Pepsi Jedi's page

Why would you be able to tap into things that weren't described? Isn't that a GM failing at that point?

"Oh well I didn't tell you everything, if you want to know EVERYTHING take a feat to know the stuff I didn't feel important enough to tell you at the time"

??

How's that work?

I think what a lot of people aren't seeing, or are choosing not to see is this...

It's not that people don't want to communicate with the GM, prior to making their character and what ever ancestry it may be. All players realize they're going to have to tell the GM what they're making/bringing before they start rolling dice.

The problem comes up, when GM's DO just blanket disallow things.
Some of you may not have faced it. If not. Good.
I can personally tell you it DOES come up. GM's being all 'Common races only!" or "Only one uncommon race to the group" The "Only One Chewie Rule" and variations on a theme. They see the distinction as much more cut and dryed. "Common=good" "Uncommon=TROUBLE" and just hand wave it and draw a line in the sand. They don't want to hear why your uncommon character could fit in. Why he might be where the game is set or what he brings to the game. They hit that 'Uncommon' designation like a wall and BOOM. Conversation -over-. I've seen players flat out thrown out of groups by just TRYING to get races approved. Not even in a 'bad' way, but some people are just so hide bound that they take it as a personal affront.

Now it's easy to go "Don't play with jerks like that" but it can be hard to find groups, that you can get to, play with, have time to do so, all at the same time, etc etc etc.

So... the result is, by naming some races uncommon they are being effectively barred from many games. Period. No debate allowed.

This isn't a matter of the GM thinking they won't fit. It's a matter of many GM's not even reading past the designation and therefore limiting a bunch of player and character options based on that single designation.

This is why the designation is important.

Yes I've read how it's layed out in the book. I'm telling you. With over 30 years of RP experience in my bag, --many gms don't care. If it's uncommon or rare it's simply disallowed. PERIOD--.

That said. One sort of needs to look at it and if it's 'worth' it to put in such designations and where those lines are drawn.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

I think it would be kinda weird if orcs were uncommon when half-orcs, dwarfs, elves and goblins are common. There is major center of orc population on both Avistan and Garund and you can't claim that orcs are less accepted everywhere than goblins or half-orcs are :p

Can you explain why one can't claim that orcs are less accepted than half-orcs everywhere, or at least most of everywhere?

(I do expect them to be common, I just don't think it would be bizarre for them to be uncommon.)

Well the goblins(they are also CE species with bad reputation whose reputation is slowly improving because of Whispering Tyrant) was the main one in that sentence, but half orcs mostly because while there are half orcs that look more like their human parent, there are really orcish half orcs. There is also that presence of half-orcs implies presence of orcs nearby.

Not really. If you read into it, most half-orcs are actually the product of half-orc/half-orc pairings. It's just not what one 'sterotypically' thinks when they see a half-orc. There's a prejudice to assume it comes from an orc on human rape.

Previously the books have pointed out that Half-orcs have been a thing for thousands of years and breed just fine with each other, when they're not purposefully created by either side.

Heh. Hiss!

Something to point out that’s been mentioned by Designers is that a design goal/hope for P2 is to avoid publishing “upgrades” or must haves. So they’re walking a tight middle ground.

I actually like this. If everything is power creep, you end up with noone using the core books or base stuff, always going for the super powered stuff later.

The trick is to make new things 'interesting' and 'useful' with out resorting to before mentioned power creep.

Hello Wayne.

I've loved your art for years, and follow you eagerly across IP. I am one of, I'm sure many, people who were -drawn- to Pathfinder due to your art, and I won't lie, your art is what keeps me coming back. PF is a good system and all but the depth of character (and Character) you give the IP is amazing. I've bought pathfinder books I didn't 'need' simply for your artwork.

I love the update on the Hobgoblins. They are instantly identifiable as being 'goblinoid' now, looking related to your "Pathfinder Goblins" Whom are so extremely distinctive (And well adored!).

I love the update.

I was wondering if you could give us any thoughts you had for the Hobgoblins, and their new designs. The Soldier from the Bestiary, and one from the Lost Omens Character Guide, are both very nice. (I'm not 100% sure the Lost Omens Character guide is your work.)

But any insight to the artistic development and implication of their new look would be appreciated.

