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
1,651 to 1,700 of 1,765 << first < prev | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am personally fine with Goblins coming as a PC race, but I can see them as a new type of Goblin, maybe migrated from another part of the uncharted sea.

I can't see much with them being Inner Sea Goblins that have been etched in to our minds.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

¡¡¡¡I’m back again!!!!!
Sorry for beign a bit late, i was taking a nap (long long one) and Dumb Ledore woke me up because some of you need some green answers.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I see posts like this where people defend the Goblins in character, and I want to lay out what goes through my mind as I see it.

"This strikes me as a typical example of the kind of person who wants to play a goblin. He's being very funny and it's amusing, but how naturally can he fit these jokes into a campaign? Is he going to be derailing things to talk about fire and dogs and other Goblin things? Is this going to disrupt the tone of a dramatic campaign I'm trying to run? Am I ever going to be able to run a session including this guy that is not going to be about the fact that he is a goblin? Will anyone else be able to get a word in edgewise? Just how constant are these jokes going to be? With the kind of person who wants to make them be the same kind of person who would think to not make them for the sake of courtesy to other people?"
It should go without saying that I don't know anything about the specific person I'm replying to here, and I'm sure they're wonderful. I'm just trying to get across what my anxieties are as plainly as I possibly can. This post is funny and I like it, but I would not like to experience nothing but it for 4 hours, especially when everyone was trying to do a published module. I emphasize that I am not saying anything about this particular individual, but I do worry that the kind of person who is attracted to playing a goblin is also the kind of person who would be a diva without realizing it.
Is this still too insulting? I swear I'm trying everything I can and do not mean any offense.

¡¡¡¡NO!!! You are not beign insulting, tall folk, you are actually a really, really nice turtle (the best i’ve known). Let me answer you:

Our jokes are not ment to make anyone fun, it’s the way we have learned to use because it’s usefull to make people dont try to kill us every now and then!!!! I mean, behind every gob there is a god (you call them players), and every god is different, if the god of your table is a bad tempered tall folk, then his gob Will be bad tempered, also his/her dwarf, elf, halfling…its all about the god, not the Green beauty he’s trying to play.

Also. Why did i say our jokes are not ment to make anyone fun? Because our behaviour have been made through years and years of bad relations with the world, wich means that if in your world THAT GOBLIN OF YOUR TEAM hasn’t felt that bad relation/people dont react crazy when they see him/her he/she should not be used to make jokes about himself/take the lamelight/love fire/hate books
Talk to your god, make the goblin PC great again. I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT TALL FOLK, I BELIEVE IN YOU.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
But in the places where he's serious, he, at least to my eyes, seems to break character and stop talking like a goblin in any way. The only thing he keeps doing is using the word "gobs."

This is key, tall folk. Do you speak the same way when you are sad and when you are happy??? This¡¡¡¡¡ this is the key to understand that your vision of us, Green skins, is very limited. It’s not like you are guilty of that, i mean…it’s how the world of Golarion show us, and the main reason that Will cause your god to feel out of the Civilization (goblins are bad and crazy, and they can only be that, so when you find a serious Goblin probably is because he’s not playing his character).

To make a goblin character we need to develop this vision, as i pointed in the first message!!!!.

Are you gonna eat that dog?

Malachandra wrote:
A lot of that can be chalked up to goblins only being portrayed under specific circumstances. A throwaway NPC will never have the depth of PC, or even a major NPC. You think of them in one mode because we've really only seen them in the one mode. There really hasn't been much said on goblins, culturally. Other than they like fire and trash and don't like reading. We will definitely need more for Core, and players may have to create their own goblin culture.

I like this tall folk, heshe (dont know the gender, sorry) has the vision of a good good god. You need to wake this people up from matrix Malachandra, it’s your duty as a gob friend.

-I want to eat heshe

-Shut up, Dumb Ledore.

-But i love heshe

-¡¡¡¡But heshe has books!!!
-…-
-Dumb Ledore? …

bookrat wrote:

I suspect there may be some confirmation bias there.

When I read the post, I see the entire thing in character. I may be experiencing confirmation bias in a way that makes me read the whole thing in character when the author didn't intend to. In such a case, I would be false attributing positive aspects and diminishing negative aspects to better support my position.

When you read the post, you unconsciously assign the perceived negative parts to the character and the perceived positive parts to the player. You may be experiencing confirmation bias that makes you separate in character and out of character when the author didn't intend to. In such a case, you're impressing all the negatives and stripping out all the positives to better support your position.
We don't know which of us is closer to the truth until the author comes back and makes a statement about which parts of the post is in character and which parts are not.

You were right!!! I’ts all IN CHARACTER (i mean, i cant do that because i’m myself a gob god, but you know…). I was trying to show that gobs can have the same humour states than other races, the problem here is to make the right changes to our background so then people dont react crazy when they find a serious goblin.

Ehmr….Boss?

Yes, Leopold?

Book…Book rat!

Uhr?

BOOOOOOKK RAT, RAT WITH BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooookkkksssssssssss….. (water splash)

This forum is making the bunyip gain some weight…

SOOOOOOOOOOO. CONNNCLUSION?
I love you all, even if you are ugly tall folks. AND, we gobs Will need some changes if we want to play characters with more background than “someone experimented with me thats because i’m different” or “i was adopted thats because im different” or anything that ends in “i’m not a murder please give me a chance to be a PC”.
And that’s all!!!!!! I’m going back to my nap, wake me up again if you need more sweet gob love.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Frankly, all this goblin hate creeps me out for the sheer racism factor oozing out....

I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread yet, but that's part of what I'm getting out of the big objection to goblin PCs - that, and the fact that absolutely NONE of the detractor comments I've seen so far have even TRIED to employ the old "yes, and..." improv approach to role-playing, which, to me, has always been the biggest obstacle that D&D (in any of its incarnations) has had toward anything imaginative. "Goblin PC? No, you can't do that, not at my table. All Goblins are always X, all Dwarves are always Y, All Elves are always Z, and all humans are always boring. If you're a Rogue, you have to act like A, if you're a Paladin you have to always B, and if you're a Fighter, you always have to be a big, dumb C....."

