Eoseph's page

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So you'd be willing to risk your life on the off chance that a goblin you encounter isn't a murderer just because they're well-dressed and equipped for the specific task of murdering things? The books specifically state that communities who tolerate goblins in their general vicinity pay the cost for it in pets and children. How little do you value the lives of those in your community that you'd risk them being slaughtered and cannibalized just because a goblin is walking into town with some human companions?

Lions and tigers are dangerous beasts that kill people and destroy valuable livestock. Would you really risk your life or your children's lives by letting a lion or tiger walk around town--not even on a leash or anything!--just because some weird tree-hugger murder-hobo says it's their "animal companion" or some nonsense like that?

And yet, Big Cat animal companions are incredibly popular, and I almost never see GMs try to police them in settlements. Most seem to feel that the benefits of getting out of the PCs way and letting them get on with the adventure outweigh the costs of stretching verisimilitude a little bit.

Tame instances of normally wild animals are an established part of both Golarion and the real world. Non-evil goblins do not feature in anything Paizo has ever published.

Nor are tigers inherently malicious and sadistic in a way analogous to goblins. Tigers can be dangerous. Goblins are.

Actually there HAS been instances of Goblin slaves and other times within published material where goblins were featured within society...

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.

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...

Eoseph wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Quote:

Goblins at a society game aren't going to effect it because the same rules of cooperation apply to all races them included

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Goblins at a society game aren't going to effect it because the same rules of cooperation apply to all races them included

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

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

geekjosh wrote:

Frosty Ace wrote:

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

Pretty much this.

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

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

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

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

jimthegray wrote:

Pappy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct me if i'm mistaken but the vast majority of Golarian has not been explored. We have mainly had adventures centered around the Inner Sea Region with the exception of Tian Xing...

Who is to say that there aren't Goblins from elsewhere in the world that are different?

Aside from that my theory is that we have a lot of people not wanting to use their imaginations in a game of imagination. I can think of a million and one ways a player can be a Goblin even in 1E. In my games players are exceptions to the norm, not simple reconstructions of the race description in a book. Now that doesn't mean that goblin characters should hinder the progress of the game and story just because they are a goblin and "i'm just playing my race." But if that does happen then it is a player issue and not a "lore" issue. That is when I would address and help the player find other means of achieving that gobliny flavor and still be a contributing member to a team oriented game.

Saying that player Goblins are or should be the stereotypical example of their race entry is a line of thought I do not enjoy. That is one of the reasons i don't enjoy 5E. Characters, for the most part, feel like stereotypes in that game. Nothing wrong with that but there is a reason why I personally never made the jump to the game. Pathfinder has always given me tools to create fun, original, and unique characters as well as allow me to be the stereotype.

As for me and my players we are ecstatic about the opportunity to play goblins....even if players have been playing goblins for many years now in 1E. I guess this is just a weird thing for so many to be THAT upset about in my opinion. But to each their own i suppose.

OK, turn it around:

What if Ezren was dressed in an outfit where in a combat situation there is a good chance one of his testicles might pop out? Should we all just rationalize it as he's obviously got some magical garb or a long duration spell up to prevent it from happening?

Would we all be ok when Seltyiel is depicted as striding into combat in assless chaps and a tiny g-string, his butt featured prominently for the viewers?

Would it be ok if Sajan was often depicted with a twisted spine so his pecs and butt were simultaneously presented to the viewers?

Sure. If Paizo wanted to do that. Doesn't mean it is made for me. The funny thing is I can look away if something doesn't fit my interests or likes. I simply don't gravitate towards it. I don't shout at it and think it should be changed because "I" don't like it. I'm sure there are plenty out there that would love to see Seltyiel in assless chaps. I don't. But i'm not going to rain on those other people's parade just because i don't like it.

Once again, this is fiction. If Seoni can't wear her Varisian robes in Golarion (something that is literally written into her backstory) then i guess Catwoman should have to zip up her catsuit in the DC Universe, Red Sonja should put some normal clothes on, Mary Jane should stop being a model in the Marvel universe....i could go on.

These characters, including the iconics, are part of a visual medium and changing their appearance changes who they are. Man i'd hate to live in a world where women and men were force to only wear plain colorless fully covering garb. Something about variety being the spice of life?

Good thing is that in a table top rpg you get to make the character you want! So do that instead of trying to change a character that isn't yours.

I guess, just like in real life, i'm ok with the occasional woman showing a bit more than the other women do. More power to her.

As for the risque garb not making sense or being practical....i'm not to worried about a sorceress showing off her cleavage and legs in a world where people can throw fireballs, create water out of thin air, and immediately heal wounds with a prayer.

Also, I highly doubt Paizo just lets their artists draw any character however they see fit. I would think the character's creator/Paizo commissions specific art from a specific artist. I doubt any of their art is just by accident.

That being said i'm sure that Paizo sells with a bit of sex appeal in mind from time to time. That has been staple for fantasy since the beginning. Obviously I can't speak for everyone but i'm ok with that. The female players in the circles i play in are ok with that. In fact they never give it a thought.

Options are key. If my players want to play a full plate wearing female killing machine then i want them to be able to do that. If they want to be a seductive bra and loin cloth wielding witch then I want them to experience the the game and their character the way they have thought them up. If you take either of these options away then someone is going to be upset. So let everyone play the characters they visualize and artists draw the characters they want to draw. Take a breath. It's a game...

Man this complaint gets old. It's fantasy. In a world where people can fly and shoot lightning from the palms of their hands there are still people that are upset by 2d images of fictional characters who are comfortable with showing their physique. Reality vs fantasy aside I wonder if their are women and men in the real world who do this....

How about we let creative minds create the things they want to create in the way they want to create them. Censorship is never the answer.

Now excuse me while i go finish painting the Red Sonja miniature that my wife begged me to buy her at Gencon last year...

Feel free to wipe this post if this has been asked already but i was curious and couldn't find anything about it.

I'm super pumped about 2E but was initially concerned with how easy it would be to convert 1E Adventure Paths to the new system. From everything i'm seeing and reading it appears that Paizo is working hard to give GMs the ability to do that on the fly. The only problem i can see is loot.

If 2E is going to make magic items more rare and the wanton +1 items are being shied away from then how is the loot from a 1E Adventure Path going to "convert" to 2E?

I'm assuming some sort of loot table. Maybe the gold amount of items that would be gained in a 1E adventure would equal these sorts of items in 2E?

Just something i've been curious about. Other than that I can't wait to get my hands on the playtest!

No offense but I'm here for "fantasy" NOT "realism"....