Theories about Goblin Inclusion


Prerelease Discussion

401 to 450 of 515 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

According to Ultimate Campaign, average dwarf family size seems to be 3.4 children (counting only families that include a dwarf PC, so the actual average number of children may be slightly lower). If dwarves rarely had more than two children, they would be extinct by now.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

According to Ultimate Campaign, average dwarf family size seems to be 3.5 children -- if dwarves rarely had more than two children, they would be extinct by now.

UC is world neutral so the numbers might be different elsewhere.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

According to Ultimate Campaign, average dwarf family size seems to be 3.5 children -- if dwarves rarely had more than two children, they would be extinct by now.

Ultimate Campaign has a generic roll table for the potential of one specific heroic character having siblings. Inner Sea Races specifically says "Dwarves have a low birth rate and a couple rarely bears more than two children." So the canon is definitely that in Golarion, dwarves rarely have more than two children. Which is why they're a diminished society with significantly fewer living members than more populous races like humans and goblins, as well as why they occupy such comparatively limited territories.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:
Wermut wrote:
Oh and another point: is a good goblin still goblin enough or just a gnome with body issues?

According to Goblins of Golarion "Goblins enjoy inflicting misery and causing pain, and a goblin who doesn’t isn’t truly a goblin—he’s some sort of freak’s freak." So, no.

Seriously, you can't spend 10 years telling us that goblins are the next best thing to demons at being chaotic evil, and then expect us to willingly accept them being made into a core race. I don't have a problem with goblin PCs who are willing to roleplay being an exception to the rule. What I have a problem with is expecting goblins as a whole to somehow suddenly become as accepted as even half-orcs.

And where was it stated that they would?
In the Inner Sea Guide. However for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and they aren't as accepted or wide spread as even half-orcs. Why are they a core race then?
That's not quite right. The Inner Sea World Guide describes the core races as being "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races[...]" which goblins absolutely are. Goblins actually significantly outnumber several of the core races; half-orcs in particular are nowhere near as numerous, and goblins outbreed dwarfs by a ludicrous factor, since dwarves rarely have more than 2 children and reach adulthood at 40 years, while goblins breed continuously and reach adulthood in only 5 years. Goblins can also be found throughout Golarion, including across the Inner Sea region, throughout Tian Xia, and across the caverns of the Darklands. "Populous and expansive" is not even remotely the same as "generally well-liked by others".

Then why aren't Kobolds a core race? Why only the murder mascots?

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

That's not quite right. The Inner Sea World Guide describes the core races as being "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races[...]" which goblins absolutely are. Goblins actually significantly outnumber several of the core races; half-orcs in particular are nowhere near as numerous, and goblins outbreed dwarfs by a ludicrous factor, since dwarves rarely have more than 2 children and reach adulthood at 40 years, while goblins breed continuously and reach adulthood in only 5 years. Goblins can also be found throughout Golarion, including across the Inner Sea region, throughout Tian Xia, and across the caverns of the Darklands. "Populous and expansive" is not even remotely the same as "generally well-liked by others".

Then why aren't Kobolds a core race? Why only the murder mascots?

Because kobolds are rarer than goblins, for one. Their light-sensitivity prevents them from living in many areas that goblins typically occupy, they reach adulthood at half the pace goblins do, and while scattered bands of kobolds are found throughout Golarion, they tend to be clustered near caverns that connect to the Darklands, their primary habitat. They are also well-known for, and frequently called out as, being inherently cowardly, which makes them a poor fit for a core race of adventurers. Also, because there's a finite amount of space in any given book, and there's probably only room for one new core race.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

That's not quite right. The Inner Sea World Guide describes the core races as being "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races[...]" which goblins absolutely are. Goblins actually significantly outnumber several of the core races; half-orcs in particular are nowhere near as numerous, and goblins outbreed dwarfs by a ludicrous factor, since dwarves rarely have more than 2 children and reach adulthood at 40 years, while goblins breed continuously and reach adulthood in only 5 years. Goblins can also be found throughout Golarion, including across the Inner Sea region, throughout Tian Xia, and across the caverns of the Darklands. "Populous and expansive" is not even remotely the same as "generally well-liked by others".

Then why aren't Kobolds a core race? Why only the murder mascots?
Because kobolds are rarer than goblins, for one. Their light-sensitivity prevents them from living in many areas that goblins typically occupy, they reach adulthood at half the pace goblins do, and while scattered bands of kobolds are found throughout Golarion, they tend to be clustered near caverns that connect to the Darklands, their primary habitat. They are also well-known for, and frequently called out as, being inherently cowardly, which makes them a poor fit for a core race of adventurers. Also, because there's a finite amount of space in any given book, and there's probably only room for one new core race.

They are still far more numerous than the majority of the core races if we are going to claim that numbers are a qualifier. And to understand correctly, Goblins cruel and chaotic nature makes for fine adventures and qualifies for core, but kobold's penchant for guerrilla warfare disqualifies them?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm hoping the narrative device used to make goblins feasible as a core race is NOT time travel. Count me in the camp that believes such a "twist" will have very little emotional impact to counter a decade of established emotions from the player base. If it were shown to be radically foreshadowed in other materials and we all just somehow missed the writing on the wall up until now, well, that might work, but I kind of doubt that;s a possibility at this point.

Personally, here is my "hopeful theory":

The Polymorph Plague mentioned in part 3 of Return of the Runelords. If a significant portion of Varisia's population is exposed to a magical effect that turns them into monsters, its possible that some or many of them become goblins. If the effect is in any way like baleful polymorph, some might be left with their human intellects (but still have to deal with the instinctual urges of the new body). This could easily lead to new "clans" of semi-civilized goblins, especially after a decade or two (which would be like 4-6 goblin generations).

