| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblin paladins. Aaaaaaaand I’m out.
Bah, that's all you got?
Goblin Baby Paladins who are charged with saving burning orphanages ran by secretly evil beings.
How's that for an impossibility?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said in the previous thread, I require a justification for this. However, I also immediately came up with a good one:
-When PF2 comes out it will have been 12 years since Rise of the Runelords.
-Rise of the Runelords has a 'goblin orphan' problem at one point (or, at least, is very likely to).
-The APs are considered to have canonically occurred in PF2.
-Goblins mature at 13-18 years of age (ie: their minimum age as PCs is 13 to 14, their max usually no more than 18).These facts together paint a very specific and compelling picture of a group of Goblins likely raised to be non-Evil somewhere in the vicinity of Sandpoint...who may have fond memories of adventurers and are certainly just coming of age.
Fond memories of adventurers butchering their parents? And then leaving them to the tender mercies of a group of humans with good reasons to hate goblins? Unless all the people of Sandpoint are straight up saints, I don't see that as a real pleasant environment for an adolescent goblin. Humans are awful enough to their own kind, why would we expect anything better of humans forced to raise goblins? Sounds more like the backstory for a sympathetic villain than a hero to me.
The only justification I can come up with is direct deific intervention on a large scale, and I see no good reason why that would ever happen. I'm sure Paizo could come up with something, but so far their justification seems very forced, and frankly extremely weak. If there was a time skip, then it would be easy to justify, but societal changes like that don't normally just happen overnight.
Anyway, for what it's worth I have no problem with the idea of goblin PCs. I don't want them in core because it removes what makes them interesting and special as PCs, plus in large quantities I think they'll just become obnoxious.
EDIT: I'd also like to add that so far this is the only thing about PF2 that I don't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin will probably be the most common class for goblins.
After all, goblin PCs will often be raised among non-goblins, and the most common reason for raising a goblin child among non-goblins is because a paladin couldn't bring themself to slaughter a goblin baby. So they bring the babe back to their citadel, where it's raised by paladins, and boom, you suddenly have a generation of goblin paladins!
I've never had a player be a Gnome or Halfling so far. That is why I think they don't beling in Core but in a supplement on little people ancestry.
I I never had a Goblin PC so far. That is why I think they don’t belong in Core but in a supplement on monster ancestry.
Well we don’t have any numbers, by I firmly believe that Golarion had known more adventurers groups with Halflings and Gnomes in it than Goblins.
When we say Core, it is not only’ for me at least, the most typical races of fantasy. It is also the most numerous to take on the road for becoming an adventurer. That is what Core means. This is why we don’t see Oread or Aasimar or Tengu in the Core rulebook. And this is why Goblins should not have that « new spot » as a core race.
On the other hand maybe in your Golarion Goblins are greats adventurers and there is no problem with that at all. It is just, for me and for a large number of people if we are reading the blog’s comments, not an evidence. At all. Like I can think of at least 5 races who should have their spot in Core, based on the probability that they choose a life of an adventurer.
Just be logical, if even an HalfOrc can raise doubt sometimes, how do you expect the guards to act with a Goblin? Three arrows in the head. Unless he is a slave, but even in that’s case slavers prefer Halflings. AGoblin players should at least have social penalties with the majority of civilized races.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fond memories of adventurers butchering their parents? And then leaving them to the tender mercies of a group of humans with good reasons to hate goblins? Unless all the people of Sandpoint are straight up saints, I don't see that as a real pleasant environment for an adolescent goblin. Humans are awful enough to their own kind, why would we expect anything better of humans forced to raise goblins? Sounds more like the backstory for a sympathetic villain than a hero to me.
Goblin parents tend towards the abusive end of the spectrum, so killing them is sort of a mixed bag. And that wouldn't have been in front of the kids anyway, so what they'd remember would be the rescue and putting them some place nice (assuming they put them some place nice, of course).
Also, this all assumes they give the goblins to random people rather than, y'know, actually setting something up they can check on and care about.