I think the supporters who effectively say "The descriptions we get of Goblins are basically written by unreliable narrators!" or "Goblin history hasn't been written by Goblins" are also on the right track.

I'd feel encouraged if ANY detractors were to say "I'd be happy to work with Goblin PCs, if Paizo were to fix ______ or change _______ ...." I'd feel encouraged if ANY detractors were to say "Goblin PCs? Yes, and they also [insert cool change or addition here]!"

I'm not really very encouraged by the broad extent of the whole attitude of "NO. NEVER at my table! DON'T WANT! DON'T LIKE! You MUST ALWAYS play THIS character race and THIS class in EXACTLY this way, or I flip the table! Green is not a creative colour when I'm in charge!"

And make no mistake: when I see "not at my table", what I understand that to mean is not "unfortunately, I've never seen it work out that way at my table" (which would be sad, as an indictment of the individual players that have tried it and failed), but rather "I won't LET it happen at my table!" (which is far sadder, and more an indictment of the limitations of the GM and the group who refused to even try allowing something imaginative or fantastic, than a failure of any single player in an isolated incident or in a trend that seemed to fail because something I'm willing to fix was broken or missing!)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
yronimos wrote:

I think the supporters who effectively say "The descriptions we get of Goblins are basically written by unreliable narrators!" or "Goblin history hasn't been written by Goblins" are also on the right track.

Actually since I'm the GM of my campaign and I decide exactly what the creatures in it are like and goblins are far worse than the traditional Paizo portrayal then I know precisely what goblins are like in my campaign world, being the NE goblinoid makes them overall vicious and selfish with little regard even for each other. They are not comic relief.

The problem with Paizo putting goblins in the new CRB is that GM's like me will now be forced to ban a core race which is one of those things GM's hate doing. Goblins would be fine as an optional race somewhere just not in the new CRB.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jessex wrote:
yronimos wrote:

I think the supporters who effectively say "The descriptions we get of Goblins are basically written by unreliable narrators!" or "Goblin history hasn't been written by Goblins" are also on the right track.

Actually since I'm the GM of my campaign and I decide exactly what the creatures in it are like and goblins are far worse than the traditional Paizo portrayal then I know precisely what goblins are like in my campaign world, being the NE goblinoid makes them overall vicious and selfish with little regard even for each other. They are not comic relief.

The problem with Paizo putting goblins in the new CRB is that GM's like me will now be forced to ban a core race which is one of those things GM's hate doing. Goblins would be fine as an optional race somewhere just not in the new CRB.

...

So if, in my campaign, elves were capricious, cruel, evil creatures far worse than the drow, I'd have a leg to stand on for keeping them out of the core rules? Good to know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, if you as the GM dislike what Paizo puts on the page in their adventures you are free to change it. If you dislike "the Hellknights tolerate this goblin, and gave him a job" (which is canonical) then you can make it a kobold or something else.

What "making goblins a core ancestry" seems to signal to me that the "wholly malicious balls of pure evil you can kill without conscience" interpretation of goblins is inconsistent with Paizo's vision, at least in a "not all goblins are like that" sense.

So it's fine to be disappointed if Paizo's vision for their setting differs from your vision. I was disappointed when they did an AP that largely undid the outcome of a previous one- these feelings are valid. But if you're running a game you can change whatever you want.


Jessex wrote:
yronimos wrote:

I think the supporters who effectively say "The descriptions we get of Goblins are basically written by unreliable narrators!" or "Goblin history hasn't been written by Goblins" are also on the right track.

Actually since I'm the GM of my campaign and I decide exactly what the creatures in it are like and goblins are far worse than the traditional Paizo portrayal then I know precisely what goblins are like in my campaign world, being the NE goblinoid makes them overall vicious and selfish with little regard even for each other. They are not comic relief.

The problem with Paizo putting goblins in the new CRB is that GM's like me will now be forced to ban a core race which is one of those things GM's hate doing. Goblins would be fine as an optional race somewhere just not in the new CRB.

I reflavor all the races. It doesn't bother me in the least to see them published with a certain flavor and place in the official setting I won't use anyway, except in getting cynical (like in my post in the first page, which I've since backed down from some due to some good arguments I've read on these forums) when I see authors being inconsistent because of a corporate-mandated money-making decision. All I care about from the races is their mechanical side, I'm just going to give everything my own spin anyway. I know the game is not about me and that races A, B and C being presented with flavor and history X, Y and Z will help all those other GMs that don't have the time or ability to come up with their own setting. Every GM consciously or subconsciously cribs ideas from everything they see to eventually use in some other context in their own game, anyway, even those that completely rewrite the flavor of everything for their own setting.

TLDR since you're already reflavoring stuff from how it was presented, you shouldn't even care. Don't use it if you don't want to but don't get mad about it being published.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Graelsis wrote:

¡¡¡¡I’m back again!!!!!

Sorry for beign a bit late, i was taking a nap (long long one) and Dumb Ledore woke me up because some of you need some green answers.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I see posts like this where people defend the Goblins in character, and I want to lay out what goes through my mind as I see it.

"This strikes me as a typical example of the kind of person who wants to play a goblin. He's being very funny and it's amusing, but how naturally can he fit these jokes into a campaign? Is he going to be derailing things to talk about fire and dogs and other Goblin things? Is this going to disrupt the tone of a dramatic campaign I'm trying to run? Am I ever going to be able to run a session including this guy that is not going to be about the fact that he is a goblin? Will anyone else be able to get a word in edgewise? Just how constant are these jokes going to be? With the kind of person who wants to make them be the same kind of person who would think to not make them for the sake of courtesy to other people?"
It should go without saying that I don't know anything about the specific person I'm replying to here, and I'm sure they're wonderful. I'm just trying to get across what my anxieties are as plainly as I possibly can. This post is funny and I like it, but I would not like to experience nothing but it for 4 hours, especially when everyone was trying to do a published module. I emphasize that I am not saying anything about this particular individual, but I do worry that the kind of person who is attracted to playing a goblin is also the kind of person who would be a diva without realizing it.
Is this still too insulting? I swear I'm trying everything I can and do not mean any offense.

¡¡¡¡NO!!! You are not beign insulting, tall folk, you are actually a really, really nice turtle (the best i’ve known). Let me answer you:

Our jokes are not ment to make anyone fun, it’s the way we have learned to use because it’s usefull to make people dont try to kill us every now and then!!!! I...

The idea that goblins are deliberately humorous or amusing in order to prevent people from killing them is interesting and clever. I'd even be willing to accept it if Paizo said that more civilized goblins tended to play up this aspect of themselves for that reason. I'd even be okay with saying that said playing up informed the general perceptions of goblins by humans.

It's hard to tell through your manner of speaking, but I'm not concerned that goblins will make mean-spirited jokes at the expense of others. I mean, some might, but you'd be right to say that that's on the player, because there's nothing in goblins' ethos that suggests that behavior.

The behavior I'm more concerned about (though decreasingly so as these discussions go on) is them being divas, as defined in the GameMastery guide. I'll post a relevant quote.

The GameMastery Guide wrote:
The diva is the center of attention, the focus of all roleplaying interactions that occur in the campaign world. Every conversation, introduction, and event is another opportunity for her to shine, while the rest of the group struggles to get a word in edgewise. No matter is too small or insignificant for her; she’s ready for the spotlight! Unfortunately, the rest of the players are bored to tears.

That's how I'm worried goblins will behave. It's actually the sheer excitement some people display at the prospect of playing goblins that makes me so worried, combined with some of the people at my gamestore group who are very excited about this either being ones who act like this already with their halflings, or ones who act kind of like this, but not enough for it to be problematic. Will it become problematic when they're playing a character who they feel would act problematically?

I don't agree that people will be the same way with their dwarfs and elves. Some might, but people generally don't act in ways they consider wrong without some kind of rationalization. One of the problem players I had in mind with my last statement only acts like that with one of his characters, because that's the character of his who "would act that way." He's normally pure roll-player who barely says anything.

Likewise, if people have the perception that goblins "would do that," will they be willing to act badly when they wouldn't have before? Will they feel like they have an excuse? Will that same feeling make them less receptive to admonishment from others? Attempts to police the two people I've mentioned are generally met with the polite implication that I'm being oversensitive and should just roll with it, and when half the table agrees that that's the case and the other half is silent, well, whose to say they don't all?

I really should have more of a spine and make a point to talk to the silent people afterwards to find out, but it's historically been awkward, especially if it would seem like I'm harping on the issue when it's been explained to me that it's not a problem.

And of course, even I've accidentally hogged too much attention when I've gotten really absorbed into a character. I was receptive to criticism, but I feel like goblins make it easy to act like a diva without realizing that that's what you're doing. I could easily see someone getting so caught up in their high-pitched voice and antics that they don't realize 60% of table-time is currently focused on them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Laird IceCubez wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
PCScipio wrote:

Some more food for thought: Goblins of Purity.

** spoiler omitted **

"...all while maintaining the rip-roaring fun that being an arsonist or a baby-eater brings."

"- An exciting reworking of the alignment system that allows you to play arsonists and baby-eaters while still being good-aligned"

This is my point exactly.

You do realize that you're making your point with an April Fools Day joke, right? Kinda like quoting the Onion as a factual source.
I mean, the whole joke is that Goblins being a playable race is a joke. That's what made it funny, the unbelievability of it....

Actually, especially with the first "We Be Goblins" adventure being released only a couple months later, and almost certainly being under development and play-testing at the time the April Fool's post was made, and Goblins as a playable PC race dating back even further to 3rd Edition D&D, I get the impression that the joke wasn't the unbelievability of a Goblin PC, but rather the over-the-top objections to Goblins as PCs.

Note, for example, that the punchlines to the joke include things like groups being forced to include at least one Goblin PC, being forced to use a reworked alignment system that allows Lawful Good Goblin Paladins to eat babies, and the implication that nobody could be a Goblin PC before (when, as mentioned, the option has been around at least as far back as 3rd Edition D&D) - pretty much the same sorts of over-the-top objections that are being made now.

The success of the "We Be Goblins" series seems to suggest that Goblins proved to be a viable PC race without tables being forced to use them, without reworked alignment systems, and with only a little compelling fluff and support from Paizo to make use of an option that was always there by implication - not to mention without the need of a "Goblinomicon", reworked core pantheon, etc. And, I'm sure, Pathfinder II will work out just fine without the need for anything like that, if GMs and players are willing to give Goblin characters both the chance and the diversity of character and motivation that human characters enjoy at a healthy gaming table.

Actually, the more I see of that joke, the more it looks like a mix of the "what's the worst that could happen" objections and the humorous left-overs of the creative team's brain-storming sessions for "We Be Goblins" - the ideas that might have been tossed into the hat as jokes or as first-thing-that-comes-to-mind-even-if-it's-silly ideas that nobody could find a way to say "that's so crazy, it might just work" to. Taken together, the April Fool's joke and the first "We Be Goblins" look like Paizo stretching its legs a little after a lot difficult work on one of their projects, and taking some time to have a little creative fun on the Golarion playground with toys they made, but haven't had a chance to play with yet.

That the original "We Be Goblins" was quickly followed by three sequels, a couple quite detailed and colourful Goblin-related supplement books, a comic series, and a couple lines of toys suggests that they hit on something that caught not just the imagination of their own creative and marketing staff, but also the imaginations of some significant part of the Pathfinder fanbase.

Over the last seven years, Paizo's Goblin mythos has, as a result, become quite detailed and well-developed compared to many of the other player character race options, becoming a signature part of Paizo's intellectual property in the process.

To me, it seems perfectly natural that a subset of this material - along with a subset of any as-yet unpublished Goblin content - would be embraced by Paizo into the core rulebook: Paizo has the material, they have been using it to create scenarios and other products with, those products have been a success over several years, and like any core race or class or monster or whatever a core Goblin PC race (er, "ancestry") would be optional, so why not include it in core?

For those complaining about other PC races "deserving" to be core instead, what other PC race has Paizo created with better adventure, background material, and miniatures support, and distinct Paizo/Golarion flavor and association behind them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Frankly, all this goblin hate creeps me out for the sheer racism factor oozing out....

I can never understand how one can actually be racist against a fictional race but there you are. Or are you picking to read too much into it.

If so, don't go to MMO boards, you'll find just as much hate about all the different races.

yronimos wrote:


I think the supporters who effectively say "The descriptions we get of Goblins are basically written by unreliable narrators!" or "Goblin history hasn't been written by Goblins" are also on the right track.

I'd feel encouraged if ANY detractors were to say "I'd be happy to work with Goblin PCs, if Paizo were to fix ______ or change _______ ...." I'd feel encouraged if ANY detractors were to say "Goblin PCs? Yes, and they also [insert cool change or addition here]!"

I actually wouldn't have a problem with Goblins. If Paizo didn't seem to have made such a nice box to shove Goblins into. Now they seem to want to undo that and well, I believe the saying is "Painting themselves into a corner"? Other races got to do other things but Paizo, at least to my knowledge and I don't look into the lore of much unless I'm playing with it so I'd like to think this is common or 'general' knowledge, Goblins are just tiny menaces with teeth, fire and goblin speech and song. And people liked that so they pushed it a bit more. Now they seem to need to undo some of that pushing.

This is one person's ranting though.

yronimos wrote:


I'm not really very encouraged by the broad extent of the whole attitude of "NO. NEVER at my table! DON'T WANT! DON'T LIKE! You MUST ALWAYS play THIS character race and THIS class in EXACTLY this way, or I flip the table! Green is not a creative colour when I'm in charge!"

And make no mistake: when I see "not at my table", what I understand that to mean is not "unfortunately, I've never seen it work out that way at my table" (which would be sad, as an indictment of the individual players that have tried it and failed), but rather "I won't LET it happen at my table!" (which is far sadder, and more an indictment of the limitations of the GM and the group who refused to even try allowing something imaginative or fantastic, than a failure of any single player in an isolated incident or in a trend that seemed to fail because something I'm willing to fix was broken or missing!)

I find it unlikely anyone would go that far, unless they are the GM. Better response is to just leave said table.

Question: most people ban Leadership and Summoners in my experience. I wonder how many of them have had experience or it's just the understood rule to do so. Same with Paladins, better ban them now before they cause trouble as so many people have HAD the trouble for you.

Will Goblins fall into this hole? Probably not but I cant' help but feel a few Goblins will tarnish the view of them at tables. Heck, Alchemist is my favorite class to play NOW but my first experience with it was just so STUPIDLY Annoying I barely wanted to look at the class without flash backs of how he just stole the game. I will admit this is a mental tick that people, myself included, can get over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
...I don't agree that people will be the same way with their dwarfs and elves. Some might, but people generally don't....

I have seen some equivalents to that, in the form of various incarnations of Axebeard McFunnyAccent the Angry Dwarf and Longears Tree-Hugger the Snobby Elf highjacking entire game sessions with infighting "because that's how you're supposed to play them", along with Backstabby Steals-Your-Gear the "Rouge" Rogue stealing the party's gear and Sir Pious Preach-A-Lot the Paladin kiling party members for swearing or flirting with barmaids instead of helping little old ladies cross the street "because that's in the rules".

I've tried banning those classes before, only to find that it never helps: bad players just find new ways to play badly, and it ends up leading to a game of race/class/alignment-banning whack-a-mole.

Speaking of alignment, I've always found alignment to be the worst of the bunch for bringing out the worst in bad role-players. Unlike race and class, however, alignment opens up few (if any options) for character concepts, while (especially in 3rd Edition and later D&D) adding almost nothing mechanically to character options, and arguably less than nothing for role-playing support (those who can role-play, do so just fine without alignment; those who can't role-play, seem to get worse when using alignment as a crutch). I'd get behind dropping alignment from D&D entirely, if I thought Paizo could get away with it without sparking a table-flipping, dice-throwing riot, but that's perhaps a conversation for another time, beyond mentioning that I'd say that I've seen more alignment-related role-playing problems than race-related, and in the case of Goblins, it's that CE stamped somewhere in a First Edition Monster Manual that's probably the source of more game-table Goblin grief than anything else....


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone else feel like Paizo goblins are becoming more like Disney characters? #Experiment 626


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
Does anyone else feel like Paizo goblins are becoming more like Disney characters? #Experiment 626

Considering that Disney owns like Darth Vader, Wolverine, Homer Simpson, Indiana Jones, and Kermit the Frog, I don't even know what "Disney Character" means anymore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

...I actually wouldn't have a problem with Goblins. If Paizo didn't seem to have made such a nice box to shove Goblins into. Now they seem to want to undo that and well, I believe the saying is "Painting themselves into a corner"? Other races got to do other things but Paizo, at least to my knowledge and I don't look into the lore of much unless I'm playing with it so I'd like to think this is common or 'general' knowledge, Goblins are just tiny menaces with teeth, fire and goblin speech and song. And people liked that so they pushed it a bit more. Now they seem to need to undo some of that pushing.

This is one person's ranting though....

That is one objection I've seen that I can get behind completely: that Paizo effectively cut off (or at least complicated unnecessarily) many interesting options by playing up the Always-Chaotic-Evil "trope" early on, and leaving themselves with very little room to back out of it without ret-conning their earlier work.

That's a fair enough objection. They're effectively trying to have their old cake and eating it too without anyone noticing, and then leaving it in the GMs' court to try to home-brew their way out of it by reading between the lines and assuming the implied options are still there even if Paizo aren't explicitly mentioning them, or are officially denying they exist. That's kind of an unfair burden to place on GMs, and a bit short-sighted as well. I suspect it's an over-reaction that was meant to compete directly with Eberron's (and, I believe, Planescape's) relatively open/nuanced treatment of races, classes, and alignments back when Eberron (and Planescape) was a thing, and now, thanks to the way the Golarion canon is being managed, Paizo are stuck with with their more reactionary characterizations, until they (or, more likely, imaginative GMs and players) can find some way to ease the alternatives in without rocking too many boats....

Even now, Paizo seems to be reluctant to explicitly say "whatever we said in the past, Goblin characters can - and should - be more interesting than just chaotic-evil fire-starting cannibal murder-hobo pests that can't cooperate with anyone except Goblin hordes, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Orcs, evil necromancers, chaotic gods, priests of various disparate Lovecraftian religions, dungeon keepers of every variety, PCs when Adventure Paths call for it, and.... well, you know, Goblins can't cooperate with anyone - and yet, they're still diverse enough that they can still be interesting villains, too, just like human, elf, dwarf, or even halfling or gnome NPCs, which we might have to go back to the drawing board for because it just occurred to Yronimos that all those other races must also be too 'watered down' and 'diluted' to make interesting villains of, too!"

