| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I will say that I disagree with James Jacobs there.
I don't even think "inherently evil species" are needed for RPGs. Conditionally evil is good enough. It's universally preferable to make "evil" a function of the society rather than an inherent part of one's nature, since individuals can escape their society from time to time.
Plus "who created it and why" has little bearing on what it becomes. Torag created Dwarves (probably) but circumstances still lead to the existence of Duergar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the Ironfang Invasion Player's Guide says
hobgoblin society shuns compassion, cooperation, and family unity, and readily beats these traits out of its children at an early age
Which implies that hobgoblins would possess compassion were it not beaten out of them by their elders at an impressionable age, so "hobgoblins are jerks" is pretty clearly cultural. Historically Hobgoblins have been the "even more evil" cousin of goblins, to boot.
It also suggests that the way Nirmathi would respond to a PC Hobgoblin (during a period in which Nirmathas is at war with an "unstoppable" army of hobgoblins) is "increased prices and circumstance penalties on charisma checks", rather than "attack on sight."
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Years ago I got into an argument on these forums about whether or not goblins were inherently evil. I said they were, and I was being called a racist and worse before James Jacobs posted to say, "Yes goblins are inherently evil. It says so right in the Bestiatry." He went on to explain that goblins are creatures created by evil supernatural entities with the specific purpose of being evil; that it's not racist because fantasy games need enemies and the idea of inherently evil NONHUMAN races is a core foundational principle of RPGs; and that what was printed in bestiaries were, in fact, RULES like any others. If the description of a creature says it's evil, it's evil.
Funny how unconditional and emphatic statements like that get forgotten when there's money to be made.
Could you link to this statement? Because I've heard people make statements like this about stuff James Jacobs said before and when they actually linked the statement he almost never actually said that.
The last one was on Orcs, so this is clearly a different statement, but I'd bet what he said was similar (which, for the record, was 'We're not interested in telling stories about the Good Orcs, so the ones you run into will continue to be Evil.')
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tales of goblin violence might spread, but when you compare them to orcs, dragons, demons, undead wizard kings, and even human pirates
Which of these are allowed into town without a response? Which aren't driven away or attack if feasible in your 'average' town? Secondly, as widespread as goblins are, I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't know what they look like and how awful the average one is. What they wouldn't know is the intricacies of humanoid psychology and the possibility of the race producing non-insane moderately acceptable ones.
"It's too much trouble to actually kill them" is perfectly sufficient to explain goblins as adventurers though, or frankly in a variety of other contexts. Again, the average citizen doesn't want the risk and hassle of attacking a goblin.
Who's talking about a goblin adventurer? I'm talking about your random goblin and how they'd be treated. If you have a party, I'd expect them to be treated like any dangerous pet, like a t-rex. 'anything happens it's YOUR fault and your responsibility.'
Basically, your interpretation requires a very narrow range of public perception. A goblin needs to be so dangerous that a citizen would want to kill one on sight, but not so dangerous that starting a fight with one would put themselves at risk. What happens if that goblin gets away and remembers your face? What if that goblin has friends who hear what you did?
No, it takes the "interpretation" from the book. People EXPECT 7-9 goblins, as those are the minimum number normally encountered. The average person isn't charging out alone: they'd raise the alarm and get EVERY able man, woman and child that can fight to beat it down and the 6-8 friends it has that they haven't seen yet. To do otherwise is to find your house and field burned, food stolen or defiled and maybe some people missing.
The 'revenge' thing is a pretty meaningless point. The goblin would be back to raid you no matter WHAT you did and it's starting attitude is 'I'd like to eat you'. So 'it might get mad' seems like a meaningless thing.
The basic framework that makes the concept of the adventurer work is that most people DON'T engage with dangerous creatures. Are there exceptions? Sure. Town guards might be braver. A mob of people might be braver. A drunk might be. But "wait and see" is a very human response to things that look dangerous.
I don't think ANYONE has suggested anyone individually attacks the goblin: I think any TOWN would attack them and whatever people that can fight would. Even if it's tossing fishing nets on them or throwing a frying pan from the second story window. The LAST thing you'd do is 'sit back and watch it' or 'not go to warn people that CAN fight it'.
And this assumes people don't treat goblins as a mere nuisance, not actually worth the effort to attack.