It could be that they understand the difference between features in a same species, but in art that's going to be 3 to 5 inches, top to bottom, leaving a face about an inch, it's hard to cram that kinda fine detail in there, in the medium.

With humans it's one thing. The human brain has been trained for hundreds of thousands of years to recognize human faces, (And at distance) it's why 'face paint' is used in the military. to break up the recognizable dimensions/outline of a human face. But 'lizard faces' aren't imprinted on our brains.

So showing for distinctive facial features for fictional lizard people drawn in comic or nigh comic styling in images where in the face is only an inch or so is going to be a touch more difficult.

So showing different heads gives an instant visual cue to define something. Each member of that heritage of course is going to look different, but you can tell the heritage at a glance and define it in your mind.

You see this in videogames. Blizzard for example spends a great deal of time working on 'racial silhouette'. So you can tell an orc running at you vs a Tauren running at you vs a gnome. At a glance. No matter what gear they're wearing. It's a large part of the design philosophy. When they added the panda's which could be on either team they worried that it would be a big problem. (and it should be noted that after they did that they have -not- repeated it)

So the 'different heads' define the lizard heritages at a glance and allow for you to 'know what you're seeing'.

You see this in other 2E stuff as well. The Visual Update on the Hobgoblins is AWESOME!. They look more like goblinoids now, and less like "Gray Orcs" or "Gray half orcs" You can tell a Hobgoblin at a glance now. "Goblinoid Head. Goblinoid Mouth, spindly overlong limbs, but 5-6 feet tall instead of 2-3 feet tall. That's a Hobgoblin!"

I think it's pretty frigging cool that the Lizard folk have different heritages that indicate different aspects/roles/evolution.

Good job there!

Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but when I choose to play a race, it's because I want to play that race. Not because of the numbers under the write up.

If I have a character concept. I build that character and that concept. The stats are what they are. Are some races 'better' at some things than others? Sure. That doesn't dictate what I play in the least.

If I want to play a Goblin Barbarian I play one. Even if he's not going to be as 'strong' a barbarian as a human. I simply don't care. I have fun with the character I build. If I'm a point or two behind in this aspect or that aspect, I see it as a challenge to overcome through good roleplay.

I do understand the want to maximize your returns during character creation. I 'get' it. But if you don't like a race, choose another race. If you like one. Use it and accept it's pros and cons.

If you're just choosing a race for the numbers and not for the race itself... Well you're not going to get any sympathy out of me. You're not playing a race then. You're min/maxing a list of stats.

I personally play a character. Not the math equations.

Put me down for needing a pistol for a Swashbuckler! It's a part of the iconic package.

That dog, was askin' for it!

The one in the Bestiary has the full out feline head and digitigrade legs and a tail.

That said, if there's any sort of vote to be had, I would say "Include both and just let people choose which they like. Thundercat/Khajiit. Mechanically have them be 100% the same and just let the people choose."

With PF trying to be a bit distant and unique in some races though, they may want a more codified and specific look. (Such as Hobgoblins being changed to look more goblinoid.) If that's the case with the catfolk, and the bestiary is indication (It may not be, we know they do NOT like the hobgoblin from the Bestiary and there will be a running change in future printings) the Catfolk we have are more Khajiit, than Thundercats.

I like catgirls as much as the next guy, but I don't see the APG being 'too' much of a wait. Seems pretty quick out, all told.

I'm not being passive aggressive at all. I straight up said it seems like an extreme reaction to the depiction of one race among 100s.

Canceling an order on a book due to the art of one race seems extreme to me. There's going to be three ancestries in the book and tons of other stuff. So I said so. I also gave options on how to enjoy the game if one didn't like the depiction of that one race. Like all the other depictions we have before the new one.

He's of course free to buy or not buy what he wishes. I'm free to say it seems silly to draw the line where he's drawing it. It very much -does- seem like a table flip to me.

To straight up say you're considering not getting an entire book, of which the part you don't like boils down to two or three illustrations on two or three pages, and canceling your subscription due to it, seems nigh on comically excessive to me. Thus.. the table flip characterization.

I'm unsure why someone would hang the entire book purchase on such a thing, but, it's their money. What ever makes them happiest.

If you found it highly offensive it's because you wanted to be offended. Either way you're threatening to leave over some art you didn't like.

