| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not really following what you mean here Corrik. I'm pretty confused how the game definition of "core" being changed actually changes stuff in narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion?Yes, that was the question asked. Which is very different to "Am I saying that the Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?"
"Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion?" - Refers to thing that are actual concepts in the setting itself. Things which can be noted and observed by entities in the setting.
"Are Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?" - Is completely unrelated, because it is not an aspect of lore in setting. It is describing "what stuff was in this other book". There is no one in setting that be able to discern or state such a thing, because there is no sign of "Core" being a thing in the setting.
And by differentiating the Core Races from the other, it makes it an observable effect. Especially when that differentiation is "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races". So do I think the races of Golarion can take a census? Yes, yes I do. I also think some Slayers can tell how much HP someone has.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And by differentiating the Core Races from the other, it makes it an observable effect. Especially when that differentiation is "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races". So do I think the races of Golarion can take a census? Yes, yes I do. I also think some Slayers can tell how much HP someone has.
1) Where are these scholars getting the word Core from? Why are the associating this random word with the concept of population?
2) "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races" definition is pro-goblin not anti-goblin.3) Please show me the mechanical ability or effect that detects what Real-World Source a creature is from.
And by differentiating the Core Races from the other, it makes it an observable effect. Especially when that differentiation is "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races". So do I think the races of Golarion can take a census? Yes, yes I do. I also think some Slayers can tell how much HP someone has.1) Where are these scholars getting the word Core from? Why are the associating this random word with the concept of population?
2) "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races" definition is pro-goblin not anti-goblin.
3) Please show me the mechanical ability or effect that detects what Real-World Source a creature is from.
1) Anywhere, but I'm not claiming that scholars call the races core. I'm claiming that the rules differentiate core races from the others. Because they do.
2) Indeed, and numerous other races as well. It also doesn't bode well for halflings and gnomes. So why are we keeping the the old core race line up but simply hot gluing goblins to it?3) Never claimed it did, merely that core races are clearly differentiated in the setting from other races.
Make up arguments for someone else, serves you no good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And by differentiating the Core Races from the other, it makes it an observable effect. Especially when that differentiation is "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races". So do I think the races of Golarion can take a census? Yes, yes I do. I also think some Slayers can tell how much HP someone has.
Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion?Yes, that was the question asked. Which is very different to "Am I saying that the Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?"
"Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion?" - Refers to thing that are actual concepts in the setting itself. Things which can be noted and observed by entities in the setting.
"Are Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?" - Is completely unrelated, because it is not an aspect of lore in setting. It is describing "what stuff was in this other book". There is no one in setting that be able to discern or state such a thing, because there is no sign of "Core" being a thing in the setting.
I'm pretty sure what is being discussed here doesn't require a any actual changes in the population. To use your metaphor, it is more tweaking the categories and way census data is collected than the underlying data itself. Like, if we expand the census to out beyond the major human settlements, there are lots of goblins who simply weren't being accounted for before.
We don't need there to be an actual census taker going to collect this in narrative, since "core races" remains a meta definition. Frankly, if we want to get semantic about quotes, "core races" is no longer a thing anyway. We know have "core ancestries." ;)
2) Indeed, and numerous other races as well. It also doesn't bode well for halflings and gnomes. So why are we keeping the the old core race line up but simply hot gluing goblins to it?
That's rather obvious, isn't it? Marketing. Obviously Paizo thinks it should retain the options we are most familiar with and add on their most recognizable mascot.
This just means that "core ancestries" has a different definition that "core races" did in PF1. That's certainly no more of a lore change than druids using Primal magic or Occultism a skill or Paladins no longer being prepared casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Anywhere, but I'm not claiming that scholars call the races core. I'm claiming that the rules differentiate core races from the others. Because they do.
2) Indeed, and numerous other races as well. It also doesn't bode well for halflings and gnomes. So why are we keeping the the old core race line up but simply hot gluing goblins to it?
3) Never claimed it did, merely that core races are clearly differentiated in the setting from other races.
1a) Except that I was specifically asking about In-The-Setting-As-Something-Observable-To-The-People-Inside-It. Your argument is that it changes lore to move one race from one source to another. You have not shown any evidence of their being lore on "Core Races" as an objective thing in the setting rather than it just being a book describing the content in a different book.
1b) Please quote a rule that differentiates Core races from non-core races.2) How does it "not bode well for halflings and gnomes"? Are you suggesting that the only definition you've given for Core races in the setting is invalid? That would mean you should have no issue with Goblin being in core on the basis of that definition then.
3a) "Never claimed it did" ... " I'm claiming that the rules differentiate core races from the others. Because they do." *squints*
3b) Then why mention the slayer ability that allows characters to determine Hit Points.
Make up arguments for someone else, serves you no good.
I don't understand this, are you just saying that logic and arguments are pointless? I must be misunderstanding this @_@
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does being core mean goblins will get more splatbook support? Probably! Does that change anything lore wise? Nope! Lore doesn't care about publishing ratios. Also, some non-core options just get weird amounts of focus anyway, like Tieflings and Aasimar.
At least according to the D20PFSRD survey, Tieflings and Aasimar are the most commonly played non-core races. And are played more than halflings and gnomes and tieflings are even more common than dwarves. So it makes sense to give them support. They frankly make the most sense as something to bring to core, but maybe they were discouraged by D&D making tieflings core in 4th and 5th and wanted to go their own way. Kitsune and Drow are the next most popular. and then goblins. Ratfolk are just behind goblins, and also make a lot more sense considering they're already core in Starfinder and get along just fine in civilization. I do have a pro-rodent bias though.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only good restriction on what should be core I've ever heard is as follows:
To be Core, something must be recognizable to the majority of fantasy fans who've never actually played or engaged with D&D and Pathfinder.
Since that makes Core vastly more accessible to people who have not previously played the game. D&D violates this, but I feel that's a mistake.