They burn down fields... For FUN... even if they did nothing else, something that negates an entire season of your work is WELL worth your time getting rid of. IRL, I wouldn't be surprised to hear of someone shooting something like a gopher that got into their fields and was eating crops and THOSE do don't individually threaten the entire crop.
In eastern oregon there is a season where it is legal to shoot groundhogs from the back of a truck on a road because cows occasionally step in their holes and break their legs and their tunnels cause road damage.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah! Here's a post from James Jacobs that directly contradicts the 'All Goblins Are Evil thing:
Of course a non-evil goblin can exist on Golarion. I think said goblin would need to get away from his/her kin ASAP though, and it would have a hard time finding a life on its own.
That's from 2014, so the consensus on how hard it should be for a Good Goblin has obviously shifted a bit (and probably due to a planned in-universe event), but it's clear evidence that saying 'All Goblins Are Evil' was never what he intended (even if that's how someone took it).
Oh, and here's another that says their Evil isn't inborn (though it's common):
Goblins are neutral evil, not chaotic evil. But with the exception of outsiders, no, races aren't born into their alignment. But enough of them are that alignment that when we're talking about them as a whole, it's safe to say "they're neutral evil" or whatever.
And another in reference to whether 'Evil' species are born evil:
Unless they're outsiders (and not native outsiders), no they're not. As detailed at the start of the Bestairy, alignments given for monsters in the books are not absolutes; just the norms.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Years ago I got into an argument on these forums about whether or not goblins were inherently evil. I said they were, and I was being called a racist and worse before James Jacobs posted to say, "Yes goblins are inherently evil. It says so right in the Bestiatry." He went on to explain that goblins are creatures created by evil supernatural entities with the specific purpose of being evil; that it's not racist because fantasy games need enemies and the idea of inherently evil NONHUMAN races is a core foundational principle of RPGs; and that what was printed in bestiaries were, in fact, RULES like any others. If the description of a creature says it's evil, it's evil.
Funny how unconditional and emphatic statements like that get forgotten when there's money to be made.
Link to post?
Cause in this and this and this (all from 2014) he says the opposite.
Edit: ninjaed
There's a principle in Chemistry when establishing an equilibrium called "X is small" . The gist of it is that if, during a reaction, the dissociation constant multiplied by 100 is less than the initial concentration, you can basically ignore the amount of a substance that is removed from that concentration by the reaction.
Even that answer classifies itself as an X is small situation (where X is good aligned goblins) .
Yes they exist, no they are not a statistically significant portion of the species population.
If you take 10 you also know a pertinent fact about them, like they're arsonists/cannibals/afraid of dogs/horsesIt is a Dc 5.5 knowledge local check to identify a goblin, roughly 75% of the populace will recognize one on sight.Actually couldn't the populace just take 10 and automatically identify the goblin? Assuming average intelligence.In game rules, sure. But in this case game rules don't accurately model reality. Someone from Absolom would have trouble identifying a goblin in the crowd of species, regardless of how intelligent they are. Unless of course they've studied something that specifically informs them on the subject.
Yes, like whether or not they can make a dc5 knowledge local check, as its under dc 10 whether they've studied it or not is irrelevant, that low dc is the bar for whether or not you can know something without studying (investing skill ranks)
...
You mistake mechanics for reality. I understand that in game NPCs do a knowledge check, just like PCs. That's not the point. If we were to separate Golarion from the system and use another system, the method for obtaining knowledge about goblins would be different, correct? That is because the roll of a die is a way of modeling real life. When an author sets a novel in Golarion, you'll notice the characters don't roll dice every time they try to accomplish something. That's why your points on the knowledge DC are not really doing it for me. What you are giving as definitive is an approximation used to streamline a game. It would be excessive to got into a character's history, checking where they lived and what experiences they have, in order to determine what they know, and what the knowledge DC is for what they might know. But in the real game world, a characters intelligence and training in knowledge X has nothing to do with their familiarity with goblins.
That said, graystone's points that goblins are widespread and relatively well known have merit. I don't agree, but I could see that being true. It's just that with the abundance of other races and monsters, I doubt a common person would know anything about goblins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your agreement doesn't affect that the game and its lore literally points out how common they are, and how people view them. You're disregarding the MEANING behind those mechanics being that way. the dc for them is 5+cr precisely because their traits are widespread and well known.