Describe it how you wish. You're not so 'quietly' packing up and leaving if you're putting the threat on the forums for how ever many people to read. (Including the creative director who's been posting in the thread)

It is a "I'll take my ball and go home" moment either way. Which is fine. That's how people are supposed to show what they like in a product. With their wallet.

But feigned offense because you didn't like how I phrased it just reiterates the fact that it's an extreme reaction to leave over art of a race. Finding it HIGHLY offensive is just more extreme reaction.

You're dodging the point that you have years and years of other depictions of hobgoblins to use if you like those better. Or that it's just one race of 100s.

My point is, you're threatening to leave a game because they drew a race a new way, and the iconics style is a touch different. To -me- that seems like a rather nuclear option for a minor thing. The iconics are a little different but they're the same people. The art style isn't a radical 180 or anything.

You're free to do as you wish though. I hope you find groups and play, in spite of some art. The things we play are illustrated in our minds by our minds eye. Your hobs can look how ever you wish them to. :) Don't let a few drawings rob you of the fun man.

Quandary wrote:

Cydeth wrote:

I very, very much dislike the direction of the appearance of hobgoblins. Previously, I enjoyed using them as common opponents and empires in my games. Now I'll simply avoid anything to do with them. Simple enough to do, generally speaking.

I liked hobgoblins far more than orcs before. The art change puts them at the bottom of the list of antagonists I'd use, or allies for that part.

Have you considered just using different art if you need a prop to explain what they look like?

I mean, somebody could draw a human or dragon or elf in a style I don't like, but doesn't mean that dictates the game...?

Doesn't matter to me if I use other art or not. Every time I look them up, I'll see that art (unless I do it online, but that's another subject) which will make me not want to touch them. I'm currently debating canceling my LOCG since they'll be in the book, though I probably won't.

While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.

AKA: What's important to me isn't necessarily important to anyone else. JJ indicated people should throw out their opinions, so I gave mine. If my opinions diverge from what Paizo produces enough, I will quietly drop their products and leave.

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying you are debating canceling a book order, due to the art choice, of one race among 100s in a fantasy product? And may leave the entire game due to that same single race and slightly different art style for the Iconics?

I do agree that what's important to one person is very much different to another.

That just seems like a bizarre reason to table flip and walk out.

If the art bothered you that much for the Hobs, couldn't you just use the old 'Blue orc' art? Or... use one of the other 100s and 100s of species?

James Jacobs wrote:

It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different.

It feels like this philosophy was applied to a lot of PF2e :(

Anyway, the hobgoblin I like is this one. Which is another D&D 3e hobgoblin, but I like it anyway.

Looks more like a red Fel Orc from Wow.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Any online source for a reference for the Hellknight Hill bugbear?

Yo

Ahh thank you. I like that too!

I think the proportions are a willful and purposeful thing. Before some of them looked like half orcs with different colored skin. Very 'human' in the 'humanoid' category.

By purposefully bringing out more of the 'goblin' in the 'golbinoid' the proportions are going to be exaggerated a bit 'on purpose'. To get them that half step closer to goblins and a half step 'away' from "humans with tusks'

Just speaking for myself I love love LOVE the new hobgoblin look. And for exactly the above mentioned reason. They look "Goblin-oid" They look like a tougher, more militant breed of Goblin (The Pathfinder design for goblins are what brought me to the game). That the Pathfinder Hobgoblns now look like their cousins is a home run for me, and my group.

Before they looked like halforcs or such for me and just had nothing distinguishing about them visually.

Now, they look like something I'd want to play as a character. (Already loving the pathfinder Goblin design ascetic, this just adds in a larger option).

James, I know you said you wern't taking votes. That said, put me and my entire group (7 people) down for _____LOVING______ the new look for Hobgoblins.

I think it was a magnificent change.

Now... we need them as actual character ancestry!

I like the concept of Goblins and unusual humanoids as playable races...in fact, I gravitate towards playing characters like that. I am also fine with the idea of races which are generally viewed as evil having outcasts, or even whole clans which break off and become 'good'. I've been playing RPGs for decades, the standard 'core' races are generally pretty boring for me, so I love coming up with unusual characters and backstories. In fact, my -2001 PFS2 character is a Goblin, which is also the character I was playing in the game that got ruined by the guy playing the Goblin Bard. I specifically wrote my character to break the stereotype Paizo has been pushing on the Goblins though.

