| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The world that Styx inhabits is not one of Styx killing good honest people, but of surviving in a world of equally bad, if not worse, people. Styx lives in a world where humans, dwarves, and elves have conquered, oppressed, and enslaved the orcs and their lands.Styx is also an assassin who gleefully kills people and jokes about it. He's only a "hero" in the loosest sense of the word.
In that sense, a goblin acting like Styx would be very in keeping with Golarion (well, a very smart, focused Goblin, but still) but you'd run into the problem of it being disruptive in most parties.
Evil kills Evil all the time Aldarc.
It doesn't stop it from being Evil.
That, and not every human Styx kills is even remotely close to Evil. Also note that Styx is very much an exception and Goblins are mindless murderbeasts in-setting anyway; incapable of any sort of rational thought process. Him being able to talk at all is an enormous surprise to everyone he meets (which gets explained something like halfway through Of Orcs and Men).
Orcs are a different matter, of course, but all this is fluff around my main point:
Styx wouldn't be a good PC to have a round a normal party because he's Evil. Even beyond being a Goblin.
Styx is also an assassin who gleefully kills people and jokes about it. He's only a "hero" in the loosest sense of the word.
In that sense, a goblin acting like Styx would be very in keeping with Golarion (well, a very smart, focused Goblin, but still) but you'd run into the problem of it being disruptive in most parties
Huh?
I'd estimate a quarter of the campaigns I've run had a PC that fit this description, and out of all those cases the only time it was 'disruptive' was when the party Paladin had a stick too far up the rectum.
Two of the non-disruptive cases also had Paladins (in one case the sociopathic pc was intentionally created for the interparty dynamic when she heard a Paly would be in the party)
So your players routinely kill people for no reason whatsoever except that they can, betray each other, and constantly engage in the murder of Neutral/Good people in order to obtain money/power?
Because that's essentially what Styx does throughout both his games, plus Of Orcs and Men. And he does so gleefully.
He's the definition of a Neutral Evil character to a T.
That's a whole lot more than
Styx is also an assassin who gleefully kills people and jokes about it.Neutral Evil can work quite well, but not to the extent described in your latest post.
Thank you for more information.
My apologies, I should have been clearer. Styx is a good character (as in, well developed, not Capital G Good) and a nice template to use, just not one that fits with the most common PF party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legitly curious, since I don't play a lot of 5th edition D&D: are the Forgotten Realms suddenly swarming with dragonborn, drow, and tieflings? Because all those guys are core now.
For that matter, is the world of 13th Age filled with dark elves, which are also in the core?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the Drizzt hate. What's wrong with emulating a popular character? I understand the cliche is overdone by the gaming community, but that doesn't give people license to mock another player for making a character that excites them. Besides, it might be overdone by the community, but a single Drizzt clone in a home game can still be the singular example of the heroic member of an evil race. Even if every home game had one of those characters, they would still all be unique in their respective settings. And if all of those players are having fun playing Drizzt, then have at it.
On a side note, the concept of Drizzt was done before and will be done again, many times. But Drizzt is popular not just because of the idea, but the execution. Maybe a few people dislike R. A. Salvatore's writing, but the massive success his books have had give objective evidence that he is, in fact, an excellent storyteller. I know quite a few people who started playing RPG's because they read his novels. Any cheesy shenanigans of people making clones of his characters doesn't take away from that.
|
Legitly curious, since I don't play a lot of 5th edition D&D: are the Forgotten Realms suddenly swarming with dragonborn, drow, and tieflings? Because all those guys are core now.
Pretty much, yeah. Well, maybe not swarming, but they're hardly uncommon.
Of course, unlike say dragonborn in FR, goblins have always been common in Golarion. All that needs to have changed are some cultural things for some of them and some people's attitudes.
For that matter, is the world of 13th Age filled with dark elves, which are also in the core?
I mean, those are basically just goth elves. Sometimes they will mope about how much better things were when they lived underground and had a great empire, but they hardly do anything about it.
Considering that the neo-goblins are supposed to be adorable scamps (blog: ”more often than not goblins' friends consider these qualities endearing”) rather than angsty outcasts, I believe more in the various comparisons with Kender than with Drizzt. :) :)
ANYTHING that reminds you of a kender should be burned with fire until dead. :P
I don't understand the Drizzt hate. What's wrong with emulating a popular character?