This would create an emotional impact that would help counter the established opinion. A gate guard knowing that the goblin who comes up to the gate peacefully might be the grandson of his own brother who fell victim to the Polymorph Plague fifteen years back is much more sympathetic than a simple "fixed it in post" time travel bit. Imagine, an adventuring party of the gate guard's rebellious daughter, his brother-turned-goblin's grandson, and his sister in law's twin children that arrived 8 months after the plague took her husband (perhaps he chose to never return and put his wife through such emotional burden, telling only his gate-guard brother of what happened before dissapearing into the wilderness).

Ok, I got rambling there, but still. I like this better than time travel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

That's not quite right. The Inner Sea World Guide describes the core races as being "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races[...]" which goblins absolutely are. Goblins actually significantly outnumber several of the core races; half-orcs in particular are nowhere near as numerous, and goblins outbreed dwarfs by a ludicrous factor, since dwarves rarely have more than 2 children and reach adulthood at 40 years, while goblins breed continuously and reach adulthood in only 5 years. Goblins can also be found throughout Golarion, including across the Inner Sea region, throughout Tian Xia, and across the caverns of the Darklands. "Populous and expansive" is not even remotely the same as "generally well-liked by others".

it

Then why aren't Kobolds a core race? Why only the murder mascots?

Because kobolds are rarer than goblins, for one. Their light-sensitivity prevents them from living in many areas that goblins typically occupy, they reach adulthood at half the pace goblins do, and while scattered bands of kobolds are found throughout Golarion, they tend to be clustered near caverns that connect to the Darklands, their primary habitat. They are also well-known for, and frequently called out as, being inherently cowardly, which makes them a poor fit for a core race of adventurers. Also, because there's a finite amount of space in any given book, and there's probably only room for one new core race.
They are still far more numerous than the majority of the core races if we are going to claim that numbers are a qualifier. And to understand correctly, Goblins cruel and chaotic nature makes for fine adventures and qualifies for core, but kobold's penchant for guerrilla warfare disqualifies them?

All I'm going to say is: Kobolds better be a player race in the PF2 equivalent of the APG


The Black Bard wrote:

Personally, I'm hoping the narrative device used to make goblins feasible as a core race is NOT time travel. Count me in the camp that believes such a "twist" will have very little emotional impact to counter a decade of established emotions from the player base. If it were shown to be radically foreshadowed in other materials and we all just somehow missed the writing on the wall up until now, well, that might work, but I kind of doubt that;s a possibility at this point.

Personally, here is my "hopeful theory":

The Polymorph Plague mentioned in part 3 of Return of the Runelords. If a significant portion of Varisia's population is exposed to a magical effect that turns them into monsters, its possible that some or many of them become goblins. If the effect is in any way like baleful polymorph, some might be left with their human intellects (but still have to deal with the instinctual urges of the new body). This could easily lead to new "clans" of semi-civilized goblins, especially after a decade or two (which would be like 4-6 goblin generations).

This would create an emotional impact that would help counter the established opinion. A gate guard knowing that the goblin who comes up to the gate peacefully might be the grandson of his own brother who fell victim to the Polymorph Plague fifteen years back is much more sympathetic than a simple "fixed it in post" time travel bit. Imagine, an adventuring party of the gate guard's rebellious daughter, his brother-turned-goblin's grandson, and his sister in law's twin children that arrived 8 months after the plague took her husband (perhaps he chose to never return and put his wife through such emotional burden, telling only his gate-guard brother of what happened before dissapearing into the wilderness).

Ok, I got rambling there, but still. I like this better than time travel.

THIS IS GOOD.


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

Personally, I'm hoping the narrative device used to make goblins feasible as a core race is NOT time travel. Count me in the camp that believes such a "twist" will have very little emotional impact to counter a decade of established emotions from the player base. If it were shown to be radically foreshadowed in other materials and we all just somehow missed the writing on the wall up until now, well, that might work, but I kind of doubt that;s a possibility at this point.

Personally, here is my "hopeful theory":

The Polymorph Plague mentioned in part 3 of Return of the Runelords. If a significant portion of Varisia's population is exposed to a magical effect that turns them into monsters, its possible that some or many of them become goblins. If the effect is in any way like baleful polymorph, some might be left with their human intellects (but still have to deal with the instinctual urges of the new body). This could easily lead to new "clans" of semi-civilized goblins, especially after a decade or two (which would be like 4-6 goblin generations).

This would create an emotional impact that would help counter the established opinion. A gate guard knowing that the goblin who comes up to the gate peacefully might be the grandson of his own brother who fell victim to the Polymorph Plague fifteen years back is much more sympathetic than a simple "fixed it in post" time travel bit. Imagine, an adventuring party of the gate guard's rebellious daughter, his brother-turned-goblin's grandson, and his sister in law's twin children that arrived 8 months after the plague took her husband (perhaps he chose to never return and put his wife through such emotional burden, telling only his gate-guard brother of what happened before dissapearing into the wilderness).

Ok, I got rambling there, but still. I like this better than time travel.

That doesn't really make Goblins a core race does it? That just polymorphs a significant part of the human population to Goblin bodies. Which means Goblins are still just monsters, and we've got to create a De-Polymorph Plague to turn the humans back.


Someone did quote something in one of these threads that in PF1 the core races aren't just populous, but commonly encountered in cities and generally accepted. (Which contradicts a lot of the lore on half-orcs and to a lesser extent half-elves, but whatever.)