The problem is, Paizo has written Goblins as comical from the start, and that encourages people to play them comically. Even the outcast/good Goblins are written that way in the official source materials. This does nothing to dissuade people from playing Goblin PCs that way, and IMHO actively encourages it.

You're not wrong. It's hard to find one represented as 'normal' (if that's such a thing) in the fluff.

Again this seems to be something for the group of players. And yes goblin PC's --are-- prone to this sort of thing. So it's good to nip it in the bud at the start.

I've had GM's that are like "Wait you wanna play a goblin? We don't want stupid PC's or Ace Ventura running around man"

And I assure them "no no. I play them like any other PC, just with a quirk or two" (__ALL__ My char's have quirks of some kind)

Some GM's will let you try and sort of watch to make sure you don't get dumb.

Some flat out refuse, because in their eyes, the possibility for stupid, out weighs the possibility of fun.

Both are valid depending on time and place. I've played games with some people, my friends, whom, if I'm honest, I'd not WANT to see them play a goblin, because i KNOW they'd play it annoyingly. lol

My biggest complaint about Goblin player characters is how people roleplay them. I played my 2nd 2ePFS game last night, The Mosquito Witch...which is written to be a more serious, horror themed scenario. The GM is great, and warned people ahead of time that they were going to lean heavy into the horror aspects (which I was super excited for)...then one of the players chose to play a Goblin Bard, and proceeded to completely derail any attempts at seriousness, within an hour the GM gave up even trying to run a serious game.

It completely ruined my enjoyment of the game, to the point where I almost withdrew from the table. The same thing happens in Starfinder most of the time when people decide to play Skittermander characters...they play them as ridiculous comic relief characters, hell bent of turning every game into a comedy.

I will probably never sit at another table with someone playing either of those races again because of how annoying and disruptive they are, and the in-universe lore completely backs up and encourages that type of behavior.

This can be a problem, but is a 'player/individual' problem vs a problem in general. People CAN do this. It IS a thing. But it doesn't have to be.

Goblins CAN be played for a more comedic aspect and for fun.

But they can also be played straight.

I've played both sides of it. And it depends on the group/story. You can get down right dark and creepy with a goblin, or yeah a bit funny.

The thing is to stop a player that's just getting stupid with it, before they get too much steam and be like "ok I'm glad you're having fun, but you're a little too much Jim Carrey with this and it's taking away from every one elses enjoyment.

The same can be done with Gnomes and Halflings too.

It 'is' a thing, but not one to totally boycott games for. Just let people know -before- they get stupid with it.

I personally prefer the brisk pace.
As others have said trying to achieve perfection would mean no book ever gets published. That, and there -is- such a thing as too much polish. At some point you have to declare it done and put it out. You can second, third, fourth, twentieth guess yourself into absolute stagnation.

Does a brisk pace mean a few more errors? Yes. I would much rather a few errors than waiting months or years down the road, for a product that didn't have those few errors (But absolutely would have different errors).

There is something to be said about quality over quantity. At this point the quality is there. So keep them coming nice and fast.

In my mind the -few- errors that the books have are far outweighed by the overall quality and pace that we're getting them.

Again, give me a book with a few errors -today- than a book with 2 or 3 less errors 6 to 12 months from now.

Well anyone can get a "bad book" and have it happen. Can happen to any of us.

Thing is, I've played RPG's for 20 years now. ((Ugg I feel old)) and of the 100s of people I've played with, I'd say fully 70.. 80% of them treated the books like they were indestructible/disposable. I.E. HORRIBLY. Tossing, shoving, Slamming, squishing, wedging, dropping, spilling, ect. And of those 70-80%, I'd say probably 70 to 80% of those same people would claim that they treat their books well. I ran security for some RPG conventions in NC and was just appalled at how people were treating their books.

As I've professed above, I'm pretty obsessive about mine. Very obsessive even. Just in my close friends, I'd never dream of letting 90% of them barrow a book or take one out of my sight. And I LIKE those people. lol.

I'm not sure if it's universal or just RPG people, but a majority, (In my own limited interactions with a few 100 of them) are very very hard on their books, and most of them will lie straight to your face and say they aren't. lol

(( and I know. You could apply the same to me, but my books don't fall apart. :) ))

Funky Badger wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Glamdring and Orcrist in a troll horde is "plausible" in "The Hobbit". In LotR it's ludicrous to presume such wondrous swords would be found in such lowly station. Nowhere in the entire length of LotR do you see anything like such an embarrassment of riches falling into the hands of the heroes. Again, that's deliberate.