Things the average person doesn't know about have a dc of 11 or higher on a knowledge check. The DC being that low represents the fact that they ARE known about and by almost anyone.
All that said, none of this conversation has anything to do with goblins being in Core. They can be in Core and be generally an evil race. They can be in Core and be despised and hunted (half-orcs are, and no one has addressed the differences between goblins and half-orcs satisfactorily). This entire conversation really has nothing to do with the goblin race. It's about adventurers. Because making a race core doesn't mean that a race is more common (gnomes are almost unheard of), nice, or accepted. It just means that the race is central to the game, and is a primary option for PCs. People may not like the elevation to "primary option", but that's entirely their opinion. And is proving more and more to be a minority opinion.
The lore is ambiguous. There are references to goblins being hunted and hated. And there are references to goblins being accepted. To argue goblins can't be core because they are hated is to ignore much of what we know about goblins in Golarion, but you can argue goblins should be in core without denying that they are hated in some places.
To say an entire race is evil without the free will to be otherwise is fine in your games. But that's not the way it is in Golarion. But it doesn't really matter: an ancestry can be evil and still be core. I have never seen anyone address this point.
Tales of goblin violence might spread, but when you compare them to orcs, dragons, demons, undead wizard kings, and even human piratesWhich of these are allowed into town without a response? Which aren't driven away or attack if feasible in your 'average' town? Secondly, as widespread as goblins are, I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't know what they look like and how awful the average one is. What they wouldn't know is the intricacies of humanoid psychology and the possibility of the race producing non-insane moderately acceptable ones.
"It's too much trouble to actually kill them" is perfectly sufficient to explain goblins as adventurers though, or frankly in a variety of other contexts. Again, the average citizen doesn't want the risk and hassle of attacking a goblin.Who's talking about a goblin adventurer? I'm talking about your random goblin and how they'd be treated. If you have a party, I'd expect them to be treated like any dangerous pet, like a t-rex. 'anything happens it's YOUR fault and your responsibility.'
Basically, your interpretation requires a very narrow range of public perception. A goblin needs to be so dangerous that a citizen would want to kill one on sight, but not so dangerous that starting a fight with one would put themselves at risk. What happens if that goblin gets away and remembers your face? What if that goblin has friends who hear what you did?No, it takes the "interpretation" from the book. People EXPECT 7-9 goblins, as those are the minimum number normally encountered. The average person isn't charging out alone: they'd raise the alarm and get EVERY able man, woman and child that can fight to beat it down and the 6-8 friends it has that they haven't seen yet. To do otherwise is to find your house and field burned, food stolen or defiled and maybe some people missing.
The 'revenge' thing is a pretty meaningless point. The goblin would be back to raid you no matter WHAT you did...
Now I'm picturing vampire attacks in Skyrim, where every NPC suddenly is overcome with bloodlust and charges. I lost a lot of blacksmiths to those tactics...
More seriously, I don't think I've ever seen what you describe actually happen. The most basic low level narrative conceit is that PCs are needed to deal with problems like goblins. It's why most fights which take place around civilians specificy the NPCs are too frightened to contribute. In Rise of the Runelords, "Monster in the Closet" has a family discover a goblin has been hiding in there house and he's gone insane with hunger. Mom doesn't go bang on her neighbors doors and get a mob together, she runs across town and gets the PCs. Dad underestimates the goblin and gets his throat cut. So one member of the household thought the goblin was something he could handle solo, and the other thought that it required professional attention.
Usually, when NPCs organize their own response, such as an organized militia or an invasion protocol, it is some combination of the threat being ever-present or a heckuva lot scarier than goblins. See orcs in Trunau. And if they have that level of discipline, and think seeing one goblin means there more around, the smart play isn't to kill that goblin but capture and interrogate it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All that said, none of this conversation has anything to do with goblins being in Core. They can be in Core and be generally an evil race. They can be in Core and be despised and hunted (half-orcs are, and no one has addressed the differences between goblins and half-orcs satisfactorily). This entire conversation really has nothing to do with the goblin race. It's about adventurers. Because making a race core doesn't mean that a race is more common (gnomes are almost unheard of), nice, or accepted. It just means that the race is central to the game, and is a primary option for PCs. People may not like the elevation to "primary option", but that's entirely their opinion. And is proving more and more to be a minority opinion.