By that definition, Aasimar and Tieflings are inappropriate as a Core Ancestry. They will prvoke reactions like 'What's a Tiefling?' People know what a Goblin is.
Also, according to what the people at Paizo have said, their whole goal was to add a 'monstrous' race as a Core Ancestry, and were going to go with Orcs before settling on Goblins (going with them over Orcs due to brand recognition). Tieflings and Aasimar are both unsuitable to meet this requirement as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, you're saying that Core should follow lore? That's a little backwards. Because by your standards, Gnomes, Halflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs wouldn't be core. Races are core because they are the races people want to play and because they are important to the stories Paizo wants to tell. They are not Core because they are important to the setting. Plenty of races are more lore-appropriate in Golarion than Gnomes (including goblins!!!).
Goblins have high population numbers in-lore, are an extremely popular player race, and are near-synonymous with the Paizo brand. They can be core and still be "killed on sight" (although I think this is not standard. And if it is, should also be applied to half-orcs) and still be evil and malicious. So how exactly do they not qualify for Core? And which races are more appropriate? Kobolds certainly aren't. Tieflings maybe?
I think the only people who are saying anything remotely close to "lore doesn't matter" are when people say that goblins can keep their place in lore and still be core. But there is a very big difference between those two positions. In my opinion, the change to core is getting up with the times. Goblins are already core. They have been for years. The rules are just finally reflecting that.
Which is why I'm okay with an overall change to core race line up. But not "Everything is the same except now the murder mascots are core, but all the other races can still f!$* off". By your own logic, plenty of other races are also already core. So why do only Goblins get the PR boost and lore update? If Goblins are core, why not the planar races, Orcs, Kobolds, Hobgoblins, Grippli, Lizardfolk, Ratfolk, ect? Why do the rules not get updated for them? "Space in the book" is a meta reason and unacceptable for a lore explanation.
Kobolds are certainly more appropriate than Goblins. They avoid direct confrontation true, but are far more civilized than Goblins are presented. They are clever and good at construction and engineering. They can interact peacefully with others. And the cowardice is merely an excuse for the average kobold not adventuring. Certainly goblins have a long list of traits that make them poor adventurers. How about Winter Wolves? They are powerful, breed fairly quickly, and are favored by the recently returned Baba Yaga. The writer's wand could be waved just as easily to have them become core. Lizardfolk were a "core race" in the distant past, and still control swathes of land. They aren't warlike, but then neither are halflings or gnomes. So why could a peace accord not see them start to return to their former glory? Could they not hold the secrets that save the world in the last AP and catapult them to core?
I could go on. So why not these civilized races who control territory? Why the race that the average member can't read, sets everything on fire, and has little to no positive aspects? Why them and not others? Why only them and not others? What story, what reason, could you apply to Goblins that could not be argued for others?
Kobolds aren't all over the Paizo brand, don't have artwork everywhere, and aren't nearly popular or recognizable enough to be core. Nor are they important enough in Golarion (which is what you seem to only care about?). Goblins beat them at every level. Being civilized (more than goblins?), clever, and good at construction (who cares?!?) does not matter.
Goblins are as core as any race but humans, and more so than any other race that isn't already core.
1) Anywhere, but I'm not claiming that scholars call the races core. I'm claiming that the rules differentiate core races from the others. Because they do.And by differentiating the Core Races from the other, it makes it an observable effect. Especially when that differentiation is "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races". So do I think the races of Golarion can take a census? Yes, yes I do. I also think some Slayers can tell how much HP someone has.1) Where are these scholars getting the word Core from? Why are the associating this random word with the concept of population?
2) "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races" definition is pro-goblin not anti-goblin.
3) Please show me the mechanical ability or effect that detects what Real-World Source a creature is from.
Can you cite this? I mean, give me a single rule that differentiates core races from everyone else. Or give one line that says people in Golarion know "who the 7 most important races are".
Could you define a core race? Because I am getting very confused as to what you think makes a race "core"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be Core, something must be recognizable to the majority of fantasy fans who've never actually played or engaged with D&D and Pathfinder.
Since that makes Core vastly more accessible to people who have not previously played the game. D&D violates this, but I feel that's a mistake.
By that definition, Aasimar and Tieflings are inappropriate as a Core Ancestry. They will prvoke reactions like 'What's a Tiefling?'
Tieflings and Aasimar are both unsuitable to meet this requirement as well.
Tiefling and Aasimar are fairly esoteric as terms outside of D&D/PF, but I would suggest that the concept of "Planetouched" are not. For example, you could say that "Dragonborn" are alien outside of D&D/PF, but the moment that you call them something akin to "Dragonmen," it doesn't take a college degree to get the gist of the concept. A lot is wrapped up in a name. What is a Tabaxi? But the moment you say "Catfolk," then people will get it (and then roll their eyes and groan).
Dragonborn are Kobolds with better marketing, which is possibly why Kobolds weren't seriously considering for core.
Yes I'm aware of the 3.5 book which introduced them. I stand by what I said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does being core mean goblins will get more splatbook support? Probably! Does that change anything lore wise? Nope! Lore doesn't care about publishing ratios. Also, some non-core options just get weird amounts of focus anyway, like Tieflings and Aasimar.At least according to the D20PFSRD survey, Tieflings and Aasimar are the most commonly played non-core races. And are played more than halflings and gnomes and tieflings are even more common than dwarves. So it makes sense to give them support. They frankly make the most sense as something to bring to core, but maybe they were discouraged by D&D making tieflings core in 4th and 5th and wanted to go their own way. Kitsune and Drow are the next most popular. and then goblins. Ratfolk are just behind goblins, and also make a lot more sense considering they're already core in Starfinder and get along just fine in civilization. I do have a pro-rodent bias though.