Still, that's a meta definition and can easily be omitted in PF2. Which is to say that I think being included in core isn't especially relevant in setting. It just means the race is more accessible to players.

So what really matters is "can players use this ancestry without getting lynched in most games." Most games I've played in seem like they would let a player get away with it in PF1, but that doesn't seem to be universal across all tables. So Paizo just needs to have an in Canon explanation for goblins to be acceptable enough to let into town. Which seems doable to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is pretty obvious. Paizo knows your PC's are a bunch of murderhoboes (no matter how much you browbeat your GM with the idea that murdering widows and orphans and then raising them with zombies is "good"), and goblins would clearly make good murderhoboes....

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

That's not quite right. The Inner Sea World Guide describes the core races as being "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races[...]" which goblins absolutely are. Goblins actually significantly outnumber several of the core races; half-orcs in particular are nowhere near as numerous, and goblins outbreed dwarfs by a ludicrous factor, since dwarves rarely have more than 2 children and reach adulthood at 40 years, while goblins breed continuously and reach adulthood in only 5 years. Goblins can also be found throughout Golarion, including across the Inner Sea region, throughout Tian Xia, and across the caverns of the Darklands. "Populous and expansive" is not even remotely the same as "generally well-liked by others".

Then why aren't Kobolds a core race? Why only the murder mascots?
Because kobolds are rarer than goblins, for one. Their light-sensitivity prevents them from living in many areas that goblins typically occupy, they reach adulthood at half the pace goblins do, and while scattered bands of kobolds are found throughout Golarion, they tend to be clustered near caverns that connect to the Darklands, their primary habitat. They are also well-known for, and frequently called out as, being inherently cowardly, which makes them a poor fit for a core race of adventurers. Also, because there's a finite amount of space in any given book, and there's probably only room for one new core race.
They are still far more numerous than the majority of the core races if we are going to claim that numbers are a qualifier. And to understand correctly, Goblins cruel and chaotic nature makes for fine adventures and qualifies for core, but kobold's penchant for guerrilla warfare disqualifies them?

It certainly makes the goblins far more likely to go out adventuring as opposed to hiding in their holes waiting for adventurers to come to them. While there's obviously some kind of groundwork that needs to be laid in order for goblins to be better integrated into the world at large, they do have many traits that naturally lend themselves to adventuring, significant populations across all of Golarion, and a penchant for fire that would actually be a pretty significant point in their favor since we know that many undead don't like flames and the last AP for this edition will have Tar-Baphon as the BBEG.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

That's not quite right. The Inner Sea World Guide describes the core races as being "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races[...]" which goblins absolutely are. Goblins actually significantly outnumber several of the core races; half-orcs in particular are nowhere near as numerous, and goblins outbreed dwarfs by a ludicrous factor, since dwarves rarely have more than 2 children and reach adulthood at 40 years, while goblins breed continuously and reach adulthood in only 5 years. Goblins can also be found throughout Golarion, including across the Inner Sea region, throughout Tian Xia, and across the caverns of the Darklands. "Populous and expansive" is not even remotely the same as "generally well-liked by others".

Then why aren't Kobolds a core race? Why only the murder mascots?
Because kobolds are rarer than goblins, for one. Their light-sensitivity prevents them from living in many areas that goblins typically occupy, they reach adulthood at half the pace goblins do, and while scattered bands of kobolds are found throughout Golarion, they tend to be clustered near caverns that connect to the Darklands, their primary habitat. They are also well-known for, and frequently called out as, being inherently cowardly, which makes them a poor fit for a core race of adventurers. Also, because there's a finite amount of space in any given book, and there's probably only room for one new core race.
They are still far more numerous than the majority of the core races if we are going to claim that numbers are a qualifier. And to understand correctly, Goblins cruel and chaotic nature makes for fine adventures and qualifies for core, but kobold's penchant for guerrilla warfare disqualifies them?

MURDERHOBOS FOR THE WIN

Kobolds seem too restrained and level-headed for your usual PC party ;-)


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

{. . .}

Personally, here is my "hopeful theory":

The Polymorph Plague mentioned in part 3 of Return of the Runelords. If a significant portion of Varisia's population is exposed to a magical effect that turns them into monsters, its possible that some or many of them become goblins. If the effect is in any way like baleful polymorph, some might be left with their human intellects (but still have to deal with the instinctual urges of the new body). This could easily lead to new "clans" of semi-civilized goblins, especially after a decade or two (which would be like 4-6 goblin generations).
{. . .}

That doesn't really make Goblins a core race does it? That just polymorphs a significant part of the human population to Goblin bodies. Which means Goblins are still just monsters, and we've got to create a De-Polymorph Plague to turn the humans back.

Pathfinder meets Shadowrun.

And suppose somebody did create a De-Polymorph Plague, but it both didn’t turn all the former Humans back from being Goblins, and it turned some former Goblins into Humans . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Pathfinder meets Shadowrun.

And suppose somebody did create a De-Polymorph Plague, but it both didn’t turn all the former Humans back from being Goblins, and it turned some former Goblins into Humans . . . .

Not too late for time traveling space goblins from mars! ;)


^Um, is Santa Claus supposed to be involved with that?


The Raven Black wrote:

MURDERHOBOS FOR THE WIN

Kobolds seem too restrained and level-headed for your usual PC party ;-)

Well clearly the PCs are the exceptions, just as they are for alignment.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Inclusion in core doesn't require anything aside from Paizo thinking it'd be a neat race for the new edition to have early on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Inclusion in core doesn't require anything aside from Paizo thinking it'd be a neat race for the new edition to have early on.