The lore is ambiguous. There are references to goblins being hunted and hated. And there are references to goblins being accepted. To argue goblins can't be core because they are hated is to ignore much of what we know about goblins in Golarion, but you can argue goblins should be in core without denying that they are hated in some places.
To say an entire race is evil without the free will to be otherwise is fine in your games. But that's not the way it is in Golarion. But it doesn't really matter: an ancestry can be evil and still be core. I have never seen anyone address this point.
And this is a false equivalence because the weight of references falls far on the side of hated and hunted. Its like pointing to the redeemed succubus in a single AP as proof that demons aren't all bad. X is small where goblins are concerned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you take 10 you also know a pertinent fact about them, like they're arsonists/cannibals/afraid of dogs/horsesIt is a Dc 5.5 knowledge local check to identify a goblin, roughly 75% of the populace will recognize one on sight.Actually couldn't the populace just take 10 and automatically identify the goblin? Assuming average intelligence.In game rules, sure. But in this case game rules don't accurately model reality. Someone from Absolom would have trouble identifying a goblin in the crowd of species, regardless of how intelligent they are. Unless of course they've studied something that specifically informs them on the subject.
Yes, like whether or not they can make a dc5 knowledge local check, as its under dc 10 whether they've studied it or not is irrelevant, that low dc is the bar for whether or not you can know something without studying (investing skill ranks)
...You mistake mechanics for reality. I understand that in game NPCs do a knowledge check, just like PCs. That's not the point. If we were to separate Golarion from the system and use another system, the method for obtaining knowledge about goblins would be different, correct? That is because the roll of a die is a way of modeling real life. When an author sets a novel in Golarion, you'll notice the characters don't roll dice every time they try to accomplish something. That's why your points on the knowledge DC are not really doing it for me. What you are giving as definitive is an approximation used to streamline a game. It would be excessive to got into a character's history, checking where they lived and what experiences they have, in order to determine what they know, and what the knowledge DC is for what they might know. But in the real game world, a characters intelligence and training in knowledge X has nothing to do with their familiarity with goblins.
That said,...
Why wouldn't they? Yeah, the characters don't roll dice all the time, that's for sure, but when the game says "Identifying a Goblin is DC 5" , the game is saying "Knowing what a goblin is on sight is literally easier than identifying a common plant or animal (which is DC 10), or the symbols of the most common religions (also DC 10)"
It is setting a baseline on what an uneducated person in the world knows. Even if you, personally, have never seen a Tiger, you could learn what a Tiger is by just going outside and asking people. It's the same in Golarion, except Goblins, unlike Tigers, are everywhere, as Inner Sea Races says:
"No newly discovered corner of the world remains goblin-free for long. Where humans tread, goblins scamper behind."
This is reinforced by the fact that you can find Goblins in Irrisen, all down the Varisian Coast, in Isger, and all the way down in Mediogalti and the Shackles. They're even in Tian-Xia, though in less numbers.
A Golarion peasant, particularly from the Inner Sea, is going to know what a Goblin is. Just as they know what a dog is, or a cow, or a horse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a principle in Chemistry when establishing an equilibrium called "X is small" . The gist of it is that if, during a reaction, the dissociation constant multiplied by 100 is less than the initial concentration, you can basically ignore the amount of a substance that is removed from that concentration by the reaction.
Even that answer classifies itself as an X is small situation (where X is good aligned goblins) .
Yes they exist, no they are not a statistically significant portion of the species population.
Or a statistical anomaly, something expected in any collection of data.
The lore is ambiguous.
It really isn't though. It goes from 'exterminate them' to 'dangerous pests' and a sprinkle of 'laughably annoying vermin'. There isn't a bright side there in the lore. At best it's 'drive them away' and worst kill em': there are a few exceptions but are relegated to an extremely limited area and number of goblins.
To say an entire race is evil without the free will to be otherwise is fine in your games. But that's not the way it is in Golarion. But it doesn't really matter: an ancestry can be evil and still be core. I have never seen anyone address this point.
For me, it's about the perception. Having an anomaly be a possibility doesn't shift the perception of the race in any significant way.
