101 Solutions to the "Goblin Baby Problem"


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 354 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

92. Hire them as mercenaries.


93. Recruit them into the service of Asmodeus.


94) Part of your disguise


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rabbiteconomist wrote:
94) Part of your disguise

Would that involve skinning them and making them into a goblin suit, or would that involve taping them to you, and pretending you are a baby goblin swarm?

Icyshadow wrote:
Raising the goblins could very well be done in a setting like Kingmaker, where there are long downtime periods between some adventures. I guess the vitriolic responses just go to show how narrowminded some folks can be.

Well, the phrase 'baby goblins' is used, predominantly, on this board as an example of a moral problem presented by GMs in campaigns where the party clearly cannot spend that kind of time (racing to search for a hidden artifact before Dr. EVIL does).

It is often used in 'paladin falls' threads as well, since the issue can vary wildly depending on interpretation and the assumption of inborn evil by either the player of GM. If the player assumes and the GM doesn't, then the paladin falls because they killed an innocent creature. If the GM assumes inborn evil and the player doesn't, the the paladin falls because they let an evil creature go away to threaten innocents in the future. If the GM is out to get the paladin, then there is no win scenario.

In both cases, the players feel attacked, and they come to resent that. Thus, they lash out.

Also, this is fun. Again, the gods award style points.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

95) Kill them - stuff them - and start a new trend in toys just in time for Christmas.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

96. 96 goblin babies not on the wall, 96 goblin babies
Throw the ninety-sixth, see if it sticks
95 goblin babies not on the wall


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Raising the goblins could very well be done in a setting like Kingmaker, where there are long downtime periods between some adventures. I guess the vitriolic responses just go to show how narrowminded some folks can be.

In some games it could work. Preferably when it's something the players talked about wanting to do.

In most games you won't have that kind of downtime. Most likely is a cliched moral dilemma forced on you by a GM who's got no idea how to do interesting RP.

Or just as likely one who thinks it's only realistic for there to be babies in the goblin village and thinks it would be horrible for you to hurt them, despite having set it up as heroic for you to slaughter every adult goblin - no survivors, no one tries to flee, everyone just attacks you in suicidal waves, even the older children. Otherwise, why would the helpless babies be the only survivors?

And it really, really isn't playable. And I think Icyshadow knows all of this already and is just trolling.

The goblin baby problem is, at its core, yet another facet of the infinite gem-turd of alignment threads. So we respond with sarcastic humor and baby-chucks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
And I think Icyshadow knows all of this already and is just trolling.

All I know is that there are a lot of people who have sat at the DM's side of the table and failed to do anything else except make players hate such scenarios. If the mere mention of possibly using that same situation and making it actually fun for the players counts as trolling, then I sadly wouldn't know what to tell you folks. It simply hasn't been the kind of thing that has turned out that way in the tables I've played in, so the only conclusion I can come to is that whoever you played with were less than adequate at doing their thing, assuming they played characters of Good alignment.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

97. 97 goblin babies not on the wall
97 goblin babies
Throw the ninety-seven, then throw eleven
86 goblin babies okay we f~#%ed up the song.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
boring7 wrote:
And I think Icyshadow knows all of this already and is just trolling.
All I know is that there are a lot of people who have sat at the DM's side of the table and failed to do anything else except make players hate such scenarios. If the mere mention of possibly using that same situation and making it actually fun for the players counts as trolling, then I sadly wouldn't know what to tell you folks. It simply hasn't been the kind of thing that has turned out that way in the tables I've played in, so the only conclusion I can come to is that whoever you played with were less than adequate at doing their thing, assuming they played characters of Good alignment.

Honestly, I've never come across it other than as a hypothetical or in someone else's complaints online.

I'll accept that it's theoretically possible to make it a fun part of a game, but I'd be deeply suspicious of any GM I didn't really trust who sprang it on me in game.

I still find it hard to imagine a reasonable situation in which the best option is to take the kids and raise them - at least a situation that wasn't highly contrived.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
The goblin baby problem is, at its core, yet another facet of the infinite gem-turd of alignment threads. So we respond with sarcastic humor and baby-chucks.

Baby-chucks? Is that anything like sword-chucks?

Hmmm, we could give the goblin baby-chucks swords...


8 people marked this as a favorite.