As for the 'humans with good reasons to hate goblins'? There's a reason I said 'in the vicinity of Sandpoint' rather than 'in Sandpoint'. It might easily be in Magnimar, for example, and they have little reason to hate goblins beyond the usual. Take 'em to the Church of Sarenrae there (or even the local Caydenite orphanage, or both in concert) and throw some money at the problem and you're probably good to go (especially with the occasional check-in).
The only justification I can come up with is direct deific intervention on a large scale, and I see no good reason why that would ever happen. I'm sure Paizo could come up with something, but so far their justification seems very forced, and frankly extremely weak. If there was a time skip, then it would be easy to justify, but societal changes like that don't normally just happen overnight.
It's been 12 years, actually. That's...not really overnight. That's long enough for an entire generation of goblins to go from toddlers to physically adult. Is that enough for widespread societal change? I dunno, compare 1955 to 1970 (taking longer human lifespans into account).
Anyway, for what it's worth I have no problem with the idea of goblin PCs. I don't want them in core because it removes what makes them interesting and special as PCs, plus in large quantities I think they'll just become obnoxious.
And this is a reasonable argument...but I think the ship's sailed. The best we can hope for now is a good in-universe justification. Which I think we've got a fair chance of getting, really.
EDIT: I'd also like to add that so far this is the only thing about PF2 that I don't like.
I'm fairly neutral on this one, to be honest. The only thing I'm worried about is the +Level to all skills, which I hope is dealt with by appropriate Trained Only restrictions on a fair amount of stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played with a goblin and had no problems. Hell, I was playing a paladin in that campaign, and it still never became an issue.
I've never had a player be a Gnome or Halfling so far. That is why I think they don't beling in Core but in a supplement on little people ancestry.
I I never had a Goblin PC so far. That is why I think they don’t belong in Core but in a supplement on monster ancestry.
Well we don’t have any numbers, by I firmly believe that Golarion had known more adventurers groups with Halflings and Gnomes in it than Goblins.
When we say Core, it is not only’ for me at least, the most typical races of fantasy. It is also the most numerous to take on the road for becoming an adventurer. That is what Core means. This is why we don’t see Oread or Aasimar or Tengu in the Core rulebook. And this is why Goblins should not have that « new spot » as a core race.
On the other hand maybe in your Golarion Goblins are greats adventurers and there is no problem with that at all. It is just, for me and for a large number of people if we are reading the blog’s comments, not an evidence. At all. Like I can think of at least 5 races who should have their spot in Core, based on the probability that they choose a life of an adventurer.
Just be logical, if even an HalfOrc can raise doubt sometimes, how do you expect the guards to act with a Goblin? Three arrows in the head. Unless he is a slave, but even in that’s case slavers prefer Halflings. AGoblin players should at least have social penalties with the majority of civilized races.
In terms of actual number of PCs of each race, the core races aren't even all the most popular. Tiefling is more popular than dwarf, and aasimar is more popular than gnome or halfling.
Data is in this survey, Question #3.
Of all the non-core races, Goblin is #5 most popular. So it would appear the community as a whole doesn't share your view that there are 5 other races that better merit the spot in core.
Don't agree on commanility at all. If the corebooks only presented what was common for a race to do it would be a very dull book indeed. I mean what % of any race is anything other than a serf?Now back to the topic of goblins! ;)
They are in a better place IMO then kender as they DO have exceptions to the 'normal' behavior of the race. As such, I have NO issue with goblin PC's. IMO they don't make a good core race though as those aberrations aren't portrayed as common and IMO common is what core should be. Fringe builds should be in books tailored for that people that are into that oddity.
Pathfinder classic doesn't agree with this. Featured and uncommon races have the phrase "with the GM's permission" attached to them, something that the core races are missing: The implication is clear that core races don't require such permission because they are always base available options.