I guess what I'm saying is that I really do agree that the extremist "fluff" that painted Goblins into a very narrow box are really unfortunate - that fluff, as always, is NOT the same thing as rules, but, the Golarion setting being the relatively stable thing thing that it is by nature of the way Paizo supports it, it's really hard for many groups to see the difference between Golarion's old "fluff" and unbreakable rules....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
Does anyone else feel like Paizo goblins are becoming more like Disney characters? #Experiment 626
Considering that Disney owns like Darth Vader, Wolverine, Homer Simpson, Indiana Jones, and Kermit the Frog, I don't even know what "Disney Character" means anymore.

Well #Experiment 626 = Stitch from Lilo and Stitch, guess I was a little to obscure

"Stitch, who is genetically engineered by his creator to cause chaos and destruction,....[His] bond [with Lilo] causes him to reconsider and later defy his intended destructive purpose..." wikipedia


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
Does anyone else feel like Paizo goblins are becoming more like Disney characters? #Experiment 626
Considering that Disney owns like Darth Vader, Wolverine, Homer Simpson, Indiana Jones, and Kermit the Frog, I don't even know what "Disney Character" means anymore.

For my part, I feel like Paizo Goblins have moved from a VERY narrow stereotype, to a not-so-narrow stereotype with a few new implied role-playing options to make them a little more viable for use in an RPG party, and a larger number of more explicit mechanical options meant to try to placate the optimizers with.

Better support for playing outside of stereotypes in interesting ways would be appreciated - it's too early to say whether Pathfinder II will try to do this, but I'll wait and see.

(As for the reference, I'm afraid it really was a bit too obscure for me. I fail at pop-culture references....)

Snickersnax wrote:

Well #Experiment 626 = Stitch from Lilo and Stitch, guess I was a little to obscure

"Stitch, who is genetically engineered by his creator to cause chaos and destruction,....[His] bond [with Lilo] causes him to reconsider and later defy his intended destructive purpose..." wikipedia

Actually, that sounds interesting to me, and I could see several interesting ways the idea could be worked into Goblin character development.


yronimos wrote:


Snickersnax wrote:

Well #Experiment 626 = Stitch from Lilo and Stitch, guess I was a little to obscure

"Stitch, who is genetically engineered by his creator to cause chaos and destruction,....[His] bond [with Lilo] causes him to reconsider and later defy his intended destructive purpose..." wikipedia

Actually, that sounds interesting to me, and I could see several interesting ways the idea could be worked into Goblin character development.

To be fair.

1) IT's a Disney Movie, you have to adjust expectations
2) IT's a bloody DISNEY MOVIE. Even back then I didn't expect them to make anything that they couldn't make into plush or cute toys. Pathfinder Goblins..., well I really don't see them as Cute toy worthy. Those oddly depressing motivational work posters maybe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblin Plush

Goblin Plush

Goblin Plush


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snickersnax wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
Does anyone else feel like Paizo goblins are becoming more like Disney characters? #Experiment 626
Considering that Disney owns like Darth Vader, Wolverine, Homer Simpson, Indiana Jones, and Kermit the Frog, I don't even know what "Disney Character" means anymore.

Well #Experiment 626 = Stitch from Lilo and Stitch, guess I was a little to obscure

"Stitch, who is genetically engineered by his creator to cause chaos and destruction,....[His] bond [with Lilo] causes him to reconsider and later defy his intended destructive purpose..." wikipedia

Since Stitch was cited as one inspiration for Paizo goblin behavior some years back?

Not an accident.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Frankly, all this goblin hate creeps me out for the sheer racism factor oozing out....
I can never understand how one can actually be racist against a fictional race but there you are.

Where I’ve seen racism is when people justify why there “would” be racism in this alternate reality. Often by leaping to real world analogies and then importing their own perspective.

EDIT: that isn’t directed at anyone in the recent furore which I haven’t really been following closely. It’s just that I’ve seen it plenty of times on the forums over the years.

I sit in a privileged position on just about any spectrum one cares to consider, so I wouldn’t really know. However even without dealing with armchair theorising importing racist arguments from reality, there is presumably also the issue of coming to a fantasy setting to escape the crappiness of life - only to see it faithfully replicated with proxies.

I don’t think one should feel sorry for make believe goblins. We should definitely empathise with other gamers though.


CrystalSeas wrote:

Goblin Plush

Goblin Plush

Goblin Plush

And they still don't look cute to me and would probably get some family members a tad peeved if I showed up with it as a gift for their young kid. But this is again, personal experience and opinion.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

My position on "the appropriateness of fantasy racism" has always been less about forgetting that imaginary people are imaginary and more about how "modeling real world systems of oppression might have a negative effect on the experience of people who are actually subject to these kinds of systems who are every bit as entitled as anybody else to use RPGs for escapism" particularly given that justifications for fantasy racism (e.g. "well, orcs are dangerous") aren't that far from actual justifications people make for IRL racism.

Which is to say if the justification for my character being able to survive being set on fire and thrown off of a mountain is "it's more fun if it's less realistic" I don't know why I shouldn't just apply the same standard to "People judging you for the circumstances of one's birth, or (epi)genetics, or whatever."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

The behavior I'm more concerned about (though decreasingly so as these discussions go on) is them being divas, as defined in the GameMastery guide. I'll post a relevant quote.

The diva is the center of attention, the focus of all roleplaying interactions that occur in the campaign world. Every conversation, introduction, and event is another opportunity for her to shine, while the rest of the group struggles to get a word in edgewise. No matter is too small or insignificant for her; she’s ready for the spotlight! Unfortunately, the rest of the players are bored to tears.
That's how I'm worried goblins will behave. It's actually the sheer excitement some people display at the prospect of playing goblins that makes me so worried, combined with some of the people at my gamestore group who are very excited about this either being ones who act like this already with their halflings, or ones who act kind of like this, but not enough for it to be problematic. Will it become problematic when they're playing a character who they feel would act problematically?