98. Kill their parents in front of them, then leave. Rehearse your super villain gimmick while waiting for one of them to grow up and become Batgoblin.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

99. Force them to compile errata for the ACG. Take the alignment shift to Evilest Evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

100. Openly ponder W.W.G.P.D. in this situation.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

101. Raise them, carefully cultivating their self-control while simultaneously keeping their pyromania. Secretly unleash on city. Offer firefighting insurance in the aftermath.

102. Raise them, carefully cultivating a love of science while simultaneously keeping their fascination with setting things on fire. When they're fully-grown pair them up, giving each pair a pair of glasses and a beret, and have them go out and prove or disprove wild stories using explosives.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
102. Raise them, carefully cultivating a love of science while simultaneously keeping their fascination with setting things on fire. When they're fully-grown pair them up, giving each pair a pair of glasses and a beret, and have them go out and prove or disprove wild stories using explosives.

Only one should have a beret or the whole thing will go horribly wrong!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

103. Cook People Hex. Goblins make great Gingerbread cookies - that can neutralize poison, cure disease and even buffs too!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:

I also want to point out that the ARG has Goblins as a playable race,

Alignment and Religion: Goblins are greedy, capricious, and destructive by nature, and thus most are neutral or chaotic evil.

I'm assuming they meant to write "most are neutral evil or chaotic evil." Even so, like all playable races, you can be of any alignment. Maybe even a Goblin Paladin. What would he do when came upon a bunch of baby goblins?

And knowing the odds, you still lose alignment for killing one of the few good goblins in existence. Congratulations, you just increased the evil percentage of the goblinoid species by a percentage. Now that goblin will come back as a meaner goblin and burn down a village. The universe is a scale, and the heroes are what keeps the universe from ultimately flipping one way or the other. If there is too much good, heroes don't do their jobs and go stir crazy. Too much evil, and the forces of darkness end up killing each other, decreasing the amount of evil to good ratio. Basically, if you are going to kill a baby goblin, or Orc or Drow, remember that alignment is something you need to check first, also goblin babies are not the most destructive evils to ever plague the world. That would be the people turning to universal destruction because of reasons. Even demons hate those guys-and they are normally as evil as they come.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

104. Keep them and raise them. Nurture their destructive tendencies, but give them direction in doing so, and soon you'll have some nice, well-adjusted, fully functioning murder hobos adventurers.


105. Feed them to bears, because the circle of life and all that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
boring7 wrote:
The goblin baby problem is, at its core, yet another facet of the infinite gem-turd of alignment threads. So we respond with sarcastic humor and baby-chucks.

Baby-chucks? Is that anything like sword-chucks?

Hmmm, we could give the goblin baby-chucks swords...

Wait, did someone call me?

Dark Archive

106. Purchase siege engines. Train goblins to operate siege engines. Besiege random cities with your goblin siege army for fun and profit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

106. Purchase siege engines. Train goblins to operate siege engines. Besiege random cities with your goblin siege army for fun and profit.

107. Purchase siege engines. See what noise they make when they splat against castle walls.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Final Answer: Mikaze.


TOZ wrote:
Final Answer: Mikaze.

What? Does she pay a high price for goblin veal?

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblins babies are in cages as a general rule of goblin tribes.

108.Take the babies home and give them love, attention, and training to become eventually the perfect compilation of classes, then unleash the hijinks of goblin cavaliers, brawlers, rogues, wizards and all other classes unto the world. Fingers crossed, we can get at least one great evil humiliatingly defeated for every 2 villages they attempted to burn down.

And if they actually do succeed in taking down a real big bad, I want them to have many loveably ugly goblin babies to plague the forces of darkness or light for years to come. And if it goes terribly, at least I tried.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do you really even have to slaughter the whole village, can't you just amazon prime them a gross of alchemist fires and let nature take it's course?


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Do you really even have to slaughter the whole village, can't you just amazon prime them a gross of alchemist fires and let nature take it's course?

Not all of them are that stupid. At least one of them can use those vials.


The "10 things about goblins" list specifies that they are RELATIVELY aware of fire safety in regards to their own homes, it's other people's houses they love to burn. To be sure, there can be in-tribe squabbles that lead to entire villages burning, but superior breeding rates and the fact that goblins live on garbage means most will simply flee in terror from the conflagration and survive to rebuild (as much as goblins build) and repopulate.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

108 - If the campaign uses rules for redemption, try to redeem them by having them raised in a society of good. Their chaotic scrap yard collecting and natural ability to create serviceable gear from rubbish may be useful somewhere.