Now they can change that basic availability in new pathfinder but they haven't indicated that's the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fond memories of adventurers butchering their parents? And then leaving them to the tender mercies of a group of humans with good reasons to hate goblins? Unless all the people of Sandpoint are straight up saints, I don't see that as a real pleasant environment for an adolescent goblin. Humans are awful enough to their own kind, why would we expect anything better of humans forced to raise goblins? Sounds more like the backstory for a sympathetic villain than a hero to me.Goblin parents tend towards the abusive end of the spectrum, so killing them is sort of a mixed bag. And that wouldn't have been in front of the kids anyway, so what they'd remember would be the rescue and putting them some place nice (assuming they put them some place nice, of course).
Also, this all assumes they give the goblins to random people rather than, y'know, actually setting something up they can check on and care about.
As for the 'humans with good reasons to hate goblins'? There's a reason I said 'in the vicinity of Sandpoint' rather than 'in Sandpoint'. It might easily be in Magnimar, for example, and they have little reason to hate goblins beyond the usual. Take 'em to the Church of Sarenrae there (or even the local Caydenite orphanage, or both in concert) and throw some money at the problem and you're probably good to go (especially with the occasional check-in).
And don't forget that in Absalom, goblins are more of a servant class than a monster.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, we keep letting people play Humans...I mean, eh? I think some of this is knee jerk. (Not the OP, but what the OP is talking about.)
The more interesting argument I've seen is "how do you fit a cannibalistic, murderous, fire-loving race into something that WON'T be shot by guards on sight in most towns?"
Which, yeah, the lore of the thing is what I'm most interested in seeing explained.
I mean, fire-loving self-destructive pests who hoard shiny things and hate reading sounds like most PCs to me.
I mean, fire-loving self-destructive pests who hoard shiny things and hate reading sounds like most PCs to me.I mean, we keep letting people play Humans...I mean, eh? I think some of this is knee jerk. (Not the OP, but what the OP is talking about.)
The more interesting argument I've seen is "how do you fit a cannibalistic, murderous, fire-loving race into something that WON'T be shot by guards on sight in most towns?"
Which, yeah, the lore of the thing is what I'm most interested in seeing explained.
Or internet trolls... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Struggling to read through the massive complaints thread that is the goblin reveal a recurring issue seems to come up for some people along the lines of "Goblins will give players the excuse to act like a d!*k." This is only a problem if the player wanted to act like one in the first place, and regardless of any core options guess what, a d!*k is going to find a way to be a d!*k. If you need to ban goblins at your table to stop that player from playing one, you really need to think about why that player is at your table. Its about the same as banning Necromancy from your table as that "encourages murder hobo behaviour." NO, murder hobo players are going to strive to be a murder hobo, benefits or "roleplaying" be damned. We've all had that player who just kills something because they got bored of the ongoing social encounter, and we've all dealt with it before.This might be a problem for PFS, I guess. But with a decently strict Infamy system those characters are going to be forcibly retired quite quickly.
I think the OP is missing the point as far as player problems with this new PC race goblin issue is concerned.
Think about what the goblin has been for RPG enthusiasts since time immemorial. A hideous vermin creature, a grotesque monster to be killed on sight. And then in PF 1st edition they get reduced to comical mascots with this endearing mischievous quality. Definitely not the direction I'd choose but it's funny and at least they take a hit to charisma for being evil, cowardly opportunistic monsters. Then the sneak peeks for second edition come and they're loveable zainy adventurers with a bonus to charisma and any other stat because they're so quirky and loveable and can be whatever they want to be, especially an embassador or a paladin.
A distasteful reaction to this has been fomenting among a huge portion of the player base, and while I'm not sure it's totally conscious, I think there's an actual factor of disgust. This move has radically altered the...
I don't know who this Zolanoteph guy is but he seems pretty smart.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS.
The PFS community guidelines have been well refined over the past decade. Still no evil allowed, but the system can handle these potentially disruptive character concepts much better now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
goblins don't make good players bad, but they do provide "i'm just playing to character' cover for bad and disruptive players. They also don't really fit in with the standard races very well, being antagonists for the majority of all versions of d+d's existence.
