|
| 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
The decision to make goblins into a core ancestry for players in second edition worried me the moment I saw it. The inevitable and overwhelming negative consequences this decision would have on the play experience seemed so obvious to me that I am surprised by the number of people defending it. Of course, the fact that so many people do seem to think that this is a good idea shows that those reasons are not, in fact, as obvious as I believed. It is as a result of this, and the dismissive tone with which both Paizo and the community has met concerns that I and others have, that has motivated me to gather those concerns together in a single place and present them as persuasively as I can in a reasonable amount of time. So, here is why adding goblins as a core race is a bad idea, and why it will make play overall less pleasant and more laden with problem players than it currently is.
The Psychology of the Problem Player
Concerns about the effect the introductions of goblin characters as a core option will have on the conduct of Pathfinder’s player base are often met with the idea that any player who would ever behave in a disruptive way will always behave in a disruptive way no matter the class and ancestry of their character. This statement is false, because it misunderstands what motivates problematic players to play as they do. Problem players are not malicious vandals out to disrupt games. Rather, in my experience, the most passionate role-players I’ve encountered are generally the ones most inclined to behave disruptively, because they care so deeply about role-playing their characters accurately.
The two most disruptive characters I’ve ever encountered were both halflings, played by different people, both of whom are in no way disruptive when they play other characters. One is openly and deliberately behaving like a kinder, which means he will risk angering plot-critical NPCs and ruining the mission for everyone in order to pick-pocket or shoplift for his own amusement. The other plays a deliberately unintelligent halfling who regularly splits from the party to press random buttons and otherwise engage in disruptive antics, which have put the party in danger of TPKs.
Neither of these people showed up to the game to sabotage it. Neither of them thought that they were doing anything wrong. Both thought that they were simply playing their characters faithfully. True, not everyone would be willing to behave as they do, but countless many innocuous players would begin acting that way if they got it in their head that that was what faithfully role-playing their characters required.
It Actually is What Faithfully Role-Playing their Characters Requires
“It’s what my character would do” is an often-used excuse used by problem players to justify bad behavior, and I believe this is because, as I argued, it is what said players genuinely believe and the reason why they make the decisions that they make. The problem I want to explore here is that, when the fact that this is the case is directly stated and shown throughout the official material, that excuse becomes a difficult one for GMs to grapple with unless they are willing and able to openly ban goblins themselves.
Suppose I am running a Pathfinder Society game. Suppose one of the players is a stranger: say we’re at an event. Suppose that that player is playing a goblin PC, and that, in the course of doing so, choose to visit the local stable to slaughter every horse inside, bringing the wrath of the local guard on the entire party. As a society GM, I am not empowered to discipline that player or remove them from the table. The most I could do would be step in by fiat and declare that the arrow doesn’t hit, but the mere attempt is every bit as bad.
Now, if a halfling did that, or if a gnome did that, I would be able to tell that player that regardless of what they say their character would do, such a character is unwelcome at the table. However, I cannot say the same thing to a goblin, because, by including goblins as a core race, Paizo has circumvented me and stated that, in fact, they are. By including goblins as a core race, Paizo has stated that disruptive players are welcome at society tables so long as they choose that ancestry at character creation. While the goblin might not have been obligated to take that specific action, they are, if they wish to faithfully play a goblin who is not a very strange outlier among their species, obligated to generally show an affinity for setting things on fire, killing valuable domesticated animals and display disrespect for the lives, wellbeing and property of others. Preventing them from acting that way removes the entire purpose of playing a goblin, and there is no non-disruptive way to consistently engage in those behaviors.
Suppose, though, that I did feel empowered to police behavior Paizo has directly endorsed at a society table, or suppose that the goblin’s behavior becomes to indefensible that I do not have anything to worry about when I ask them to leave. I will still have had to deal with their nonsense, and taken time and energy away from the fun, time-limited official event I was supposed to be running.
Burning Down the Suspension of Disbelief
Let us suppose a goblins behaves more reasonably. Let us suppose that they are a genuine defector from broader goblin culture, down to only mildly enjoying fire, being rendered merely uncomfortable by dogs and horses, and displaying ample empathy for other living things. Let us now suppose that that character walks undisguised in the town square.
The idea that the guard would not immediately descend upon and kill them is ludicrous.
To run a game set in Golarion with a PC goblin is to either demand that they wear a disguise which must never fail for fear of derailing the plot, accepting that the entire story is about the fact that everyone wants to kill this PC for being a goblin, or forcing every character they encounter to pretend they are not seeing a creature they have every reason to believe is an objectively evil monster who is an immediate threat to the lives of everyone present. At a society table I will, of course, to the latter, as I have when I have allowed goblins in home games, because that is appropriate in some contexts. However, it is not appropriate for any story which is intended to have a serious, realistic tone in which the NPCs react plausibly to the PCs and their actions. That is the kind of story this decision makes it difficult to tell with the core rules, and likely impossible to tell in the context of society. No one can react realistically to the PC’s presence without derailing the game.
