| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
Y'all really move the goalposts a lot in this discussion
"They aren't this way by nature"
*lists off all the references pointing out that they are actually that way by nature*
"People don't even KNOW about these traits of goblins"
*points out the dc5 knowledge check to know about goblins*
"they've been presented as less monstrous"
*points out that its only if you ignore the nameless ones slaughtered en masse in adventure paths and modules*
"yeah but thats an old module"
We get it, you want it and don't have much reference material to argue effectively why its ok to standardize them as a pc race other than because you want it. I'm sure they'll post some reason in the playtest that people who don't want it don't feel explains it enough, and paizo will put it through anyway cause its their mascot race.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
Ironfang Invasion, really? Not....Rise of the Runelords? They also make appearances in Reign of Winter, Shattered Star, and Ruins of Azlant if we count Grindylows and Monkey Goblins. Never a single Good or even Neutral goblin among them.
As for a goblin named character....well the only one that comes to mind (besides the one you already mentioned) is the Terrible Tup, a NE serial pyromaniac statted in A Song of Silver.
If I were you I wouldn't feel so good about your ratio.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.Ironfang Invasion, really? Not....Rise of the Runelords? They also make appearances in Reign of Winter, Shattered Star, and Ruins of Azlant if we count Grindylows and Monkey Goblins. Never a single Good or even Neutral goblin among them.
As for a goblin named character....well the only one that comes to mind (besides the one you already mentioned) is the Terrible Tup, a NE serial pyromaniac statted in A Song of Silver.
If I were you I wouldn't feel so good about your ratio.
And this is without even considering all the stand alone or 2-3 book module sets for levels 1 -3
|
Only because you're ignoring literally all the nameless goblin mooks that get wrecked in various adventures and focusing on outlier named characters.
Do you really count nameless goblin mooks as characters? I'm pretty sure the question was about non-evil characters, specifically.
Sure, there may be hordes of nameless monsters, but do any of them count as NPCs?
| 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.Do you really count nameless goblin mooks as characters? I'm pretty sure the question was about non-evil characters, specifically.
Sure, there may be hordes of nameless monsters, but do any of them count as NPCs?
I forgot that only named characters develop a settings impressions of a species.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'all really move the goalposts a lot in this discussion
Actually, it's more that we aren't a hive mind and often disagree with each other.
Also, almost all of these are entirely separate discussions, not moving the goal posts. That's for changing standards in one discussion, not having more than one discussion at a time.
"They aren't this way by nature"
*lists off all the references pointing out that they are actually that way by nature*
Uh...James Jacobs, who has controlling authority over things like this, sorta directly contradicts this point.
"People don't even KNOW about these traits of goblins"
*points out the dc5 knowledge check to know about goblins*
I actually responded to this with a direct Bestiary quote...
"they've been presented as less monstrous"
*points out that its only if you ignore the nameless ones slaughtered en masse in adventure paths and modules*
"yeah but thats an old module"
Malachandra's argument was always about recent modules, actually. You just apparently didn't read the whole thing. People pointing out your example doesn't apply is not moving the goal posts.
Especially since, as I mentioned, and TheFinish's list serves as evidence of, you can actually find lots of recent examples of monstrous goblins too.
You just failed to actually do so, and thus mentioning RotRL was irrelevant to the argument you were attempting to respond to.
We get it, you want it and don't have much reference material to argue effectively why its ok to standardize them as a pc race other than because you want it. I'm sure they'll post some reason in the playtest that people who don't want it don't feel explains it enough, and paizo will put it through anyway cause its their mascot race.
I, as stated repeatedly, actually require a good in-setting explanation for the rather drastic shift in goblin behavior and people's opinions of them necessitated by making them a Core Ancestry.
I just think Paizo can manage such an explanation.
| 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.Do you really count nameless goblin mooks as characters? I'm pretty sure the question was about non-evil characters, specifically.
Sure, there may be hordes of nameless monsters, but do any of them count as NPCs?
Well I mean technically they're all NPCs. But I get what you mean.
I don't particularly feel like combing through all my APs and modules but:
- The Terrible Tup [A Song of Silver] is Neutral Evil
- Garvex The Dog [Trail of the Hunted] is Neutral Evil
- Gogmurt and Ripnugget [Rise of the Runelords} are Neutral Evil
- Grindtooth [Reign of Winter] is Neutral Evil
- Skizzerts [Emerald Spire] is Neutral Evil
- Great Chief Graalsk [Thornkeep] is Neutral Evil
- All the premade Goblin PCs of We Be Goblins are Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
Y'all really move the goalposts a lot in this discussion
"They aren't this way by nature"
*lists off all the references pointing out that they are actually that way by nature*
"People don't even KNOW about these traits of goblins"
*points out the dc5 knowledge check to know about goblins*
"they've been presented as less monstrous"
*points out that its only if you ignore the nameless ones slaughtered en masse in adventure paths and modules*
"yeah but thats an old module"
We get it, you want it and don't have much reference material to argue effectively why its ok to standardize them as a pc race other than because you want it. I'm sure they'll post some reason in the playtest that people who don't want it don't feel explains it enough, and paizo will put it through anyway cause its their mascot race.
As has been said, we don't all agree on everything on the pro-goblin side. I'm not completely set on having goblins in core (I actually could live without them), but just need less justification than Deadmanwalking (and probably some other differences). We seem to agree in the grand scheme on this topic, but not on all the details. I'm OK with that (and I'm definitely fine with a solid Paizo explanation, I just don't think it's super necessary).
I made my case on why the DC 5 check isn't universal. I believe Deadmanwalking also pointed out how that check wouldn't give the info you're saying it does. I haven't seen you give sastifactory responses to either of these points.
All the references have shown that goblins don't have to be evil by nature, so...
