paizo themself emphasize their world and narrative is key to their brand, yet expect watering down that flavor to be good marketing move. Obviously, this is their prerogative, and maybe it will work out for them. If it does, that says Pathfinder/Golarion aren't actually strong coherent brands. I'm saying this comfortable with fact Goblins ARE mechanically supported in P1E, and not inherently opposed to people roleplaying them, good or evil. Emphasizing them as viable Core Race is not appropriate choice IMHO, especially when driven by superficial "image recognition" ignoring world role.

We've got an entire year and at least 1 AP to deal with integration, and Paizo has never intimated anything otherwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblins are not Chaotic Evil.

Goblins are Neutral Evil.

Essentially? They are perfectly willing to obey laws... but will break stupid laws (or laws pertaining to food ownership because food belongs to whoever gets it in their belly first). And they are also for themselves before anyone else. They are the epitome of selfishness and "me first" while fitting into a loose society.

For instance, Goblins live in Irrisen and are considered full citizens. If you kill a goblin and are caught? You are going on "trial" for murder. If goblins steal from a human who isn't nobility? Then the goblins probably will get away with it because the nobility could care less about some stinking "barbarian" they conquered over a thousand years ago.

But if one of the goblins went totally psychotic and started murdering folk left and right, that goblin would still be put down and executed for disrupting society. The reason goblins are accepted in Irrisen is they are able to function within that society. They aren't Bugbears - those are Chaotic Evil monsters. No, Goblins can exist in social structures. They just are as likely as a Neutral Good person to say "eff that law, it's a stupid law" - except the law in question may be one that prevents the goblin from doing something for its own benefit over someone else (like the fantasy version of insider trading).

So. I am not for Goblins as Core. I don't think it's a wise choice to have them as Core. But they are most definitely NOT a Chaotic Evil race. Not by a long shot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM there is literally no chance there will ever be a goblin PC in my campaign. Even in the Golarion setting this makes no sense.

Sovereign Court

What if...

A new large influx of goblins moving from another continent (unexplored area of Golarion)due to some dire need. They meet with leaders of the inner sea and upon realizing these Goblins are not the normal chaotic kind (but still a bit crazy regardless) seen in the inner sea they are welcomed but have a lot of prejudice and unfair judgments stacked on top of them. Sounds like a good setup for some fun story telling and lore to me...

Or, a setup i've read on here and like immensely, where in the last adventure path certain tribes of Goblins unite to protect a city/country/people/whatever/etc. because if they don't then everyone dies or some other dire situation that includes them. This gives them the opportunity to advance their people into civilization due to their heroic deeds.Not all of them but some take the chance to evolve their race. Relationships with their new "friendly" neighbors are strained (even if most are oblivious to this) but with time some make great new lives and even become contributing members of society. Even if their chaotic ways are still under the surface they are learning to suppress them and get them out in other safer and accepted methods...

I'd be ok with either of these and i'm pretty sure many more ways that could work that I'm not thinking of. This isn't impossible. But i do think there will be people cry about it no matter how poor or amazing the reasons behind the goblin development are.

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,765 << first < prev | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards