Theories about Goblin Inclusion


Prerelease Discussion

301 to 350 of 515 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Kjeldorn wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

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

Quite, Xiomorns were there first, everyone else get out! Let the Earth bugs have their nice home back!

Also, funnily, both Goblins of Golarion and Inner Sea Races specify goblins come from human blood spilled by the Barghest gods. So Goblins confirmed for evil land grubbing blood-golems!


Malachandra wrote:
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.

Not as consistent as you may think. "In the intervening millennia, the form and spirit of goblins have remained largely unchanged. They follow the migrations of humans and other peoples, and have spread out to colonize nearly all of Golarion. They stalk caravans, hide in the holds of ships, and ride a league behind other travelers, spreading like rats and living off the refuse of more industrious peoples. No newly discovered corner of the world remains goblin-free for long. Where humans tread, goblins scamper behind."

The above quote from inner seas races paints a picture of GOBLINS following after humans, not humans coming to where goblins are. As 'parasites', they need other civilized races for food, equipment and entertainment. A goblin tribe near no one would need to feed themselves, and that's something they are too lazy to do: hence, needing someone to steal from.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
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.

I've never had any PCs sent to kill goblins who weren't behaving like bandits. Nor has any Paizo AP. Nor is doing so remotely necessary to avoid ethical arguments.

Yeah, killing goblins just for existing would be immoral in any game I ran...so I don't given jobs to kill goblins for existing. Or anything else just for existing (well, okay, mindless undead). It's not a hard situation to avoid as a GM.

Which is why that complaint rings hollow to me. It's an OOC complaint that making goblins not evil causes issues when it doesn't.

Your in-world complaints seem much more reasonable, because something does need to change in-universe if some goblins are gonna be perceived as non-Evil. I just don't think it's quite as big a change as you do, since I think people are less scared by/threatened by goblins than you seem to.

graystone wrote:
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.

Goblins tend to be pretty territorial with other goblins. You probably have some idea just from where it happened. Also, different goblin tribes often dress and behave very differently and distinctly. Read some of the goblin tribe descriptions. So...no, if you're paying attention it's not super hard to tell different groups of goblins apart (even if individuals are tricky).

graystone wrote:
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.

Only if none of them die. Which is hideously unlikely given, y'know, the entire history of goblins. If any die you can examine them for distinctive gear and tribal markings and the like.

Heck, identifying the tribe goblins are from is a major plot point in Rise of the Runelords (since the fact that several tribes allied together is notable and a major event). If it was impossible to tell them apart that information simply wouldn't show up, y'know?

graystone wrote:
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.

By this logic they have no idea if random humans are the same people as the masked bandits who attacked them earlier either and should thus just kill all humans they see.

I mean, it just ignores so much context I can't even begin to say.

graystone wrote:
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'.

Having some tribes of goblins be friendly and make sure to dress distinctly from the unfriendly ones is pretty easy. Some Evil goblins may dress the same and try a false flag operation, but most goblins aren't inclined to that kind of subtlety, and there are ways to counter that (wearing writing leaps to mind for a tribe that's embraced literacy), as well as precautions to be taken (not allowing more than a few goblins into town at once even from friendly groups).

graystone wrote:
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'.

And once again we hit our core disagreement:

You think people feel threatened enough by goblins they wouldn't be willing to take this sort of risk. I don't think people generally feel threatened enough by individual goblins that they won't give them a chance. There's gonna be a very real 'what's the worst that could happen?' feeling in regards to single goblins or small numbers of them, which makes any decent odds of them being friendly a gamble most people will be fine taking.

Now, as noted above, I'd expect most towns not to allow any large groups of goblins into their town, even from supposedly 'friendly' groups simply because they might not be firendly. But one or two goblins, from a group that's supposedly friendly? Sure. People just aren't worried enough by a single goblin (or even two or three) that they'd feel a need to perform a 'better safe than sorry' murder/banishment.

Now, if the whole PC group are goblins, that'd definitely be pushing it, and I'd expect most towns to require no more than a couple of them to come inside the town, but cities are probably more cosmopolitan and might be fine with four or five. A whole tribe is probably not gonna get in anywhere, but that's hardly an issue with them being PCs.

All of this, of course, assumes some in-universe thing proving at least one fairly decently sized group of goblins to be of good intent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Deadmanwalking, I agree with pretty much everything you said, and really only differ in nuance. The problem for me is not that some goblins are not evil, but rather that they are being put in the core rulebook as PC ancestries.

In my game, players get to choose their intentions (alignment) without any interference from me, other than in defining what each alignment means more clearly than is in the core rulebook. I also don't like to restrict player choices in character creation; they can make anything the core rules allow (and even more with DM permission). The problem for me is primarily psychological. If the players get to choose their intent, and the PCs believe goblins are always evil, we don't have to discuss morality when fighting goblins. And sometimes players just want to be able to fight and take no prisoners.

Accordingly, if one player chooses to play a goblin, the other players are expected to create characters who are accepting of goblins as part of their social contracts, and the option of the goblins being mooks is taken away from me. I can easily house rule goblin PCs away, but that has never been my MO; I take pride in giving maximum choice to players and bending my world to accommodate. The choice to include goblins in core is going to force me to use something other than goblins as the race you can kill. Obviously, you don't mind requiring Good character carefully considering whether goblins are acting in an evil manner before justifying a purge, which is fine and many years ago when I was a player I was in a great game that had just that, but not all games are that way. DM permission to include a goblin PC from a splat book is just more appealing to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
We've had goblin PCs since 2010. Nothing is changing!!

Goblin PCs have been a part of the game since 2005 as part of D&D 3.5, and, though my memory of earlier editions is a little foggier, I wouldn't be surprised if Goblin PCs weren't part of a game earlier than that, at least as far back as D&D 3.0.

Of course, 2011 would see the first "We Be Goblins" scenario published, focused specifically on Goblin heroes, and adding them to the lore and history of Golarion.

As far as justifying it for the groups who missed/ignored the "We Be Goblins" series, I haven't read the whole thread yet to see if anyone else has answered, but I think we can refer to the "We Be Goblins" series for at least one in-universe explanation:

Spoiler:

"We B4 Goblins": (Prequel) "As whelps of the Licktoad tribe just out of their swaddling cages, the goblins Chuffy, Mogmurch, Poog, and Reta must prove themselves by undergoing a series of challenges, from tying a string to a large spider and shouting insults with hot rocks in their mouths to facing off against a goblin bully and his dimwitted minions. As a final test of their mettle, they must make a dangerous (and smelly) trek to claim a toad from the nearby swamp and present it to the terrifying presence that lurks within the Cave of Darkfear, only after which can they truly call themselves goblins! But as the goblins return to the Licktoad village, they come across a brightly colored, jingling human carrying a map to a small farm up the river where a family of halflings are celebrating a wedding—the perfect setup for a goblin raid! Will the heroes acquit themselves in the finest goblin fashion by wreaking havoc upon the nuptials? Or will they be bitten by ferocious dogs and smashed by frying pans?"

"We Be Goblins": "The Licktoad goblins of Brinestump Marsh have stumbled upon a great treasure—fireworks! Yet unfortunately for them, the tribe member responsible for the discovery has already been exiled for the abhorrent crime of writing (which every goblin knows steals words from your head). To remedy this situation, the Licktoads’ leader, His Mighty Girthness Chief Rendwattle Gutwad, has declared that the greatest heroes of the tribe [Reta Bigbad, Chuffy, Poog, and Mogmurch] must venture forth to retrieve the rest of the fireworks from a derelict ship stranded in the marsh. In order to prove themselves as the Licktoads’ bravest goblins, the PCs must complete a series of dangerous dares, from swallowing bull slugs and braving the dreaded Earbiter to dancing with Squealy Nord himself. Yet even once they’ve proven their mettle, the adventure is just beginning. For the ship in question is far from uninhabited, and Vorka the cannibal goblin would like nothing better than a few tasty visitors...."