It's much easier to understand when you are in a group with 5 people ALL playing a Drizzt clone. it gets old REALLY fast. Think of a format like PFS where everyone makes a character independent of each other and when you sit down you see Drizzt # 3245, Drizzt # 39764, Drizzt #642 and Drizzt #12... Then it seems a LOT less unique. Then you have someone that plays that Drizzt # 3245 in EVERY game no matter if it fits because 'Drizzt is cool!!!'.
So as a one off it isn't an issue but it RARELY is that though: You see it OVER and OVER and OVER again until you're hoping to see something 'unusual' like a human or halfling show up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No Gip, and Gip mean none, has ever been angsty or seeking redamntion or rebelling against goblins.
The first stole a writ and had to keep the horrible thing because it made him safe from townsfolk. (Kingmaker)
The second thrived in the Underdark and eventually traveled as CloakerGip.
Other was Chelish slave thrown into gladiatorial combat and bought after a surprising victory by a nice old man. (Carrion Crown)
Gip and friend Urf also tried to steal ship and be pirates. Didn't work. (Serpent's Skull)
Finally, there is Gip who went full Meowth and became a 'gentlegoblin adventurer' out of desire to win the heart of his beloved Lady of Flame(an Ifrit Fire Oracle). He find manners book and look at pictures, he find most gentlemanly of weapons(Morningstar) and set out to win her heart.
Even Gip's cousin Poog(no relation to other Poog) was a Paladin because he got the call and completely misunderstood what it meant when his deity's areas of concern where cowards and runaways.
|
The only Drizzt clone I've had happened because I handed my GM the character's background(human ranger that wanted to beat the Marillith that killed his family at its own game) and he rewrote it entirely to make him a fanboy of an elf that fought with two weapons. No more wanting to avenge his father, just 'hey, that guy cut an apple into equal parts while it was midair! I wanna be just like him!’
Sometimes players aren't the problem.
Personally if I showed up to a thing and everybody was playing basically the same character I was, I'd think that was really funny and I'd want to make a thing of it.
Personally if I showed up to a thing and everybody was playing basically the same character I was, I'd think that was really funny and I'd want to make a thing of it.
For a more normal character, I agree. When 6 random and super rare dual scimitar wielding drow [with cat pets] exiles all happen to walk into the same bar... A god's going to have to appear and claim divine intervention for it to make sense to me. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally if I showed up to a thing and everybody was playing basically the same character I was, I'd think that was really funny and I'd want to make a thing of it.For a more normal character, I agree. When 6 random and super rare dual scimitar wielding drow [with cat pets] exiles all happen to walk into the same bar... A god's going to have to appear and claim divine intervention for it to make sense to me. :P
That makes sense. I would probably be a little annoyed in that scenario. But does that ever really happen (I haven't played PFS)? I mean, I just can't imagine there are enough Drizzt clones out there to justify the mockery. And the idea of a good individual breaking free of an evil society and going against racial stereotypes is not enough to make a character a Drizzt clone. That concept goes beyond a common RPG character. That's simply a common literary character. All adventurers need something that makes them stand out; otherwise they wouldn't be adventurers.
Also, I only GM, and none of my players play a Drizzt clone. I'm only defending the concept because I think the push-back is way over the top. It feels like people want to go against the fad just to be different. And I've been seeing a lot of criticism for other people's play styles lately. Let's just let people play the characters they want to play, OK? Basically, it's one thing to say "Goblins shouldn't be Core because that doesn't make sense", but another to say "Goblins shouldn't be Core because that makes it too easy for people to play a cliche".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a group of heroic goblins banding together (like in an adventuring party) doesn't mean that it's common for goblins to become heroes. Doesn't it make sense that outcast goblins, trying to rise above their racial attitudes, would form a community? That doesn't mean there are suddenly huge amounts of good goblins, just that all of them have gathered in a single place (like an adventuring party). So having a party made up entirely of 16 goblins doesn't indicate a world shift in the goblin race.