If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The fact that goblins are now a core PC race has no bearing whatsoever on the millions of goblin NPCs in the world.

Leaving out PFS—because PFS should never be the "gold standard" for campaigns—how many PCs are there in a given campaign world? Very very few. And if some of those are goblins, the effect on the game world is negligible.


after having society game where my party literally found goblins rock n roll in dungeon of rune lord of wrath i can safely say few goblin bard groups can chance what you thing for little buggers in short time. and they are not fully bard to they are alchemists rocking decently hard that my parties bard cried from joy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.

No. Because it being core doesn't have to alter Anything about the setting or the writing quality. It is literally just that instead of the race being in a supplement later, it's in the game from the beginning.

Just being in core does not actually mean it is suddenly free to walk the streets. Being in core means it's in core. You can ascribe "Being in Core" with as many traits or descriptors as you want, but all of those will be a result of your biased perspective when it really is just as simple as: "Paizo thought the race that is basically the game's mascot would be neat to have in Core".


Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.

No. Because it being core doesn't have to alter Anything about the setting or the writing quality. It is literally just that instead of the race being in a supplement later, it's in the game from the beginning.

Just being in core does not actually mean it is suddenly free to walk the streets. Being in core means it's in core. You can ascribe "Being in Core" with as many traits or descriptors as you want, but all of those will be a result of your biased perspective when it really is just as simple as: "Paizo thought the race that is basically the game's mascot would be neat to have in Core".

To be fair, there was one line of text in PF1 that said being a core race meant you could safely walk the streets, more or less. But this is a new game with new definitions, so I don't think it is super relevant. I otherwise agree with you.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.

No. Because it being core doesn't have to alter Anything about the setting or the writing quality. It is literally just that instead of the race being in a supplement later, it's in the game from the beginning.

Just being in core does not actually mean it is suddenly free to walk the streets. Being in core means it's in core. You can ascribe "Being in Core" with as many traits or descriptors as you want, but all of those will be a result of your biased perspective when it really is just as simple as: "Paizo thought the race that is basically the game's mascot would be neat to have in Core".

To be fair, there was one line of text in PF1 that said being a core race meant you could safely walk the streets, more or less. But this is a new game with new definitions, so I don't think it is super relevant. I otherwise agree with you.

First Edition Core Rulebook was world neutral, "you could safely walk the streets" greatly changes for the races depending on the country. Half-Orcs in Lastwall? Halflings in Cheliax?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Martian Goblins Attacks sounds like a great AP. I much prefer SF goblins to PF goblins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Um, is Santa Claus supposed to be involved with that?

Only if it's robot santa from futurama! ;)

"Your mistletoe is no match for my TOW missile!"
"I'm gonna shove coal so far up your stocking, you'll be coughing up diamonds!"

HE'LL get those goblins in shape in no time.


Rysky wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.

No. Because it being core doesn't have to alter Anything about the setting or the writing quality. It is literally just that instead of the race being in a supplement later, it's in the game from the beginning.

Just being in core does not actually mean it is suddenly free to walk the streets. Being in core means it's in core. You can ascribe "Being in Core" with as many traits or descriptors as you want, but all of those will be a result of your biased perspective when it really is just as simple as: "Paizo thought the race that is basically the game's mascot would be neat to have in Core".

To be fair, there was one line of text in PF1 that said being a core race meant you could safely walk the streets, more or less. But this is a new game with new definitions, so I don't think it is super relevant. I otherwise agree with you.
First Edition Core Rulebook was world neutral, "you could safely walk the streets" greatly changes for the races depending on the country. Half-Orcs in Lastwall? Halflings in Cheliax?

Yeah, I mean, I think it is already irrelevant for PF2. I just want to make sure that it is pointed out that "core races are commonly accepted" meme does come from SOMETHING official. It just isn't really relevant anymore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.

No. Because it being core doesn't have to alter Anything about the setting or the writing quality. It is literally just that instead of the race being in a supplement later, it's in the game from the beginning.

Just being in core does not actually mean it is suddenly free to walk the streets. Being in core means it's in core. You can ascribe "Being in Core" with as many traits or descriptors as you want, but all of those will be a result of your biased perspective when it really is just as simple as: "Paizo thought the race that is basically the game's mascot would be neat to have in Core".

No, it very much does. The campaign setting of the book acknowledges the Core races. We can quibble over what that means, but the fact of the matter is that the core race line up does impact the setting and lore. "We want our mascot, f@*% the lore" is NOT good story telling. Core races also get the most content and the most NPCs, so having Goblins as core ensures we'll see sharp increase in Goblin NPCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.

No. Because it being core doesn't have to alter Anything about the setting or the writing quality. It is literally just that instead of the race being in a supplement later, it's in the game from the beginning.

Just being in core does not actually mean it is suddenly free to walk the streets. Being in core means it's in core. You can ascribe "Being in Core" with as many traits or descriptors as you want, but all of those will be a result of your biased perspective when it really is just as simple as: "Paizo thought the race that is basically the game's mascot would be neat to have in Core".

To be fair, there was one line of text in PF1 that said being a core race meant you could safely walk the streets, more or less. But this is a new game with new definitions, so I don't think it is super relevant. I otherwise agree with you.

But it isn't a new setting, which is the ENTIRE issue.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.

No. Because it being core doesn't have to alter Anything about the setting or the writing quality. It is literally just that instead of the race being in a supplement later, it's in the game from the beginning.