Hellow again!!! My dear best turtle friend.

First of all, i’ve read all your post, but i’m quoting this because i think is better for me to expose my super, Green, beautyfull, exotic response.

You are right, and also it’s normal to worry when you are a DM in front of this situation. What i believe is happening here is…What if the world ALLOWS my player to make a LEGIT Diva?? Well, what can i say, ¡¡¡that sucks!!!

First, we Gobs are not Divas (an epic goblin guitar solo starts in the hut)

-¡DAMN IT, DAMON!

As i was saying…not EVERYONE here is a diva, of course we have Diva’s in our tribes and, of course, we all Will be annoying if we feel that the world or our environment expect us to be. As i see it, behaviour is a result of biology and interaction with our surroundings, beign it social or phisical. This is why i’m asking for a change in the gobs background that allows all of us top lay them in different ways.

Also, dont forget your are the god of gods (you call that DM), and you can make any changes you believe are good for the sake of your beautyfull world. That said, if you dont want a race that allows players to act like brainless monkeys or small Green Divas then you just need to speak with the god who wants to play a gob and tell him how the environment/social surroundings Will react if he’s nothing but a box of screams and lamelight sucking. That Will allow you to avoid that “permission for disrupting” of the race, and also will be helpfull for your god to create the character heshe wants.

Oh, and remember, my dear tall folk…there’s nothing you can do to stop the divinity of a goblin bard, even if singing in your world is forbidden!!!!! BECAUSE YOU CANT STOP THE GOB BEAT!!!

(epic choir in the background).

They dont want us here!

we're the goblin kind

treated just as pest

now in page num 5

do you think ur good?

just wait for us

goblin've came to stay

You will scream like past!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Initially I didn’t like the idea of Goblins as core. However, after breathing and looking at the facts, I’ve changed my mind.

Interesting, because my gut reaction was "cool", but the more I walk away and think about it, the more I comeback convinced it will be regretted.

Just to take you "core" <>" common" line.
Are you prepared to put your personal capacity for evaluation on the line behind the idea that less than 1 in 1,000 non evil NPCs in Paizo products will be goblins?

I think your entire argument here is tied to saying that whatever homebrew you run is more important that the Paizo default setting. And that would be a pretty big mistake.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Initially I didn’t like the idea of Goblins as core. However, after breathing and looking at the facts, I’ve changed my mind.

Interesting, because my gut reaction was "cool", but the more I walk away and think about it, the more I comeback convinced it will be regretted.

Just to take you "core" <>" common" line.
Are you prepared to put your personal capacity for evaluation on the line behind the idea that less than 1 in 1,000 non evil NPCs in Paizo products will be goblins?

I think your entire argument here is tied to saying that whatever homebrew you run is more important that the Paizo default setting. And that would be a pretty big mistake.

Hey'ho dear tall folk, i agree with you.

When the master creators said that goblins are the same but now are also a core race i was a bit dissapointed. Your post is a great reasume of what is happening here

"if you want to be more than just a different goblin, your DM will have to change the basis of the world game".

It's perfect!!! (even if you are a pinky it's pretty good).

I hope Paizo read all of this coments and make a change in the route. Maybe they can find a way to make gobs a bit more interesting in general rather than in particular. I mean, a gob background about how heshe became a hero could be awsome, but forcing us to make that every single time that we want a goblin character can be tedious, and also very limited if you want a "social inserted" goblin.

¡¡¡NOW VOTE ME AS YOUR NEW GOBLIN MAJOR!!!!!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
yronimos wrote:
That the original "We Be Goblins" was quickly followed by three sequels, a couple quite detailed and colourful Goblin-related supplement books, a comic series, and a couple lines of toys suggests that they hit on something that caught not just the imagination of their own creative and marketing staff, but also the imaginations of some significant part of the Pathfinder fanbase.

I think the problem is that while a significant part of the fanbase may like Paizo's goblins, a perhaps equally significant portion of the fanbase intensely dislikes them. We don't find them to be funny. We don't like how their evil and cruelty is treated as a joke. We're concerned that they will increase the possibility of some players using goblin PCs to behave in a more or less disruptive manner. I think that those who dislike goblins have generally been quiet in the past because we recognized that others enjoyed them, and we were happy to let those folks play the goblin modules while we played other adventures. I don't think anyone in this or other threads has ever objected to goblin PCs. We just don't want them to be in the core because they're evil, unfunny, not cute little horrors.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Graelsis wrote:

Hellow again!!! My dear best turtle friend.

First of all, i’ve read all your post, but i’m quoting this because i think is better for me to expose my super, Green, beautyfull, exotic response.
You are right, and also it’s normal to worry when you are a DM in front of this situation. What i believe is happening here is…What if the world ALLOWS my player to make a LEGIT Diva?? Well, what can i say, ¡¡¡that sucks!!!

First, we Gobs are not Divas (an epic goblin guitar solo starts in the hut)

-¡DAMN IT, DAMON!

As i was saying…not EVERYONE here is a diva, of course we have Diva’s in our tribes and, of course, we all Will be annoying if we feel that the world or our environment expect us to be. As i see it, behaviour is a result of biology and interaction with our surroundings, beign it social or phisical. This is why i’m asking for a change in the gobs background that allows all of us top lay them in different ways.

Also, dont forget your are the god of gods (you call that DM), and you can make any changes you believe are good for the sake of your beautyfull world. That said, if you dont want a race that allows players to act like brainless monkeys or small Green Divas then you just need to speak with the god who wants to play a gob and tell him how the environment/social surroundings Will react if he’s nothing but a box of screams and lamelight sucking. That Will allow you to avoid that “permission for disrupting” of the race, and also will be helpfull for your god to create the character heshe wants.

Oh, and remember, my dear tall folk…there’s nothing you can do to stop the divinity of a goblin bard, even if singing in your world is forbidden!!!!! BECAUSE YOU CANT STOP THE GOB BEAT!!!

(epic choir in the background).

They dont want us here!

we're the goblin kind

treated just as pest

now in page num 5

do you think ur good?

just wait for us

goblin've came to stay

You will scream like past!!

Damn it, I think that was the last of my objections. No one hold me to this, but I think I might be okay with this now. Presuming lore explanations given by paizo are adequate, My Mind Is Telling my body to accept goblins.