I thought my post was pretty clear about the last few years. I guess I have to specifically call out that Rise of the Runelords is not included for me. Paizo has done a lot of work since then, and is now going in a new direction. They have been toning down goblins for years (look at all of the cute goblin art in the Gamemastery Guide). I actually think it's fine to count the unnamed mooks. I was probably exagerating when I said the "majority", but my point still stands. It would stand if even 10% of goblins were non-monstrous. I actually count the We Be Goblins characters (most of them anyway) on the non-monstrous side. Characters can have an evil alignment and still be gray area for me. In fact I think those adventures strongly back up my claim. They are examples of likable goblin protagonists fighting bad guys and not mindlessly attacking other races. TheFinish brought up some great counterexamples for this though. I'm just saying that I think you're missing the big picture.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- The Terrible Tup [A Song of Silver] is Neutral Evil
- Garvex The Dog [Trail of the Hunted] is Neutral Evil
- Gogmurt and Ripnugget [Rise of the Runelords} are Neutral Evil
- Grindtooth [Reign of Winter] is Neutral Evil
- Skizzerts [Emerald Spire] is Neutral Evil
- Great Chief Graalsk [Thornkeep] is Neutral Evil
- All the premade Goblin PCs of We Be Goblins are Evil.
Thanks for the list! I'm really only familiar with Skizzerts, but I would say he and the other goblins of the spire are presented sympathetically.
Using the legends of Zog, [Grulk] lured a number of the young warriors from the nearby Bloodbriar goblin tribe, filling their heads with tales of glory.
Everything was proceeding according to the bugbear’s plans when Klarkosh and his retinue showed up to explore the Emerald Spire. The goblins put up a valiant effort to defend their home, but Klarkosh was just too powerful. In the end, Grulk made a deal with the Numerian to secure a truce—the goblins would protect the entrance to the lower levels for Klarkosh.
Attacking the PCs when they intrude may be evil, but it is not monstrous.
Tup could be considered monstrous. Too monstrous to be allowed to live with his fellow goblins, even. But, his write up specifically notes pyromania as a sickness. Tup is atypical for goblins. Furthermore, the local human population doesn't even realize he is a goblin.
Despite his helpfulness, Tup remains evil and impulsive and may prove a headache, doing anything from making unflattering puppets of the heroes of Sandpoint to lighting them (or all of Sandpoint) on fire in their sleep.
Would a party that befriends Tup, gets his help, and then later learn he is a goblin have no qualms about killing him? Would that change if they knew he suffered from pyromania?
How would you rate the others on that list?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Garvex is actually an unusually focused and patient goblin kept enslaved by Scarvinious since both were young. The battered creature's years have earned hi a certain degree of autonomy despite his slave status.
I just don't see the one-dimensional, exclusively evil goblins many of you are talking about.
EDIT: Oh, and I don't count grindylows or monkey goblins, because they're not going to be core.... which seems fairly obvious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No deadman made the assumption that it would give bestiary info, which is confusing as that is a setting neutral book so i'm not sure why it wouldn't give setting specific info. I took flak for using a "setting neutral" advanced race guide to describe them precisely because its setting neutral.
Nothing about that knowledge check says "bestiary information" Thats an example of focusing on an adventurer's perspective, something i got called on (wrongly). It says a bit of useful information. The fact that they're arsonists and dangerous counts as useful information for your average commoner to have, and is likely the most well known aspect of the race given that fire departments aren't much of a thing and fires in towns with thatch roofs spread.
Also counting the we be goblins characters as "non monstrous" is...i just don't know where you get that, they're all NE, one specifically likes to torture small helpless animals the antagonist goblin is a cannibal and if you don't succeed at bringing fireworks back the chief feeds the pc's to the tribes pet boar. So...not monstrous is I'm just going to assume you have a higher tolerance for monstrous behavior.
I don't think you'll find even 10%
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- The Terrible Tup [A Song of Silver] is Neutral Evil
- Garvex The Dog [Trail of the Hunted] is Neutral Evil
- Gogmurt and Ripnugget [Rise of the Runelords} are Neutral Evil
- Grindtooth [Reign of Winter] is Neutral Evil
- Skizzerts [Emerald Spire] is Neutral Evil
- Great Chief Graalsk [Thornkeep] is Neutral Evil
- All the premade Goblin PCs of We Be Goblins are Evil.Thanks for the list! I'm really only familiar with Skizzerts, but I would say he and the other goblins of the spire are presented sympathetically.
Using the legends of Zog, [Grulk] lured a number of the young warriors from the nearby Bloodbriar goblin tribe, filling their heads with tales of glory.
Everything was proceeding according to the bugbear’s plans when Klarkosh and his retinue showed up to explore the Emerald Spire. The goblins put up a valiant effort to defend their home, but Klarkosh was just too powerful. In the end, Grulk made a deal with the Numerian to secure a truce—the goblins would protect the entrance to the lower levels for Klarkosh.
Attacking the PCs when they intrude may be evil, but it is not monstrous.
Tup could be considered monstrous. Too monstrous to be allowed to live with his fellow goblins, even. But, his write up specifically notes pyromania as a sickness. Tup is atypical for goblins. Furthermore, the local human population doesn't even realize he is a goblin.
Despite his helpfulness, Tup remains evil and impulsive and may prove a headache, doing anything from making unflattering puppets of the heroes of Sandpoint to lighting them (or all of Sandpoint) on fire in their sleep.Would a party that befriends Tup, gets his help, and then later learn he is a goblin have no qualms about killing him? Would that change if they knew he suffered from pyromania?
How would you rate the others on that list?
There’s also
Jinkoo (The Twice-Damned Prince) who is LN and can help the PCs.
Snapjack (Towns of the Inner Sea) who is CN and a Licktoad and is noted to be fiercely loyal to Old Madge (CG) as she is to him.
No deadman made the assumption that it would give bestiary info, which is confusing as that is a setting neutral book so i'm not sure why it wouldn't give setting specific info. I took flak for using a "setting neutral" advanced race guide to describe them precisely because its setting neutral.
Nothing about that knowledge check says "bestiary information" Thats an example of focusing on an adventurer's perspective, something i got called on (wrongly). It says a bit of useful information. The fact that they're arsonists and dangerous counts as useful information for your average commoner to have, and is likely the most well known aspect of the race given that fire departments aren't much of a thing and fires in towns with thatch roofs spread.
Also counting the we be goblins characters as "non monstrous" is...i just don't know where you get that, they're all NE, one specifically likes to torture small helpless animals the antagonist goblin is a cannibal and if you don't succeed at bringing fireworks back the chief feeds the pc's to the tribes pet boar. So...not monstrous is I'm just going to assume you have a higher tolerance for monstrous behavior.