Anyway...

There are the cache of Numenorean blades that that theiving bunch of little scrotes half-inches from the Barrow Downs (although they had much more reason for being there).

Considering how badly elves and men managed their fall from grace, its not *that* unreasonable that some nifty kit would be lying around ere and there. Err, like, *ahem* at the bottom of a river, for example...

The barrow downs were burial chambers, many real-world warriors were buried with their weapons. Thorin was buried with Orcrist. Plus the downs are infested not with trolls, but wights, which are a completely different kettle of fish. Finally, the blades the hobbits found at the barrow wights were human made and other than being able to damage undead flesh, had no other known magical properties, and certainly weren't famous enough to have NAMES known by their enemies hundreds of years after their disappearance.

Anyway, rationalize it however you like. The bottom line is that throughout the entirety of Tolkien's writings, Glamdring and Orcrist are among the most powerful swords ever made (One of them was the personal sword of the King of Gondolin). Throughout the entirety of the history of Tolkien's world, no treasure trove ever discovered, not even SMAUG's treasure trove, had two, much less THREE such weapons.

And yet we are to believe that three trolls managed to somehow acquire them. Three trolls who were defeated simply by fooling them into staying up until the sun came up.

As I said, there is probably no other single thing less plausible in the entirety of the books.

The book addresses it, not that the trolls were so powerful as to have taken them, themselves, but likely that they plundered someone elses lost or stolen plunder.

As for the no other simple thing being less plausible in the entirety of the books..

Are you forgetting the -------------most------------------ powerful magical item in the entire Middle Earth universe, being found, by accident in the dark, by a hobbit, who woke up in goblin tunnels after having been dropped by a dwarf?

I haven't been on in a few days but I found this thread tonight. I'm not going to directly address all 112 posts before this one but there are some points that have been glossed over. For clear reference I'm speaking of the Dwarves from the MOVIE.

1) The dwarves, with exception of the three youngest, Fili, Kili, and Ori, have been around 100s of years. They're not 'level 1 or 2' anything. Many of them were in battles over 100 years ago.

2) Thorin is more than just your average dwarf. He was clearly trained and noble before the dragon came. he was in command of the Military forces then and fought with Balin.

3) Balin, who seems to be largely overlooked (( I Suspect due to his white hair and seeming 'old' among the company)) Is a very skilled combatant. Evidence? 1) He was with Thorin and the guards when the dragon arrived. 2) In the battle with the Orcs trying to regain Moria, he was there, in the fight with his "Sword Axe" (They call it a mace in some pics but in one of the movie books they detail how the designers sat down with the actors and the actor asked for a cross between a sword and axe) He not only fought in that battle but was one of the few Survivors. 3) He fights in the goblin caves well with it on the bridges if you look. So he's been a warrior of some sort ( Class is debatable) For well over 100 years. He's not a level one or two anything.

4) Dwalin, was meant to be the 'soldier' or so the design books say. He's got knives, metal knuckle dusters, uses paired axes, and a large hammer/maul. He's also been around for 100s of years as you can see him fighting in the Moria battle (( During this one he has more hair, and is sporting a barbarian style mohawk. You can pick him out due to the hammer and the signature knuckle dusters. he's been around all that time, for 100+ Years. He's not a level 1 or 2 anything either.

5) The Princes, Fili and Kili are some of the youngest, it states that they are younger than the others by at least 50+ Years and wern't in the mountain when it fell. They are Rangers of some sort and as pointed out, they are some of the more butt kicking in the party. Kili especially. He's the one in the party with a bow and he uses it pretty well for his size. What you don't see a 'ton' of is that Fili also does ranged combat. his armor is covered with throwing knives (( look at the back of his gauntlets) and even angled throwing axes. You really have to be looking for it to see it in the movies. (( I was, as I'd read up prior to my two trips to the theather)) But Fili is ranged as well and they're used as the scouts of the group. Fili also fights with paired swords. Again. Not level 1 or 2 anything and they're the youngest.