Kender suck, goblins also suck...its a suck choice to include them as core.
Expect complaint threads when gms don't allow this "core" race or players come in feeling done wrong by the party hating their arsonist character who sets fires and gets the party in trouble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS.The PFS community guidelines have been well refined over the past decade. Still no evil allowed, but the system can handle these potentially disruptive character concepts much better now.
My experience says this isn't the case but this could be due to 1)Bad/New GMs who will get run over anyway or 2)In on the disruptive players joke/gag/play
|
|
My experience says this isn't the case but this could be due to 1)Bad/New GMs who will get run over anyway or 2)In on the disruptive players joke/gag/playI'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS.The PFS community guidelines have been well refined over the past decade. Still no evil allowed, but the system can handle these potentially disruptive character concepts much better now.
It's hard to judge individual cases, but the language of the Community Behavior Policy empowers players to ask each other to stop being disruptive and to bring it up the chain if you can't find a compromise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or internet trolls... ;)I mean, fire-loving self-destructive pests who hoard shiny things and hate reading sounds like most PCs to me.I mean, we keep letting people play Humans...I mean, eh? I think some of this is knee jerk. (Not the OP, but what the OP is talking about.)
The more interesting argument I've seen is "how do you fit a cannibalistic, murderous, fire-loving race into something that WON'T be shot by guards on sight in most towns?"
Which, yeah, the lore of the thing is what I'm most interested in seeing explained.
Successful Troll am wondering what fellow poster have been reading. Successful Troll am not fire-loving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS.
...
While I don't play in PFS, I think it's safe to say that the pro-goblin crowd and the "no evil in PFS" crowd aren't in a Venn Diagram with a lot of overlap...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know who this Zolanoteph guy is but he seems pretty smart.
Did you really favorite your own post? I mean, I can clearly see that you did, I'm just curious if it was an accident or if you actually clicked the favorite button for your own post on purpose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS....
While I don't play in PFS, I think it's safe to say that the pro-goblin crowd and the "no evil in PFS" crowd aren't in a Venn Diagram with a lot of overlap...
I'm in that overlap! Overlap party!!
It's hard to judge individual cases, but the language of the Community Behavior Policy empowers players to ask each other to stop being disruptive and to bring it up the chain if you can't find a compromise.My experience says this isn't the case but this could be due to 1)Bad/New GMs who will get run over anyway or 2)In on the disruptive players joke/gag/playI'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS.The PFS community guidelines have been well refined over the past decade. Still no evil allowed, but the system can handle these potentially disruptive character concepts much better now.
That might have helped if the full rules/policies where given. And as a new player, it made far more sense to just leave if I wasn't having fun.
Again it's just my own experience and the words of a few other people I know/knew to go on but PFS isn't this golden boy of a playing format. It was lazy at best, annoying and bothersome at middle, and disruptive with a flunkie DM or at least encouraged it as they found it funny.
Heck I know this is off topic but I wonder if such problems as CLW wands and the Big 6 would be so wide spread if PFS didn't seem to encourage min/max due to it's upgrading/shop system. But I'm just one person screaming against the world at this point.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's safe to say that the pro-goblin crowd and the "no evil in PFS" crowd aren't in a Venn Diagram with a lot of overlap...
I don't think it's safe to say that at all.
A lot of the enthusiasm for goblins seems to be coming from people who firmly believe that 'no evil in PFS' is a good idea. In fact, for me this is exactly why I think that having goblins be a core race is a fine idea.
For PFS, they're already bounded by the 'no evil' rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS....
While I don't play in PFS, I think it's safe to say that the pro-goblin crowd and the "no evil in PFS" crowd aren't in a Venn Diagram with a lot of overlap...
It just seems way easier to play a goblin PC who is in no way disruptive than it is to play an evil PC who is in no way disruptive. Evil PCs who don't cause problems have to walk a proverbial tightrope between "Bad teammate" and "evil in name only" whereas a goblin PC who causes no problems just has to act like any other hero.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just seems way easier to play a goblin PC who is in no way disruptive than it is to play an evil PC who is in no way disruptive. Evil PCs who don't cause problems have to walk a proverbial tightrope between "Bad teammate" and "evil in name only" whereas a goblin PC who causes no problems just has to act like any other hero.I'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS....