Point of order: I think Tieflings and Aasimar are played a lot BECAUSE they received so much content, not the other way around. Both races, but especially the latter, are extremely powerful and flexible. The amount of aasimar I've seen in games is crazy disproportionate to how rare they are supposed to be, and I think it is entirely for optimization reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1a) Except that I was specifically asking about In-The-Setting-As-Something-Observable-To-The-People-Inside-It. Your argument is that it changes lore to move one race from one source to another. You have not shown any evidence of their being lore on "Core Races" as an objective thing in the setting rather than it just being a book describing the content in a different book.
And the races being more expansive and populous are observable to the people inside of it.
2) How does it "not bode well for halflings and gnomes"? Are you suggesting that the only definition you've given for Core races in the setting is invalid? That would mean you should have no issue with Goblin being in core on the basis of that definition then.
Yeah my issue is with hot gluing goblins to the old core races line up. I'm fine with a new core race line up that includes Goblins. Stated this I don't know how many times in this thread but thanks for confirming again you have trouble reading.
3a) "Never claimed it did" ... " I'm claiming that the rules differentiate core races from the others. Because they do." *squints*
Here let me quote the words you tried to put in my mouth, since I'm not certain you understood what you said.
Please show me the mechanical ability or effect that detects what Real-World Source a creature is from.
See the difference between that and "The core races are differentiated between the others"? Probably not.
Can you cite this? I mean, give me a single rule that differentiates core races from everyone else. Or give one line that says people in Golarion know "who the 7 most important races are".
also considered part of the core races because of their close
ties with humanity.
I'm so generous I gave you 2 lines. So in the very least, core races are expansive, populous, and closely tied to humanity. This does not discount Goblins, but it certainly raises questions about halfings and gnomes. Also about why so many other populous or humanity tied races aren't core? Updating the core race line up I'm okay with. Hot gluing goblins on to the old core race line up I'm not.
To be Core, something must be recognizable to the majority of fantasy fans who've never actually played or engaged with D&D and Pathfinder.
That's simply not true, especially not within an established setting.
Kobolds aren't all over the Paizo brand, don't have artwork everywhere, and aren't nearly popular or recognizable enough to be core.
Inconsequential to the setting. Paizo is also pretending that this isn't a marketing ploy, so we have to pretend that artwork and popularity don't effect the decision.
Goblins beat them at every level. Being civilized (more than goblins?), clever, and good at construction (who cares?!?) does not matter.
So no, they don't beat them at every level. And all those qualifies match them to the other core races, who spend their time doing things other than eating babies, torturing puppies, and burning things down. But let's go with Orcs then. Orcs are populous, have expanded out numerous times throughout history, and despite being the stereotypical evil monsters, are still far, far more civilized than Goblins. Because Kobolds are just one of many examples.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you cite this? I mean, give me a single rule that differentiates core races from everyone else. Or give one line that says people in Golarion know "who the 7 most important races are".
Could you define a core race? Because I am getting very confused as to what you think makes a race "core"
There are no rules, per-se, but Paizo put goblins in the "Uncommon" sub-category in basically every relevant supplement. Inner Sea Races gives a good idea of what the categories (Core/Common; Uncommon; Rare) entail, but I quoted the relevant parts here.
Relevant Inner Sea Races Passages
Goblins aren't Common/Core because despite being numerous they're essentially sadistic murder-machines disliked by everyone, basically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the races being more expansive and populous are observable to the people inside of it.
Please respond to the actual questions being asked. I am talking about "Core Race" being a thing in the setting, which you have argued to be true, not whether or not some races have high populations. I'm talking about whether or not people in the setting can say "X is a core race" without breaking the fourth wall? You are claiming that Core Race is an actual Objective Law of Physics in Golarion.
Yeah my issue is with hot gluing goblins to the old core races line up. I'm fine with a new core race line up that includes Goblins. Stated this I don't know how many times in this thread but thanks for confirming again you have trouble reading.
Except I was arguing against the Lore of the world apparently changing just because content was shifted from one book to another, in this case Goblin being moved to a Core Race. Not against you being against or not against "new core race line up that includes goblins".
Here let me quote the words you tried to put in my mouth, since I'm not certain you understood what you said.See the difference between that and "The core races are differentiated between the others"? Probably not.
I see those as being the same since if a rule did differentiate between Core races and non-core races as you suggest it would allow you to determine what is a race from the Core Rulebook as if the core rulebook was some sort of physical objective truth in the setting.
Just like how we can show HP doesn't match up right with the flavour of "Oh I dodged it, and just lost some luck" because that attack that just hit you and cause you to lose HP can also inflict things like injury-based poisons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please respond to the actual questions being asked. I am talking about "Core Race" being a thing in the setting, which you have argued to be true, not whether or not some races have high populations. I'm talking about whether or not people in the setting can say "X is a core race" without breaking the fourth wall? You are claiming that Core Race is an actual Objective Law of Physics in Golarion.
Ask a question that actually concerns my point and I will. But I have not said anything approaching 'Objective law of Physics". As I said, don't bother making up arguments for me. It's an ineffective technique and a waste of time.
Except I was arguing against the Lore of the world apparently changing just because content was shifted from one book to another, in this case Goblin being moved to a Core Race. Not against you being against or not against "new core race line up that includes goblins".
And yet multiple definitions of core have been given that doesn't mention which book they are in. Again, address the topic at hands and stop trying to move the goal post. If you are unable to do this, stop wasting time.
I see those as being the same since if a rule did differentiate between Core races and non-core races as you suggest it would allow you to determine what is a race from the Core Rulebook as if the core rulebook was some sort of physical objective truth in the setting.
We it doesn't, it just means that core races are differentiated from others in an observable effect. The races which are considered core can be changed. But just because they can change doesn't mean any change is acceptable. Where as "Damage doesn't effect your physical status until it's enough to kill you" is an objective and observable truth of the setting. So again, gain reading comprehension.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Lest I be misinterpreted, I promise that this post is entirely sincere and non-sarcastic.)