109 - If the campaign is not using redemption rules, kill them before they can grow to be a threat to your settlements. In a world where alignment is absolute (as it is in Golarion), they are born evil and will stay evil. Nothing can stray that course if redemption is not in play (or some homebrew version of it).In this type of world, Goblins are likely to be seen as a dangerous form of pest species like rats or snakes. People kill them without thought and may even use techniques like gassing their lairs or poisoning foods to keep their numbers down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
109 - If the campaign is not using redemption rules, kill them before they can grow to be a threat to your settlements. In a world where alignment is absolute (as it is in Golarion), they are born evil and will stay evil. Nothing can stray that course if redemption is not in play (or some homebrew version of it). In this type of world, Goblins are likely to be seen as a dangerous form of pest species like rats or snakes. People kill them without thought and may even use techniques like gassing their lairs or poisoning foods to keep their numbers down.

And which book was this stated in? If that was true in Golarion, then Sarenrae's redemption aspect is basically useless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
102. Raise them, carefully cultivating a love of science while simultaneously keeping their fascination with setting things on fire. When they're fully-grown pair them up, giving each pair a pair of glasses and a beret, and have them go out and prove or disprove wild stories using explosives.
Only one should have a beret or the whole thing will go horribly wrong!

This is why I hate language: it's supposed to be a pair of glasses and a beret per pair, as in one of each per pair. The language needs to evolve till that's clear (then again language mishaps are one of the few forms of humor that isn't going to offend someone).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Wrath wrote:
109 - If the campaign is not using redemption rules, kill them before they can grow to be a threat to your settlements. In a world where alignment is absolute (as it is in Golarion), they are born evil and will stay evil. Nothing can stray that course if redemption is not in play (or some homebrew version of it). In this type of world, Goblins are likely to be seen as a dangerous form of pest species like rats or snakes. People kill them without thought and may even use techniques like gassing their lairs or poisoning foods to keep their numbers down.
And which book was this stated in? If that was true in Golarion, then Sarenrae's redemption aspect is basically useless.

I think there's a distinction between "absolute" and "immutable" there. Absolute meaning the objective nature of good and evil, I think.

It's not clear to me either. Nor am I sure why you'd need "redemption rules", rather than just accepting that creatures and people can change and handling it ad hoc.

OTOH, given the presentation of goblins in nearly every module or other adventure, I find it hard to believe people wouldn't treat them like a dangerous pest species, whether or not they were theoretically "always evil" or not.
If you grew up near the village of not-evil goblins, you'd have a different approach of course, but with the overwhelming majority being dangerous little pyromaniacal psychopaths, it's hard to see what else would happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

110. Find exactly as many kobold hatchlings as you have goblin babies. THUNDERDOME.

Sovereign Court

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
102. Raise them, carefully cultivating a love of science while simultaneously keeping their fascination with setting things on fire. When they're fully-grown pair them up, giving each pair a pair of glasses and a beret, and have them go out and prove or disprove wild stories using explosives.
Only one should have a beret or the whole thing will go horribly wrong!
This is why I hate language: it's supposed to be a pair of glasses and a beret per pair, as in one of each per pair. The language needs to evolve till that's clear (then again language mishaps are one of the few forms of humor that isn't going to offend someone).

Meh - you can speak/write in ways to avoid such mishaps (ex - "giving each pair of goblins a single pair of glasses and one beret") - but then it feels awkward, hackneyed, and just over-explained.

I knew precisely what you meant. I just enjoy puns & plays on words etc.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Probably poor word choice on my part really.

Golarion works based on alignment. It is so strong that spells work against it. The entry for creatures states their alignment. Some of them say "any" or "mostly" in which case go for it in terms of changing their alignment.

Others say "evil", for example. Which means that race is evil. You can change it if you want, but then that's introducing your version of redemption.

I guess Sarenraes redemption domain helps with those who's alignment falls under "mostly" or "any"

This comes from reading many posts from James Jacobs, the creative director of Paizo, and the man most responsible for building Golarion. Of course, he also prefaces his statements with things like " your game, do what you want".

All of that explains why I typed my post originally. However, to stop debate, let me retract the bit about Golarion and re iterate the intent of my two points.