Goblins will still make up a very minor percentage of the population. Being Core doesn't change that. In fact, why do people assume that? There are still VERY few half-elves/orcs in Golarion. Why is it that making a race Core means that all of a sudden "OMG, there going to be all over the place now". It just means they will be more common for adventurers. Not earth-shattering.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you imagine, if only for a moment, a group of goblin adventurers showing up in the town square of a remote Varisian village...
"I hear you've been having trouble of some sort," the goblin leader says. "How can we help?"
Rotflmao!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That makes sense. I would probably be a little annoyed in that scenario. But does that ever really happen (I haven't played PFS)?
It DID happen to me, though not everyone had managed to get a cat... It was it's own little piece of hell I quickly escaped from... And that's the thing. Anyone that's lived through it cringes whenever something encourages 'special snowflakes' because we remember.
I mean, I just can't imagine there are enough Drizzt clones out there to justify the mockery.
Oh there was a time RIGHT after drow got stats that a sea of them came out of the woodwork. I'll admit they weren't all wielding 2 scimitars but it for a while you'd see more drow than 'normal' elves.
And the idea of a good individual breaking free of an evil society and going against racial stereotypes is not enough to make a character a Drizzt clone.
I single one? yeah, I agree. It loses its concept when it's NOT a special case though. After a while it's not playing against type but WITH type.
All adventurers need something that makes them stand out; otherwise they wouldn't be adventurers.
That's exactly my point. Once you have enough drow [or goblins] that 'buck the system' and turn into good adventurers you aren't standing out but blending into the crowd.
Also, I only GM, and none of my players play a Drizzt clone.
It's been AGES since Drizzt clones have been an issue. Once a race becomes the 'in thing', those wanting to be special snowflakes move on to the next 'it's not normally a PC' race.
I'm only defending the concept because I think the push-back is way over the top.
I only seems that way because you didn't experience it is my guess. There WAS a time it was surprising to NOT see multiple 'unique' runaway drow trying to get into a game.
It feels like people want to go against the fad just to be different.
I'm against core goblins BECAUSE I like the 'play against type' goblin and I think core goblins will crush that and grind it into the ground with an avalanche of goblin PC's.
And I've been seeing a lot of criticism for other people's play styles lately. Let's just let people play the characters they want to play, OK? Basically, it's one thing to say "Goblins shouldn't be Core because that doesn't make sense", but another to say "Goblins shouldn't be Core because that makes it too easy for people to play a cliche".
I don't think it's 'playing a cliche' per se... I don't have an issue with any single person playing a goblin: I worry about how many others are and what common goblins mean for the world at large because of that. It alters the dynamic, history and culture of the goblin we all know when 'sane' goblins aren't uncommon anymore.
Being Core doesn't change that.
Yes it does: it's a sea change. It's not so much that there is a limited amount of goblin heros but that they are expected to be able to adventure ANYPLACE your other core races do. That means they get the same basic acceptance as a human, elf or dwarf as a base assumption in an AP. That's a HUGE difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the Drizzt hate. What's wrong with emulating a popular character? I understand the cliche is overdone by the gaming community, but that doesn't give people license to mock another player for making a character that excites them. Besides, it might be overdone by the community, but a single Drizzt clone in a home game can still be the singular example of the heroic member of an evil race. Even if every home game had one of those characters, they would still all be unique in their respective settings. And if all of those players are having fun playing Drizzt, then have at it.
On a side note, the concept of Drizzt was done before and will be done again, many times. But Drizzt is popular not just because of the idea, but the execution. Maybe a few people dislike R. A. Salvatore's writing, but the massive success his books have had give objective evidence that he is, in fact, an excellent storyteller. I know quite a few people who started playing RPG's because they read his novels. Any cheesy shenanigans of people making clones of his characters doesn't take away from that.
I agree with basically everything you've said here. Even the haters come off as a bit hypocritical at best, anyway, because it's not like any one of their characters is going to be "original." At least, completely original, written in a way that has never been done before. It's not about that, it's about execution, and what entertainment it brings people.
I, for instance, can't stand playing the trigger-happy murderhobos that so many people think of when they talk about "PC rampages." I generally prefer heroic characters, unless I have a specific anti-hero concept in mind. Nor do I like to play with people who just play murderous groups purely out to kill things and take their stuff. But those players don't have to play in my games, and the existence of their fun doesn't affect mine.
Like I've said, frankly I find the (often hypocritical) hate on supposed "Drizzt clones" infesting our games is far more toxic and harmful to gaming environments than any such pastiche or heavily-inspired character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the Drizzt hate. What's wrong with emulating a popular character?
Because the thing about the character is that he's a uniquely good example from an otherwise thoroughly evil race. The whole point is that there aren't any other benevolent drow running around rebelling against their murderous relatives and whatever other evil they encounter. It's a significant feature that makes the character so compelling.
And it's the unique aspect that sees emulating players basically defecate on the appeal of it all, which if nothing else, tramples immersion and setting fidelity for other players. Especially when, at the time, there seemed to be one of these angsty dual-wielding drow pulling up a seat at every table. It got a little crazy.
And finally, it's one thing to emulate the adored qualities of a popular character and another thing to emulate the character. No one like a Legolas clone even though he doesn't suffer the unique qualities that Drizzt did, though an astute and talented elven archer would hardly raise an eyebrow when played without the context of the popular character by someone else.
While goblins in PF2 won't be emulating a specific character, per se, it's the fact that the lore about goblins--the thing that made them so attractive in the first place--is demoted in favor of mass appeal. No one would have a problem with more goblin content if it continued with the strain of "dog-hating, horse chopping, fire throwing maniacs." That's actually what people want, isn't it? I mean, did anyone ask for goblin paladin crusaders for core? That was on the bucket list?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only seems that way because you didn't experience it is my guess. There WAS a time it was surprising to NOT see multiple 'unique' runaway drow trying to get into a game.
Oh no. People playing character concepts that sound like fun. How can we survive this plague?
Also, as opposed to what, the 'unique' Barbarian that rages at people and is content? The 'unique' Wizard who travels the land gathering magical power and acquiring (and dispensing) wisdom? Those so-called clones are not any less unique than any other character, they're just inspired by a more high-profile character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the Drizzt hate. What's wrong with emulating a popular character?Because the thing about the character is that he's a uniquely good example from an otherwise thoroughly evil race. The whole point is that there aren't any other benevolent drow running around rebelling against their murderous relatives and whatever other evil they encounter. It's a significant feature that makes the character so compelling.
And it's the unique aspect that sees emulating players basically defecate on the appeal of it all, which if nothing else, tramples immersion and setting fidelity for other players. Especially when, at the time, there seemed to be one of these angsty dual-wielding drow pulling up a seat at every table. It got a little crazy.
And finally, it's one thing to emulate the adored qualities of a popular character and another thing to emulate the character. No one like a Legolas clone even though he doesn't suffer the unique qualities that Drizzt did, though an astute and talented elven archer would hardly raise an eyebrow when played without the context of the popular character by someone else.
While goblins in PF2 won't be emulating a specific character, per se, it's the fact that the lore about goblins--the thing that made them so attractive in the first place--is demoted in favor of mass appeal. No one would have a problem with more goblin content if it continued with the strain of "dog-hating, horse chopping, fire throwing maniacs." That's actually what people want, isn't it? I mean, did anyone ask for goblin paladin crusaders for core? That was on the bucket list?
So since a unique concept has been done once, no one can ever play that character again? I can "emulate the adored qualities" of Drizzt but not emulate the character himself? How close can I get before I'm now offending people with my playstyle? And why can't I create an exact match of Drizzt? What if I wanted to steal his backstory, word for word, and recreate his stats as near as possible? I don't think anyone gets to say I can't do that. This is roleplaying, a chance for me to step into a world entirely unlike our own. The idea of playing the singular good example of an otherwise evil race is enticing. And everyone should have the opportunity to play that, and if it's overplayed then at least people are having fun. I understand that people took it too far... but I just can't accept the attitude of restricting other people's fun simply because a concept is cheesy or overdone or tramples immersion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's goblins are the newest incarnation of Drizzt Do'Urdens at the table. You know what I'm talking about here.
It's not so much that goblins-as-core may give license to gray-area players, which is a minor but real consideration. It's that Paizo is ruining the lore and core appeal that made Pathfinder goblins attractive to players in the first place. And just like stupid drow, they did it to tap into some "mass marketing" appeal of them as a playable race.
Seems like a bad idea that Paizo, for some reason, positively adores.
I've always hated Paizo goblins for being memes.
This face lift makes them and Golarion more interesting
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So since a unique concept has been done once, no one can ever play that character again? I can "emulate the adored qualities" of Drizzt but not emulate the character himself? How close can I get before I'm now offending people with my playstyle? And why can't I create an exact match of Drizzt? What if I wanted to steal his backstory, word for word, and recreate his...
You can do anything you'd like. I encourage you to emulate or copy anything you want. In. Your. Games.
That doesn't mean the rest of us must condone it as a staple/core element in a new edition, in official materials and settings, or in organized play.
All that said, is there something wrong with wanting goblins to be the evil goblins they've always been until now? Why are you so offended that people adore what made Paizo's goblins a brand in the first place and want to reject a move away from that?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh no. People playing character concepts that sound like fun. How can we survive this plague?
The thing is, it IS a fun character when it's played that way: as a unique loner fighting 'against the man'. it's less fun when it becomes a literal joke.
Also, as opposed to what, the 'unique' Barbarian that rages at people and is content?
A barbarians shtick isn't unique or rare. You know what makes star wars fo great? Everyone playing han solo, so the millennium falcon is stuff full of his clones. :P
The 'unique' Wizard who travels the land gathering magical power and acquiring (and dispensing) wisdom?
That have a tradition of uniqueness and being 'lone wolves'?
Those so-called clones are not any less unique than any other character, they're just inspired by a more high-profile character.
The other characters essence and identity doesn't hinge on it being unique though? It's not fun IMO to have a concepts that 'playing against type' when the type has been effectively destroyed. Really, I can't buy the premise that a concept is super rare and therefor cool and awesome when they are standing next to 3 others claiming the exact same thing.
So the moral is: unique type characters can be a fine/cool concept but it loses it's luster when it's provably false by seeing carbon copies.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha, "I was into Drizzt before he was cool. Now that everyone is into him, he's kinda lame." I'm sorry, a good character concept doesn't become less good if people play that character.
I'm fine with people not wanting goblins to be core because they are evil. I'm fine with people not wanting goblins to be core because that goes against what Paizo's been doing with their goblins. I'm not as fine with saying they can't be core because then people can play a concept that you don't like. There are lots of parts of Pathfinder I'm not interested in, but I don't tell people they can't enjoy those parts. The thing I like about Pathfinder (as opposed to other RPGs), is that there are so many options. People can play whatever they want!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not as fine with saying they can't be core because then people can play a concept that you don't like.
Are people saying that though? I know I'm not. I'm saying playing a 'rare, good goblin playing against type' isn't very compatible with goblins are core. One relies on non-evil goblins being rare while one relies on them being common. This is why I had NO issue with goblin PC's in pathfinder as they WERE rare and requires specific DM permission to play.
SO I'm not against the concept but I think the concept makes less sense the more common non-evil goblins are and at a certain point it doesn't make any sense at all. This is why a "good character concept" becomes less so when its basic premise fails.
I think part of the reason for the initial glut of Drizzt clones was more for the mechanical advantages of being a drow, which IIRC were pretty hefty in 2nd edition.
While it was true that some went for the sweet, sweet bonuses, they were actually the most palatable drow. While those emulating Drizzt would be pretty 'in your face' drow, those in it for the power would actually hide there race and NOT advertise they were drow. It was actually a bit refreshing to see a different take and they where by far the mosr diverse of the PC drow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the point of this thread? That goblins shouldn't be core because that enables people to play Drizzt type characters? Rereading the OP, I could see how it might be more about how Paizo is cashing in on market appeal... but isn't that just another way of saying that people want goblins to be core? I suppose one could make the argument that Paizo is attempting to make money at the expense of the game, but I don't think anyone would buy in to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the point of this thread? That goblins shouldn't be core because that enables people to play Drizzt type characters?