I gotta say, big thank-you to Corrik for bringing me around to the idea of goblins as a Core ancestry. I was really dubious about the idea at first, but you've managed to convince me that having goblins in Core is a good decision for Pathfinder Second Edition. I'm increasingly looking forward to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corrik, can you just give a definition for what you think makes a race Core? Because you keep changing it. You say it has to match the lore, but then ignore facts showing it does. You say the race has to be "civilized", but can't answer how some of the original 7 races don't match that definition. You say the core races are "observable" as core in world, but don't give reasons or evidence to back that up. By any definition, goblins are already core to Golarion in the lore. But you don't answer that. Instead, you attack other posters' reading comprehension.
But Golarion is not the only thing to consider here. Branding matters. Player opinion matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corrik, can you just give a definition for what you think makes a race Core? Because you keep changing it. You say it has to match the lore, but then ignore facts showing it does. You say the race has to be "civilized", but can't answer how some of the original 7 races don't match that definition. You say the core races are "observable" as core in world, but don't give reasons or evidence to back that up. By any definition, goblins are already core to Golarion in the lore. But you don't answer that. Instead, you attack other posters' reading comprehension.
But Golarion is not the only thing to consider here. Branding matters. Player opinion matters.
There is no strict definition.
Yet whether they be inclusive or standoffish, certain societies always rise to dominance, and such is the case in the Inner Sea region, where humanity is the most populous of all intelligent races, with dwarves, elves, gnomes, half lings, half-elves, and half-orcs being almost as widespread and familiar. So why have these seven races risen to prominence while the others haven’t?
The simple answer is often numbers, as these seven races are far and away the most numerous in the Inner Sea region. Yet often there are other factors at play—boons or faults that eclipse mere birth rate—that allow some cultures to rise while others fall. Each of the so-called “common races” of the Inner Sea region has its own unique strategies or aspects of its personality that has led it to greatness.
This is not to say that they are few in number, though. Orcs, for example, control an entire region in the heart of Avistan—the orcs hordes have ruled the Hold of Belkzen for millennia, and there is no sign that their crushing grip will relent anytime soon. Goblin tribes exist throughout the Inner Sea region, primarily along its coastlines, and as soon as one clan of these violent little maniacs is put down, it seems that two more spring up in its place. The drow rule an empire in the Darklands realm of Sekamina whose scope and reach, were it a surface nation, would stretch to the ends of Avistan itself.
Yet despite their fecundity, the strength of their armies, or the power their individual members wield, these races remain uncommon among most settlements in the Inner Sea region. What holds them back from asserting a more dominant role? Why have they not achieved the same inf luence and spread as the common races? The answers are complex, and different for each of the seven races discussed here.
So Paizo themselves have specifically called Goblins out as unsuitable for core, at least at the time. I've hardly been ignoring facts, other than "But there are a handful of Pathfinder Society NPCs!!1!" If you actually read my posts, I've agreed with many of the stated reasons why Goblins could be considered core. My stance is not that goblins should never be a core race ever, and I do think that some of the core line up only apply due to legacy. I'd be fine with changing up the core races and goblins being included in the new list. Certainly there have been enough major events in the last 20 years of Inner Sea history to shake things up. What I take umbrage with is keeping the old core race line up and only hot gluing Goblins to it. Any argument for them being promoted can easily, and in many cases much more easily, be applied to the others. So why didn't any of them get the PR upgrade and promotion?
Waiving the writer's wand to say that Santa and Godzilla think Goblins are cool(or most any other such scenario) is not a valid answer as literally anything can be made up to justify the decision after the fact. Especially since they are waiting until the last moment to provide an explanation for this oddly singular but still quite major event. Marketing and player perceptions are not my concern, and thus I don't view it as a valid answer for changes to the setting, which is a concern of mine. You may not agree with that, and that's fine, that's why we are having the discussion. It's true I have been somewhat inconsistent, but it's hardly been a consistent discussion. People keep coming in and I'm responding to them. So don't think of my stance as "Why Goblins?", but as "Why only Goblins?". Changes bother me yes, but I'm not entirely adverse to them. And if something is going to be changed, let's have it actually be changed, have it be updated.
(Lest I be misinterpreted, I promise that this post is entirely sincere and non-sarcastic.)
I gotta say, big thank-you to Corrik for bringing me around to the idea of goblins as a Core ancestry. I was really dubious about the idea at first, but you've managed to convince me that having goblins in Core is a good decision for Pathfinder Second Edition. I'm increasingly looking forward to them.
Well I'm glad you found some use out of my ranting.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Paizo themselves have specifically called Goblins out as unsuitable for core, at least at the time.Correct, in 1st Edition they were not a Core Race. In 2e they are.
What I take umbrage with is keeping the old core race line up and only hot gluing Goblins to it.
They were never going to axe any races, so to you, any race they added would be "hot glued". And they decided to add their mascot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never asked for an official definition (if that's what you mean by strict). I asked for your definition, because it seems to continually change. I just can't figure out what you think makes a race "core-worthy", and I think that is something we should be clear on.
The label of "common race" is an entirely arbitrary definition. A definition that isn't even consistent across Paizo products. Inner Sea Races does indeed have goblins as "uncommon". But the Advanced Race Guide has them as "featured". ARG has no "common", but it does have an uncommon. But those definitions are not mechanical. They mean nothing in-setting. There is nothing dividing the core races from everyone else in-setting. You keep saying that goblins are hot-glued on as though they don't belong, or as though if they belong then others do too. But they do belong, and no one else does. You keep calling out Kobolds, but they really make no sense for core. Orcs maybe, but they are not as important and iconic to Paizo and Golarion as goblins, and there is no need to fill the niche that half-orcs already have. To put it another way, if they were to add a bunch of races to core it'd end up being the 8 races that belong and everyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct, in 1st Edition they were not a Core Race. In 2e they are.