108- if in your campaign alignments can freely shift then try to raise babies as good.

109 - if in your campaign alignments are immutable for most creatures, then kill before being killed.

For those stating its a dodgy move by DMs, I believe the first ever module for the first AP set in Golarion had goblin babies in cages that you stumble across. You also come across a harem of goblin women.

However, I'll have to check that as it may be my memory playing up and merging modules from my past.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Probably poor word choice on my part really.

Golarion works based on alignment. It is so strong that spells work against it. The entry for creatures states their alignment. Some of them say "any" or "mostly" in which case go for it in terms of changing their alignment.

Others say "evil", for example. Which means that race is evil. You can change it if you want, but then that's introducing your version of redemption.

I guess Sarenraes redemption domain helps with those who's alignment falls under "mostly" or "any"

This comes from reading many posts from James Jacobs, the creative director of Paizo, and the man most responsible for building Golarion. Of course, he also prefaces his statements with things like " your game, do what you want".

All of that explains why I typed my post originally. However, to stop debate, let me retract the bit about Golarion and re iterate the intent of my two points.

108- if in your campaign alignments can freely shift then try to raise babies as good.

109 - if in your campaign alignments are immutable for most creatures, then kill before being killed.

For those stating its a dodgy move by DMs, I believe the first ever module for the first AP set in Golarion had goblin babies in cages that you stumble across. You also come across a harem of goblin women.

However, I'll have to check that as it may be my memory playing up and merging modules from my past.

It did. I think it was a dodgy move then. Though again, it's quite possible to play that module in a way that doesn't involve slaughtering every last adult goblin and thus avoid the problem.

There may have also been a note about the babies being optional.

OTOH, it's really hard to look at that portrayal of goblins and expect players or PCs to think: "These are sapient beings like any other intelligent life and are deserving of the same consideration and respect." Each and every goblin is a "dangerous little pyromaniacal psychopath" and there's no hint that anything else is possible or expected.

The Exchange

@thejeff yeah I just checked. While you find a nursery, having babies actually there is optional.

I thought of it as more realistic since you're fighting an entire tribe. Also, it tied into the gritty feel of that AP and Golarions direction at that time. This is the same AP that gave us hook mountain ogres and the Grauls.

When I run my home games, I don't bother with moral quandaries like that. My players aren't interested to be honest.

My two points are just nice ways for players to think about their campaign world really. If a Paladin was in the second situation, he'd kill the babies, but do it as humanely as possible. No moral quandary.

In the first situation, he may have to defend the babies against racial prejudice etc. it provides a roleplay opportunity rather than a dodgy move by DM. Some groups may like that.

It also may be affected by their code. Paladins of Torag are pretty vicious against enemies of the dwarves if you use the code from the deity books. You've got more chance of falling from grace by not killing them in that case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

@thejeff yeah I just checked. While you find a nursery, having babies actually there is optional.

I thought of it as more realistic since you're fighting an entire tribe. Also, it tied into the gritty feel of that AP and Golarions direction at that time. This is the same AP that gave us hook mountain ogres and the Grauls.

When I run my home games, I don't bother with moral quandaries like that. My players aren't interested to be honest.

My two points are just nice ways for players to think about their campaign world really. If a Paladin was in the second situation, he'd kill the babies, but do it as humanely as possible. No moral quandary.

In the first situation, he may have to defend the babies against racial prejudice etc. it provides a roleplay opportunity rather than a dodgy move by DM. Some groups may like that.

It also may be affected by their code. Paladins of Torag are pretty vicious against enemies of the dwarves if you use the code from the deity books. You've got more chance of falling from grace by not killing them in that case.

It makes sense they'd have babies (and somewhat older children and old people and other non-combatants) there. You're fighting the entire tribe, but that doesn't mean, even in the grittiest world, that they'd all fight to the death and not even try to escape or get the noncombatants out.

And frankly there's a massive tone shift if you make moral use of that nursery: Goblins have been portrayal all along as dangerous comic relief villains. Psychotic but incompetent. Not actually like real people making moral choices. If you really take the goblin babies in cages seriously as a moral issue, the only good thing to do is not only to rescue these babies and raise them to be non-psychotic people, but to war on other goblin tribes to rescue their innocent babies from the horrific abuse that turns them into the psychopathic adults.
That's a long way from comic relief.