"We Be Goblins, Too!": "The Licktoads, once the great and fierce goblin tribe in Brinestump Marsh, were defeated by human adventurers! All that remains of the tribe are its four goblin "heroes"—Reta Bigbad the fighter, Chuffy Lickwound the rogue, Poog the cleric of Zarongel, and Mogmurch the alchemist. Homeless and bored, they left their swampy homeland to join the neighboring goblin tribe, the Birdcrunchers. The good news is that the Birdcrunchers are willing to let the goblin heroes join their tribe. The better news is that the Birdcrunchers have heard of these four, and want one of them to become their new chieftain. The bad news is that before the goblins can join, they'll need to endure a series of dangerous and humiliating tests. Very dangerous. Very humiliating. The worse news is that lately Birdcruncher chieftains have had really short lifespans—they're being killed by the pet fire-breathing boar of a local ogre who wants the Birdcruncher land as his own. Can the four heroes of the now-dead Licktoad tribe save the Birdcrunchers and, in so doing, become their new leaders?"

"We Be Goblins, Free!": "After losing chieftain after chieftain, the Birdcruncher goblin tribe finally found competent leadership in its four goblin "heroes"—Reta Bigbad the fighter, Chuffy Lickwound the rogue, Poog the cleric of Zarongel, and Mogmurch the alchemist. But it turns out leading a tribe of goblins isn't much fun, and the newest Birdcruncher chieftains are bored. In order to cure their doldrums, the chieftains have issued a new demand—find them some adventure, or else! Eager to please their great chieftains, the Birdcruncher goblins frantically try to whip up all sorts of amusements, including goblin games, feats of skill, and a grand feast. But trouble arises in the midst of the goblins' feast for their mighty leaders—the goblins who went to harvest truffles for the feast got beat up by some stinky humans! Now the Birdcruncher chieftains find themselves getting more adventure than they bargained for as they venture to the Bestest Truffle Field to pick up the slack for their bumbling minions. Will the goblin heroes be able to make it to the field, find the treasured fungus, defeat the mean humans, and make it back to the tribe in time to enjoy their well-deserved feast?"

In short:

The four legendary Licktoad Goblin heroes began their career as young heroes among their own tribe, and grew up to prove themselves as paragons among their tribe, before the Licktoad tribe was destroyed under the leadership of the all-too conventional and short-sighted Chief Rendwattle Gutwad (His Mighty Girthness), and scattered to the winds. The Licktoad heroes quickly found themselves welcomed and adopted into the Birdcruncher tribe, where they quickly rose to the top of their new tribe as joint leaders and role-models for the other Goblins.

So, who are all these new Goblin adventurers suddenly wandering around seeking adventures?

Some are wandering, homeless Licktoads, inspired by their heroes to adopt the lifestyle of Goblin adventurers. Maybe they will be adopted into other Goblin tribes and become leaders and heroes in their own right, or maybe they will cast their lots in with stinky Longshank and other traditional adventurers, and find their niche there.

Others are Birdcrunchers, sent on quests or also inspired to become adventurers by those same heroes, ultimately further helping the Birdcruncher tribe to flourish even further as a rare center of Goblin civilization.

Still others are Goblin adventurers from neighboring tribes who, quick to notice the success of the Birdcrunchers and connect that success to the efforts of Goblin adventurers and heroes, have produced adventurers of their own to try to compete with their neighbors.

After all, Goblins are relatively short-lived and often child-like people who, by nature, rarely survive far into adulthood and very rarely benefit from each others' experience and leadership, but the Licktoad heroes have done enough good in their own time to become legends and role-models among Goblins, sparking a generation of young Goblin adventurers and heroes in their wake.

How long will this development last? Will it die out when Reta, Chuffy, Poog, and Mogmurch pass from this world into memory, quickly forgotten the moment that younger Goblins are distracted, and return to acting more like savage pests than heroes? Or will this new generation of Goblins inspire another, and generation by generation slowly lead their kind to a stable form of civilization? That depends on the heroism and conduct of this fresh new breed of Goblin heroes, and on the willingness of their skeptical neighbors to set aside their differences and work with these adventurers; perhaps only time will tell how this will work out.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Which is why that complaint rings hollow to me. It's an OOC complaint that making goblins not evil causes issues when it doesn't.

I'm not sure how more non-evil goblins in the mix wouldn't cause more issues.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I've never had any PCs

I expect more goblin involvement in future products to 'highlight/showcase' the new core race. As such, I'm not sure how the past is a good place to inform future goblin use.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, killing goblins just for existing would be immoral in any game I ran...

LOL And I've never been in a game where anyone thought twice about killing encountered goblins or recalled anyone saying 'lets wait and see if these are BAD goblins first...' This might not be the case in the future and I don't see that as good thing.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I just don't think it's quite as big a change as you do, since I think people are less scared by/threatened by goblins than you seem to.

I can't see an upside to not treating them as a threat. It's KNOWN that they breed like crazy and are a constant threat to property and health with disease and fire... Even a goblin with not currently attacking your town can start a forest fire, foul your water supply, ect...

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Goblins tend to be pretty territorial with other goblins. You probably have some idea just from where it happened. Also, different goblin tribes often dress and behave very differently and distinctly. Read some of the goblin tribe descriptions. So...no, if you're paying attention it's not super hard to tell different groups of goblins apart (even if individuals are tricky).

I DID read the tribe info AND looked at the images... I'd be hard pressed to tell them apart. Maybe the goblins are better at telling them apart than I am.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rise of the Runelords

Maybe? I recall tribal banners, cave markings and such and NOT the goblins themselves as distinct. it's been a while though, so I could be wrong.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
By this logic they have no idea if random humans are the same people as the masked bandits who attacked them earlier either and should thus just kill all humans they see.

Humans aren't KNOWN as all bandits though. THAT'S the difference. Goblins are almost universally reviled. For the average person, the exact tribe attacking you is meaningless: that's what goblins do. Much like bandits. Not humans though.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Having some tribes of goblins be friendly and make sure to dress distinctly from the unfriendly ones is pretty easy. Some Evil goblins may dress the same and try a false flag operation, but most goblins aren't inclined to that kind of subtlety, and there are ways to counter that (wearing writing leaps to mind for a tribe that's embraced literacy), as well as precautions to be taken (not allowing more than a few goblins into town at once even from friendly groups).

Doable if you overcome the initial mistrust and there's the rub/catch 22. You have to know they are friendly first:

Secondly, with goblins being the 'easy' target for other races to control then, it doesn't seem unlikely to find 'bad' goblins with 'good' goblin dress and even writing prepared by their 'masters'. As to small groups... How many goblins does it take to set the town on fire, especially if you send in sorcerer's...

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And once again we hit our core disagreement:

You think people feel threatened enough by goblins they wouldn't be willing to take this sort of risk. I don't think people generally feel threatened enough by individual goblins that they won't give them a chance. There's gonna be a very real 'what's the worst that could happen?' feeling in regards to single goblins or small numbers of them, which makes any decent odds of them being friendly a gamble most people will be fine taking.