As to evil... I don't see it as core as core is relegated to common and default options: the ones that you can usually expect to take without having to get pre approval.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And lets be frank, the issue isn't that they're an evil race, its that their particular brand of evil is profoundly destructive and antisocial and a poor fit for adventuring groups (and because of this for core book inclusion). Hobgoblins are even a better fit because as evil and terrible as they are, there are at least enough references to them working as mercenaries for various nations to present the idea that they can behave well enough to not cause a party they join much trouble outside the reasonable concerns of the non adventuring community.
Goblins don't have that. The weight of references to goblins emphasize the antisocial and destructive nature, they're burdened by phobias to animals commonly used by adventurers (dogs and horses).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, because I'm interested, let's examine what the DC 5 Knowledge check gets you, hmm? I'd assume that certainly doesn't get you more than the creature's Bestiary entry, so let's look at the Goblin Bestiary Entry and see what 'everyone knows' about goblins:
Goblins prefer to dwell in caves, amid large and dense thickets of thistles and brambles, or in structures built and then abandoned by others. Very few goblins have the drive to build structures of their own. Coastlines are favored, as goblins are quite fond of sifting through junk and flotsam in an unending quest to find treasures among the refuse of more civilized races.
Goblin hatred runs deep, and few things inspire their wrath more than gnomes (who have long fought against goblins), horses (who frighten goblins tremendously), and regular dogs (whom goblins regard as pale imitations of goblin dogs).
Goblins are also quite superstitious, and treat magic with a fawning mixture of awe and fear. They have the habit of ascribing magic to the mundane as well, with fire and writing both taking on mystical power in goblin society. Fire is much loved by goblins for its capacity to wreak great destruction and because it doesn't require size or strength to wield, but written words are hated. Goblins believe that writing steals words out of your head, and as a result of this belief, goblins are universally illiterate.
Goblins are voracious and can eat their body weight in food daily without growing fat. Goblin lairs always have numerous storerooms and larders. While they prefer human and gnome flesh, a goblin won't turn down any food—except, perhaps, vegetables.
So, the only actual antisocial habit most people know about is that they eat people, when they can. Indeed, no other antisocial behavior is even mentioned in this description, not even raiding for food.
That's...just really not nearly bad enough to warrant quite the reaction people are talking about. I mean, it's bad, and certainly won't result in happy feelings toward them, but lots of things eat people if given the chance and it isn't the 'they are horrible monsters who do X,Y, and Z' stuff people are describing here either.
Now, that doesn't mean goblins aren't horrible in all (or at least most of) the ways people have been describing here, but how common is knowledge of any of that? It's a good question and one we lack an answer to.
|
|
It really isn't though. It goes from 'exterminate them' to 'dangerous pests' and a sprinkle of 'laughably annoying vermin'. There isn't a bright side there in the lore. At best it's 'drive them away' and worst kill em': there are a few exceptions but are relegated to an extremely limited area and number of goblins..
For the record, I actually agree with this paragraph entirely, I just disagree with graystone regarding the percentage of people who regard them as 'laughably annoying vermin' and think the percentage of 'drive them away' is much higher than he does.
Which is why I think an in-world event (or set of events) is very necessary to change their reputation enough to be adventurers in any numbers. Of course, their culture (or more accurately the culture of some of them) also needs to change for that to happen.
I just think Paizo can probably pull that off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most basic low level narrative conceit is that PCs are needed to deal with problems like goblins.
LOL Well of COURSE an adventure is made to require the PC's help. What about the other 99.999% of the world that is expected to keep moving forward that isn't in the PC's reach? Are they expected to roll over and die anytime PC's are away?
And this is a false equivalence because the weight of references falls far on the side of hated and hunted. Its like pointing to the redeemed succubus in a single AP as proof that demons aren't all bad. X is small where goblins are concerned.
This has pretty much been my reasoning. 'not so bad' goblins are restricted to specific locals with a small number of goblins. 'bad to the bone' goblins are in universal and all encompassing terms. 'humans try to exterminate them' vs 'this single npc in a module has ok'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's...just really not nearly bad enough to warrant quite the reaction people are talking about.
I think "they prefer human and gnome flesh" is plenty good enough a reason. Secondly, I'd think people would get the setting info for goblins instead of the generic info. The inner seas books paint the goblin MUCH, MUCH less favorably.