More generally, if you want them to be treated as real people with moral choices to make, you've got to portray them as real people with moral choices to make, not as monsters. PF goblins are monsters.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thejeff - spoiler ing this just to try and avoid a thread derail with a wall of text.

Spoiler:
I think the tone of goblins has changed in Pathfinder since those days to be honest. Now days we think of them as comic relief, thanks in most part to the artwork used on this website and the modules like here be goblins.

When Runelords was first released though (not the anniversary edition) goblins were chaotic evil creatures of destruction with no though for anything but killing what scared them and eating everything else. It's mentioned in those books that they steal babies from farmsteads to eat. There's a scene after the first raid where a goblin slits the throat of a father and eats his face and upper body.

The entire fight at the goblin base shows how much they will fight to kill humans and defend a home. Even though there was a rift in leadership between the Druid and the goblin war chief, when the adventurers come, it's all about kill kill kill.

They lock their children in cages and force them to fight for food in order for them to grow up tough enough.

The stats for the women in the harem are presented as warriors of first level. They fight viciously to the death in their own home.

The problem I see is that folk think of them in terms of human emotions and thoughts when these are clearly not humans at all.

As originally presented, goblins are pure chaotic evil with no interest in protecting the weaker of their tribes or getting them out to safety.

Now kobolds, they are different in how they've been presented. Much smarter, much more willing to work with others and negotiate.

If you want a real moral quandary, come across a clutch of Kobold eggs being tended by a young Kobold shepherd.

Mind you, they actually did that in Age of Worms with lizard men and Kobold eggs. It didn't end so well there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Thejeff - spoiler ing this just to try and avoid a thread derail with a wall of text.

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Even then they were comic relief though. The songs. The suggested distractions and mishaps in the initial attack on the fair.

The problem as I see it is that they're presented as dangerous little pyromaniacal psychopaths, but you're supposed to react to the babies as innocents. Every single adult fights to the death against you. They're all stupid and crazy. But you have to save their kids.

As I said, if the kids really are just abused innocents capable of becoming sane adults if raised outside the horror, it becomes justifiable and even morally right to attack goblin villages for the express purpose of rescuing their kids from the horrific abuse.

On the other hand, if that's just how goblins are and being raised in cages isn't abuse and doesn't affect how crazy they turn out, then they're just monsters, not redeemable beings capable of moral choices.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*sniff* Zizel remember cage sister. She was cowering with me when the soldiers found us. *Sniff*

The sword went through her, she squeaked and then gurgled. I was so scared. I closed my eyes, waiting for it to come my way as I heard it being takin' back.

"There, there. Your safe with me now. Safe with Amonima."

They said horrible things, that I was a halfling! A half wit halfling!! They dragged me out of the little hole we was in, and shackled me, led me to this awful place with it's walls and hallways.

"You will get used to them, Zizel. Hush, hold on to me and relax..."

Why? Why the babies? Why....

Scarab Sages

Wrath wrote: wrote:
109 - If the campaign is not using redemption rules, kill them before they can grow to be a threat to your settlements. In a world where alignment is absolute (as it is in Golarion), they are born evil and will stay evil. Nothing can stray that course if redemption is not in play (or some homebrew version of it).In this type of world, Goblins are likely to be seen as a dangerous form of pest species like rats or snakes. People kill them without thought and may even use techniques like gassing their lairs or poisoning foods to keep their numbers down.

A series of questions for such a world as bolded above:

1) Are paladins born LG or can one make a decision and become LG?
2) Paladins are born LG, is it then impossible for them to fall?
3) Are all their acts good by definition?

If any of the answers are yesses, it seems like a world with very limited storytelling power (not just for lack of falling paladins, but for the implications for personal growth/tragedy).

If the answer to 1 is no:
a) Should you wear hard hats in case of falling paladins?
b) Why doesn't it apply to other sentients?


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
b) Why doesn't it apply to other sentients?

I can actually answer this one.

Differing values for "sentience" and a differing concept (and application) of "free will".

That said, such worlds - i.e. worlds where sentient creatures are "always evil", unless they are a physical representation thereof (and even then) - is not particularly the kind I enjoy, for the most part.