6) Nori, is the 'Bad boy' of the group and he has that staff with the mace end on it, but he's also got a pair of kukri like knives that he uses in battle. http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/nori-hobbit-poster.jpg

7) Bifur was their 'hunter', and is armed with what they call "A bladed boar spear' and has taken an axe to the brain and is still going. (Notes indicate that the damage to the axe to the head, still stuck in there, by the way, is what renders him almost mute. If you watch, he doesn't talk, he sort of makes sounds and hand gestures and people tend to nod and 'translate'. As a hunter also trained in combat I'd put him down as some sort of Ranger.

8)Gloin is another combatant that's easy to look over due to Thorin, gandalf and such shining, but he carries multiple axes and pitches in.

9) Dori seems prissy but he also fights with twin swords, not the act of an npc class, he's also got some weighted and bladed bola's. You don't see them much, but after the Radagast scene just before they find the secret passage you can catch him spinning them as the worg riders close in.

That leaves Bofur, their sort of miner type, but he's using a two handed weapon, Oin who doesn't shine too much, till you see him spinning his staff in the fights with the goblins. Pretty cool, and Bomber. Who's easy to chalk off as the fat comic releif, till you look a bit deeper. The write ups say he's the strongest of any of the dwarves and that beard is used in combat. Throwing it around enemies and choking them or breaking their necks with it. he also has some massive butcher's knives.

Lastly there's Ori, who -is- supposed to be the "kid" tagging along with his two brothers (Nori and Dori). They chose to give him a whispy sort of teen age wanna be beard. He's their scholar/scribe type and yes, he uses the sling shot, but every time he uses it, it works. lol.

These aren't a couple or three PC class types with a buncha NPCs. Not the MOVIE versions that is. Fully half of them have been warriors for over 100 years.

It's pointed out "They run from ____ or _____" Well yes they do, but when they run, they're often dramaticly outnumbered. Sure PC classes can take on one or two goblins with out being overly threatened. but 14 PC's still run from 500 goblins.

Yes they run from the orcs and wargs, but why? Because they're out numbered, and the worgs are about 5 times their size. Add in the orcs on top, serving as evil type cavaliers and you can understand why they don't want to face them on foot. Especially factoring in the smaller size of the dwarves.

Also people are forgetting this is supposed to be a 'secret mission'. They're not looking for fights or to lose their number before they reach their objective. If they can run away and all 14 make it, so much the better.

After the goblin caves, it's been pointed out, "Oh the Dwarves run again, if they were so bad ass why would they run? So they must not be badass"

Where you watching the same movie I was? They were asleep. The floor fell out from under them. They fall about a mile down through rocky tunnels, bashing off the walls all the way, are dumped out about 20 feet in the air into a cage. Are swarmed and captured by 100s of goblins. Are about to be tortured. Are sprung by the wizard showing up and blowing them all unconscious. They come to.. grab what they can and are suddenly running. And running and running and running and running and running. Fighting as they go. Killing 100s of goblins as they do so. The king shows back up and Gandalf kills him and then they fall again, crashing down down down through the rocks bouncing off walls and have the wooden thing theyre standing on exploade around them when they finally land. Then about 800lbs of goblin king lands on top of them.

THEN when they're crawling out of that. 100s to 1000s of goblins are pouring down on top of them and they're running running running again on their short little drarf legs.

And people are all like "Well they ran from the Orcs and Wargs. THey must be Level 1 or 2, or NPCs" Look at all they'd been through just before that. In the space of one "Night/morning". They must be exausted and have been having a running battle for hours with 100s of foes.

There were dozens of Wargs after them, and the mounted orcs. You see the wargs running down the mountain and there are enough of them to up root trees with just their weight. When the eagles show up you see at least a half dozen of them picked up and thrown off the cliff. Not counting the rest. some of which ran from the fire and some are in the fight.

Some one along the way said Thorin went down easy in that fight with the pale Orc. Well he'd been fighting for 12+ hours previously, had fallen 100s of feet into and off of roccks, Killed dozens of foes his size or bigger, by himself, had been chased by worgs that massed 5+ times his size and then was fighting a 'Fresh" enemy who up till that point had only thrown one orc across the "room' to be eaten.

Even Heroes only have so much. That fight wasn't showing that the dwarves were of low level or minor npcs with a few fighters. THey'd fought doezens of foes EACH over running battles for hours and hours before they were beset by mounted enemies fresh for a fight after the Dwarves had fought their way out of the goblin kingdom through and past 100s of goblins. Not to mention the falls and all the running.