Well unfortunately the setting isn't changing, so that's not a viable excuse in and of itself.
They were never going to axe any races, so to you, any race they added would be "hot glued". And they decided to add their mascot.
Is that so? Could you tell me more about what I think? Also, let's not forget that Bulmahn said this wasn't a marketing decision.
I never asked for an official definition (if that's what you mean by strict). I asked for your definition, because it seems to continually change. I just can't figure out what you think makes a race "core-worthy", and I think that is something we should be clear on.
The label of "common race" is an entirely arbitrary definition. A definition that isn't even consistent across Paizo products. Inner Sea Races does indeed have goblins as "uncommon". But the Advanced Race Guide has them as "featured". ARG has no "common", but it does have an uncommon. But those definitions are not mechanical. They mean nothing in-setting. There is nothing dividing the core races from everyone else in-setting. You keep saying that goblins are hot-glued on as though they don't belong, or as though if they belong then others do too. But they do belong, and no one else does. You keep calling out Kobolds, but they really make no sense for core. Orcs maybe, but they are not as important and iconic to Paizo and Golarion as goblins, and there is no need to fill the niche that half-orcs already have. To put it another way, if they were to add a bunch of races to core it'd end up being the 8 races that belong and everyone else.
I don't have an exact definition. It's pieced together from Paizo material and the common aspects of the core races. Paizo doesn't have an exact definition but I'm supposed to? The ARG is system neutral, so that serves you no good as an example. The campaign setting race book specifically calls out Goblins as not being fit for core. But perhaps you could tell me exactly how Goblins "belong, and no one else does." Because that's a pretty far fetched claim to make.
Kobolds make as much sense for core as anything else, and they have more in common with the core races than Goblins do. Orcs are certainly far more important to Golarion than Goblins, who currently have no importance at all. The mechanical "niche" of the half-orcs is irrelevant to the setting.
I'm afraid I'm not seeing much of a point to your post.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct, in 1st Edition they were not a Core Race. In 2e they are.Well unfortunately the setting isn't changing, so that's not a viable excuse in and of itself.
Whether goblins are a core ancestry or not really has no bearing on the setting. PF1 Core Rulebook isn't a setting book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never asked for an official definition (if that's what you mean by strict). I asked for your definition, because it seems to continually change. I just can't figure out what you think makes a race "core-worthy", and I think that is something we should be clear on.
The label of "common race" is an entirely arbitrary definition. A definition that isn't even consistent across Paizo products. Inner Sea Races does indeed have goblins as "uncommon". But the Advanced Race Guide has them as "featured". ARG has no "common", but it does have an uncommon. But those definitions are not mechanical. They mean nothing in-setting. There is nothing dividing the core races from everyone else in-setting. You keep saying that goblins are hot-glued on as though they don't belong, or as though if they belong then others do too. But they do belong, and no one else does. You keep calling out Kobolds, but they really make no sense for core. Orcs maybe, but they are not as important and iconic to Paizo and Golarion as goblins, and there is no need to fill the niche that half-orcs already have. To put it another way, if they were to add a bunch of races to core it'd end up being the 8 races that belong and everyone else.
I don't have an exact definition. It's pieced together from Paizo material and the common aspects of the core races. Paizo doesn't have an exact definition but I'm supposed to? The ARG is system neutral, so that serves you no good as an example. The campaign setting race book specifically calls out Goblins as not being fit for core. But perhaps you could tell me exactly how Goblins "belong, and no one else does." Because that's a pretty far fetched claim to make.
Kobolds make as much sense for core as anything else, and they have more in common with the core races than Goblins do. Orcs are certainly far more important to Golarion than Goblins, who currently have no importance at all. The mechanical "niche" of the half-orcs is irrelevant to the setting.
I'm afraid I'm not seeing much of a point to your post.
I mean, if you're going to have a discussion on whether or not a race should be core, it seems reasonable to define, y' know, what makes a race core material. It's just very difficult to discuss this with you when you don't seem to know why you don't like core goblins other than "it should either be the 7, or the 7 plus a bunch of others". Seems to me like you really don't care at all about the lore. Because the lore demands goblins become a core race.
Yes, the ARG is system neutral. So was the PF1 Core Rulebook. The PF2 CRB is somewhere in between system neutral and a Campaign Setting book. It's an important example because you are leaning on definitions that are arbitrary and inconsistent. "Uncommon" in no way means not being fit for core. It means not core. That's it. Saying goblins can't be core because they were "uncommon" in Inner Sea Races is the same as saying they can't be core because they weren't in PF1. In that case, you are saying "**** the lore, this is the way it's always been!".
OK, I will talk again about how goblins belong in core.
1. They are extremely populous. They are everywhere in Golarion, specifically the Inner Sea.
2. They are important to Golarion's history. Not in a good way, but that is irrelevant. Not that important maybe, but who other than humans is?
3. They are important to the stories Paizo likes to tell.
4. They fill a niche that is currently open in core.
5. They are an extremely recognizable race, both in-industry and out.
6. They are also a race that Paizo has put it's fingerprints on. These are not Tolkien's goblins.
7. They are popular. Many players asked for them in PFS, and they have an entire line of adventures that have introduced people to the hobby.
8. They are marketable. I know Jason didn't care about this, but it matters. Brand recognition is important, and Pathfinder could use some of that.
I understand that some of those are opinion/interpretation based. My opinion is that kobolds fail in all of those but 4. Orcs fail in 4, 6, and 8, and even if they are better in some areas (2), they would be redundant in core. That's a major strike against them. No other race comes close to matching up to goblins, not when you have to actually list the reasoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I never asked for an official definition (if that's what you mean by strict). I asked for your definition, because it seems to continually change. I just can't figure out what you think makes a race "core-worthy", and I think that is something we should be clear on.