Just being in core does not actually mean it is suddenly free to walk the streets. Being in core means it's in core. You can ascribe "Being in Core" with as many traits or descriptors as you want, but all of those will be a result of your biased perspective when it really is just as simple as: "Paizo thought the race that is basically the game's mascot would be neat to have in Core".

No, it very much does. The campaign setting of the book acknowledges the Core races. We can quibble over what that means, but the fact of the matter is that the core race line up does impact the setting and lore. "We want our mascot, f+-$ the lore" is NOT good story telling. Core races also get the most content and the most NPCs, so having Goblins as core ensures we'll see sharp increase in Goblin NPCs.

Seems like the core of the issue is that you just don't like goblins. Because the fact of the matter is that no one is saying "f+-$ the lore"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
If consistentcy in the setting and quality of writing is right out the window, sure.

No. Because it being core doesn't have to alter Anything about the setting or the writing quality. It is literally just that instead of the race being in a supplement later, it's in the game from the beginning.

Just being in core does not actually mean it is suddenly free to walk the streets. Being in core means it's in core. You can ascribe "Being in Core" with as many traits or descriptors as you want, but all of those will be a result of your biased perspective when it really is just as simple as: "Paizo thought the race that is basically the game's mascot would be neat to have in Core".

No, it very much does. The campaign setting of the book acknowledges the Core races. We can quibble over what that means, but the fact of the matter is that the core race line up does impact the setting and lore. "We want our mascot, f+-$ the lore" is NOT good story telling. Core races also get the most content and the most NPCs, so having Goblins as core ensures we'll see sharp increase in Goblin NPCs.
Seems like the core of the issue is that you just don't like goblins. Because the fact of the matter is that no one is saying "f+-$ the lore"

Actually I'm fine with Goblins as a playable race, and I've stated that numerous times. I'd even be okay with having an overall change to the core race line up which included Goblins. I'm not fine with hot gluing goblins on to the old core race line up with nothing more than a last minute wave of the writer wand to justify it. And yes, plenty of people are saying that the lore doesn't matter, that they just want Goblins. Paizo has admitted that there are more appropriate races to add, that Goblins are a 'challenge', that they are doing it because that's what they want to do, and thus not because of any organic progress of the lore and setting. No one here as presented a good lore reason for it, they've mostly stated they like goblins and don't think the change matters. So, maybe double check your facts before you bold them?


If it wasn’t for the short generation time of Pathfinder Goblins, I would suspect that including Goblins as a Core Race would be a way to fit in Yoda and Maz Kanata . . . .


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, you're saying that Core should follow lore? That's a little backwards. Because by your standards, Gnomes, Halflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs wouldn't be core. Races are core because they are the races people want to play and because they are important to the stories Paizo wants to tell. They are not Core because they are important to the setting. Plenty of races are more lore-appropriate in Golarion than Gnomes (including goblins!!!).

Goblins have high population numbers in-lore, are an extremely popular player race, and are near-synonymous with the Paizo brand. They can be core and still be "killed on sight" (although I think this is not standard. And if it is, should also be applied to half-orcs) and still be evil and malicious. So how exactly do they not qualify for Core? And which races are more appropriate? Kobolds certainly aren't. Tieflings maybe?

I think the only people who are saying anything remotely close to "lore doesn't matter" are when people say that goblins can keep their place in lore and still be core. But there is a very big difference between those two positions. In my opinion, the change to core is getting up with the times. Goblins are already core. They have been for years. The rules are just finally reflecting that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:

Wait, you're saying that Core should follow lore? That's a little backwards. Because by your standards, Gnomes, Halflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs wouldn't be core. Races are core because they are the races people want to play and because they are important to the stories Paizo wants to tell. They are not Core because they are important to the setting. Plenty of races are more lore-appropriate in Golarion than Gnomes (including goblins!!!).

Goblins have high population numbers in-lore, are an extremely popular player race, and are near-synonymous with the Paizo brand. They can be core and still be "killed on sight" (although I think this is not standard. And if it is, should also be applied to half-orcs) and still be evil and malicious. So how exactly do they not qualify for Core? And which races are more appropriate? Kobolds certainly aren't. Tieflings maybe?

I think the only people who are saying anything remotely close to "lore doesn't matter" are when people say that goblins can keep their place in lore and still be core. But there is a very big difference between those two positions. In my opinion, the change to core is getting up with the times. Goblins are already core. They have been for years. The rules are just finally reflecting that.

Which is why I'm okay with an overall change to core race line up. But not "Everything is the same except now the murder mascots are core, but all the other races can still f@#+ off". By your own logic, plenty of other races are also already core. So why do only Goblins get the PR boost and lore update? If Goblins are core, why not the planar races, Orcs, Kobolds, Hobgoblins, Grippli, Lizardfolk, Ratfolk, ect? Why do the rules not get updated for them? "Space in the book" is a meta reason and unacceptable for a lore explanation.

Kobolds are certainly more appropriate than Goblins. They avoid direct confrontation true, but are far more civilized than Goblins are presented. They are clever and good at construction and engineering. They can interact peacefully with others. And the cowardice is merely an excuse for the average kobold not adventuring. Certainly goblins have a long list of traits that make them poor adventurers. How about Winter Wolves? They are powerful, breed fairly quickly, and are favored by the recently returned Baba Yaga. The writer's wand could be waved just as easily to have them become core. Lizardfolk were a "core race" in the distant past, and still control swathes of land. They aren't warlike, but then neither are halflings or gnomes. So why could a peace accord not see them start to return to their former glory? Could they not hold the secrets that save the world in the last AP and catapult them to core?