I saw the point as it looks like goblins will fall into the same trap as drow: that what appeals to the people that want to play them is destroyed by them becoming common. It's like wanting to be 'the last jedi' in a party of 5 jedi.
Rereading the OP, I could see how it might be more about how Paizo is cashing in on market appeal... but isn't that just another way of saying that people want goblins to be core? I suppose one could make the argument that Paizo is attempting to make money at the expense of the game, but I don't think anyone would buy in to that.
IMO, it's about destroying the niche of the 'good guy' goblin rising above the general evilness of other goblins. If you do it like pathfinder classic, they are truly rare and it works well. You make them common and it destroys the backstory: you're just 'one of those new goblins' and not an exception anymore. There is no redemption story [or at least no interesting one] when others all around you have the same story.
EDIT: I also fear that the 'Drizzt in the room' isn't going to be goblin looking for redemption, but the 'psycho-pyro that likes eating humans', you know but good cuz the book says I can. I think people loved playing the goblin adventures BECAUSE they are chaotic balls of destruction and not because they thought they could work well in a party.
Gotcha. Because the OP seemed pretty anti Drizzt characters. And I think your point is valid. This will definitely change the dynamic of what it means to play a goblin character. I could see how making goblins a core race takes away their charm. That said, I think there are plenty of other options for the singular good example of an evil race (such as... drow. Or orcs, if drow are too cliche).
On a completely separate note, I think the "psycho-pyro that likes eating humans" could potentially be fun (and not in a disruptive way) to play, Qith some major edits to the eating humans part. But eating weird other generally considered non-edible things might be fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the point of this thread? That goblins shouldn't be core because that enables people to play Drizzt type characters?I saw the point as it looks like goblins will fall into the same trap as drow: that what appeals to the people that want to play them is destroyed by them becoming common. It's like wanting to be 'the last jedi' in a party of 5 jedi.
Rereading the OP, I could see how it might be more about how Paizo is cashing in on market appeal... but isn't that just another way of saying that people want goblins to be core? I suppose one could make the argument that Paizo is attempting to make money at the expense of the game, but I don't think anyone would buy in to that.IMO, it's about destroying the niche of the 'good guy' goblin rising above the general evilness of other goblins. If you do it like pathfinder classic, they are truly rare and it works well. You make them common and it destroys the backstory: you're just 'one of those new goblins' and not an exception anymore. There is no redemption story [or at least no interesting one] when others all around you have the same story.
It only 'destroys the niche' if you have no sense of scale. There can be literally thousands, even ten of thousands of reformed drow or goblins or whatever else, and there's still many more hundreds of thousands who remain typical examples of the evil culture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the point of this thread? That goblins shouldn't be core because that enables people to play Drizzt type characters?I saw the point as it looks like goblins will fall into the same trap as drow: that what appeals to the people that want to play them is destroyed by them becoming common. It's like wanting to be 'the last jedi' in a party of 5 jedi.
Bingo!
Because the OP seemed pretty anti Drizzt characters.
I am for the precise reason that Graystone outlined. I like Drizzt the character but hate what his clones did to drow at the tabletop.
This will definitely change the dynamic of what it means to play a goblin character.
Therein lies the issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the OP seemed pretty anti Drizzt characters.I am for the precise reason that Graystone outlined. I like Drizzt the character but hate what his clones did to drow at the tabletop.
You mean...nothing?
|
Honestly, how is this Drizzt guy so popular that there are novels about him that sell in huge numbers, when all I see on the internet is disdain toward him?
I have not seen a single comment expressing affection for this character on the internet. I think I have seen over a hundred iterations of "Pffft..."
I read most of the Drizzt books and loved them and the character but I loved the drow since the old school adventures against the giants series and the D series ending in Queen of the Demonweb pits.
Also the goblin is the iconic pathfinder monster vs. drizzt became the iconic good drow from the forgotten realms books. I little semantic argument but still a little different when comparing it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, it IS a fun character when it's played that way: as a unique loner fighting 'against the man'. it's less fun when it becomes a literal joke.
It only becomes a joke when players try to demean what others enjoy, which is flat-out a jerk move.