While I don't play in PFS, I think it's safe to say that the pro-goblin crowd and the "no evil in PFS" crowd aren't in a Venn Diagram with a lot of overlap...
So then they are "goblin in name only," just like the "evil" characters. Shakespeare's Rose would disagree with your statement.
So then they are "goblin in name only," just like the "evil" characters. Shakespeare's Rose would disagree with your statement.It just seems way easier to play a goblin PC who is in no way disruptive than it is to play an evil PC who is in no way disruptive. Evil PCs who don't cause problems have to walk a proverbial tightrope between "Bad teammate" and "evil in name only" whereas a goblin PC who causes no problems just has to act like any other hero.I'm a little miffed at all the folks saying goblins are great - seeing as how the opportunity for people to be disruptive was the resounding argument against evil alignments in PFS....
While I don't play in PFS, I think it's safe to say that the pro-goblin crowd and the "no evil in PFS" crowd aren't in a Venn Diagram with a lot of overlap...
Yep, you JUST have to act like a green halfling with an odd head and you fit in fine! ;P
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So then they are "goblin in name only," just like the "evil" characters. Shakespeare's Rose would disagree with your statement.
Or you just pick and choose what aspects of "being a goblin" enhance your character and everybody's experience with it at the table and discard those bits you dislike. It's the difference between "disliking horses so you attack them at every opportunity" and "disliking horses so everytime the party has to travel overland without magic, we have to do a pastiche of 'Getting B.A. Baracus on the plane' to the delight of everyone who fondly recalls the A-Team." It's entirely possible to have an enthusiastic appreciation for fire, while being appropriately careful with it due to hard-earned experience.
After all it's never a mistake to RP an individual who can think and make choices instead of a one-dimensional exemplar of a society. I mean do all of y'all's dwarves love mining and gold and beards and ale while hating anything that has green skin or is too big, and generally act like stereotypes? I think we all can handle the Dwarven ascetic monk who eschews conspicuous wealth and all intoxicants and maintains a tonsure while insists that the path to enlightenment, though long and hard, is available for all who pursue it as more than a "Dwarf in name only."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A halfling's charm mixed with gnomish pyromania, and a half-orc persecution complex. Goblins can act like goblins and also act like heroes.
Can, but will is the question. And the inclusion of a race that can be described as crazy, all of them to a different degree each, well ....
I'm not saying all of them will be bad. But I have no expectations of all Goblin PCs being such well mannered upstanding party members that don't get into trouble. And the racial shield of "I'm being crazy, Goblins are Crazy" is either going to remain in place or something you need a crowbar to remove from people's expectations.
I mean look at other media. Goblins tend to be varying levels of nutty these days.
Instead of banning Goblins, band people from playing murderous psychos.
I built a goblin pc a few years ago and was never able to play it but that had nothing to do with it being a Goblin. Regardless, the character was not a murderous psycho they were an inquisitive, afraid, hungry, comical, fire loving sneaky pants. I did have it so they were hard to distinguish as a Goblin.
There is more to Goblins than psycho pyromaniacs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I kinda want to see a new thread just devoted to PF2E goblin PCs/NPCs.
I get that goblins might cause concern, yeah. I'm one of those old GMs who've run goblins for a long time, at a variety of tables, with a variety of players. No one's experience is the same, however, and that's why I'd debated on posting this.
But, maybe it will help some of my fellow gamers.
Goblins haven't caused near the issues you think they might; largely because the players seem to be in it for fun. There are whacky, silly goblins, and deadly serious ones, too.
Outright, I've had more issues with creepy drow and halflings.
For those though, my remedy is just not allowing things like "Childlike."