I could go on. So why not these civilized races who control territory? Why the race that the average member can't read, sets everything on fire, and has little to no positive aspects? Why them and not others? Why only them and not others? What story, what reason, could you apply to Goblins that could not be argued for others?


This thread highlights one of my biggest issues with Pathfinder (and other RPGs with "Always Evil" races, by RAW). I don't think I've ever played a game where you have any creature types with universal immutable alignments. Maybe there are goblin tribes that are bloodthirsty murder gremlins, and maybe they're the majority in goblin society, but they're not universal, and any world that doesn't reflect that is, to be honest, not a setting I'd like to play in. Maybe Goblin PCs will experience racism from NPCs, because of the association of Goblins with the image of bloodthirsty murder gremlins. Ok, but why does that mean that they can't be a core race? Half-orcs often have the same issues, due to their heritage, but that's never been a problem.

I don't even care about goblins, but I do care about the implications bandied about here that goblins aren't fit to be core races, because the holy god of the bestiary declared them to be always Evil. Hell, even Golarion lore has recognized that that's not the case, since the first AP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:

This thread highlights one of my biggest issues with Pathfinder (and other RPGs with "Always Evil" races, by RAW). I don't think I've ever played a game where you have any creature types with universal immutable alignments. Maybe there are goblin tribes that are bloodthirsty murder gremlins, and maybe they're the majority in goblin society, but they're not universal, and any world that doesn't reflect that is, to be honest, not a setting I'd like to play in. Maybe Goblin PCs will experience racism from NPCs, because of the association of Goblins with the image of bloodthirsty murder gremlins. Ok, but why does that mean that they can't be a core race? Half-orcs often have the same issues, due to their heritage, but that's never been a problem.

I don't even care about goblins, but I do care about the implications bandied about here that goblins aren't fit to be core races, because the holy god of the bestiary declared them to be always Evil. Hell, even Golarion lore has recognized that that's not the case, since the first AP.

Sure not all Goblins are evil, but that's a reason for them to be a player option, not a core race. And all of that that applies to a large number of races. Races more inclined to civilization. So why Goblins but not them?

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:

This thread highlights one of my biggest issues with Pathfinder (and other RPGs with "Always Evil" races, by RAW). I don't think I've ever played a game where you have any creature types with universal immutable alignments. Maybe there are goblin tribes that are bloodthirsty murder gremlins, and maybe they're the majority in goblin society, but they're not universal, and any world that doesn't reflect that is, to be honest, not a setting I'd like to play in. Maybe Goblin PCs will experience racism from NPCs, because of the association of Goblins with the image of bloodthirsty murder gremlins. Ok, but why does that mean that they can't be a core race? Half-orcs often have the same issues, due to their heritage, but that's never been a problem.

I don't even care about goblins, but I do care about the implications bandied about here that goblins aren't fit to be core races, because the holy god of the bestiary declared them to be always Evil. Hell, even Golarion lore has recognized that that's not the case, since the first AP.

It's worth noting that Pathfinder does not, and never has, had "Always X" alignments in the Bestiaries. That wording was done away with when Pathfinder became its own game and even the core Bestiary notes that alignment is fluid and the alignments listed merely reflect a prevailing norm.

Also, canonically, all cheery elf and dwarf songs are about killing invading humans, so the real question isn't why goblins get the PR boost, it's why they didn't get it in the first place. All those murder songs that get brought up as a point against them are the same things at least two other core races are on record as doing, and both of those races are less populous than goblins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:

This thread highlights one of my biggest issues with Pathfinder (and other RPGs with "Always Evil" races, by RAW). I don't think I've ever played a game where you have any creature types with universal immutable alignments. Maybe there are goblin tribes that are bloodthirsty murder gremlins, and maybe they're the majority in goblin society, but they're not universal, and any world that doesn't reflect that is, to be honest, not a setting I'd like to play in. Maybe Goblin PCs will experience racism from NPCs, because of the association of Goblins with the image of bloodthirsty murder gremlins. Ok, but why does that mean that they can't be a core race? Half-orcs often have the same issues, due to their heritage, but that's never been a problem.

I don't even care about goblins, but I do care about the implications bandied about here that goblins aren't fit to be core races, because the holy god of the bestiary declared them to be always Evil. Hell, even Golarion lore has recognized that that's not the case, since the first AP.

This thread is why i loathe the "open alignment" arguments. Players always latch on to the exceptions, even if that exception is literally the only documented case in the multiverse and wield it as though it had more weight than it actually does as an argument. You see it a ton with that one succubus from that one adventure path. Never mind that it took literal deific intervention, that she still registers as evil to detection and that its actually a ton of freaking work in AP to keep her from backsliding, the example is there ergo all demons aren't evil.

Non evil goblins in canon are like that, the exception, not the rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Also, canonically, all cheery elf and dwarf songs are about killing invading humans, so the real question isn't why goblins get the PR boost, it's why they didn't get it in the first place. All those murder songs that get brought up as a point against them are the same things at least two other core races are on record as doing, and both of those races are less populous than goblins.

Yep, that off handed joke from a Tier 4 canon source definitely equates Dwarves and Elves with Goblins. Congratulations sir, excellent argument!

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Also, canonically, all cheery elf and dwarf songs are about killing invading humans, so the real question isn't why goblins get the PR boost, it's why they didn't get it in the first place. All those murder songs that get brought up as a point against them are the same things at least two other core races are on record as doing, and both of those races are less populous than goblins.
Yep, that off handed joke from a Tier 4 canon source definitely equates Dwarves and Elves with Goblins. Congratulations sir, excellent argument!