The label of "common race" is an entirely arbitrary definition. A definition that isn't even consistent across Paizo products. Inner Sea Races does indeed have goblins as "uncommon". But the Advanced Race Guide has them as "featured". ARG has no "common", but it does have an uncommon. But those definitions are not mechanical. They mean nothing in-setting. There is nothing dividing the core races from everyone else in-setting. You keep saying that goblins are hot-glued on as though they don't belong, or as though if they belong then others do too. But they do belong, and no one else does. You keep calling out Kobolds, but they really make no sense for core. Orcs maybe, but they are not as important and iconic to Paizo and Golarion as goblins, and there is no need to fill the niche that half-orcs already have. To put it another way, if they were to add a bunch of races to core it'd end up being the 8 races that belong and everyone else.
I don't have an exact definition. It's pieced together from Paizo material and the common aspects of the core races. Paizo doesn't have an exact definition but I'm supposed to? The ARG is system neutral, so that serves you no good as an example. The campaign setting race book specifically calls out Goblins as not being fit for core. But perhaps you could tell me exactly how Goblins "belong, and no one else does." Because that's a pretty far fetched claim to make.
Kobolds make as much sense for core as anything else, and they have more in common with the core races than Goblins do. Orcs are certainly far more important to Golarion than Goblins, who currently have no importance at all. The mechanical "niche" of the half-orcs is irrelevant to the setting.
I'm
Then let's stick with the campaign setting definition that Paizo gave, which specifically calls out Goblins as unfit to be considered a core race.
Then you can go back and read my posts to see that I haven't said anything close to "The 7 core races and a bunch of others". The examples I've given have cut the core race list in half, but whatever, actually reading my points isn't important is it?
1: Paizo's official campaign definition for core/common and uncommon specifically states that population is not the main determining factor. So this point doesn't go far.
2: How so? Specific, in setting reasons please.
3: How so? Specific, in setting reasons please.
4: What niche? And how could other races not fill it? Also, how does a mechanical niche play in to a setting explanation?
5: So are a lot of races, but meta is not an setting explanation.
6: This is true, but they did a few backflips explaining how the "Core Race" goblins are not the same murder monkeys people think of. So this point doesn't go far.
7: Again, so are several races. According to this poll they aren't even close to the most popular race. So that sounds like a justification for another race to be promoted to core, not Goblin.
8: Meta reasons don't matter for the setting explanation.
Really failing to see how "the lore demands goblins become a core race". Please provide actual examples rather than making outrageous claims.
Whether goblins are a core ancestry or not really has no bearing on the setting. PF1 Core Rulebook isn't a setting book.
Paizo has stated numerous times that the setting will be more closely tied to the rules, so I'm not sure that's true. If the 2E campaign setting book comes out and doesn't list Goblins as a core/common race, I'll happily eat crow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then let's stick with the campaign setting definition that Paizo gave, which specifically calls out Goblins as unfit to be considered a core race.
That seems to be "most common people have met one". Or did you get a different definition from the quotes you pulled?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the lore demands goblins become a core race.
I was following you until you got to that point. I don't think the lore demands or forbids anything towards the content of core. We can make grand theories on the basis of quotes from the ISG, but those quotes read as fairly arbitrary classification, and/or after the fact justification. I don't think we can take those quotes as some sort of holy text that would drive the definition of races for ever and ever, even less so in the midst of an edition update.
As far as I can understand, the contents of the Core Rulebook needs to be not more and not less than what is necessary for the great majority of players to fully enjoy the game, subject only to space constraints... and that's about it. I don't see why it should be lore-driven. Anyway, the CRB doesn't equate the Golarion setting, even if it's said to be "more closely tied" to is, a statement that can be interpreted any number of ways.
So the CRB should include just enough races (ancestries), classes, spells, feats, skills, etc, to be able to tell any kind of fantasy story, allowing enough breadth and diversity of characters for any group to enjoy the game for years.
So if someone questions the choice of the goblin as an addition to Core, I think the relevant question isn't about justifications based on lore, but about whether or not this addition makes the game more or less enjoyable to players, and why.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then let's stick with the campaign setting definition that Paizo gave, which specifically calls out Goblins as unfit to be considered a core race.That seems to be "most common people have met one". Or did you get a different definition from the quotes you pulled?
"familiar faces in most major cities around the Inner Sea."
Also, it would be more fair to say that most common people have been attacked by Goblins rather than having 'met' one. Your average commoner has certainly not sat down for a discussion with a goblin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By now I want Goblins as core race just to see corrik gettin his jimmies rustled
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pallys of any alignment and nobody cares about the lore change, but make gobos a core race and suddenly everyone looses their damn minds!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how in God's name is this such a contentious thing?
10+ years of telling us goblins are diseased, baby eating, pyromaniac dog killers...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pallys of any alignment and nobody cares about the lore change, but make gobos a core race and suddenly everyone looses their damn minds!
You must have somehow missed every Paladin thread I have seen this year . . . .
{. . .} Goblins getting hot-glued {. . .}
And now I have this vision of Goblins becoming Core because of a prank involving heat glue in a seat intended for someone else, that a Goblin sat in unwittingly, thus ending up with a seat at what was supposed to have been the Core 7 Summit . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then let's stick with the campaign setting definition that Paizo gave, which specifically calls out Goblins as unfit to be considered a core race.
Then you can go back and read my posts to see that I haven't said anything close to "The 7 core races and a bunch of others". The examples I've given have cut the core race list in half, but whatever, actually reading my points isn't important is it?
1: Paizo's official campaign definition for core/common and uncommon specifically states that population is not the main determining factor. So this point doesn't go far.
2: How so? Specific, in setting reasons please.
3: How so? Specific, in setting reasons please.