I don't think you'll find even 10%
You can use this skill [Knowledge] to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.
Nothing in there about public perception, just stats. You might have a claim later, where it talks about "useful information". But it specifically calls out special powers or vulnerabilities, so I don't think it's a reach to assume this indicates bestiary information.
I completely agree about the antagonist. She was actually what I was thinking when I used the "mostly" qualifier. So +1 monstrous goblin. For the rest of them, being evil isn't enough to make something monstrous for me. I could see what you mean about the feeding to the boar aspect, but that's not enough for me to make these goblins monstrous. They aren't a threat to the races around them, and they're really more silly than evil.
We've already given more than you, so unless you start giving evidence I might actually turn out to be right about the majority, much less 10%.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually count the We Be Goblins characters (most of them anyway) on the non-monstrous side. Characters can have an evil alignment and still be gray area for me. In fact I think those adventures strongly back up my claim. They are examples of likable goblin protagonists fighting bad guys and not mindlessly attacking other races. TheFinish brought up some great counterexamples for this though. I'm just saying that I think you're missing the big picture..
Maybe Adventures 1-3, but in the 4th one you literally raid a wedding for no real reason. I mean, some of the wedding goers are Evil (and the rest work for Evil people), but you raid them literally just to kill them because they made "words". And before that you're sent to deal with a Half-Elf woman just because she has garish clothing and a horse.
That's.....pretty damn monstrous. And the writeups for the characters are all pretty horrible, except for Mogmurch, whos....ok. For the most part.
Despite his helpfulness, Tup remains evil and impulsive and may prove a headache, doing anything from making unflattering puppets of the heroes of Sandpoint to lighting them (or all of Sandpoint) on fire in their sleep.Would a party that befriends Tup, gets his help, and then later learn he is a goblin have no qualms about killing him? Would that change if they knew he suffered from pyromania?
How would you rate the others on that list?
Well, lets see:
Gogmurt is an Neutral Evil druid. He was against the attack on Sandpoint only because he feared retribution. When his chief didn't listen to him, he got angry. He has dealt with this anger by throwing goblins that annoy him into the Howling Hole (a big drop into a space inhabited by a bunyip). He attacks the PCs on sight as well. So....pretty bad.
Ripnugget thought the raid on Sandpoint was a swell idea and is thinking of doing more, all to impress Nualia, who is also Evil. He pretends to want to parley but actually just wants to kill the PCs. So also pretty bad.
Grindtooth is just a gang leader looking for people to rob. Pretty bad but considering where the PCs are at the time (Whitethrone, a NE city), pretty normal.
Great Chief Graalsk is the only ok one. He makes sure his Goblins don't do anything bad in Thornkeep, because he knows they'll be slaughtered if they do. He's still called out as a pompous blowhard, but that's hardly a crime.
Though I'm not sure what your definition of "monstrous" is. I consider raiding villages, assaulting people and the like "monstrous" behaviour, so these goblins are monstrous in addition to being monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Myself, I'd strongly argue that, when available, that the setting appropriate information be given. Even the PRD available ARG if far more negative than the bestiary and seems as likely to be how creatures see them [there is even a relations section]. Even the mini-blurb for the race starts off "Crazy pyromaniacs with a tendency to commit unspeakable violence, goblins are the smallest of the goblinoid races."
]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 don't get what we're debating then: we're talking about a random goblin coming to town. How is that meaningfully different than your "house or fields"? Your "house or fields" is IN your village or town... :P
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.
Yes, but when that is the ONLY time you've known of goblins showing up... Goblins JUST aren't shown as having any positive interactions.
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).
AT BEST, they are vermin that bring disease, start fires and molest animals... Seriously, people kill mice/rats because they bring disease and ruin your food, NOT because they think one might shiv them. replace rat with goblin and I'm not seeing the difference. Rats are "pathetic" individually or even in a small group but people still get rid of them then they are in their homes, fields and public areas.
As to "defend", I'm not seeing a real difference there: again, 'drive off' is generally 'attack' and you aren't attacking them with hugs. Kill but not chase if they run and kill even if they run is STILL kill. IMO, it's pure semantics to paint it as "not to kill them per se". No one is there to hurt then a little.
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.
Well we have several instances of the books saying there have been concerted efforts at goblin genocide so clearly it's not unthinkable.
As the the average person? They mot likely aren't expending efforts to find and hunt goblins 'out in the wild'. They are more going to react to immediate threats: which goblins showing up in town clearly are. Even if you quibble over PHYSICAL threats, they are a clear threat to your health [disease], home [fire], security [burning fields/destroying food] and even your pets [dogs and horses].
There are, of course, exceptions to this, especially if the goblins get too numerous, but they remain exceptions, not the general rule.
IMO, it'd be an exception to NOT put some kind of effort to get rid of them if they are in front of you. I'd only agree with you if they aren't in sight: they aren't going on an active hunt as that's be something for PC's, militia, the army ect to deal with.
|
|
Well, lets see:
Gogmurt is an Neutral Evil druid. He was against the attack on Sandpoint only because he feared retribution. When his chief didn't listen to him, he got angry. He has dealt with this anger by throwing goblins that annoy him into the Howling Hole (a big drop into a space inhabited by a bunyip). He attacks the PCs on sight as well. So....pretty bad.
Ripnugget thought the raid on Sandpoint was a swell idea and is thinking of doing more, all to impress Nualia, who is also Evil. He pretends to want to parley but actually just wants to kill the PCs. So also pretty bad.
-----
Grindtooth is just a gang leader looking for people to rob. Pretty bad but considering where the PCs are at the time (Whitethrone, a NE city), pretty normal.
Great Chief Graalsk is the only ok one. He makes sure his Goblins don't do anything bad in Thornkeep, because he knows they'll be slaughtered if they do. He's still called out as a pompous blowhard, but that's hardly a crime.
Though I'm not sure what your definition of "monstrous" is. I consider raiding villages, assaulting people and the like "monstrous" behaviour, so these goblins are monstrous in addition to being monsters.