For the record, I actually agree with this paragraph entirely, I just disagree with graystone regarding the percentage of people who regard them as 'laughably annoying vermin' and think the percentage of 'drive them away' is much higher than he does.
i think there is a large overlap in those categories. IMO, most of the first two are attacking the goblins, just the 'drive them off' ones don't chase them down to make sure EVERYONE is dead. I also think a goodly amount of the 'vermin' people are doing the same. IRL, people set our mouse traps, shoot gophers in the field and smash bugs on their arms all the time. SO for me, the exact percentages don't really matter as most start off the same: attack. I can't see how most people wouldn't want the goblins to not be around their homes and be willing to do something about it: nothing good is going to come of it from everything they know about them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read the whole text and did not get that conclusion, thanks just the same.
Ok, that quote pretty much sums up the conversation.
So I'll just ask, what do you consider more important: your personal outlier reading or how the overall fanbase reacts?|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "they prefer human and gnome flesh" is plenty good enough a reason. Secondly, I'd think people would get the setting info for goblins instead of the generic info. The inner seas books paint the goblin MUCH, MUCH less favorably.
The Inner Sea stuff is more in depth, but doesn't contradict the Bestiary stuff. I'd strongly argue that the Bestiary stuff is what a basic Knowledge check gives you just in general, if only because the GM shouldn't be expected to have every book with additional info.
i think there is a large overlap in those categories. IMO, most of the first two are attacking the goblins, just the 'drive them off' ones don't chase them down to make sure EVERYONE is dead. I also think a goodly amount of the 'vermin' people are doing the same. IRL, people set our mouse traps, shoot gophers in the field and smash bugs on their arms all the time.
Sure, but like I've said before they tend to only do that in their house or fields, or when the bug lands on them, not randomly around wherever they see the vermin in question.
I've never argued for a moment that people don't respond to goblin raids or the goblin invading their home with violence. They clearly do.
SO for me, the exact percentages don't really matter as most start off the same: attack. I can't see how most people wouldn't want the goblins to not be around their homes and be willing to do something about it: nothing good is going to come of it from everything they know about them.
See, that's my main point of disagreement with you: Most people aren't proactive enough for their reaction to be 'attack'. Especially not when the creature in question is seen as pathetic. I'd place the common reaction in the 'defend' category. Sure, they'll fight them, but the usual goal is to make them go away and stop being a problem, not to kill them per se (though that certainly works and will often be the result).
I basically just don't think people are that motivated to find goblins of all things a big problem they want to devote any more time and effort to than absolutely necessary.
There are, of course, exceptions to this, especially if the goblins get too numerous, but they remain exceptions, not the general rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah! Here's a post from James Jacobs
That post really undermines your claims regarding the broad view of goblins. It has already been pointed out multiple times that Goblins in the Advanced Race Guide don't seem to bother any great number of people. And a 1 in a million "drizzt" goblin can be readily embraced as an idea.
Put the stats for PC goblins in the bestiary and all is well, much better than well, all is awesome.But the goblin *race* is still overwhelming evil and monstrous.
Putting them as core can be embraced by any given group easily. Putting them as core also creates issues that are completely reasonably for fans to take objection to.
IMO, it is clear that one should be very hesitant to make something core if that something is going to alienate a lot of fans. This is doubly true if the value can still be completely provided in a non-core manner where everybody wins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a Dc 5.5 knowledge local check to identify a goblin, roughly 75% of the populace will recognize one on sight.Actually couldn't the populace just take 10 and automatically identify the goblin? Assuming average intelligence.
They could, as long as the goblins that they are trying to identify aren't already attacking them. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, that quote pretty much sums up the conversation.
That we've reached different interpretations after reading the text? Yes, it does.
So I'll just ask, what do you consider more important: your personal outlier reading or how the overall fanbase reacts?
How the overall fanbase reacts is obviously what's important. But what makes you think I'm the outlier?
As far as I can tell, more people have said they're fine with goblins than objected to them, most just didn't stick around to argue, and even of those of us arguing the numbers seem close to even. And then there's all the undecided people as well, who Paizo might well win over with a good explanation.
Don't assume that the side being loudest has the most people.
|
|
Ah! Here's a post from James JacobsThat post really undermines your claims regarding the broad view of goblins. It has already been pointed out multiple times that Goblins in the Advanced Race Guide don't seem to bother any great number of people. And a 1 in a million "drizzt" goblin can be readily embraced as an idea.
Put the stats for PC goblins in the bestiary and all is well, much better than well, all is awesome.But the goblin *race* is still overwhelming evil and monstrous.