Most of the dwarves were some sort of combative class with 100+ years experience behind them. yes after being driven out of the mountain, and after the battle at Moria, they often found work as they could. Some went north to secure those mountains. The comment of 'look at us, toy makers and such" Wasn't meaning that's all they were. It was a point.

"We used to be warriors. We fought side by side against the orcs of Moria. We fought the Defiler. We WON. After that we had no where to go and we had to eat... so we had to 'become' toy makers and tinkerers. Even a few of us degrading our selves to Miners and blacksmiths.

It wasn't that they were never warriors. They were warriors with out the war and had to eat some how between then and now.

If someone's choosing to "low ball' and have a very low powered game. That's fine and all, but the Dwarves in the movies aren't a buunch of fodder with a leader or two. They're plenty bad ass, and kill 100s just in the first movie. ( And yes I know that might seem like a lot, but just think of how many that Thorin alone cuts through during the one running scene with the goblins. Now multiply by 14. Count the dozens that are swept off the bridges with each "Swing" of the railing during the same scene. Or how many dozens are mowed over by the bolder. That's not even counting how many gandalf kills with his explosive entrance.)

We have evidence they are innately evil. Its in Goblins of Golarion, a Paizo book. It states that goblins do have a innate disposition to evil.

Edit: If you actually read the goblin alignment paragraph, it states they are " greedy, capricious, and destructive by nature,". Even if you transplanted a goblin into a new environment, he would be more likely to commit evil than his human peers.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin

But you selectivly leave out things. Like, the rest of that quoted sentence says "most are neutral or chaotic evil" Not all.

Then the huge section at the bottom of the same page that reads

"Goblins don’t have to be evil maniacs—just because most of them are doesn’t mean your character is. In fact, playing a non-evil or even a good-aligned goblin can present some enjoyable and interesting roleplaying challenges. If you want to play a goblin because you’re eager to explore these challenges, or because you like playing strange characters against their stereotypes, or because you enjoy playing “monsters with hearts of gold,” then you’re on the right track for most campaigns.

In such a case, you should look at the majority of the flavor in this book in reverse—you can define your goblin character by playing a character with values opposite of many of the things most goblins define themselves. Perhaps your goblin is a patient scholar who specializes in languages and is attempting to catalog the “true” history of the goblin race in a series of books. Maybe you’re a cavalier who seeks to use dogs or horses as allies because you’re convinced that the goblin fear of these creatures is one of your kin’s greatest failings. Or maybe you were rescued as a child by a kindly adventurer who then turned your care over to a benevolent religion and you grew up with not only a deep respect for one of the gods of purity but a sense of shame that most of your kind worship barghests and demons.

None of this means you can’t still enjoy playing up some of the goblin race’s other quirks. Their ravenous hunger, their love of songs, their twisted senses of humor, and respect for nature are excellent traits that you can embrace as a goblin that don’t disrupt parties or derail adventures. You can still maintain these classic goblin personality traits without also being a distraction to the game itself."

And in part

"Of course, not all campaigns are set in areas where goblin intolerance is so swift or deadly. Some regions are well noted for being open-minded in accepting unusual visitors into their midst—the city of Katapesh is a great example of this, for as long as visitors to the city don’t disrupt trade, any manner of creature is welcomed within the city walls. When you speak with your GM about playing a goblin, talk with him about where the campaign is likely to take place—a campaign set in an area like Isger or Varisia, where goblins have a strong negative association, might not make a good opportunity to play a goblin at all.

Playing a goblin also provides a character with the opportunity to be creative in the strangely charming and cleverly insane manners common to the race. Players of goblin bards (or fighters, or any other class for that matter) should consider this encouragement to spend some time composing their own goblin songs."

This shows that they're not all evil, and there's actually quite a bit of canon stuff about how to have ones that aren't.

Yeah but bears don't sing songs, make weapons and clothes either. People might gleefully smite them in game but the goblins are walking, talking sapient creatures. You're comparing raising wild -animal- predators to a cognizant person.