There's still probably at least one thing I'm forgetting about just now though.


Joana wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Can we stop using "half-breeds" to talk about mixed-race characters.

It's an offensive term.

What would you call them, half-bloods?
Paizo goes with "bastards."

Well, considering how many are the produces of extra-marital affairs.

Liberty's Edge

Souls At War wrote:
Joana wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Can we stop using "half-breeds" to talk about mixed-race characters.

It's an offensive term.

What would you call them, half-bloods?
Paizo goes with "bastards."
Well, considering how many are the produces of extra-marital affairs.

As a bastard in the technical sense (my parents never married, they've been together 40 years now, but never married), I have no objection to the term being used for species that are the result of less than conventional relationships or circumstances.

I suppose I can't speak for other bastards out there, but I've honestly never heard anyone who the term applies to in a technical sense complain about Paizo's usage, and more importantly, as a pejorative, bastard is no longer used as an actual insult for people like me it technically refers to. The usage has changed sufficiently that calling it a slur of any sort at this point is super weird.

Dark Archive

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
Does anyone else feel like Paizo goblins are becoming more like Disney characters? #Experiment 626
Considering that Disney owns like Darth Vader, Wolverine, Homer Simpson, Indiana Jones, and Kermit the Frog, I don't even know what "Disney Character" means anymore.

That would make for an epic adventuring party, sort of a modern day version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Agh I can't keep juggling all the different goblin topics so I'll probably just make 1 final post here about it.

Yeah, no let the goblins in. I have my worries about "That guy" and "newbie players" that will disrupt games with them and the annoying voice/text(I play online) that will be used with them but this more a personal view on people in general.

I still think it was a marketing push due to the popularity of Goblins. For "More options to role play" or however Jacob worded it(Was it Jacob, I think so but that was like 10 pages ago), they could have easily subbed in any usually viewed as evil race and gotten the same "I'm a hero now, different from my race/culture and shall play against type" thing that they're going with goblins. Hobgoblin if only because one of their last APs used them. Or Heck, Gnolls for the sake of being different(Because we aren't getting playable Gnolls in DnD ANYTIME soon WTF Wizards?!?!) Goblins however sold well, are pretty well known with the brand and might be an easier idea to pass in the lore/player base. I doubt there was some desision on High to "Make goblins playable" but I can't help but feel it was part of the voting process when people decided which race to use. Though if anyone on the team wants to share what races were on the voting block, that'd be nice. Or don't, we don't actually need MORE topics arguing who/what should have been in.

So let the goblins in, whatever. It's not going to break the game and I'm still going to use them as early game enemies.


I want to play a Goblin in Pathfinder Society. Is your backstory material about Golorian esoterica intended to help me role play a Goblin in Pathfinder Society?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
I think the problem is that while a significant part of the fanbase may like Paizo's goblins, a perhaps equally significant portion of the fanbase intensely dislikes them.

And there is a 3rd section that was fine with seeing them in one shot adventures and the one off PC in an appropriate game but doesn't want them to on a regular basis. That's the past I'm in.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

While I've been generally positive about PF2 thus far, this is the first preview I really don't like. As many people have stated before this feels just like a marketing move, possibly intended to catch the attention of children.
In the context of certain games I'm not opposed to play monster-races, as long as everyone is playing one. But getting said monster-race to core and then implying that goblins used to be murderous psycho killer arsonists and then they evolved in different direction makes no sense if not in the most "meta" of ways (i.e. "we know some people like the comedic aspects of goblins, they make for something that will differentiate our games from our competitor's and they'll catch the attention of potential young costumers").

I'd like to ask you to re-read how goblins were first described in your works. While they were humorous they also were true monsters and what made them popular was this contrast. Keep in mind by doing what you are doing with them you are just watering your concepts of goblins down and in the long run it's not a good idea imho.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Goblin Plush

Goblin Plush

Goblin Plush

And they still don't look cute to me and would probably get some family members a tad peeved if I showed up with it as a gift for their young kid. But this is again, personal experience and opinion.

On one hand, I agree with you. When my grandfather's wife (my step-gramndmother?) gave my (then 3 and 2 year old) toddlers this for Christmas last year, I was a little upset about it. Why in the world would anyone gift that to such a young child?

The thing is absolutely horrific and freaky and nightmare inducing. I mean, snarling facial expression, pointy teeth, bright red eyes, and it's a damn 7 inches tall! Turns out, she thought it was a dinosaur.

But my kids absolutely loved it. My daughter used to cuddle with it when she slept and then strap it into her little doll stroller and push it around. They played with that toy for months; right up until we moved and it got lost in the shuffle. It's still somewhere around here. I bet I can dig through their toy chests and find it, and they'd play with it again. It's only been a year.

A lot of times, something that we may think is scary, kids have absolutely no problem with. And things that we think should be no issue, kids will freak out over. Like riding on my shoulders. Kids love that, right? My son would flip out if I put him on my shoulders. Heights scared the hell out of him; he's four now and loves shoulder rides, even tries to challenge himself by finding things to climb and jump off of, but when he was 2 and 3 he was terrified of shoulder rides. My daughter? No issues at all, but last night she cried over a white-board drawing of a volcano because it was too scary (during a game of Amazing Tales). Yes, this is the same little girl who would cuddle with the big scary rat toy. Heck, she still cuddles with a plastic T-Rex toy.

You can't really pedict what kids will and will not find scary.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Jessex wrote:
yronimos wrote:

I think the supporters who effectively say "The descriptions we get of Goblins are basically written by unreliable narrators!" or "Goblin history hasn't been written by Goblins" are also on the right track.

Actually since I'm the GM of my campaign and I decide exactly what the creatures in it are like and goblins are far worse than the traditional Paizo portrayal then I know precisely what goblins are like in my campaign world, being the NE goblinoid makes them overall vicious and selfish with little regard even for each other. They are not comic relief.

The problem with Paizo putting goblins in the new CRB is that GM's like me will now be forced to ban a core race which is one of those things GM's hate doing. Goblins would be fine as an optional race somewhere just not in the new CRB.

...

So if, in my campaign, elves were capricious, cruel, evil creatures far worse than the drow, I'd have a leg to stand on for keeping them out of the core rules? Good to know.