Putting them as core can be embraced by any given group easily. Putting them as core also creates issues that are completely reasonably for fans to take objection to.
IMO, it is clear that one should be very hesitant to make something core if that something is going to alienate a lot of fans. This is doubly true if the value can still be completely provided in a non-core manner where everybody wins.
That post is from 2014. I suspect Paizo's choice in what stories to tell have evolved since then.
And like I said, I'm not clear at all how many people it will alienate. Neither are you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a Dc 5.5 knowledge local check to identify a goblin, roughly 75% of the populace will recognize one on sight.Actually couldn't the populace just take 10 and automatically identify the goblin? Assuming average intelligence.They could, as long as the goblins that they are trying to identify aren't already attacking them. ;)
Well if the Goblin's attacking them, then 75% of the time they'll know it's a goblin, 25% of the time they won't know what it is, and 100% of the time they'll either run away or try to kill it, probably the latter, given a goblin's size.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, that quote pretty much sums up the conversation.That we've reached different interpretations after reading the text? Yes, it does.
So I'll just ask, what do you consider more important: your personal outlier reading or how the overall fanbase reacts?How the overall fanbase reacts is obviously what's important. But what makes you think I'm the outlier?
As far as I can tell, more people have said they're fine with goblins than objected to them, most just didn't stick around to argue, and even of those of us arguing the numbers seem close to even. And then there's all the undecided people as well, who Paizo might well win over with a good explanation.
Don't assume that the side being loudest has the most people.
You are clearly an outlier on the reading of GoG and other core setting canon. And,frankly, I don't find your presentation of rebuttal to be even remotely compelling, but rather just argumentative for its own sake. You can argue that rain falls up if you just really want to. It doesn't make it a conclusion one has to accept as equally reasonably with others.
As to the fanbase, I don't know the numbers. It might be 25% opposed. I think it is a lot more than that. If it is 20% opposed and 80% in favor, is it a good idea to alienate 20%?
Now, clearly, you can't alienate 80%. But there is a solution that can support them. I've already pointed that out. (Again 80% is giving you tremendous levels of "for the purpose of debate").
It may be that they have already made a mistake and it is impossible to unspill the milk. someone is going to be unhappy. But I think that can marginalize that. But core goblins won't be a minimization of unhappiness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still find it interesting that the pro core goblins side is so split between "it will change and they will be common" and "nothing has to change and they will not be any more common than they were".
Which is it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still find it interesting that the pro core goblins side is so split between "it will change and they will be common" and "nothing has to change and they will not be any more common than they were".
Which is it?
I'm reading it more as "it was happening already—slowly—and Paizo are going to add even more to it."
I think it's just that people are responding to one argument or another and not presenting the whole picture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has said anything about how common they are. I think I'm the only one who thinks nothing has to change with regards to the lore. But, from all indications, there won't be a sudden increase in the goblin population. They are already more common than some of the Core ancestries
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are clearly an outlier on the reading of GoG and other core setting canon.
I am? My reading is that it says very little about human opinion on goblins, just goblin opinion on humans. I'm pretty sure that's objectively true.
Or did you mean something else? Because I'm legitimately confused what you think my reading of Goblins of Golarion is.
And,frankly, I don't find your presentation of rebuttal to be even remotely compelling, but rather just argumentative for its own sake. You can argue that rain falls up if you just really want to. It doesn't make it a conclusion one has to accept as equally reasonably with others.
The fact that you disagree with me does not mean I am arguing for the sake of it. Nor does it make my argument (which a fair number of people seem to agree with) somehow inherently factually wrong. That's...not really how arguments work, and is kind of a dick move to accuse someone of.
As to the fanbase, I don't know the numbers. It might be 25% opposed. I think it is a lot more than that. If it is 20% opposed and 80% in favor, is it a good idea to alienate 20%?
Now, clearly, you can't alienate 80%. But there is a solution that can support them. I've already pointed that out. (Again 80% is giving you tremendous levels of "for the purpose of debate").
It may be that they have already made a mistake and it is impossible to unspill the milk. someone is going to be unhappy. But I think that can marginalize that. But core goblins won't be a minimization of unhappiness.
I suspect the number who will be 'alienated' by core goblins is much lower than that. People who'd prefer not to have them? That's another story, but most people simply don't care enough on the issue to be alienated by it.