Slightly off. I feel that there is NO upside to people would "be willing to take this sort of risk". A goblin left alone today is thousands in a few years. As to "what's the worst that could happen?", a single goblin can spread disease, set the town/field on fire, run off with an animal/child.

My question is "what's the best that happens?". I don't see "any decent odds" of a beneficial result. How high do those 'odds' have to make it to make it worth the risk?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now, as noted above, I'd expect most towns not to allow any large groups of goblins into their town, even from supposedly 'friendly' groups simply because they might not be firendly. But one or two goblins, from a group that's supposedly friendly? Sure. People just aren't worried enough by a single goblin (or even two or three) that they'd feel a need to perform a 'better safe than sorry' murder/banishment.

I JUST can't see this. Even if we assume they are 'friendly', they are known to spread disease... And are obsessed with starting fires... And hate dogs/horses... And what again, to they have to make all that worthwhile? What benefit does letting the goblins into town have?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now, if the whole PC group are goblins, that'd definitely be pushing it, and I'd expect most towns to require no more than a couple of them to come inside the town, but cities are probably more cosmopolitan and might be fine with four or five. A whole tribe is probably not gonna get in anywhere, but that's hardly an issue with them being PCs.

If goblins have 'minders' that can vouch for lack of disease and are tamed and house trained, sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Malachandra wrote:


... 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.

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.

Because you cant, you keep falling back on vague "numerous examples" What like the 4 provided that didn't actually turn out to be NE sociopaths when people actually looked them up? Tiny drops in the sea of goblins. You haven't presented evidence, you and the rest of the "not all goblins" crew have misrepresented what was written and tried to hold up examples outnumbered tens or hundreds to one as evidence. In statistics thats called an outlier, and discarded.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Goblins aren’t nearly as homogeneous as compounds in your chemistry set. Throw out too many outliers and you’ve discarded the emerging pattern.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Goblins aren’t nearly as homogeneous as compounds in your chemistry set. Throw out too many outliers and you’ve discarded the emerging pattern.

Except no one has proved an emerging pattern. They've thrown out examples, which upon actually looking them up aren't examples of what they're claiming.

One module has 3X the examples of NE goblins as the non evil goblins spread out across the entirety of the written game setting. Not a single entire tribe has been written about that doesn't fit the written descriptions of them as sociopathic, greedy, cowardly, cannibalistic arsonists.

What exists in this thread, and in most of the pro-goblin side of this discussion, is pointing out the outliers as though they're a trend. They aren't, no trend has been established.

And honestly, no one on the "no goblins as core" side has even claimed they cant exist, just that their existence is so rare that maybe the race shouldn't be a core race as those races should be restricted to ones that players should be able to play without dealing with the issues of NPC disgust and suspicion.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I'm not sure how more non-evil goblins in the mix wouldn't cause more issues.

I'm really and honestly not clear why it would.

graystone wrote:
I expect more goblin involvement in future products to 'highlight/showcase' the new core race. As such, I'm not sure how the past is a good place to inform future goblin use.

Uh...I wasn't talking about goblin PCs. I was talking about PCs having ethical questions regarding killing the things they were supposed to kill in an adventure.

I'm not sure how having more goblins (especially non-Evil ones) would have any impact on that at all.

graystone wrote:
LOL And I've never been in a game where anyone thought twice about killing encountered goblins or recalled anyone saying 'lets wait and see if these are BAD goblins first...' This might not be the case in the future and I don't see that as good thing.

Again, I've never seen an adventure for Pathfinder where this would be remotely an issue even if 80% of goblins were Good. All encounters with goblins where you need to fight them have the unpleasantness initiated by the goblins, answering the question of whether they are bad pretty immediately.

graystone wrote:
I can't see an upside to not treating them as a threat. It's KNOWN that they breed like crazy and are a constant threat to property and health with disease and fire... Even a goblin with not currently attacking your town can start a forest fire, foul your water supply, ect...

The issue here isn't really what you think, or what I think, it's what people in-universe think.

And that's where the core disagreement is: I'm convinced people in-universe don't view goblins in small numbers as enough of a threat to make this particular judgment in this way. You're convinced they do view them as such a threat.

graystone wrote:
I DID read the tribe info AND looked at the images... I'd be hard pressed to tell them apart. Maybe the goblins are better at telling them apart than I am.

From description, I wouldn't have that much trouble. Also, on a mechanical note, it's almost certainly a DC 10 Knowledge (Local) check (basic info plus one question 'What tribe goblin is this?').

graystone wrote:
Maybe? I recall tribal banners, cave markings and such and NOT the goblins themselves as distinct. it's been a while though, so I could be wrong.

That's in the immediate aftermath of a raid. It almost doesn't matter how it was done, since basically all goblin raids will involve that stuff.

graystone wrote:
Humans aren't KNOWN as all bandits though. THAT'S the difference. Goblins are almost universally reviled. For the average person, the exact tribe attacking you is meaningless: that's what goblins do. Much like bandits. Not humans though.

Right. this is true right up until a group of goblins becomes publicly known for not doing this.

graystone wrote:

Doable if you overcome the initial mistrust and there's the rub/catch 22. You have to know they are friendly first:

Secondly, with goblins being the 'easy' target for other races to control then, it doesn't seem unlikely to find 'bad' goblins with 'good' goblin dress and even writing prepared by their 'masters'. As to small groups... How many goblins does it take to set the town on fire, especially if you send in sorcerer's...

Goblins tend to lack the impulse control to make good spies. That's a pretty high self control profession by its nature. They're solid scouts via stealth type stuff, but pretending to be things they aren't? Not their strong suit.

And I'm not saying people won't keep an eye on goblins, just that they're unlikely to be completely unwilling to allow them in if, say, they have money to spend or a trade deal on offer.

graystone wrote:
Slightly off. I feel that there is NO upside to people would "be willing to take this sort of risk". A goblin left alone today is thousands in a few years. As to "what's the worst that could happen?", a single goblin can spread disease, set the town/field on fire, run off with an animal/child.

Goblins can't breed by themselves...heck, they don't even breed very quickly by the standards of most animals (taking 5 years to reach physical adulthood is a long time). They breed fast in comparison to humans, but humans breed really slowly as compared to most animals.

As for fouling the water and setting fires, I'm not suggesting that the authorities aren't gonna be keeping an eye on goblins in their sphere of authority, but 'keeping an eye' and not allowing them in are entirely separate things.

graystone wrote:
My question is "what's the best that happens?". I don't see "any decent odds" of a beneficial result. How high do those 'odds' have to make it to make it worth the risk?

Free junk removal, trade of various sorts, scouts for military operations, a host of other options like that. Alliance with goblins is actually super useful. I mean, you think hobgoblins enslave them because they like their company? No. Goblins are super useful if channeled properly.

graystone wrote:
I JUST can't see this. Even if we assume they are 'friendly', they are known to spread disease... And are obsessed with starting fires... And hate dogs/horses... And what again, to they have to make all that worthwhile? What benefit does letting the goblins into town have?

Goblins may not have the best impulse control, but they aren't magically compelled to set everything they see on fire or kill all horses. I'd expect strong warnings and people keeping an eye on them, but enforcing standards on goblins is just not that hard.

As for disease, I actually don't remember many references to that, and even if true it's probably a hygiene issue...so you have the goblins bathe more often if they wanna come to town.

graystone wrote:
If goblins have 'minders' that can vouch for lack of disease and are tamed and house trained, sure.

Or if they've got a proven track record in that particular settlement. Or their tribe does, anyway.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yronimos wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
We've had goblin PCs since 2010. Nothing is changing!!