What is "monstrous" is very subjective. I was asking for your opinion and appreciate that it might differ from mine. No worries.
I think this list goes to show how the representation of goblins has changed quite a bit since Rise of the Runelords was published.
I could also argue, that as the prequel, We B4 Goblins represents the earlier, monster variety of goblins that 1, 2, and 3 served to rehabilitate. :)
I actually count the We Be Goblins characters (most of them anyway) on the non-monstrous side. Characters can have an evil alignment and still be gray area for me. In fact I think those adventures strongly back up my claim. They are examples of likable goblin protagonists fighting bad guys and not mindlessly attacking other races. TheFinish brought up some great counterexamples for this though. I'm just saying that I think you're missing the big picture..Maybe Adventures 1-3, but in the 4th one you literally raid a wedding for no real reason. I mean, some of the wedding goers are Evil (and the rest work for Evil people), but you raid them literally just to kill them because they made "words". And before that you're sent to deal with a Half-Elf woman just because she has garish clothing and a horse.
That's.....pretty damn monstrous. And the writeups for the characters are all pretty horrible, except for Mogmurch, whos....ok. For the most part.
Despite his helpfulness, Tup remains evil and impulsive and may prove a headache, doing anything from making unflattering puppets of the heroes of Sandpoint to lighting them (or all of Sandpoint) on fire in their sleep.Would a party that befriends Tup, gets his help, and then later learn he is a goblin have no qualms about killing him? Would that change if they knew he suffered from pyromania?
How would you rate the others on that list?
Well, lets see:
Gogmurt is an Neutral Evil druid. He was against the attack on Sandpoint only because he feared retribution. When his chief didn't listen to him, he got angry. He has dealt with this anger by throwing goblins that annoy him into the Howling Hole (a big drop into a space inhabited by a bunyip). He attacks the PCs on sight as well. So....pretty bad.
Ripnugget thought the raid on Sandpoint was a swell idea and is thinking of doing more, all to impress Nualia, who is also Evil. He pretends to want to parley but...
I didn't know that about the 4th... OK, that's pretty monstrous. I'd say that puts the majority against the goblins so far, since I don't know the numbers in the PFS scenarios. But that still leaves a lot of non-monstrous goblins out there. Is it really such a stretch to have a few more goblin adventurers? It seems obvious to me now that Paizo has been working for a while to change the tone of goblins in their setting.
You did mention some goblins from RotR. I don't include these, because they were made before the tone-down began.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, lets see:
Gogmurt is an Neutral Evil druid. He was against the attack on Sandpoint only because he feared retribution. When his chief didn't listen to him, he got angry. He has dealt with this anger by throwing goblins that annoy him into the Howling Hole (a big drop into a space inhabited by a bunyip). He attacks the PCs on sight as well. So....pretty bad.
Ripnugget thought the raid on Sandpoint was a swell idea and is thinking of doing more, all to impress Nualia, who is also Evil. He pretends to want to parley but actually just wants to kill the PCs. So also pretty bad.
-----
Grindtooth is just a gang leader looking for people to rob. Pretty bad but considering where the PCs are at the time (Whitethrone, a NE city), pretty normal.
Great Chief Graalsk is the only ok one. He makes sure his Goblins don't do anything bad in Thornkeep, because he knows they'll be slaughtered if they do. He's still called out as a pompous blowhard, but that's hardly a crime.
Though I'm not sure what your definition of "monstrous" is. I consider raiding villages, assaulting people and the like "monstrous" behaviour, so these goblins are monstrous in addition to being monsters.
What is "monstrous" is very subjective. I was asking for your opinion and appreciate that it might differ from mine. No worries.
I think this list goes to show how the representation of goblins has changed quite a bit since Rise of the Runelords was published.
I could also argue, that as the prequel, We B4 Goblins represents the earlier, monster variety of goblins that 1, 2, and 3 served to rehabilitate. :)
I don't really think We Be Goblins 1-3 rehabilitates Goblins in any real way. The character writeups remain the same, horrible as ever, and the stuff they do can't really be called "good".
In We Be Goblins 1, your tribe ran off a goblin for the high crime of.....knowing how to write. The tribe thinks the goblins who attacked Sandpoint were the absolute bees-knees (and refers to Sandpoint as the "hated man-town"). Oh and if you fail the chief feeds you to Squaly Nord.
In We Be Goblins 2, you're basically going after Pa Munchmeat due to a territorial dispute, more or less. One the goblins never tried to solve peacefully, even though Pa Munchmeat hasnt really done anything but defend himself. Oh and one of the dares to select the chieftain is to put the competitors in a boiling sludge with four eagles whose wings have been clipped.
We Be Goblins 3 is the only one where the Goblins are actually justified in what they do, though even then they kill one of their own tribe and play "Killgull" (and also burning horse/dog effigies, and running through squashes made to look like gnomes). Oh and the adventure background says they still organize raids and stuff.
As for Goblin change....not really. I mean the first Ruins of Azlant module has a tribe of monkey-goblins on the island and they never try to establish relations with the colony (besides planning a raid) and always attack the PCs on sight.
No adventure has really presented Goblin tribes as anything other than evil monstrous obstacles to overcome. That's why I don't buy this "Paizo has been mellowing out on them" line of thiking. Especially after they published the Inner Sea Race Guide.
I feel like one of the reasons I'm in favor of "goblin redemption" is that goblins really do a terrible job at being a "scary evil threatening thing." For the most part, they aren't really threats past the very first session and being creatures that are smaller than people, weaker than people, and pick around in garbage to survive really makes goblins come across to me as more pathetic than threatening.
Like there's very little fun or interesting I think you can do with goblins other than "making people feel bad for them".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like one of the reasons I'm in favor of "goblin redemption" is that goblins really do a terrible job at being a "scary evil threatening thing." For the most part, they aren't really threats past the very first session and being creatures that are smaller than people, weaker than people, and pick around in garbage to survive really makes goblins come across to me as more pathetic than threatening.
Like there's very little fun or interesting I think you can do with goblins other than "making people feel bad for them".
It really depends a lot on how you write them, I think. If you have it, check out the Isger Goblin Tribes described in Goblins of Golarion. They won't seem nice or zany then.