And it seems like one of their goals is to make the point that 'monster' races aren't all entirely composed of Evil creatures (an argument that gets made a lot despite being factually untrue of Golarion), and making that point sort of requires a 'monstrous' core ancestry...and will quite possibly make a large number of players who found the weird implications of 'always Evil' races feel a lot less alienated.
So it's a balancing act in a lot of ways. I personally think Paizo, with access to lots of actual data, is in a better position to make that particular choice than either you or I are.
|
I still find it interesting that the pro core goblins side is so split between "it will change and they will be common" and "nothing has to change and they will not be any more common than they were".
Which is it?
You misunderstand both points and just miss a third.
There will be a change. And adventuring goblins will become more common. That is an increase in the non-monstrous percentage of goblins out of the goblin population. That's just a consequence of goblins in Core.
That is not as huge a change as some people make it out to be though. As noted, non-monstrous goblins already exist, and goblins are present pretty much everywhere. The total goblin population doesn't need to change.
There is an adjacent point that distance that human perception of and reaction to goblins will need to change even less. Perhaps, not at all for average people. Anything less than kill-on-sight is probably fine. Goblin PCs can handle suspicious villagers.
|
|
I still find it interesting that the pro core goblins side is so split between "it will change and they will be common" and "nothing has to change and they will not be any more common than they were".
Which is it?
i suspect that we will get more examples of non evil goblins, though i do no think they will add a ton more
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You dramatically overestimate the number of non monstrous goblins. As most of the examples of non monstrous goblins literally have to misrepresent the text they're brought up in, and/or strategically leave out the ends of sentences in order to reach "not quite as monstrous".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You dramatically overestimate the number of non monstrous goblins. As most of the examples of non monstrous goblins literally have to misrepresent the text they're brought up in, and/or strategically leave out the ends of sentences in order to reach "not quite as monstrous".
You dramatically underestimate the number of non-monstrous goblins as the majority of goblin characters have been represented as non-evil or non-monstrous for several years now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You dramatically overestimate the number of non monstrous goblins. As most of the examples of non monstrous goblins literally have to misrepresent the text they're brought up in, and/or strategically leave out the ends of sentences in order to reach "not quite as monstrous".You dramatically underestimate the number of non-monstrous goblins as the majority of goblin characters have been represented as non-evil or non-monstrous for several years now.
The hell they have, how many nameless goblins get wrecked in any AP compared to named "non monstrous" goblins? You care to try to put together a ratio?
|
|
You dramatically overestimate the number of non monstrous goblins. As most of the examples of non monstrous goblins literally have to misrepresent the text they're brought up in, and/or strategically leave out the ends of sentences in order to reach "not quite as monstrous".
I made no estimations, actually. I said only that it was a non-zero number and that that number would necessarily increase.
The hell they have, how many nameless goblins get wrecked in any AP compared to named "non monstrous" goblins? You care to try to put together a ratio?You dramatically overestimate the number of non monstrous goblins. As most of the examples of non monstrous goblins literally have to misrepresent the text they're brought up in, and/or strategically leave out the ends of sentences in order to reach "not quite as monstrous".You dramatically underestimate the number of non-monstrous goblins as the majority of goblin characters have been represented as non-evil or non-monstrous for several years now.
I might be wrong, but I don't think so. PFS has had a liberal sampling of non-evil goblins. The only AP I can think of that had a goblin in it was Ironfang Invasion #1. It had "Garvex the dog", who was basically a slave of the hobgoblins and treated like a dog (not to say they mistreated him, but that they literally treated him like the other dogs). You can certainly claim him as monstrous, but I'm feeling good about my ratio.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only because you're ignoring literally all the nameless goblin mooks that get wrecked in various adventures and focusing on outlier named characters.
How many goblins die in the first rise of the runelords module, cause i'll bet they alone outnumber all the less monstrous examples you can bring up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only because you're ignoring literally all the nameless goblin mooks that get wrecked in various adventures and focusing on outlier named characters.
How many goblins die in the first rise of the runelords module, cause i'll bet they alone outnumber all the less monstrous examples you can bring up.
In fairness, while I actually agree that non-monstrous goblins are probably pretty outnumbered by the monstrous ones, RotRL is a really bad piece of evidence because Malachandra is specifically talking about recent adventures, not one written more than a decade ago.