4: What niche? And how could other races not fill it? Also, how does a mechanical niche play in to a setting explanation?
5: So are a lot of races, but meta is not an setting explanation.
6: This is true, but they did a few backflips explaining how the "Core Race" goblins are not the same murder monkeys people think of. So this point doesn't go far.
7: Again, so are several races. According to this poll they aren't even close to the most popular race. So that sounds like a justification for another race to be promoted to core, not Goblin.
8: Meta reasons don't matter for the setting explanation.Really failing to see how "the lore demands goblins become a core race". Please provide actual examples rather than making outrageous claims.
Again you are avoiding actually giving reasons for your opinion. It gives you license to say you care about the lore, then ignore the lore entirely. You keep giving reasons for what makes something core, then when it's pointed out that goblins fit that you can wiggle away from what you said.
So far the "Paizo calls out Goblins as unfit for core" claim is entirely unfounded. Let's try and give citations when we speak for Paizo.
Again with the reading comprehension bit! Maybe you've given examples of cutting down the core races earlier, but that certainly hasn't been what you are talking about here, with all of this "hot-glue" stuff. Because "the 7 core races, or the 7 plus a bunch" is exactly what you've been saying.
So don't think of my stance as "Why Goblins?", but as "Why only Goblins?"
Can't get away from that one.
1. I never said it was the main factor. But it is a factor, and one you bring up for the other core races.
2. Well, it's been made clear (partly by you) that they are known all over the Inner Sea. Is widespread infamy not enough for you?
3. They fill the role of cute but evil monsters better than anything else. That's why they show up as NPC's all the time. That's why they have an entire line of adventures just for them.
4. Again, cute but evil. They are the "renegade monster", like the half-orc but with a different vibe.
5. Name one race, other than orc, that fits this point as well as goblins. And this point is very important. Probably the most important on this list.
6. Not sure of your point here? The majority of goblins are still murder-monkeys, it's just they're murder-monkeys that are unique to Paizo. Again very important. Turns out, some goblins can be evil murder-monkeys, while others are neutral mayhem-monkeys! Races don't have to be uniform.
7. Agreed that there are several races that are popular. But goblins are up there with any of the others, and there are very good reasons why those others don't belong in core. Your link doesn't work, so I can't address that. But popularity isn't everything. In fact, in this example it's one of 8 ;)
8. See below
Goblins are one of the most well-known races in the Inner Sea. They've shaped human culture by following them around for millenia, and have taken part in important wars. If they don't belong in Core, then neither does anyone but humans. Orcs, Elves, and Dwarves are the only races that match the importance of goblins in-setting. Halflings and Gnomes certainly don't make that cut. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs aren't even close.
But setting isn't everything. My points were not limited to setting, nor should they have been. Paizo has to make business decisions too. They have to make a game that will bring new players in, a game that is easily recognizable to people outside the industry. Goblins help with that in a big way. You might be able to armchair quarterback Paizo's decisions, but they have to actually be profitable. They have to consider the big picture. The core rulebook should fit in with Golarion (and it will, once goblins are in), but you can play Pathfinder somewhere other than Golarion! *Gasp, I know it's true though! It has to be made for those people too.
That said, I don't think you actually care about the setting. You won't tell me what you care about except that you're unhappy. That's why I think you really just don't like goblins. Which is ironic, because I actually think that's a valid reason to not want them in core ;)
then again it was stated there would be some event in Golarion that would make Goblins socially acceptable.
Indeed, it was. This might have been a mistake on Paizo's part, though. Or at least, it did nothing to placate the opposition, quite the contrary.
To the argument "It a game." its missing the point of the thread and after this much argumentation just bait.
Well, I think the point of the thread is that a number of folks deeply hate the idea of a major evolution in the goblins' place in Golarion's lore. I could be mistaken, though.
|
|
then again it was stated there would be some event in Golarion that would make Goblins socially acceptable.Indeed, it was. This might have been a mistake on Paizo's part, though. Or at least, it did nothing to placate the opposition, quite the contrary.
Having seen the arguments before they made this statement, I'd say the total number of people being upset has actually gone down a fair bit since they said this (and, to be pedantic, they said it will make them more acceptable than they are, not universally acceptable overnight or something like that). The remaining people are just very fervent, and no explanation was ever gonna satisfy everyone.
Again you are avoiding actually giving reasons for your opinion. It gives you license to say you care about the lore, then ignore the lore entirely. You keep giving reasons for what makes something core, then when it's pointed out that goblins fit that you can wiggle away from what you said.
Because the goal post is back over that way. Plus it seems to me that you're the one avoiding the actual lore stated by Paizo, then listing unfounded opinions as fact.
So far the "Paizo calls out Goblins as unfit for core" claim is entirely unfounded. Let's try and give citations when we speak for Paizo.
Yet despite their fecundity, the strength of their armies, or the power their individual members wield, these races remain uncommon among most settlements in the Inner Sea region. What holds them back from asserting a more dominant role? Why have they not achieved the same inf luence and spread as the common races? The answers are complex, and different for each of the seven races discussed here.
I know reading is hard so I pointed out the relevant parts for you.
Again with the reading comprehension bit! Maybe you've given examples of cutting down the core races earlier, but that certainly hasn't been what you are talking about here, with all of this "hot-glue" stuff. Because "the 7 core races, or the 7 plus a bunch" is exactly what you've been saying.
No I haven't. But please feel free to quote exactly where I said "7 plus a bunch". Because "why only goblins" in no way means "The 7 plus a bunch". Did you really think you had yourself a zinger there?
1. It's a factor, but not a main determining one. Which is why it doesn't go far, which is what I said.
2. I think you are confused. You said they are important to Golarion's history, not that they are infamous. I also asked for specific examples, so please provide them.