I think that's perhaps the only thing that makes them interesting. They're the overlooked danger. Like in Warhammer. Yeah, a single Goblin is basically nothing to be worried about. A gang of five, that starts being different. Ten, fifteen, well, you're in trouble now. And they're almost never alone.
And then, their unpredictability. Yeah, mostly they don't do anything, but once in a while, their raids do real damage. Or worse, you get a Goblinblood War.
It combines to make for an enemy that is both hard to take seriously but you absolutely should take seriously. An Orc is a known quantity, danger wise. A goblin can oscillate between non-threat and horrible threat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It combines to make for an enemy that is both hard to take seriously but you absolutely should take seriously. An Orc is a known quantity, danger wise. A goblin can oscillate between non-threat and horrible threat.
I actually quite like this, and agree it's a good methodology, but feel that (with sufficient in-universe explanation) having some of them also be perfectly nice and even heroic adds something to this element of unpredictability.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. And you can do that without having goblins be a core race. Heck, some goblins already are nice and heroic in P1 as a non-core race.
You totally can. However, having a 'monstrous race' as a core ancestry has several advantages, including finally killing the 'they're all born evil so we can kill their babies' thing, which is super annoying and awful and has come up repeatedly in the recent goblin threads. Nothing short of a core ancestry being a 'monstrous' group is gonna do that, IMO.
There are likely other reasons, but quite frankly that one's enough for me to be behind having something 'monstrous' as core.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple predictions:
- Goblin PCs will be (for the majority) like Eberron *fights on the back of a train*. A bunch of people are super excited by the prospect and can't wait to do it. Then they do it. And they have a good time. And then they have done it. And it is over. I'm not saying nobody out there will become devoted goblin players. But I am predicting they will be quite a small number. Being as goblins will be in the playtest and a year will pass before the real release, most of the excitement will have passed before then.
-If goblin PCs are core in the final the players who love them and play them reasonably will grow to greatly resent the people who "kender" them. Because a lot of people will use goblins badly and disrupt games and a lot of other players will start voicing their displeasure whenever anyone shows up with a goblin. If you are in a small private game with a stable group who all see eye-to-eye, then you will be immune to this (maybe because nobody plays goblins). But a lot of tables will see this happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show me a game where the PCs are expected to have an ethical debate before fighting gnolls, drow, or orcs and I'll show you a game not on any top 20 sales lists.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show me a game where the PCs are expected to have an ethical debate before fighting gnolls, drow, or orcs and I'll show you a game not on any top 20 sales lists.
"Why are we fighting the gnolls?"
"Because they are attacking your home town and it is self defense"
"Why are we fighting these Drow?"
"Because they kidnapped the prince and won't give him back no matter how nicely you ask"
"Why are we fighting these Orcs?"
"Because they are part of an evil cult, and you need to stop them from completing their dark ritual to allow dark forces into the world."
et cetera
If you're attacking anything that's minding its own business and not a threat to anybody, then you probably should stop to ask why. But most of the time we can just kill Grendel because he's been killing people at Heorot, and then kill Grendel's mom in self defense.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear you and understand your point. I'd say that again, you can already do that. And including goblins as a core race isn't necessarily a comment on the vast majority of goblinhood. By definition, adventurers are...different. So, it could very well be the case that you have gobs as a core race, but still have 99% of them doing the nasty, filthy things they've always done.
I mean, after all, I haven't seen anyone claim that 100% of goblins are irredeemably evil. Clearly, there are exceptions. But monsters are monsters.
I really don't see inclusion or lack of inclusion as core changing many minds.
Oh, but it will. It will change the whole conversation around monstrous groups in a profound way. It's happened before when a 'monster' becomes core with Half Orcs, and seems likely to again.
I honestly wish it wasn't necessary to shut people up on the 'murdering goblin babies' bandwagon, but I've had too many arguments with them where they cited them not being core races and only described as Evil to believe that it isn't.
Show me a game where the PCs are expected to have an ethical debate before fighting gnolls, drow, or orcs and I'll show you a game not on any top 20 sales lists.
I've never once had this ethical debate in a Pathfinder game despite treating all species of enemies identically. Indeed, I've yet to even hear of anyone who actually has, it seems to be almost entirely a rhetorical trick to argue against the inclusion of non-Evil members of 'monstrous' groups.
I haven't had this debate because my PCs don't go around killing random people or creatures, they do things for actual reasons, and any goblins, drow, gnolls, or orcs they fight have already done something unpleasant to incur that response (sometimes simply attacking the PCs).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is an extremely good point, and helps change my opinion even more. This crap has happened countless times in the real world. Colonists moved in and proceeded to butcher and drive out the people who used to live there, which sometimes led to the righteously and rightfully angry displaced peoples leading violent raids on the colony for revenge and to try to get their homes back. The colonists then went on to paint the marauding displaced peoples as godless evil savages who deserved what was coming to them.
I'm very much not a fan of Golarion, and I use Pathfinder as a framework to run games in my own settings and like monster races being statted out and included because it helps to that end. But from what I have absorbed about the setting from the books and adventures, it does look and feel that you're likely right - the goblins that actually do cause problems are the ones abutting the spread of (demi/)human civilization. Whereas goblins in the middle of nowhere, or near ancient well-established civilizations, don't seem to actually be as much of a problem.
I like how no one has bothered to try to refute this, because it's apparently inconvenient to the narrative.
I will admit to having a strong reaction initially to that goblin blog, but people have changed my mind. And it really does seem from the setting and adventures like the "problem" goblins are mostly the ones around demi/human expansions into the wilderness. There really doesn't seem to be a problem with goblins around ancient established cities, even though the gobs are clearly there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an extremely good point, and helps change my opinion even more. This crap has happened countless times in the real world. Colonists moved in and proceeded to butcher and drive out the people who used to live there, which sometimes led to the righteously and rightfully angry displaced peoples leading violent raids on the colony for revenge and to try to get their homes back. The colonists then went on to paint the marauding displaced peoples as godless evil savages who deserved what was coming to them.