It's arguably better than just asking "What about kobolds?" over and over, but to each their own.

I'm trying to show that Pathfinder is a deep and complex world with lore that spans multiple sources. The Kingmaker computer game presents the possibility that there is a goblin who's in tight with a king (or queen) of the River Kingdoms. There are multiple sources (not just the comics) that make it clear that even established core races aren't particularly fond of humans, and most of them have fared much better in their dealings with humans than the goblins have. There's a Chelaxian nobleman with his own personal tribe of goblins. Goblin pirates in the Shackles are well known to be more merciful than their non-goblin counterparts. Magnimar peacefully coexists with multiple tribes of goblins who live right under their feet. There is at least one goblin merchant in Katapesh, and a goblin rat-catcher in Absalom. Goblins are better positioned than any other race to get a big PR boost now that we know the last AP will feature Tar-Baphon as the BBEG.

The canon of the world of Golarion stretches across multiple formats. The Adventure Card Game, the comic books, the computer game, and of course, the pencil and paper RPG (also a few miniatures lines that have text entries and probably some sources I'm forgetting at the moment). For every example of an evil goblin that exists, there's at least one matching example of an equally (or significantly more) evil human, and yet humans are widely accepted as a core race despite being murderous conquerors who have attacked, invaded, and/or enslaved every single other core race at some point in time. If Paizo wants to say that once goblins have a chance to distinguish themselves and they aren't living under constant human oppression at every turn they actually manage to claim a niche in society, why is that an issue? They're everywhere, they have connections everywhere, they're not even predominantly chaotic, and there are huge power vacuums across Golarion in the wake of APs like Wrath of the Righteous and Ironfang Invasion, so why shouldn't goblins, with the numbers and geographical positioning to take advantage of any or all of those opportunities, do exactly that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Also, canonically, all cheery elf and dwarf songs are about killing invading humans, so the real question isn't why goblins get the PR boost, it's why they didn't get it in the first place. All those murder songs that get brought up as a point against them are the same things at least two other core races are on record as doing, and both of those races are less populous than goblins.
Yep, that off handed joke from a Tier 4 canon source definitely equates Dwarves and Elves with Goblins. Congratulations sir, excellent argument!

It's arguably better than just asking "What about kobolds?" over and over, but to each their own.

I'm trying to show that Pathfinder is a deep and complex world with lore that spans multiple sources. The Kingmaker computer game presents the possibility that there is a goblin who's in tight with a king (or queen) of the River Kingdoms. There are multiple sources (not just the comics) that make it clear that even established core races aren't particularly fond of humans, and most of them have fared much better in their dealings with humans than the goblins have. There's a Chelaxian nobleman with his own personal tribe of goblins. Goblin pirates in the Shackles are well known to be more merciful than their non-goblin counterparts. Magnimar peacefully coexists with multiple tribes of goblins who live right under their feet. There is at least one goblin merchant in Katapesh, and a goblin rat-catcher in Absalom. Goblins are better positioned than any other race to get a big PR boost now that we know the last AP will feature Tar-Baphon as the BBEG.

.

This is a profound misrepresentation of these sources. The chelaxian norbleman is an evil lord using a personal goblin tribe as a whip to hunt down escaped slaves. The goblin pirates are more "merciful" unless they're hungry, and their mercy stems from cowardace, not goodwill. Magnimar holds the tribes under their feet because its too much trouble and too dangerous to enter small caverns under the city to root out god knows how many goblins. Katapesh is a borderline evil city where slaving and drug sales are business as usual and absalom is the largest city in the inner sea.

Those only work as examples if you remove literally all context surrounding them.

Paizo Employee

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


This is a profound misrepresentation of these sources. The chelaxian norbleman is an evil lord using a personal goblin tribe as a whip to hunt down escaped slaves.

That's not correct. The nobleman is using the goblins to experiment on, and they're willingly going along with it in the hopes that it will give them the power to reclaim their homelands from the escaped slaves who drove them out. This shows that goblins are perfectly capable of working with other races when it aligns with their interests to do so.

More than that, a Chelaxian nobleman with a personal tribe of goblins is someone in a position of power in a country from which many PC characters hale. They've already opened the door to being the number one source of tieflings in Golarion. If Cheliax decided that the goblins were a useful tool as well and granted them citizenship, the other countries surrounding Cheliax would be forced through their diplomatic relations to treat goblins with the same respect they would any other Chelaxian citizen, and it would be a move that the whole world would hear about.

Quote:
The goblin pirates are more "merciful" unless they're hungry, and their mercy stems from cowardace, not goodwill.

That's not what the write up on the Reefrunners says. They are specifically noted as being a "less aggressive" tribe of goblins. Cowardice isn't mentioned anywhere in their entry.

Quote:
Magnimar holds the tribes under their feet because its too much trouble and too dangerous to enter small caverns under the city to root out god knows how many goblins.

If goblins were as dangerous and derided as is being presented by the anti-goblin crowd, there's no way a civilized city would allow them to continue multiplying directly under their feet like that. The fact that there is a peaceful coexistence shows that such a things isn't just possible but actively happening, and that the goblins are not considered so widely dangerous by everyone that they need to be exterminated.

Quote:
Katapesh is a borderline evil city where slaving and drug sales are business as usual and absalom is the largest city in the inner sea.