A barbarians shtick isn't unique or rare. You know what makes star wars fo great? Everyone playing han solo, so the millennium falcon is stuff full of his clones. :P
Except two things: 1) I've never seen that happen literally ever, and have been gaming in this and Star Wars and all that kind of thing since I was 7 (more than 20 years now), and 2) Who cares? If the group is having fun with a bunch of Han not-so-Solos, good for them. You can craft entertaining stories and have fun, so what's it to you?
That have a tradition of uniqueness and being 'lone wolves'?
Compared to what? Tell me your characters that are so original that it gives you free license to disparage everyone else's inspirations. Go on, I'll wait.
The other characters essence and identity doesn't hinge on it being unique though? It's not fun IMO to have a concepts that 'playing against type' when the type has been effectively destroyed. Really, I can't buy the premise that a concept is super rare and therefor cool and awesome when they are standing next to 3 others claiming the exact same thing.
So the moral is: unique type characters can be a fine/cool concept but it loses it's luster when it's provably false by seeing carbon copies.
The thing is, what's not fun for you may be fun for someone else. It objectively doesn't hurt your game or even the game in general. Also, it doesn't mean the character concept loses its luster for fans of the concept. No one has to justify anything to you, and you have yet to elucidate how these concepts are any worse than the standard PC concept.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that four or five very similar character concepts can't all be unique in their own right has always amused me. While serving in the army, the vast majority of us were pretty identical. We all had the same job, the same basic military skills, we all dressed the same, looked the same, even moved the same lock-step in formation.
And yet, we were all very different individuals, despite there being so much alike between us all.
Five drizzt clones or five han solos will all still be different from each other. Hell, even the Clones in SW had unqiue differences between each other. You can't get more clone-like than a litteral clone!
One of the things I love doing in D&D is setting up a team where every player plays the same class or same race or something along those lines. And it really brings out the differences in PCs when you take something major and make it the same.
So five drizzt clones? Hell yes! That would be an awesome game. I'd absolutely love to explore that team and see what makes each of them unique in their own way; see how they overcome the challenges presented to them.
I'm not sure just when the plague of Drizzt clones began. It had to be somewhere after 1990, but by 2002 people were already decrying it - when I started playing Neverwinter Nights in online communities there were already fixed strong prejudices against Drizzt clones. Perhaps because when you're playing an online avatar in a shared RPG setting, the appearance of your character is highlighted even more than at the tabletop.
"Dark elf - check. Twin scimitars - check. Panther companion - check. OK, dude! step over to the side with the other ones..."
I doubt that the PF goblin phenomenon will come even close. And I'm sure we'll be seeing some clever "reasons" put forward very, very soon, for the gobbos to become "all that they can be."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like for one thing the "angsty goblin seeking to escape his evil upbringing" can be any class. A redemption seeking goblin could plausibly fit anywhere and be built in any way. Like there was a thread on here where people were posting goblin character ideas and there were 3 Paladins posited right away, none of which even vaguely resembled each other.
Drizzt clones pretty much have to be Rangers with a specific combat style. If someone rolled up a Drow Sorceress who specialized in transmutation and abjuration magic and was pursuing a redemptive arc, nobody could justifiably accuse them of being a Drizzt clone, could they?
Hmm from my experience the whole hate around the Drizzt setup is of the aspects:
First of all he is a Mary Sue.
He is a good version of a race that is always evil (Alignments were enforced a lot more in the edition he came from) in a time were fantasy "moral greyzones" were not as prevalent as today.
Dual Whielding was seem as the "Akimbo Pistols" in fantasy, and were considered "corny" kinda like the "gangsta style of holding pistols", but in later times the dual weapon setup have become more accepted.
And well, you have the prologue to the whole "dark-angsty" character trope, at least in the start.
So what Goblins fit in here is the trope of "Being the oddly socially acceptable version of a normally unacceptable race", and also the "Playing the obscure thing which everyone seem to like, but then why the hell is it obscure if everyone likes it" trope.
Legitly curious, since I don't play a lot of 5th edition D&D: are the Forgotten Realms suddenly swarming with dragonborn, drow, and tieflings? Because all those guys are core now.
For that matter, is the world of 13th Age filled with dark elves, which are also in the core?