I'm very much not a fan of Golarion, and I use Pathfinder as a framework to run games in my own settings and like monster races being statted out and included because it helps to that end. But from what I have absorbed about the setting from the books and adventures, it does look and feel that you're likely right - the goblins that actually do cause problems are the ones abutting the spread of (demi/)human civilization. Whereas goblins in the middle of nowhere, or near ancient well-established civilizations, don't seem to actually be as much of a problem.
I like how no one has bothered to try to refute this, because it's apparently inconvenient to the narrative.
I will admit to having a strong reaction initially to that goblin blog, but people have changed my mind. And it really does seem from the setting and adventures like the "problem" goblins are mostly the ones around demi/human expansions into the wilderness. There really doesn't seem to be a problem with goblins around ancient established cities, even though the gobs are clearly there.
My guess would be because its a mostly dry and complicated issue.
Generally most problems between societies have, historically, occurred on the border regions between.Why? Competition over resources have often been a factor. The combination of valuable resources (water, rich soil, plentiful game, precious metals/minerals, trade routes, etc) can make particular locations far more valuable, especially for post hunter-gatherer or post nomad societies.
Thus these move into such areas, settle and eventually build cities. Goblins rarely seem to have developed into such, existing instead as smaller tribal units, primarily sustained by hunter-gathering and the occasional raiding.
(Most conflicts in Golarion seems to be portrayed as such from feys/elves being angry at humans for chopping down their trees/despoiling their tombs to the various empires mesuring their borders to see who's bigger :p)
Conflicts could then as, you pointed out, take on a vaguely colonial feel -> humans move in and settle a river delta -> the river delta was part of the local goblin hunting grounds -> goblins face a scarecity of game -> goblins increase their raiding of neighboring tribes and the humans.
This though, is often too a bit simplistic. Cause we didn't really know what the dynamic of the goblin tribes were like before the humans arrived. Did the tribes raid each other constantly before? From what I gather it really doesn't seem goblins are much friendlier toward neighboring goblin tribes then they are towards neighboring humans/gnomes/whatever.
To me personally, being core or not changes very little. Goblins were able to rise above their origins before, and by all indications will so in the future. It's mostly a back and forth about how many will rise out of their "primitive" state for me now. Will we see actual advanced goblin societies (ie. Complex administration, city building, feudal or early republic governance etc.)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me a game where the PCs are expected to have an ethical debate before fighting gnolls, drow, or orcs and I'll show you a game not on any top 20 sales lists.
I think Pathfinder is this game already. It’s just that in a role playing game, the bar is set very low. No one is saying we have to hold our characters to real life standards. That would be boring, and we would never kill anything. There just hast to be [b]some[|b] justification. And the arguments against goblins have been saying there is zero justification required. Show me the Paizo adventure that has the PCs kill a random character for no reason. There are groups that will do this, but there is a term for them: murderhobos. That’s fine if that’s the game you want to play, but it’s not the default.
Ok, here's the confrontation of your point.
RPG's are about escapisim. If you want your game to struggle with modern sociopolitical issues that's fine for your game, but i think you'll find that a not insignificant percentage of the playerbase isn't interested in getting a lecture out of a 101 power+privilege course in their entertainment. I took those money leeching requirement courses freshman year and while they have relevance to the modern world they needn't be an issue in a rpg. Moreover the mod team has made it pretty clear that they aren't interested in having rl political issues bleed into discussion of the rpg on this forum and that post is prrreetttymuch that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how no one has bothered to try to refute this, because it's apparently inconvenient to the narrative.This is an extremely good point, and helps change my opinion even more. This crap has happened countless times in the real world. Colonists moved in and proceeded to butcher and drive out the people who used to live there, which sometimes led to the righteously and rightfully angry displaced peoples leading violent raids on the colony for revenge and to try to get their homes back. The colonists then went on to paint the marauding displaced peoples as godless evil savages who deserved what was coming to them.
I'm very much not a fan of Golarion, and I use Pathfinder as a framework to run games in my own settings and like monster races being statted out and included because it helps to that end. But from what I have absorbed about the setting from the books and adventures, it does look and feel that you're likely right - the goblins that actually do cause problems are the ones abutting the spread of (demi/)human civilization. Whereas goblins in the middle of nowhere, or near ancient well-established civilizations, don't seem to actually be as much of a problem.
For myself, I 100% ignored it because you aren't playing Golarion and I'm debating goblins from there. Secondly, the indians didn't eat colonists, start random fires and give them diseases [the other way around]. If it was just PR, I could agree with you but... Goblins are objectively awful creatures. So this further reinforced my 'ignore it' feeling as it didn't seem 'on point'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You totally can. However, having a 'monstrous race' as a core ancestry has several advantages, including finally killing the 'they're all born evil so we can kill their babies' thing, which is super annoying and awful and has come up repeatedly in the recent goblin threads.
I think you've been misreading the posts then. I don't recall "they're all born evil" from posters but almost everyone IN GAME thinks "they're all born evil" which is an important distinction.
I can't see the 'benefit' from making a starter adventure of sending 1st level characters to clean out a goblin den into a moral quandary about it's ethicacy... it would be one thing if we wouldn't be expected to have 'monster' goblins around but it sounds like we'll have both 'wild' goblins and 'not 100% insane' goblins.
And from my personal experience, I've never experiences much of the debate over goblins unless it was a catch 22 for a paladin. Otherwise, people just axed em and moved on.
Secondly, the indians didn't eat colonists, start random fires and give them diseases [the other way around].
Well, there is some archaeological evidence that Aztecs did ritually sacrifice then cannibalize some conquistador captives, much like they did with captives they took from neighboring tribes (who happily allied with the Spanish, because the Aztecs were really terrible neighbors, but this ended up going really badly for them once the Aztecs were vanquished.) None of this really justifies the terrible treatment of the indigenous Mexican people by Spanish colonists that was to follow.
Secondly, the indians didn't eat colonists, start random fires and give them diseases [the other way around].Well, there is some archaeological evidence that Aztecs did ritually sacrifice then cannibalize some conquistador captives, much like they did with captives they took from neighboring tribes (who happily allied with the Spanish, because the Aztecs were really terrible neighbors, but this ended up going really badly for them once the Aztecs were vanquished.) None of this really justifies the terrible treatment of the indigenous Mexican people by Spanish colonists that was to follow.