Goblin PCs have been a part of the game since 2005 as part of D&D 3.5, and, though my memory of earlier editions is a little foggier, I wouldn't be surprised if Goblin PCs weren't part of a game earlier than that, at least as far back as D&D 3.0.

Of course, 2011 would see the first "We Be Goblins" scenario published, focused specifically on Goblin heroes, and adding them to the lore and history of Golarion.

As far as justifying it for the groups who missed/ignored the "We Be Goblins" series, I haven't read the whole thread yet to see if anyone else has answered, but I think we can refer to the "We Be Goblins" series for at least one in-universe explanation:

** spoiler omitted **...

There's a reason that We Be Goblins series keeps using quotation marks when they mention the "heroes". It's a series about evil creatures doing evil things (for their tribe).


Serum wrote:
yronimos wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
We've had goblin PCs since 2010. Nothing is changing!!

Goblin PCs have been a part of the game since 2005 as part of D&D 3.5, and, though my memory of earlier editions is a little foggier, I wouldn't be surprised if Goblin PCs weren't part of a game earlier than that, at least as far back as D&D 3.0.

Of course, 2011 would see the first "We Be Goblins" scenario published, focused specifically on Goblin heroes, and adding them to the lore and history of Golarion.

As far as justifying it for the groups who missed/ignored the "We Be Goblins" series, I haven't read the whole thread yet to see if anyone else has answered, but I think we can refer to the "We Be Goblins" series for at least one in-universe explanation:

** spoiler omitted **...

There's a reason that We Be Goblins series keeps using quotation marks when they mention the "heroes". It's a series about evil creatures doing evil things (for their tribe).

To view them as heroes you have to overlook that they're all NE and one specifically likes to torture small helpless animals to death.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To answer OP:

Nothing - lets be honest here: Goblins are included to make money, which is fine (Kobolds would have been way cuter tho and more easily explained but anyway). Thats all there is.

10-12 years doesn't even cover the whole lifespan of a goblin, nor a human generation and changing human perception of the race would be key. So this must mean the following: goblins as a race don't change. There is a subgroup or individuals who act in a agreeable way and who are affected. A subgroup big enough to require being part of the core. While this has been pointed out, it is deceisive in understanding this developement. Whatever these goblins did, it has no time to sink in and allow other good goblins to come out of hiding and participate in this green goblin glory. The prejudice they would face, would be to extreme to be playable. Besides who even tells those flower loving hippie goblins in the swamp that they now might share their love for fire and disgusting food with their new elven and gnome friends? So fixed group, enormous population.

The size of this minority dictates what they have to accomplish (as a group) to make this change happen. A few goblins only have to prove themself as good at a time / place when their deeds are perceived by influential people. Imagine 4 goblins destroying Tar'Baphon by throwing his phylactery into *insert magical vulcano here*. Well that might work... if thats the game you want?

Except even that wouldn't work for Pathfinders. A goblin group saving the princess would still be treated badly two nations over (because nearly nobody knows and sees it as possible goblin behavior) and since Pathfinders tend to pop up all over the place the actions of those goblin paragons has to affect all of this locations. So the more goblins achive even greater things, the more easily this change in goblin perception would spread.

And those goblins would have to keep up their good deeds for a long time to eliminate doubt (even regarding only this minority). 10 years might be enough to establish that holy order of muddy goblins might be LN. If they would constantly and openly do good deeds across several nations. Which requires a constant threat which goblins are uniquely qualified in facing. Just because they are good goblins doesn't mean they get the opportunity to prove it.

But even then... imagine a mother who has grown up with stories of childeaters or a farmer who just gets by. These people wouldn't risk their lifelihood or safety just because of new tales (mark them as "Unfriendly" or "Hostile") and this just wouldn't work not gameplaywise.

Besides what the goblins would have to do, on what scale, is a question of means. A Drow minority could have a change of heart and could easily have the ressources to demonstrate their now good nature. They could provide with riches for charity, fighting power against villains or eldritch knowledge against cosmic threats. What does the normal Goblin have... oh yes... "often maintaining their distinctive cultural habits while spreading the enthusiasm, inscrutable quirkiness, love of puns and song, and unique mirth".

So lets look at the whole picture. Its not enough time (at least one human generation would have to pass)... because their nature as seen was to heinous (the kill puppies... PUPPIES :[ )... and what they would have to do to actually achieve such a change is not feasible... because Goblins usually are not clad in adamantite armor to rise where no one else could have risen... and the threat would have to be constant to allow this change to not seem as a one-time-thing only affecting specific named goblins.

So to reiterate: nothing, at least nothing believable. What could be done would miss the goal because it would paint Goblins in a light that isn't very goblinish.

...

and yes Kobolds would have been far easier to do. They are already lawful, can easily by events be associated with metallic dragons (influential figures of undeniable good), they are cute as heck and so on and so forth. But yes the money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wermut wrote:

To answer OP:

Nothing - lets be honest here: Goblins are included to make money, which is fine (Kobolds would have been way cuter tho and more easily explained but anyway). Thats all there is.

...

and yes Kobolds would have been far easier to do. They are already lawful, can easily by events be associated with metallic dragons (influential figures of undeniable good), they are cute as heck and so on and so forth. But yes the money.

While I personally like kobolds more than goblins, I do think kobolds would be much harder, and would make far less sense. They haven't been experiencing the same kind of PR as goblins over the past decade. They haven't seen the cute art, the free module set, or the mellowing act that Paizo has been doing with goblins. Whether they are cuter or not is very much in the realm of opinion (I disagree with you there).

But I'd really like to address your assessment that goblins are included for the money, with two points. First, is that such a bad thing? Shouldn't Paizo make decisions that are profitable? If this decision was at the expense of its players, maybe that'd be negative. But a small group of players will care, whether positive or negative. Most will have an initial reaction, and then will go on with their lives. Additionally, Paizo has been open and transparent, continually listening and replying to its fans. To claim they aren't interested in what we want is laughable, so I think we can give them some leeway in making the best decisions for the company. After all, if they are successful, it means we will get more books. So from this point of view, adding goblins is a win-win.

Secondly, I think there is an important point being lost here. Pathfinder is not D&D, and Paizo has made an intentional effort to make Pathfinder it's own thing. Goblins used to just be another monster. Then Paizo started adding its own twists in Rise of the Runelords. They continued to do so in Classic Monsters Revisited and again in We Be Goblins. Goblins are iconic to Pathfinder. They may not have been core before this, but they are the "face of the franchise" in a way. Adding goblins to the Core gets the game in touch with reality and makes Pathfinder its own game in a way that nothing else could. This is necessary, and really I think it's about time.

You make a lot of other good points, but that topic has already been discussed to death (and beyond, into undeath. And then again, and again some more). Some people see this aspect one way, some another.


Perhaps every AP was resolved by a different group of adventurous goblins. Perhaps there's been a great swelling tide of heroic goblins unleashed all throughout golarion, climbing trees saving kittens, slaying dragons, and driving off orc warbands, all these unique set of goblins selflessly sacrificing themselves to save the world over and over and over and over again and again despite the constant denouncements and racism, all these groups overcome ever odd and after ten years of having practically every single problem solved by a new unique goblin the people of Golarion are forced to admit, almost by divine Fiat, that goblins are no longer the baby eating monstrosities of yesteryear.