In other words, even though it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might not actually be a duck (and similarly, in that same link, even though it's a duck, it might not "quack like a duck" <wood duck, man: you so crazy>).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Wrath wrote: wrote:
109 - If the campaign is not using redemption rules, kill them before they can grow to be a threat to your settlements. In a world where alignment is absolute (as it is in Golarion), they are born evil and will stay evil. Nothing can stray that course if redemption is not in play (or some homebrew version of it).In this type of world, Goblins are likely to be seen as a dangerous form of pest species like rats or snakes. People kill them without thought and may even use techniques like gassing their lairs or poisoning foods to keep their numbers down.

A series of questions for such a world as bolded above:

1) Are paladins born LG or can one make a decision and become LG?
2) Paladins are born LG, is it then impossible for them to fall?
3) Are all their acts good by definition?

If any of the answers are yesses, it seems like a world with very limited storytelling power (not just for lack of falling paladins, but for the implications for personal growth/tragedy).

If the answer to 1 is no:
a) Should you wear hard hats in case of falling paladins?
b) Why doesn't it apply to other sentients?

Paladins aren't a race.

It's quite possible for some sentient races to span a broad range of alignments and behaviors and for others to be more limited.

Personally, while I do prefer at least the humanoids to have a broad range, I do like there to be differences. If the aliens aren't alien, if they don't think and behave differently than humans why have them?

But for me, the really cheap, frustrating thing, is to have a race portrayed as so overwhelmingly evil and dangerous, but still expect players to treat them as if the next one they meet might be a good friendly one. If you want depth and breadth in your races, you have to put it in there. Introduce the good ones, even if they're rare. If goblin babies can be raised to be accepted members of human society, have a few of them around. If every single one the party ever meets or even hears about is a dangerous little pyromaniacal psychopath, don't blame the players if they assume they're all that way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Wrath wrote: wrote:
109 - If the campaign is not using redemption rules, kill them before they can grow to be a threat to your settlements. In a world where alignment is absolute (as it is in Golarion), they are born evil and will stay evil. Nothing can stray that course if redemption is not in play (or some homebrew version of it).In this type of world, Goblins are likely to be seen as a dangerous form of pest species like rats or snakes. People kill them without thought and may even use techniques like gassing their lairs or poisoning foods to keep their numbers down.

A series of questions for such a world as bolded above:

1) Are paladins born LG or can one make a decision and become LG?
2) Paladins are born LG, is it then impossible for them to fall?
3) Are all their acts good by definition?

If any of the answers are yesses, it seems like a world with very limited storytelling power (not just for lack of falling paladins, but for the implications for personal growth/tragedy).

If the answer to 1 is no:
a) Should you wear hard hats in case of falling paladins?
b) Why doesn't it apply to other sentients?

Paladins aren't a race.

It's quite possible for some sentient races to span a broad range of alignments and behaviors and for others to be more limited.

Personally, while I do prefer at least the humanoids to have a broad range, I do like there to be differences. If the aliens aren't alien, if they don't think and behave differently than humans why have them?

But for me, the really cheap, frustrating thing, is to have a race portrayed as so overwhelmingly evil and dangerous, but still expect players to treat them as if the next one they meet might be a good friendly one. If you want depth and breadth in your races, you have to put it in there. Introduce the good ones, even if they're rare. If goblin babies can be raised to be accepted members of human society, have a few of them around. If every single one the party ever meets or...

What am I gonna do with all this confetti and these "Gotcha!" banners if I don't force unavoidable moral dilemmas on my players?


DominusMegadeus wrote:
What am I gonna do with all this confetti and these "Gotcha!" banners if I don't force unavoidable moral dilemmas on my players?

Ve can haff a party. You ken be de pinata!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

108. They have those football heads, right? Practice kicking field goals.


d20pfsrd Goblin entry wrote:

Goblin warrior 1

NE Small humanoid (goblinoid)

If this is enough to say that all goblins are always irredeemably evil, can we then also conclude that all aasimars are always incorruptibly good? (And also neutral, and therefore unfit for paladinhood).

d20pfsrd Aasimar entry wrote:

Aasimar cleric 1

NG Medium outsider (native)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
108. They have those football heads, right? Practice kicking field goals.

I'll have you know that's the shape of a hand-egg, not a football. *shakes head* Silly Americans.

Well, back on topic.

109. Strap them onto yourself for body armour. Literally.

101 to 150 of 354 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / 101 Solutions to the "Goblin Baby Problem" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.