If you're talking about Acolhuas, there is some debate on that. Evidence of cannibalism, for instance, was more based on colonist accounts than physical evidence. Though if true, they seem mighty close to goblins as they even killed and ate the horses... :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you've been misreading the posts then. I don't recall "they're all born evil" from posters but almost everyone IN GAME thinks "they're all born evil" which is an important distinction.
Oh, no. You haven't been making the claim that they're all born evil and neither have most of the people on your side of the argument, but I absolutely have seen people make it. And recently. I'd need to do a search through like, 8 threads to find all the times, but it's absolutely come up.
I can't see the 'benefit' from making a starter adventure of sending 1st level characters to clean out a goblin den into a moral quandary about it's ethicacy... it would be one thing if we wouldn't be expected to have 'monster' goblins around but it sounds like we'll have both 'wild' goblins and 'not 100% insane' goblins.
I've seen 1st level adventures where the PCs went after bandits, and those caused no ethical issues. Why would going after Evil goblins be any different?
I keep asking that question and have yet to have anyone actually answer it.
And from my personal experience, I've never experiences much of the debate over goblins unless it was a catch 22 for a paladin. Otherwise, people just axed em and moved on.
I've never experienced such a debate either, despite treating them exactly like anyone else who does the same things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen 1st level adventures where the PCs went after bandits, and those caused no ethical issues. Why would going after Evil goblins be any different?
Going after them? No issue. It's what comes after: you've conditioned and reinforced that bandit/goblins are bad. The issue comes when a known bandit/goblin comes to town. Last week you went to wipe them off the face of the earth but you don't see many people going 'wait, that might be a nice bandit! don't kill it... We should see it it does anything funny first before we do anything...'. But going by the goblin threads, several people think goblins should get different treatment than that known bandit.
I keep asking that question and have yet to have anyone actually answer it.
Well I did: I don't recall seeing it before and would have replied if I'd noticed it. Known bandits are something that 'normal good folk' kill/drive off/don't allow in town. Having goblins in the same light SHOULD see them treated the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, here's the confrontation of your point.
RPG's are about escapisim. If you want your game to struggle with modern sociopolitical issues that's fine for your game, but i think you'll find that a not insignificant percentage of the playerbase isn't interested in getting a lecture out of a 101 power+privilege course in their entertainment. I took those money leeching requirement courses freshman year and while they have relevance to the modern world they needn't be an issue in a rpg. Moreover the mod team has made it pretty clear that they aren't interested in having rl political issues bleed into discussion of the rpg on this forum and that post is prrreetttymuch that.
... So we should pretend that there are no sociopolitical issues in a setting? Maybe we don’t have to force the issue in a game, but the setting should be made without any depth? And didn’t you invite this discussion by claiming that civilized races have the moral right to kill goblins without justification?
While you’re at it, could you confront the points made in response to your comment at the top of this page? We’ve shown that Paizo employees consider goblins to not be evil by nature and have the potential for more, that few in the Inner Sea would know very much about goblins, and that Paizo has been toning down goblins for years by including non monstrous goblin characters in various adventures.
I think the percentage is sitting well above 10%. And of the “monstrous” goblins, many were simply minding their own business when adventurers invaded their homes. Fuzzypaws pointed out that goblins get their reputation mainly when other races invade their territory. I’m starting to think adventurers might be the real bad guys here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... So we should pretend that there are no sociopolitical issues in a setting? Maybe we don’t have to force the issue in a game, but the setting should be made without any depth? And didn’t you invite this discussion by claiming that civilized races have the moral right to kill goblins without justification?
Colonialism is handled in golarion, in sargova. Stretching it to include a destructive cannibalistic arsonist species doesn't do the game favors. It isn't as though this is propaganda by the colonizers, its literally what the race does to each other when left alone.
While you’re at it, could you confront the points made in response to your comment at the top of this page? We’ve shown that Paizo employees consider goblins to not be evil by nature and have the potential for more, that few in the Inner Sea would know very much about goblins, and that Paizo has been toning down goblins for years by including non monstrous goblin characters in various adventures.
Do some legwork and list them, im getting tired of the only one hunting down printed examples and double checking claims people make about tribes and modules only to find out they're dropping sentences to strengthen their argument. If paizo staff wants to consider goblins not evil by nature they shouldn't have written so many pages about their nature being destructive, antisocial, and dangerous.
I think the percentage is sitting well above 10%. And of the “monstrous” goblins, many were simply minding their own business when adventurers invaded their homes. Fuzzypaws pointed out that goblins get their reputation mainly when other races invade their territory. I’m starting to think adventurers might be the real bad guys here.
Then do everyone in this discussion a favor and start hunting down your sources and comparing them to the number of goblins presented as greystone, myself and others have pointed out they're presented. Simply walking back your percentages based on your gut feeling isn't convincing in the slightest.
|
|
Going after them? No issue. It's what comes after: you've conditioned and reinforced that bandit/goblins are bad. The issue comes when a known bandit/goblin comes to town. Last week you went to wipe them off the face of the earth but you don't see many people going 'wait, that might be a nice bandit! don't kill it... We should see it it does anything funny first before we do anything...'. But going by the goblin threads, several people think goblins should get different treatment than that known bandit.
This assumes that people (particularly PCs) can't distinguish between goblins who attack people and those who don't even though they can distinguish between humans who attack people (ie: bandits) and those who don't. That's a super weird assumption to make.
Now, absent a setting change, that's a perfectly reasonable attitude for most people to take in-universe but acting like it will cause your players to have sudden ethical debates about every Evil goblin they need to fight is absurd.
Well I did: I don't recall seeing it before and would have replied if I'd noticed it. Known bandits are something that 'normal good folk' kill/drive off/don't allow in town. Having goblins in the same light SHOULD see them treated the same.
Unless something happens to convince most people that not all goblins are the equivalent of bandits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going after them? No issue. It's what comes after: you've conditioned and reinforced that bandit/goblins are bad. The issue comes when a known bandit/goblin comes to town. Last week you went to wipe them off the face of the earth but you don't see many people going 'wait, that might be a nice bandit! don't kill it... We should see it it does anything funny first before we do anything...'. But going by the goblin threads, several people think goblins should get different treatment than that known bandit.This assumes that people (particularly PCs) can't distinguish between goblins who attack people and those who don't even though they can distinguish between humans who attack people (ie: bandits) and those who don't. That's a super weird assumption to make.