Brain bleach, aisle 4? Brain bleach! because those issues mean exactly what you think they do, and I'm not the only one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So then they are "goblin in name only," just like the "evil" characters. Shakespeare's Rose would disagree with your statement.Or you just pick and choose what aspects of "being a goblin" enhance your character and everybody's experience with it at the table and discard those bits you dislike. It's the difference between "disliking horses so you attack them at every opportunity" and "disliking horses so everytime the party has to travel overland without magic, we have to do a pastiche of 'Getting B.A. Baracus on the plane' to the delight of everyone who fondly recalls the A-Team." It's entirely possible to have an enthusiastic appreciation for fire, while being appropriately careful with it due to hard-earned experience.
After all it's never a mistake to RP an individual who can think and make choices instead of a one-dimensional exemplar of a society. I mean do all of y'all's dwarves love mining and gold and beards and ale while hating anything that has green skin or is too big, and generally act like stereotypes? I think we all can handle the Dwarven ascetic monk who eschews conspicuous wealth and all intoxicants and maintains a tonsure while insists that the path to enlightenment, though long and hard, is available for all who pursue it as more than a "Dwarf in name only."
Sure they can. And when that sort of stuff happened, it's why Drow and Elves are different, similar to how Dwarves and Duergar are different. Then you make subcultures that are vastly different from the norm between each race, and do so once more as an exception to the norm. It's called "Being Drizzt." And when that becomes a staple for the race, because the norms for that race are unpalatable for the masses to play, that means "Being Drizzt" is the only way to play a race, which is extremely straight-jackety and gets boring after the first two characters at most.
P.S. A Dwarven Monk who believes the true path of enlightenment is to become one with the immovable stone mountains is a pretty cool character concept that still follows the Dwarven name and meshes with the Monk class and concepts quite well, while also not being hyperstereotypical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blame my experiences with jerks then. I fully expect them to use and abuse Goblins and attempt to excuse themselves with racial RP reasoning.
Saw them do it with other races(1 Gnome, 2 orcs), classes(Paladin I'm looking at you) and even rule lawyer their way into killing a monster that could burrow with Create Pit/Create Water.
My faith in "Not being a jerk" applies to friends and those who have proven themselves until proven otherwise.
Poor outlook on the community? Probably. Community also hasn't helped disprove it either though.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins, as with many monstrous humanoids, are creations whose purpose is to represent/illuminate/explore dark sides of human nature.
Orcs represent the feral brute
Goblins the impulse-driven maniac
Hobgoblins the mindlessly obedient thug
RPG orcs and goblins come straight from Tolkien, where they were literally corrupted elves. The symbolism is not at all subtle.
Making half-orcs was an interesting way to explore this phenomenom.
Having goblins as a monster race which was (fairly often) played explored these ideas too.
But making them standard PC races destroys the purpose and meaning of goblins, orcs or hobgoblins. Bugbears too.
Of course, you don't need to classify a 0HD creature as a playable race unless you do silly things like separating the monster creation rules and the PC creation rules.
If PCs and NPCs followed the same biology/physics/chemistry/rules then goblins could be left comfortably in the Bestiary.
This, like resonance, is a complicated solution to a problem created by the design team.
Nobody really cares about heal-sticks and, if you must, some kind of kludge to make low-level healing spells harder to put in a wand would be better.
Similarly, nobody cares about professional designers putting a little extra sweat into monster design but the solution involves goblins in the CRB with the same stats as gnomes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely loathe the trope that "this thing is inherently evil, we can kill it without concern." I don't even like that intelligent undead are required to be evil. I prefer anything that has a mind and free will to be able to choose how to act, even if they are predisposed one way or another.
So doing away with all of the "savage races" that are supposed to represent "the dark aspects of humanity" is A-OK in my book. We can always represent the dark aspects of humanity... with humans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely loathe the trope that "this thing is inherently evil, we can kill it without concern." I don't even like that intelligent undead are required to be evil. I prefer anything that has a mind and free will to be able to choose how to act, even if they are predisposed one way or another.