Malachandra wrote:


But I'd really like to address your assessment that goblins are included for the money, with two points. First, is that such a bad thing? Shouldn't Paizo make decisions that are profitable? If this decision was at the expense of its players, maybe that'd be negative. But a small group of players will care, whether positive or negative. Most will have an initial reaction, and then will go on with their lives. Additionally, Paizo has been open and transparent, continually listening and replying to its fans. To claim they aren't interested in what we want is laughable, so I think we can give them some leeway in making the best decisions for the company. After all, if they are successful, it means we will get more books. So from this point of view, adding goblins is a win-win.

As I wrote doing it for the money is fine. My post made a point of pointing out what would have to happen to make goblins happen. Since there was no explanation found on the "how", the "why" was shortly eluded. To strengthen the brand is also a point you made which would explain it quiet well.


Trimalchio wrote:
Perhaps every AP was resolved by a different group of adventurous goblins.

yes, perhaps every goblin suddenly stopped acting like a goblin... If they aren't acting like goblins, then what are they acting like? Are the people that LIKE goblins, like the sanitized version?

Trimalchio wrote:
divine Fiat

This is about the only viable method it'd work IMO.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

We haven't discussed this too much in the last 5 weeks. We haven't needed to and nobody's opinions have changed.

Can we maybe just leave it at that until we get new information?

Liberty's Edge

I think Return otRL is the most likely AP to brings us a perfectly good reason why Goblins will be palatable as a Core PC ancestry

My bet is that Goblins in Thassilon might have been markedly different from their modern descendents 10.000 years later and that one way or another, these ancient Goblins come back, either in the flesh or by reincarnating in the bodies of their descendents. Maybe even playing a pivotal role in defeating the Runelords

If the latter is public enough, it might help spread the word that all Goblins are not as they once were


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I think Return otRL is the most likely AP to brings us a perfectly good reason why Goblins will be palatable as a Core PC ancestry

My bet is that Goblins in Thassilon might have been markedly different from their modern descendents 10.000 years later and that one way or another, these ancient Goblins come back, either in the flesh or by reincarnating in the bodies of their descendents. Maybe even playing a pivotal role in defeating the Runelords

If the latter is public enough, it might help spread the word that all Goblins are not as they once were

If Goblins physically or spiritually change, that implies that they were evil and everyone was correct to treat them as baby eating, puppy torturing monsters. Which also implies that people are correct to treat the other monstrous races in a similar manor.

If they help to save the day and prove people were wrong about them, why does that not serve as proof that people had the wrong idea about Kobolds? Or any of the other monstrous races? Why do only Goblins get a PR promotion?


Corrik wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I think Return otRL is the most likely AP to brings us a perfectly good reason why Goblins will be palatable as a Core PC ancestry

My bet is that Goblins in Thassilon might have been markedly different from their modern descendents 10.000 years later and that one way or another, these ancient Goblins come back, either in the flesh or by reincarnating in the bodies of their descendents. Maybe even playing a pivotal role in defeating the Runelords

If the latter is public enough, it might help spread the word that all Goblins are not as they once were

If Goblins physically or spiritually change, that implies that they were evil and everyone was correct to treat them as baby eating, puppy torturing monsters. Which also implies that people are correct to treat the other monstrous races in a similar manor.

If they help to save the day and prove people were wrong about them, why does that not serve as proof that people had the wrong idea about Kobolds? Or any of the other monstrous races? Why do only Goblins get a PR promotion?

Because Goblins are popular and Paizo wants them as a mascot for 2e.

Monstrous races in general are still useful as targets you can morally kill them on sight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What does Goblin popularity or 'mascot' status have to do with anything?
Paizo's official mascot to date has been a Golem, was there ever any push to make it Core PC race?
Pathfinder is descendant of Dungeons & Dragons, a game with Dragon as 'mascot' yet that was never Core PC race.
The game has consistently held Human-centric assumption, yet "monsters" have just as consistently been the "mascots".
Almost like 'mascot' status doesn't imply 'Core PC race'.
Almost like the job of mascot is personifying dramatic tension OPPOSED to "this is you" PCs.

Anyways, Paizo devs have written that Goblins-as-Core-PC-Race is not fixed in stone, nothing since then has changed AFAIK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I think Return otRL is the most likely AP to brings us a perfectly good reason why Goblins will be palatable as a Core PC ancestry

My bet is that Goblins in Thassilon might have been markedly different from their modern descendents 10.000 years later and that one way or another, these ancient Goblins come back, either in the flesh or by reincarnating in the bodies of their descendents. Maybe even playing a pivotal role in defeating the Runelords

If the latter is public enough, it might help spread the word that all Goblins are not as they once were

If Goblins physically or spiritually change, that implies that they were evil and everyone was correct to treat them as baby eating, puppy torturing monsters. Which also implies that people are correct to treat the other monstrous races in a similar manor.

If they help to save the day and prove people were wrong about them, why does that not serve as proof that people had the wrong idea about Kobolds? Or any of the other monstrous races? Why do only Goblins get a PR promotion?

I think what The Raven Black meant was that maybe the Thassilonian Goblins were already better, and that they make a comeback in Return of the Runelords, while the modern Goblins largely remain crazy bad like they have been for thousands of years.

Actually sounds like an interesting premise, although I wouldn't want to be in the place of one of those Thassilonian Goblins.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Pathfinder is descendant of Dungeons & Dragons, a game with Dragon as 'mascot' yet that was never Core PC race.

...until they added Dragonborn as a core race, yeah?

I mean, you can quibble over them not being "real" dragons, but they're pretty clearly an attempt to fill the 'PC-race Dragon' concept/niche.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Monstrous races in general are still useful as targets you can morally kill them on sight.

This has never been canonically true or well supported in Golarion. I doubt PF2 is gonna make it so.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Monstrous races in general are still useful as targets you can morally kill them on sight.
This has never been canonically true or well supported in Golarion. I doubt PF2 is gonna make it so.

Yes, it's true for the Caves of Chaos/Keep on the Borderlands, but not for general play in worlds like Golarian or FR.


I generally don't like the 'kill on sight' mentality - and if my players would go for it I would sooner or later punish it (gladly up to now no one has done it)

and while the Paizo mascot is the golem, the pathfinder mascot was, since rise of the runelords, the goblin

And I am very glad that paizo got their own quirky goblin instead of the basic goblin you find in every rpg and your grandmothers backyard

I for once welcome our new goblin overlords

...

but seriously if you don't like it as core race houserule them out and let the other people who like the little buggers have their fun


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:


I think what The Raven Black meant was that maybe the Thassilonian Goblins were already better, and that they make a comeback in Return of the Runelords, while the modern Goblins largely remain crazy bad like they have been for thousands of years.

Actually sounds like an interesting premise, although I wouldn't want to be in the place of one of those Thassilonian Goblins.

One, how does an entirely new race of Goblins qualify for core in only a decade? Two, that still has implications for the other monster races. That maybe they used to be good but now they are just monsters, and we are correct to treat them as such. That we need to be wary of them, because we know for a fact that the monstrous races can "go bad".

Seisho wrote:
but seriously if you don't like it as core race houserule them out and let the other people who like the little buggers have their fun

Why don't you house rule them in so we can have narrative consistency? Why should we have to spend the next decade picking them out of releases for the sake of your fun? Why should our fun be sacrificed for your fun?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Seisho wrote:
but seriously if you don't like it as core race houserule them out and let the other people who like the little buggers have their fun
Why don't you house rule them in so we can have narrative consistency? Why should we have to spend the next decade picking them out of releases for the sake of your fun? Why should our fun be sacrificed for your fun?