Now, absent a setting change, that's a perfectly reasonable attitude for most people to take in-universe but acting like it will cause your players to have sudden ethical debates about every Evil goblin they need to fight is absurd.
Well I did: I don't recall seeing it before and would have replied if I'd noticed it. Known bandits are something that 'normal good folk' kill/drive off/don't allow in town. Having goblins in the same light SHOULD see them treated the same.Unless something happens to convince most people that not all goblins are the equivalent of bandits.
What you have described is perfectly logical, but I still don't like it. I enjoy a morally complex game with mature themes, but every now and then you want to allow the LG murder hobos to act with murderous LG conviction. If all goblins are bad, it is much easier to have at them without dispute. (I realize there are goblins in PF1 that are not evil, but they are not in the core rulebook, which matters on a psychological level.) We already get that complexity with kith; we don't need it with the traditional bad guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This assumes that people (particularly PCs) can't distinguish between goblins who attack people and those who don't even though they can distinguish between humans who attack people (ie: bandits) and those who don't. That's a super weird assumption to make.
I honestly can't imagine most people would be able to tell various goblins apart: I'm sure they could pick one out they interacted with significantly, but tell one group/tribe apart? Not unless they have a significant marker. See goblins are ID'd as goblins first. Like my set up you were sent to kill GOBLINS not bandits/raiders that happened to be goblins: When you're sent out to kill bandit, you're there to kill bandits that happen to be humans, elves, ect.
Add to that that they "dress in rags and scraps" ", "bear coarsely cobbled-together equipment" and "Many humans and similar races find it hard to distinguish goblin genders": there is literally nothing distinguishing from one goblin group/tribe to the next. The most common trait among goblins is that they vary so much from each other.
Lastly, they generally attack when adventitious so at night or are attacked in someplace dark. This further muddies the water as far as IDing them. A goblin in the dark waving around a torch makes it pretty tough to memorize.
So, I going to stick with the idea that they'd have NO idea if some random goblins of one of the ones that attacked them earlier.
Now, absent a setting change, that's a perfectly reasonable attitude for most people to take in-universe but acting like it will cause your players to have sudden ethical debates about every Evil goblin they need to fight is absurd.
I'd agree if it wasn't for the goblin thread and all the people that think ALL goblins should get the benefit of the doubt absent proof. Secondly, if they are the villains one time and the helpful allies next, it's honestly going to be confusing. it's nice to have some monsters that are always the villains and you don't have to worry about killing. It's a LOT simpler when the only reason they are there i as a sword target and I'd expect the 'goblin bady' debate to extend now to 'all goblins'.
Unless something happens to convince most people that not all goblins are the equivalent of bandits.
Well we've been over this one: I think it's a nigh impossible task to take them from where they are thought of NOW and elevate their rep to 'likely enough to be not-evil/psycho that it's worth the chance to see if they are'.
Colonialism is handled in golarion, in sargova. Stretching it to include a destructive cannibalistic arsonist species doesn't do the game favors. It isn't as though this is propaganda by the colonizers, its literally what the race does to each other when left alone.
... So we should pretend that there are no sociopolitical issues in a setting? Maybe we don’t have to force the issue in a game, but the setting should be made without any depth? And didn’t you invite this discussion by claiming that civilized races have the moral right to kill goblins without justification?
Goblins and humans cannot both be original to an area. Setting information is consistent with the idea that goblins lived in central Avistan first and that humans colonized later. Since then, goblins have been pushed into an increasingly small territory. So it makes sense they'd push back. And really, they have that right.
As for the rest of your post, the legwork has been done for you. Numerous examples of non-monstrous goblins in Paizo adventurers have been given. Graystone and TheFinish have provided counter-examples, you have provided none. If you're unwilling to scroll up and read that conversation, I see no need to repeat it here. I admit I "walked back" my initial statement of the majority. But you are still underestimating the presence of non monstrous goblin characters in the face of the evidence. Paizo has clearly been toning down goblins for years, perhaps in preparation for this. Even the "monstrous" goblins in recent adventures have been sympathetic or otherwise like-able in some way!
I think I have conclusively made my point on this. If you must stoop to being condescending and insulting rather than reply to my evidence, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
Y'all really move the goalposts a lot in this discussion
"They aren't this way by nature"
*lists off all the references pointing out that they are actually that way by nature*
"People don't even KNOW about these traits of goblins"
*points out the dc5 knowledge check to know about goblins*
"they've been presented as less monstrous"
*points out that its only if you ignore the nameless ones slaughtered en masse in adventure paths and modules*
"yeah but thats an old module"
We get it, you want it and don't have much reference material to argue effectively why its ok to standardize them as a pc race other than because you want it. I'm sure they'll post some reason in the playtest that people who don't want it don't feel explains it enough, and paizo will put it through anyway cause its their mascot race.
Isn’t ROTL at least kind of in the ‘pilot tv episode mode?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EarlyInstallmentWeirdness
Goblins and humans cannot both be original to an area. Setting information is consistent with the idea that goblins lived in central Avistan first and that humans colonized later. Since then, goblins have been pushed into an increasingly small territory. So it makes sense they'd push back. And really, they have that right.
Well...
Yes they can. Remember this is Golerion, where a magical popping into existence at the behest of the Gods are a possibility.Which is kind of what happened with the Goblins (if we are to believe their "stories about their history/origins")
As far as I can remember its Lamashtu stealing what will become the Barghest/Goblin Hero-Gods Hadregash, Venkelvore, Zarongel and Zogmugot from Asmodeus.
She lets them loose on the mortal world, where they hunt mortals, and from the spilled blood of those mortals (Humans?) the first goblins are birthed.
So, technically, the goblins couldn't claim the right to any land, as that would belong to those "Mortals" (Humans? Elves? Dwarves?...)
Though in all honesty, any claim to Golarion should probably go to the Xiomorns, maybe the Aboleths :P