** spoiler omitted **
So doing away with all of the "savage races" that are supposed to represent "the dark aspects of humanity" is A-OK in my book. We can always represent the dark aspects of humanity... with humans.
I don't think d+d or pathfinder is the right game system for effective exploration of grey areas of morality and i don't think that the majority of people who play it are particularly into it for that either.
that isn't to say the themes cant exist in the game, its just a difficult frameowork to make work and other games already do it better.
Exalted, white wolf games, even RIFTS explores shades of grey better than a d+d framework.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your mistake is assuming that problem players know that they're problem players. In my experience, they're people who are earnestly trying to role-play characters that they don't realize inherently disrupt the table. That's the kind of character that a goblin PC almost automatically is. It's those kind of players that are going to be much worse armed with the misconception that they're supposed to be acting badly because that's what their character would do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your mistake is assuming that problem players know that they're problem players.A self-cognizant problem player and a clueless problem player are both, in the end, problem players. You apply a boot to their face and carry on without them, simple.
First, you are ignoring the point. The same people wouldn't have been problem players if they hadn't been offered an option which they believed made it so that they should act like problem players.
Second, it is very easy to get into a situation where you are not able to just boot them. Either you would otherwise not have a fourth, or your GMing in society and know that any effort you make to discipline or control them will not only waste time at a time limited event, but potentially draw the ire of an authority figure who wasn't there but could discipline you based on what that player said about your conduct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblin paladins. Aaaaaaaand I’m out.
A goblin Paladin of Sarenrae, because lady of fire believes in the good inside that goblin.
Yes, this is good :)
Is this an actual thing? Like a Canon goblin or something that took off in the community? I see it everywhere when it comes to Goblins being 'good'
Now I kinda want to see a new thread just devoted to PF2E goblin PCs/NPCs.
Linkiefied. Goblin paladins of Sarenrae welcome. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Sarenrae is just the most natural choice for a Goblin Paladin. Since a Goblin who escaped from an NE culture to become LG has undergone some sort of redemption, but might not have lost their fondness for fire- and "Redemption and Fire" are really Sarenrae's 2 big issues.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine goblin paladins being the reason you drop a system...
Surprisingly, I can imagine it very well.
Do you mean to imply that your reasons are good and logical, but mine are not because they don't match yours?
I have no interest in telling you how to play a game, but there are things and ideas that suck all the fun out of a game (or any experience) for me. And one of those is the idea that everything's okay and all choices are equally valid. Or that Good and Evil are equal or balanced or "just choices".
I want my Good good and my Evil bad and I tire of moral equivalencies as the default assumption in what for me should be a game about heroes.
If your play style or values are different, then have it, but don't try to belittle mine because you disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with a goblin paladin?
What, you think you humans have all the rights to morality? That everyone else must fit into your world view?
Seems awfully rigid of you to dictate what everyone else must be. As if you alone have the say in what other sentient beings can and cannot be, determining who is the "hero" and who is the "villain."
What's next, claiming by decree that all elves are evil? Well, ok - do that, and I'm on your side.
I'm having a hard time finding where I said that everyone else must fit into anything or that I'm dictating anything. I said "I'm out." See the word "I" in there? Look hard. You'll find it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this an actual thing? Like a Canon goblin or something that took off in the community? I see it everywhere when it comes to Goblins being 'good'Goblin paladins. Aaaaaaaand I’m out.
A goblin Paladin of Sarenrae, because lady of fire believes in the good inside that goblin.
Yes, this is good :)
"Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be."
Redemption, especially of foes often seen as irredeemable or not worth redeeming, is Sarenrae to the bone. It would make a lot of sense for a goblin, especially a goblin paladin, to worship Sarenrae as her clergy are likely some of the most devoted toward nurturing that change it outlook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know who this Zolanoteph guy is but he seems pretty smart.Did you really favorite your own post? I mean, I can clearly see that you did, I'm just curious if it was an accident or if you actually clicked the favorite button for your own post on purpose.
I sure did. Because someone's got to favorite my posts.