It still boils down to, A) if the GM Thinks goblins are all evil BECAUSE they're goblins. (( I.E. ALL Goblins are evil. No matter what))

Or B) if Goblins are, like humans, some good, some bad, some in between, depending 1) on the goblin in question and 2) How the goblin is raised. (( this would mean that all the evil goblins we run into are products of their society. not inherently evil. )

Sure, even if it's Option "B" Some are going to be evil. Just like some humans are evil. But the question you asked Pendgast, was what if it was a NEUTRAL Evil goblin. This indicates that it might be able to achieve an alignment upgrade, if trained.

You're right in that you can't just demand an alignment. That's where the 'TEACHING IT TO BE GOOD' comes in. Sure, some might tell you to frak off, but some might not.

Well that goes back to the 'nature/nurture' debate. If the child is a 'neutral' evil, then it can likely be taught to be better.

But if your GM thinks that the goblins are just evil by... *Waves hand* Birth, and not growing up in the -highly- dysfunctional goblin society (( I mean... they're locked in cages like rats as babies... pyromania and sadism as societal norms?) Then there's not going to be much you can do. You should ask your GM Out of game how he sees the goblins.

Personally I've played a goblin PC before. It was all kinds of fun. We played it as if much of their insanity was learned, not inborn. still there's a good bit of fun to be had by playing them a bit zany.

To return to the question though, it depends on how your GM sees Goblins.

A) Evil by nature, not learned: Then you need to find some other goblins to give it to. As it's just going to bite off your face as you sleep

B) Evil is learned, therefore the goblin can be taught to be 'better'. Then have fun with it and training it. It'll likely still have some odd personality traits but there's no reason to just 'assume' that it'll slit your throat for your matches.

Well there's a few things to remember that are significant here.

1: Pathfinder goblins are not what you'd really call 'caring'. They lock their babies in cages/kennels when they're babies and sort of throw food at them now and then. (( Not all that often with goblin's endless hunger))

2: Goblins reach full maturity at about age 5 if memory serves. This would put their 'infancy' under a year, their 'todler' stage another year. "Child" stage at about 3, then 'Teen' years at about 4.. then 'Adult' at about 5.

So if your char keeps the 'baby' assuming it's a new born, it'll be walking and starting to talk by 1, by 2 it'll be like a 5 to 10 year old human in "mentality' (( not saying 'as smart' but roughly here)) That's well with in the "Here follow along and hide if stuff goes down" Area.

You start training it at roughly 3 years old and you're good to go after that.

I can't speak for other people's games but time tends to go by pretty quick. Especially in Pathfinder/fantasy games. When it might take you 2 or 3 months to get where you're going via horse, there's alot of hand waving of time. "You set out from Doofusvill on horseback, for once you're not molested on the trip but it takes 3 months to cross the Goober region and up into the mountains of Dork" and in one sentence three months have passed. (( Not that any adventuring party has ever traveled and NOT been harassed/attacked/tricked/trapped/or other wise molested on the trip, but you get the point))

So.. your 'Baby" goblin, won't be a "baby" for long. 2, 3 'years' in game at most. Add that to the fact that they're kept in cages like (Dangerous) pets till they become smart enough on their own to bust out and 'join' goblin society, riding around in a saddle bag or back pack of an adventurer, is likely a step --up-- from traditional goblin infancy. As babies goblins have to worry about the baby born 2 weeks before it, eating it if the parents forget to feed them for a week. An adventurer, that even gives half a care to keep the thing from being stepped on by a monster is going to be the best goblin parent ever.

(( As a side note. I love the Pathfinder goblins. I just love how they're presented/re-invented.))

Because they're cool.

I do it just for flavor. I like hand and a half swords. It's how I roll. Stats take a very much back seat to flavor and coolness factor. In sci fi games I tend to end up with light sabers or "Laser swords" I don't care if the stats are less than other melee weapons. It's just what I like.

It'd likely depend on the flaw. Things like "Sunlight burns me like hellfire" Yeah, they're going to know things like that. If it's "Is stupid trusting around lady's with nice lady parts" Then... maybe. Some people are self aware of such things. Some people, even if you tell them 1,000 times, they won't admit it to themselves or really internalize such things. So... "Maybe" is about as firm as you can get there. A lot will depend on the character.

We all know the guy that used to get in trouble going after girls way way out of his league, or the girl that had daddy issues and was overly friendly, or vice versa. We all knew that one girl that would jump blindly into a fight and the one huge guy that was actually a coward. Did they 'know' their own flaws? Maybe. Maybe they couldn't see them. Maybe they didn't want to.