I know this is pretty far back in the discussion, but the official module instances I can remember from the top of my head:
The final boss of Lost Mines of Phandelver is a single Drow.
Hoard of the Dragon Queen features at least 1 Dragonborn in the villain dragon cult's ranks.
I haven't read Rise of Tiamat at all.
Princes of the Apocalypse features a tiefling at the head of the fire cult, and a dragon disguised as a drow.
Out of the Abyss features Drow up the wazoo, but this is unsurprising as this is an Underdark campaign. It also features a cameo by Drizz't.
I don't believe there are any drow, tieflings or dragonborn whatsoever in Curse of Strahd.
I haven't read Storm King's Thunder, Tales of the Yawning Portal or Tomb of Annihilation.
All in all, I can't really say that you'll meet any of these races in a random tavern.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's goblins are the newest incarnation of Drizzt Do'Urdens at the table. You know what I'm talking about here.
It's not so much that goblins-as-core may give license to gray-area players, which is a minor but real consideration. It's that Paizo is ruining the lore and core appeal that made Pathfinder goblins attractive to players in the first place. And just like stupid drow, they did it to tap into some "mass marketing" appeal of them as a playable race.
Seems like a bad idea that Paizo, for some reason, positively adores.
What confuses me is that Goblins are playable in PF1 and there's a ton of archetypes and feats just for them and no one cared or cares. Suddenly they're playable in PF2 and it's everywhere.
I doubt that the PF goblin phenomenon will come even close. And I'm sure we'll be seeing some clever "reasons" put forward very, very soon, for the gobbos to become "all that they can be."
Debatible. Though with the popularity of "We be Goblins" being a point of arguments by those on the, ugh, pro goblins side(bloody hell there's a term I didn't think I'd have to write, same with anti goblin), I do question how many players old and new will straight up continue to play them as if it was a goblin module/campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What confuses me is that Goblins are playable in PF1 and there's a ton of archetypes and feats just for them and no one cared or cares. Suddenly they're playable in PF2 and it's everywhere.PF2's goblins are the newest incarnation of Drizzt Do'Urdens at the table. You know what I'm talking about here.
It's not so much that goblins-as-core may give license to gray-area players, which is a minor but real consideration. It's that Paizo is ruining the lore and core appeal that made Pathfinder goblins attractive to players in the first place. And just like stupid drow, they did it to tap into some "mass marketing" appeal of them as a playable race.
Seems like a bad idea that Paizo, for some reason, positively adores.
And what confuses me is that many people seem to not understand the difference between playable race and CORE race. I don't mind having goblin pc stats in the bestiary or PF2 ARG; i mind that goblins go from pests you kill at first level to gain exp (with the OCCASIONAL goblin adventurer/NPC that stands out from the mass) to socially accepted race of lovable critters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
theGlitch, what can we say. While your objections are not without merit, at some point you've got to simply suck it up and get used to it.
Eric, Jason and the other guys at Paizo are not going to change their minds about goblins as a core race in PF2.
They also are not saying that goblins are now a "socially accepted race of lovable critters".
They *are* saying that they want to give us the opportunity to play through the difficult transition phase, to use our ideas about what goblins have been so far (crazed pyromaniac bird-torturers) and to see the ways those ideas can be stretched and bent.
I think it's good that these boards gave lots of folks the space to vent their anti-goblin spleen. But we should all recognize the need to think constructively and move on.
If we are suddenly interested in defending the sacred ability to play a Drizzt character by being the lone goblin hero: I don't think goblins were ever meant to fill that role. Paizo has been working on their version of goblins for the past decade to get us to this point. Goblins are not the same as drow. Sure they like setting things on fire and are extremely violent, but those qualities can be redirected toward adventuring. They're evil, but it's a silly evil. Not so the drow, who are all about enslaving and fleshwarping. There are already plenty of neutral goblins in cannon. So making a Drizzt goblin was never going to equal the appeal of a Drizzt drow. That's true even in PF1, when goblins aren't core. So if you are trying to protect people's ability to play Drizzt (while at the same time putting down any Drizzt characters?), the point is kind of moot for me. Making goblins core doesn't take away the qualities in them that excite me when I think of the characters I want to make. Making drow core might.