1. Player character goblins will be a thing if you want it or not, the latest arrival will be probably the release of the bestiary

2. It is easier to ignore rules that are there then making up rules for something that is not there (yet)

3. A thing about pathfinder why I think it's so great is the number of options the game gives, you want to cut down on them

4. Goblins are the inofficial Pathfinder/Paizo mascot, let the people have their fun

5. About consitancy: that is all about how you represent your world. And if you want to go to APs - if Paizo wants gobbos there they will add them anywhere and I personally don't play them either way so I don't give anything bout goblins beeing there or not


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Seisho wrote:
but seriously if you don't like it as core race houserule them out and let the other people who like the little buggers have their fun
Why don't you house rule them in so we can have narrative consistency? Why should we have to spend the next decade picking them out of releases for the sake of your fun? Why should our fun be sacrificed for your fun?

1. Player character goblins will be a thing if you want it or not, the latest arrival will be probably the release of the bestiary

2. It is easier to ignore rules that are there then making up rules for something that is not there (yet)

3. A thing about pathfinder why I think it's so great is the number of options the game gives, you want to cut down on them

4. Goblins are the inofficial Pathfinder/Paizo mascot, let the people have their fun

5. About consitancy: that is all about how you represent your world. And if you want to go to APs - if Paizo wants gobbos there they will add them anywhere and I personally don't play them either way so I don't give anything bout goblins beeing there or not

1. I don't care about goblins as a player option, I care about them being a core race.

2. No, it's easier to say "Goblins are a core option" then to have to change literally every book that represents them as a core option.

3. So you claim it's always better to add options. Great, I want dragons as a playable race. Also, there should be 30 pages dedicated to grapple rules. If you don't like it you can just house rule it out right?

4. No, I don't agree to sacrifice my fun for the sake of yours. Its childish and selfish of you to ask.

5. I do, and I'm going to continue to argue the points until the CRB goes to print. Paizo has stated goblins as core are not set in stone. I'm taking them at their word for that. And again, Golarion is not my world. It's an expansive world that I want to see remain consistent. I don't want to see the universe twist around between books because someone thought something was cool even though it didn't fit. If Golarion keeps twisting around, or I have to change a bunch of things, what use is it to me?

So again, why should I sacrifice my fun for yours? Especially when you clearly aren't willing to make the same sacrifice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not making any sacrifice if the dont get in, I just hope do

I don't see how goblins as core can ruin someones fun

And as said, it is not your world, at least on official side - on your game table it IS your world however and you can do there whatever the f*** you want

In MY golarion there will be goblins as heroes, thats it - I just hope I will get the option straight from the start and not denied after it was somewhat announced because some people don't like the little green weirdos

And if it is such a big issue for you, well I am glad that we won't sit on the same gaming table

What will you do if they make goblins core? quit the game because of it? Well that would be childish and immature


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

I am not making any sacrifice if the dont get in, I just hope do

I don't see how goblins as core can ruin someones fun

And as said, it is not your world, at least on official side - on your game table it IS your world however and you can do there whatever the f*** you want

In MY golarion there will be goblins as heroes, thats it - I just hope I will get the option straight from the start and not denied after it was somewhat announced because some people don't like the little green weirdos

And if it is such a big issue for you, well I am glad that we won't sit on the same gaming table

What will you do if they make goblins core? quit the game because of it? Well that would be childish and immature

Well if you don't lose anything by them not being core, but by having them core I do, then the obvious answer is to not have them in core. That way I maintain narrative consistency in the actual setting, and you can use their bestiary entry to fit them in to your homebrew however you like. We both get to have our fun and everyone wins. Unless of course you think I should sacrifice my fun so you don't have to briefly wait for a release? I mean, I sure hope narrative consistency isn't sacrificed because some people don't have any patience.

Goblins in and of themselves may not do that, but no raindrop considers itself responsible for the flood does it? Pathinder is a product, and no, if it doesn't meet my standards, I won't purchase it, and I'll continue to use products that do. Because that's how adults operate. If you want to try to turn something around, do a better job. You just look foolish otherwise. Might as well stick out your tongue and go "NYAA!". Actually that would have gotten a chuckle out of me and thus would be more effective.


As has been proposed multiple times, the solution is to make multiple monstrous races "core." If it's not just goblins joining the old lineup but also kobolds and hengeyokai (kitsune etc) and several others, then that represents something much more consistent and inclusive in approach. And having multiple such races in core alongside the old standbys further helps Paizo stake out a difference between their game and the Brand, and also bring more people into PF2 sooner who otherwise might be inclined to wait a year or two until books appear with ancestry options that are more fun for them.

Wayfinders

Corrik wrote:


5. I do, and I'm going to continue to argue the points until the CRB goes to print. Paizo has stated goblins as core are not set in stone. I'm taking them at their word for that. And again, Golarion is not my world. It's an expansive world that I want to see remain consistent. I don't want to see the universe...

I don't think Golarion is a consistent world. They already add anything they want in the game if someone thinks it can be fun. Don't forget Golarion have a spaceship with advanced technology and people with guns. If you talk about consistency, that element would have already affected the whole world in a meaningful way. Pathfinder never was about coherence or consistency, it's a setting where everything is possible if you want it to happen. It's one of the strong and weak points of Pathfinder. With this concept of design in mind, you have to accept that sometime they will integrate thing you dislike and don't forget that the setting is what you want it to be when you play the game at your table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
As has been proposed multiple times, the solution is to make multiple monstrous races "core." If it's not just goblins joining the old lineup but also kobolds and hengeyokai (kitsune etc) and several others, then that represents something much more consistent and inclusive in approach. And having multiple such races in core alongside the old standbys further helps Paizo stake out a difference between their game and the Brand, and also bring more people into PF2 sooner who otherwise might be inclined to wait a year or two until books appear with ancestry options that are more fun for them.

I agree. As I've stated multiple times, if they are going to change something, then change it. Half measures will hurt the game more than they improve it. Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Goblin, Halfing, Human, Lizardfolk doesn't have nearly the problems that simply hot gluing Goblins to the old core race line up has.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Star wrote:
Corrik wrote:


5. I do, and I'm going to continue to argue the points until the CRB goes to print. Paizo has stated goblins as core are not set in stone. I'm taking them at their word for that. And again, Golarion is not my world. It's an expansive world that I want to see remain consistent. I don't want to see the universe...
I don't think Golarion is a consistent world. They already add anything they want in the game if someone thinks it can be fun. Don't forget Golarion have a spaceship with advanced technology and people with guns. If you talk about consistency, that element would have already affected the whole world in a meaningful way. Pathfinder never was about coherence or consistency, it's a setting where everything is possible if you want it to happen. It's one of the strong and weak points of Pathfinder. With this concept of design in mind, you have to accept that sometime they will integrate thing you dislike and don't forget that the setting is what you want it to be when you play the game at your table.

Except both of those examples are baked in to the setting. That's basically just the "Oh, so magic can be real but [insert bad writing example] can't happen" argument, and it holds no water. No, just because there are zombies doesn't mean Danny can teleport. The setting certainly won't maintain consistency if no effort is put in to maintaining it. I mean, if I take your argument at face value, I should be fine with the inner sea disappearing and 2E taking place entirely on Arcadia right? After all, it's an inconsistent world where anything can happen so long as it's fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

...And I am very glad that paizo got their own quirky goblin instead of the basic goblin you find in every rpg and your grandmothers backyard

I for once welcome our new goblin overlords...

"...after killing the family dog, the Goblin tried to slaughter and eat the eldest son. The adventurers later find the father of the family, his face and parts of his torso eaten."