And since both of those major trade hubs have goblin citizens, and goblins are one of (if not the) most populous race on Golarion, it makes a lot of sense that goblins looking for friends who can see past their initial prejudices would flock to those areas, potentially meet up with adventuring groups, and become proper adventurers in their own right. So Absalom, Katapesh, and Cheliax (without even stretching the lore or anticipating what might happen in the upcoming APs) are already highly viable locations for goblin PCs to hail from. Reefrunners from the Shackles who team up with a motley band of Jack Sparrow-esque pirates adds another strong location supported entirely by the existing lore. There's also an entire kingdom ruled by hobgoblins in Tian Xia where goblins could decide that they'd be better off trying their luck with some humans or elves instead of spending the rest of their days boot-licking.

Add to all that an appropriate event that a significant portion of Golarion would
be aware of, whatever that event might be and wherever it might be presented, and it isn't a stretch at all to see goblins as a core race.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm really confused by this Lore = Core thing. There isn't actually a core rulebook which exists in Golarion. Paizo IS doing things with lore implications in the Core Rulebook of PF2. But that is stuff like changing druids to Primal magic, which didn't exist before. Or changing the alignments a deity allows their clerics to have. Simply including something which already existed in the core rules doesn't inherently change the lore in anyway. Lore changes can follow, but they don't have to.

Core PF1 Paladins could only divine bond with a weapon or a mount, and needed a splatbook archetype to bond with a shield. In PF2, a paladin can bond with a weapon, mount or shield in core. Does this change anything in the lore? No, because the lore doesn't distinguish between books.

Alchemists are now core in PF2. Does this change their lore? Not inherently. What DOES change their lore is that PF2 core is overhauling alchemy as a system entirely. If we kept he changes to the alchemy system but replaced the Alchemist with the Oracle in core, we would probably have the exact same lore changes for the Alchemist.

Goblins are now core in PF2. Does that mean the lore around goblins has to change? Not inherently. Paizo has said they plan on shaking up the status quo, and it seems like it would be a good idea to make it so random player X won't get run out of town by NPCs from random GM Y. I think as is, this thread has proven that some GMs will make it really hard to play a goblin at the table. But some GMs make it really hard to play a paladin, and we are keeping those.

Does being core mean goblins will get more splatbook support? Probably! Does that change anything lore wise? Nope! Lore doesn't care about publishing ratios. Also, some non-core options just get weird amounts of focus anyway, like Tieflings and Aasimar.

Does being core mean we will see more goblin NPCs? Maybe-- it isn't a given. an unreasonable guess, but it isn't Although, interestingly enough, I've run 3 APs, and in all of them you already encounter goblin NPCs before you encounter all of the core races.

In one goblins are the first enemies, and you are fighting them out the gate. You probably are definitely interacting with goblins more frequently than most races, even though the town technically has named NPCs of each race IIRC.

In the second, the goblin is an enemy, but is also an abused slave for a bugbear that can barely speak goblin and is presented as a tragic figure. You meet one dwarf before hand and two-half elves, and there might have been a dead elf in there somewhere. But no specific gnomes, half-orcs, or halflings up to that point.

In the third, the goblins aren't encountered until late into book 2, enslaved by some trolls. They at irrelevant to the 6th level PCs, and their contribution to the encounter is pelting both sides with garbage for 0 damage. When the trolls are slain, the goblins rejoice and can share information on the evil cult that came through a few weeks ago. Up until this point, I recall there being the ghost of a dwarf, and a monster masquerading as a gnome, and literally every other named NPC being human.

So what I'm saying is it seems possible for Paizo to make goblins feel present without making it common to see a goblin selling ware in the town market; they have been doing it for a decade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
For every example of an evil goblin that exists, there's at least one matching example of an equally (or significantly more) evil human

Among your blatant falsehoods, this is the most egregious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
No, it very much does. The campaign setting of the book acknowledges the Core races. We can quibble over what that means, but the fact of the matter is that the core race line up does impact the setting and lore. "We want our mascot, f%#! the lore" is NOT good story telling. Core races also get the most content and the most NPCs, so having Goblins as core ensures we'll see sharp increase in Goblin NPCs.

Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion? Are you suggesting that "Core Race" is actually part of the physics of the setting?

How does moving content from one book to another magically change the lore? What lore is being changed? The people in setting aren't aware they're in rules supplements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
No, it very much does. The campaign setting of the book acknowledges the Core races. We can quibble over what that means, but the fact of the matter is that the core race line up does impact the setting and lore. "We want our mascot, f%#! the lore" is NOT good story telling. Core races also get the most content and the most NPCs, so having Goblins as core ensures we'll see sharp increase in Goblin NPCs.

Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion? Are you suggesting that "Core Race" is actually part of the physics of the setting?

How does moving content from one book to another magically change the lore? What lore is being changed? The people in setting aren't aware they're in rules supplements.

Am I saying that the Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book? Yes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Am I saying that the Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?

Please reread what was said if you think that was the question, or that that "Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?" was relevant.


Milo v3 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Am I saying that the Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?
Please reread what was said if you think that was the question, or that that "Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?" was relevant.
Quote:
Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:


Quote:
Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion?

Yes, that was the question asked. Which is very different to "Am I saying that the Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?"

"Are you suggesting Core Race is an actual concept in the setting of Golarion?" - Refers to thing that are actual concepts in the setting itself. Things which can be noted and observed by entities in the setting.

"Are Core Races are specifically differentiated from the others in the Campaign Setting book?" - Is completely unrelated, because it is not an aspect of lore in setting. It is describing "what stuff was in this other book". There is no one in setting that be able to discern or state such a thing, because there is no sign of "Core" being a thing in the setting.

401 to 450 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