Is this the actual case or are you purposely being fecicous? The simple point is that Goblins were created with an intent or role originally and while having goblins on occasion deviate from that role was fine, it has now gone way past this and put them on the same level as the other cores for being as common. Through out the major cites and communities of Golarion you can find fairly large populations of the other core races. Either this is now also true for Goblins or they really don't belong in the core races. (I'm pro-goblin options, just not pro-coregob.)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
Does anyone else feel like Paizo goblins are becoming more like Disney characters? #Experiment 626
Considering that Disney owns like Darth Vader, Wolverine, Homer Simpson, Indiana Jones, and Kermit the Frog, I don't even know what "Disney Character" means anymore.

Well #Experiment 626 = Stitch from Lilo and Stitch, guess I was a little to obscure

"Stitch, who is genetically engineered by his creator to cause chaos and destruction,....[His] bond [with Lilo] causes him to reconsider and later defy his intended destructive purpose..." wikipedia

Since Stitch was cited as one inspiration for Paizo goblin behavior some years back?

Not an accident.

I'm super glad thinking my goblins are like Stitch is actually spot on then. :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, my interpretation is that "magic exists, and is a force we can harness" allows for people in Pathfinder to very easily solve a great number of problems that we struggle with even in the 21st century. Like a single 13th level Kinetic Chirugeon can, at zero personal cost, cure the blindness of anybody who comes to them in a single action and has been able to do the same with diseases for 6 levels now (the recipient of the kinetic healing accepts the burn and is told to go sleep it off, they will be 100% after a good rest.) Places that get organized can wipe out a hunger, disease, and poverty given sufficient will to do so.

Of course, since this is supposed to be a heroic setting we can't have all the problems already solved before the PCs get there, but the potential to solve them is a lot more accessible in fantasy land than in the real world.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

For all the people who feel modern western morality should be in play in a fantasy land I can only say that your morality comes from a profound place of privilege. You live in a world where disease and injury are a smaller contribution to mortality than ever before in the history of humanity. You live as the apex predator in a world heavily modified to allow you to live in areas you shouldn't, survive things you shouldn't, and exist as the sole sentient race on the planet. Very few if any people on this board or playing pathfinder have to worry about roving death gangs sweeping in to kill and burn their entire town. Demons or undead disguised as normal people picking folk off or a whale sized fire breathing beast against whom most of your means of defense are entirely ineffectual. You don't have tangible proof that gods exist and that there is an afterlife.

Your characters do not exist in this world so a character who somehow developed modern morality strikes me as more like inserting yourself into a fantasy world than playing a character who grew up with the kind of dangers that exist there. The circumstances to develop that kind of morality don't exist in pathfinder. The barest beginnings of modern morality are occuring in Andoran and most people view them as well meaning but slightly deluded. The consequence of this is that its going to take handwavium to get to where goblins are an acceptable race in setting. Paizo has that ability and authority, but it stretches suspension of disbelief. People don't change attitudes that quickly and there really isn't a story they can tell thats going to somehow change that without being a complete deus ex machina, again harming suspension of disbelief.

In Pathfinder, morality is an objective law of reality which is explicitly in tune with modern western morality, at least for the most part. And I think you're exaggerating how dangerous Golarion is for most people a little, though it's still obviously much more dangerous in terms of being attacked than most places in, say, the United Stats of America.

However, I'm not sure that the mortality rate is necessarily a lot higher most places. A lot of people in the real world die regularly of things that are simply pretty casually curable with spells in Pathfinder. I mean, only the poorest of the poor are gonna die from cancer, since Remove Disease just fixes that and is within the price range of your average farmer (it's a fair bit of a year's worth of disposable income...but to save your life? Totally worth it). The same is true of many other standard threats. I mean...literally anyone you can get to a Cleric with Stabilize will survive. The number of deaths from accidents would go down dramatically if anyone who got to a hospital would survive.

So, more deaths from violence, but less from many other things.

All that said, you do have a point about people having to deal with more dangerous situations and in many cases taking the path of expedience. Which is perecisely why most people are Neutral, not Good. In order to be Good they have to pick doing the right thing most of the time even under such awful circumstances...that's what being Good is.

As for stretching suspension of disbelief...it really depends on the explanation Paizo comes up with, don't you think? I can think of several that seem pretty compelling. And they've said it's not gonna remove anti-goblin prejudice completely or anything, just make it reasonable for guards to let them into towns even were they traveling alone (probably with suspicious looks).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Honestly, my interpretation is that "magic exists, and is a force we can harness" allows for people in Pathfinder to very easily solve a great number of problems that we struggle with even in the 21st century. Like a single 13th level Kinetic Chirugeon can, at zero personal cost, cure the blindness of anybody who comes to them in a single action and has been able to do the same with diseases for 6 levels now. Places that get organized can wipe out a hunger, disease, and poverty given sufficient will to do so.

Of course, since this is supposed to be a heroic setting we can't have all the problems already solved before the PCs get there, but the potential to solve them is a lot more accessible in fantasy land than in the real world.

What % of people do you suppose are 13th or higher level kinetic chirurgeons? People of level to do that sort of thing are RARE. I saw a mathematical breakdown as to why magic couldn't do much to stem a plague outbreak a while back, i'll see if i can find it again.

Edit: and if you can think of compelling reasons don't just say they exist, share them. I don't accept "they exist" without backup as particularly convincing.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Or a personal preference.

If you can't provide an example, that's fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
You don't have tangible proof that gods exist and that there is an afterlife.

As PossibleCabbage said: Magic. Most people on Golarion would have encountered a divine spellcaster, proving the existence of gods, and anybody who had access to divination magic can also tell you there is, in fact, an afterlife. In fact, I'd say their access to healing may be greater than ours.

And with magic, they may be almost as advanced as us philosophically. Probably more so, if you consider:
- They have access to the outer planes and the gods
- Their ability to communicate with beings who have lived for hundreds/thousands of years
- The wisdom that I imagine would naturally come from interacting with various sentient creatures not of your ancestry, who may think in radically different ways than you.

Also, I think the entire conversation about the morality of kill on sight is moot. A race can be generally evil and still be core.

1,651 to 1,700 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