Yes Goblins are wholesome and nice. :) totally cuddly and very quirky in their own way. And by no means it is anyhow conceivable that making them into a fluffy goody-two-shoes race could be seen as disturbing.


I don't say that all goblins should be good and of course they gonna have some trouble depending on region and culture

The same as half-orcs do (remember that orcs also eat people? also hobgoblins do that)

*sigh* there are people one can't just argue with...

and the goblin overlord line was of course a joke some people just don't get


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

I don't say that all goblins should be good and of course they gonna have some trouble depending on region and culture

The same as half-orcs do (remember that orcs also eat people? also hobgoblins do that)

*sigh* there are people one can't just argue with...

and the goblin overlord line was of course a joke some people just don't get

I surely could have stated it less controversial (but I feel like I have done this several times).

I feel that every argument about Goblins being quirky, comedy villains, harmless pyromaniacs and so on completly ignores the retcon happening.

Goblins were portrayed as goofy yes, but also as kinda the-hills-have-eyes-evil and in their way, they way charming. Not because there songs were cute or because of there big heads but because they had working theme going on. A complete evil, misformed, clumsy package (with vermin crawling on it).

Were singular good goblins imaginable, yes of course. Would that change the viewpoint of every other person? No. Good goblins get the shovel, like bad goblins and thats okay.

So I'm wondering what earthshattering retcon paizo has developed to make people (NPCs) not mistrust every goblin on sight.

To conclude every argument about how this change is nice and goblins always have been playable, that doesnt takes position on the retcon and loss of identity, is hardly an argument more an omission.

Yes of course the developers can change their setting anyhow they want, but that hardly works for an established world and (for me personal) immersion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Monstrous races in general are still useful as targets you can morally kill them on sight.
This has never been canonically true or well supported in Golarion. I doubt PF2 is gonna make it so.

There are 1 in a million exceptions, but by default these races are evil and PCs will encounter them doing evil things.

For example, the writeup on orcs

Quote:
Orcs are aggressive, callous, and domineering. Bullies by nature, they respect strength and power as the highest virtues. On an almost instinctive level, orcs believe they are entitled to anything they want unless someone stronger can stop them from seizing it.
Quote:
Orcs have few redeeming qualities. Most are violent, cruel, and selfish. Concepts such as honor or loyalty usually strike them as odd character flaws that tend to afflict members of the weaker races. Orcs are typically not just evil, but chaotic to boot, though those with greater self-control may gravitate toward lawful evil.

Writeups like this are very useful for certain kinds of adventures. Nobody has to ask why the orcs are raiding villages. Its just in their nature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Monstrous races in general are still useful as targets you can morally kill them on sight.
This has never been canonically true or well supported in Golarion. I doubt PF2 is gonna make it so.

There are 1 in a million exceptions, but by default these races are evil and PCs will encounter them doing evil things.

For example, the writeup on orcs

Quote:
Orcs are aggressive, callous, and domineering. Bullies by nature, they respect strength and power as the highest virtues. On an almost instinctive level, orcs believe they are entitled to anything they want unless someone stronger can stop them from seizing it.
Quote:
Orcs have few redeeming qualities. Most are violent, cruel, and selfish. Concepts such as honor or loyalty usually strike them as odd character flaws that tend to afflict members of the weaker races. Orcs are typically not just evil, but chaotic to boot, though those with greater self-control may gravitate toward lawful evil.
Writeups like this are very useful for certain kinds of adventures. Nobody has to ask why the orcs are raiding villages. Its just in their nature.

One could now argue, that with the case of the goblins, that all evil races are just longterm redeemable and every encounter with a potential evil creature requires the same kind of procedure as facing a criminal.

"Orcs raided the village? Well, surely not all of them. Some maybe of good nature, attacking their hideout would be evil as innocents may die defending their property. Nothing adventurers can do here. Please go along."


I still try to figure out what exactly speaks against goblins as core race because no one could tell me a single compelling argument against it

the only thing I read here all the time "all goblins are evil, blah bla blah" - yeah we know what is written there in the books

But with release of PF2 your PF1 rulebooks are out of date. The world of golarion changes. Okay so the old books about goblins are (maybe, not even surely) outdated because...stuff (we dont even know what stuff) does it make them inconsistent? no, just outdated (which will also probably be the view on goblins of most intelligent races, especially the longer living ones)

And beeing evil part of their nature? Please, it is part of their culture. Of course many goblins are influenced taht way. but they are not demons or devils who are bound to be evil (and not even that is written in stone).

And still, if you don't like them, you just have to flip I would guess 2-6 pages in the core rulebook (I fail to see how that ruins your fun with the system) and you would probably see an artwork here and there, probably not even that many more then would have been there either way.

I try to make a step in your direction. But obviously no one here sees that because the answer is binary - the goblins are either in the book or not.

All this argumentation that some races are just always irredeemibly evil and that goblins dont belong in the core rulebook makes me want to run a campaign that is against the stupid stereotypes where all goblins, hobgoblins and orcs are nice, just in spite of this cliches

p.s.
I KNOW that the joke was not exactly comedy gold, I just wanted to make a little jest to lighten up the mood - if you don't like the joke just ignore it...

I rahter sign off in this thread since no discussion without someones sense of humor getting insulted does not seem to be possible in this thread.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:

There are 1 in a million exceptions, but by default these races are evil and PCs will encounter them doing evil things.

For example, the writeup on orcs

Quote:
Orcs are aggressive, callous, and domineering. Bullies by nature, they respect strength and power as the highest virtues. On an almost instinctive level, orcs believe they are entitled to anything they want unless someone stronger can stop them from seizing it.
Quote:
Orcs have few redeeming qualities. Most are violent, cruel, and selfish. Concepts such as honor or loyalty usually strike them as odd character flaws that tend to afflict members of the weaker races. Orcs are typically not just evil, but chaotic to boot, though those with greater self-control may gravitate toward lawful evil.
Writeups like this are very useful for certain kinds of adventures. Nobody has to ask why the orcs are raiding villages. Its just in their nature.

No, it's in their culture which is something Race writeups also go into quite a bit. Note how it says 'almost instinctive'. As in, not actually instinctive. The only antisocial trait that Orcs seem to have biologically is a short temper.

And non-Evil Orcs are less common than Evil ones, it's true, but I think the percentage of tribal leaders who are non-Evil in the Belkzen book is at almost precisely 10%. Given the Orcish culture, the number among the population as a whole is likely higher than that.

I could go on to list lots of other examples (non-Evil Drow showing up, non-Evil undead being a thing, and so on and so forth), but really the basic point is that actual Paizo adventures never have you go fight a group 'because they're Orcs' they have you go fight them for things they have actually done. In fact, they have you go after them under precisely the same circumstances they have you go after human bandits and the like.

Just going and murdering Orcs for existing is not something the PCs are encouraged to do in any AP or other adventure, and runs pretty counter to just about everything indicated by Alignment descriptions as well as various statements by designers and the like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

I still try to figure out what exactly speaks against goblins as core race because no one could tell me a single compelling argument against it

the only thing I read here all the time "all goblins are evil, blah bla blah" - yeah we know what is written there in the books

So a race being evil is not a compelling point. This will be useful later.

Seisho wrote:
But with release of PF2 your PF1 rulebooks are out of date. The world of golarion changes. Okay so the old books about goblins are (maybe, not even surely) outdated because...stuff (we dont even know what stuff) does it make them inconsistent? no, just outdated (which will also probably be the view on goblins of most intelligent races, especially the longer living ones)

So established lore, is interchangeable right? Thats what a retcon is, because sorry. Stories don't work that way.