3. I think you are confused. You said they are important to the stories Paizo likes to tell, not that they are cute. Cute monsters are hardly important to their story telling, and there are other monsters that can easily fill the role. I also asked for specific examples, so please provide them.
4. Cute but evil is not a niche of the core races, and the 2e core Goblins are specifically less evil and torture happy than their normal counter parts. So how does this point help your argument?
5. No I'll name the Orc. Now tell me how meta popularity is an answer for an in setting change? Because this is not an important point. Now, if you have an argument for why it is, instead of just stating it as such, I'd be happy to read it.
6. Meaning the goblins that Paizo has their fingerprints all over are the puppy torturing murder monkeys. Which if you actually read the blog post, you would know the 2e core version are specifically not that. Meaning you don't have a point here.
7. They are up there with several others, but please explain the "very good reasons" why they don't belong in core.
8. Again, give reasons and specific examples. Simply stating Goblins are important again and again doesn't make it so. And again, Paizo themselves have stated this is not a marketing decision, so that point holds no water.
Halflings and Gnomes certainly don't make that cut. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs aren't even close.
Wow, it's almost like I've made that point as an example for why the core race lineup should be updated instead of simply hot gluing goblins to it. Have you read my posts?
That's why I think you really just don't like goblins.
Because it sure seems like you haven't actually read any of my posts, or at least you are unable to comprehend them. Here are a few examples for you:
Actually I'm fine with Goblins as a playable race, and I've stated that numerous times.
1. I don't care about goblins as a player option, I care about them being a core race.
For example, goblins as a playable race or a new core race line up that includes goblins are not a problem. Hot gluing goblins to the old core race line up is a problem.
Part of my issue with that shift is that there aren't any others to go along with it. They aren't mixing up the core races, they are tacking Goblin on to them. Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfing, Human, Kobold, Goblin, Orc or similar combination would be more palatable.
So please, please, please tell me more about how I feel.
Now then, can you back up any of your points or is this the limit of your arguing ability?
Pallys of any alignment and nobody cares about the lore change, but make gobos a core race and suddenly everyone looses their damn minds!
Yeah people lost their minds about Paladins, on both sides. They never unlocked the Paladin blog. A couple of points though. First, Paladins are no longer spell casters so the lore has already changed. Might as well put in some updates while they are at it. Secondly, as much as I dislike inorganic changes to the lore, I'd rather have Godzilla declare there to be Paladins of other alignments then have to spend yet another decade arguing about them.
|
|
What holds them back from asserting a more dominant role? Why have they not achieved the same influence and spread as the common races? The answers are complex, and different for each of the seven races discussed here.
Those are not impossible questions for Paizo to answer and address over the next year. It's entirely plausible for goblins to be core in PF2.
What holds them back from asserting a more dominant role? Why have they not achieved the same influence and spread as the common races? The answers are complex, and different for each of the seven races discussed here.Those are not impossible questions for Paizo to answer and address over the next year. It's entirely plausible for goblins to be core in PF2.
I'm aware they can come up with any handwavium they like. The question is if their explanation will be an organic and satisfying change to the setting. Godzilla traveled back in time and made some of the Goblins good isn't much of an explanation, but a possible one in the setting. Waiting until the last possible moment to provide an explanation doesn't give me much hope. Neither did their back peddling of "no one said overnight, it's just a major, singular event that shifts a culture in less than a decade". Let us also not forget that Bulmahn stated "Being able to prove people's misconceptions wrong is a character story worth telling". Which is frankly an overdone story well covered by Half-Orcs, Tieflings, and plenty of other races. Heck, it can be done by playing a serious Gnome. All of which feels like justifications for a marketing decision, not explanations for an organic change. But of course Bulmahn said it wasn't a marketing decision.
An even larger question is will their explanation provide a reason for no other races getting a similar treatment? Because as I've gone over, plenty of the reasoning for Goblins being core can easily be applied to other races. Gnomes and Halfings mostly qualify for core due to legacy. What have they done to retain the core status? Half-elves and Half-orcs are definitely artifacts of legacy, and could easily be folded in to other ancestries.
"It's been 20 years from 1E to 2E release and a LOT has gone down, the core race line up looks different" is much more palatable than "Things are the same except for Goblins."
I am pretty sure it will only take a story about a good goblin (let's call him Grittz) who is rebelling against the sexy goblin priestesses of the newly sexy goblin goddess* who redefines a class (hey, didn't alchemist get an upgrade to core? hmmm.) At the end of the story, goblins will be clearly core (or at least humans, elves, dwarves, etc. will have to ask "are you Grittz?" before attacking any lone goblin they meet).
* The makeover involved here is the "in story" reason for the second edition.
Sorry forgot the most important part, Grittz will have a statue of a mountain lion that turns into a real mountain lion called Hominy.
Except we already know there are a handful of exceptions, that doesn't justify a promotion to Core. Plus that confirms that in ALL the APs and modules there wasn't a single hero from one of the other non-core races. Which I frankly don't buy. Especially if Goblin's popularity among players is being used as a justification for core promotion as the popularity of other races would have to be taken in to account.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Half-elves and Half-orcs are definitely artifacts of legacy, and could easily be folded in to other ancestries.
Not in the slightest.
Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are their own thing, people like them, people play them, and they're major part of the setting (and many others), so outright erasing them is completely out of the question.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It's been 20 years from 1E to 2E release and a LOT has gone down, the core race line up looks different" is much more palatable than "Things are the same except for Goblins."
It's been 12 years and a lot has gone down, that effects lots of stuff in the setting. Goblins happen to be the only one of those things that effects the Core Ancestry lineup, but it's hardly the only event that's changed the world.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except we already know there are a handful of exceptions, that doesn't justify a promotion to Core.
There is nothing to "justify". The Designers want to do more stuff with Goblins, that's it, end of story.
Core is not some specific special thing, in world or out. It just means it's in the Core Rulebook. That is literally it.