You can't go on for years telling a story, reinforcing a point and then suddenly out of the blue decide "Oh that one point, its now different. Because it fits my needs now." Thats bad storytelling.

Seisho wrote:
And beeing evil part of their nature? Please, it is part of their culture. Of course many goblins are influenced taht way. but they are not demons or devils who are bound to be evil (and not even that is written in stone).

It isn't important why there evil. We will also keep that one for later.

Seisho wrote:
And still, if you don't like them, you just have to flip I would guess 2-6 pages in the core rulebook (I fail to see how that ruins your fun with the system) and you would probably see an artwork here and there, probably not even that many more then would have been there either way.

I can't know what others think, I for myself just mourn the loss of immersion. How my group will deal with this, will show itself.

Seisho wrote:
I try to make a step in your direction. But obviously no one here sees that because the answer is binary - the goblins are either in the book or not.

Thanks for making statements about your intention and capabilities of others. I'm sorry to inform you that your point of view is wrong: Goblins are not for discussion, there is no "binary answer", Goblins will be in the book.

Seisho wrote:
All this argumentation that some races are just always irredeemibly evil and that goblins dont belong in the core rulebook makes me want to run a campaign that is against the stupid stereotypes where all goblins, hobgoblins and orcs are nice, just in spite of this cliches

That wouldn't be Golarion then.

So for the argument... the argument on my side was never if Goblins are redeemable or not. I argue, that any redemption over 10 years of a group of beings widly perceived as evil, a group large enough to validate an entry into the core is highly unlikely.

Its not actually not about the goblins, its about the world they live in. Its easy to find a reason why a bigger group of goblins would become neutral. Thats not the problem.

The problem is facillitating an event that would everyone else make them recognize as potentially good, over this short span of time. Whatever the event, it must be so influential that no goblin character will ever face an amount of racism other races won't face. Every race faces racism of course, but you must be able to take all the characters of group to a social situation, without the goblin sticking out like a sore thumb.

Of course half-orcs already face some of those problems. But they are very established and can easily be mistaken for humans or barbarians or incompetent druid shapeshifters or whatever, but goblins?

So to conclude, it does matter that goblins are perceived as evil, which also means it doesnt matter if goblins are evil by nature or by culture or if they are evil at all. It matters that there race as a whole has a history that makes people recognize them as vermin in the best case.

Liberty's Edge

Wermut wrote:
So to conclude, it does matter that goblins are perceived as evil, which also means it doesnt matter if goblins are evil by nature or by culture or if they are evil at all. It matters that there race as a whole has a history that makes people recognize them as vermin in the best case.

This argument is not new. I even agree with it. But I can actually think of several options immediately that, over the course of 12 years, could have a significant impact on peoples' feelings toward goblins.

Which is what it really comes down to:

Something needs to happen in-setting to justify PC goblins becoming notably more common. I (and others) think Paizo can and will come up with such an explanation that works pretty well (and people at Paizo have said that they'll provide some sort of explanation), while others cannot think of any such explanations they will accept.

Discussing this further is thus pretty much pointless until we get whatever explanation Paizo is gonna provide. The discussion is just repeating the same stuff over and over until then.

When we get the explanation we can revisit this point and debate whether it suffices...but until then this debate is just so utterly pointless. Can we please stop it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

I still try to figure out what exactly speaks against goblins as core race because no one could tell me a single compelling argument against it

the only thing I read here all the time "all goblins are evil, blah bla blah" - yeah we know what is written there in the books

But with release of PF2 your PF1 rulebooks are out of date. The world of golarion changes. Okay so the old books about goblins are (maybe, not even surely) outdated because...stuff (we dont even know what stuff) does it make them inconsistent? no, just outdated (which will also probably be the view on goblins of most intelligent races, especially the longer living ones)

I think I see the confusion.

Paizo has stated the lore of Golarion has not changed. the writeups on Goblins in PF1 is still going to be true. Golarion advances in real time, so only 7 years have passed since we got the ARG writeup, with lines like this:

Quote:
Goblins tend to view other beings as sources of food, which makes for poor relations with most civilized races. Goblins often survive on the fringes of human civilization, preying on weak or lost travelers and occasionally raiding small settlements to fuel their voracious appetites. They have a special animosity toward gnomes, and celebrate the capturing or killing of such victims with a feast. Of the most common races, half-orcs are the most tolerant of goblins, sharing a similar ancestry and experiencing the same hatred within many societies. Goblins are mostly unaware of half-orcs‘ sympathy, however, and avoid them because they are larger, meaner, and less flavorful than other humanoids.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-gob lin/

Many of us don't see how that description of goblins fits with Goblin Adventurers being a common sight.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wermut wrote:
So to conclude, it does matter that goblins are perceived as evil, which also means it doesnt matter if goblins are evil by nature or by culture or if they are evil at all. It matters that there race as a whole has a history that makes people recognize them as vermin in the best case.

This argument is not new. I even agree with it. But I can actually think of several options immediately that, over the course of 12 years, could have a significant impact on peoples' feelings toward goblins.

Which is what it really comes down to:

Something needs to happen in-setting to justify PC goblins becoming notably more common. I (and others) think Paizo can and will come up with such an explanation that works pretty well (and people at Paizo have said that they'll provide some sort of explanation), while others cannot think of any such explanations they will accept.

Discussing this further is thus pretty much pointless until we get whatever explanation Paizo is gonna provide. The discussion is just repeating the same stuff over and over until then.

When we get the explanation we can revisit this point and debate whether it suffices...but until then this debate is just so utterly pointless. Can we please stop it?

But thats the whole point of the messageboard. Discussing things one only knows a part of. You could go through all the threads discussing released information and post "We will see how that works, regarding possible mechanics/information not released yet. /thread".

If someone would be disinclined to discuss a certain topic, one could always ignore it? Or are there other reasons to try to shutdown such a discussion?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wermut wrote:
But thats the whole point of the messageboard. Discussing things one only knows a part of. You could go through all the threads discussing released information and post "We will see how that works, regarding possible mechanics/information not released yet. /thread".

I actually do precisely this when people are getting really angry or unpleasant about something that only might be true. Reminding people that they may be worrying over nothing is useful when it's actually the case. I would also absolutely suggest that we not talk about other stuff that's already been discussed to death. Beating a dead horse seldom has useful results.

Speculation can be fun and interesting, and if we were just floating various theories about what explanation Paizo would come up with for Goblin PCs, I'd be totally on board. Indeed, I was on board when such discussions occurred. About seven weeks ago.

But at this point, after every point has been discussed several times already, and no new information has been released, that's not what these threads on Goblins wind up doing any more (if they ever did). They become a seemingly very angry argument about whether Paizo should even have done this in the first place. One where we lack the information to clearly even argue about what's really going on, only what we assume to be going on.

In short, having harsh arguments is not usually productive, and even when it is, all the arguments on this topic already happened. At least twice. Almost two months ago. Rehashing them is not useful.

Wermut wrote:
If someone would be disinclined to discuss a certain topic, one could always ignore it? Or are there other reasons to try to shutdown such a discussion?

I like it when the message boards are a nice, relatively civil, place where we can have discussions of new information that hasn't already been discussed to death 80 times. These threads do not, at this point, aid in making that the case. Or provide much of anything else productive.


I'm honestly not interested in their explanation of why it happens. They'll be banned from my home games and i wont play in games where they're allowed. They're basically adding kender to pathfinder and kender are trash.

301 to 350 of 515 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Theories about Goblin Inclusion All Messageboards