The above points are generally met with something along the lines of #NotAllGoblins. The problem with this is that it is clearly silly to suppose that, on the golarion we know, ordinary people would accept obvious and immediate danger to the lives of them and their loved ones because there is, in-universe, a one in a million chance that this monster will not murder them the first chance it gets. We have seen NPCs, including venture captains, react to goblins, and they do so with disgust and the desire to destroy them.
The prominence of goblin adventurers implied by their presence in the core book also constitutes an enormous retcon. With them as one of seven core races, it is likely that at least ten percent of players will be goblins, implying that around ten percent of adventurers are such. While it needn’t be required that the demographics of PCs perfectly match those of in-universe adventurers, this decision will still lead to the implication that there are meant to be thousands of goblins in the pathfinder society, which is ludicrous.
Admittedly, it is still possible and has even been hinted, that some major story development will happen to explain this. However, to be adequate, that development had better be pretty impressive.
Summary and Conclusion
Including goblins in the core rulebook is a bad idea because it encourages and tacitly endorses problem behavior while disempowering GMs to police it properly. A goblin, played to match goblins’ portrayal in published material up until now, will be inherently disruptive, and NPCs will be obligated to react with adventure-derailing hostility at a goblin’s presence.
I have no delusion that this will happen, but it would be incredibly wise of Paizo not to include goblins in the core rules. The disappointment expressed by players who wish to play as goblins will be outweighed by the lack of constant negative behavior which GMs in society will be powerless to prevent unless it becomes so extreme as to warrant formal punishment. Emphasizing the iconic aspects of Pathfinder’s brand is better served by maintaining a consistent image of Golarion as a world than by upending well-established canonical facts in the name of fan service.
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins don’t make problem players, problem players make problem players. Period. Any player who feels compelled to act out and throw off a game would be doing that regardless of what race or class they have available. Goblins being added isn’t going to awaken some ancient slumbering god of $#!+ behavior that will ride your otherwise productive and stable players through your table. Goblins have been available as PCs for years, having them in the core will not make players any worse. The bad ones are already bad.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins don’t make problem players, problem players make problem players. Period. Any player who feels compelled to act out and throw off a game would be doing that regardless of what race or class they have available. Goblins being added isn’t going to awaken some ancient slumbering god of $#!+ behavior that will ride your otherwise productive and stable players through your table. Goblins have been available as PCs for years, having them in the core will not make players any worse. The bad ones are already bad.
So did you not read my post or have you just elected to ignore it and reassert the points I argued against?
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins don’t make problem players, problem players make problem players. Period. Any player who feels compelled to act out and throw off a game would be doing that regardless of what race or class they have available. Goblins being added isn’t going to awaken some ancient slumbering god of $#!+ behavior that will ride your otherwise productive and stable players through your table. Goblins have been available as PCs for years, having them in the core will not make players any worse. The bad ones are already bad.So did you not read my post or have you just elected to ignore it and reassert the points I argued against?
I read it. I don’t agree. No race is a monolith, as intelligent beings they all have the ability to be individual and different than others of their kind. If a player decides to role play goblins in a distiluptive way they probably would be the same person to play a halfling like a Kender. Nobody is obligated to have their characters behave in a set way, so your points are not really accurate.
Same thing with the whole bit about guards and townspeople descending on them. If a goblin who is well dressed and well equipped walks into a town with a group of equally well equipped adventurers of different races then it should be pretty obvious he is not a group of raiding gobbos.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is fact though that goblins and other evil races always had NPCs react with disgust and desire to kill them like pests without shred of guilt :P And few times you could diplomatically solve things with them, NPCs are written to react skeptically
I don't mind change if it applies to all ancestries and not just goblins, but if goblins are exception to the rule then yeah its immersion breaking.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins don’t make problem players, problem players make problem players. Period. Any player who feels compelled to act out and throw off a game would be doing that regardless of what race or class they have available. Goblins being added isn’t going to awaken some ancient slumbering god of $#!+ behavior that will ride your otherwise productive and stable players through your table. Goblins have been available as PCs for years, having them in the core will not make players any worse. The bad ones are already bad.So did you not read my post or have you just elected to ignore it and reassert the points I argued against?I read it. I don’t agree. No race is a monolith, as intelligent beings they all have the ability to be individual and different than others of their kind. If a player decides to role play goblins in a distiluptive way they probably would be the same person to play a halfling like a Kender. Nobody is obligated to have their characters behave in a set way, so your points are not really accurate.
Same thing with the whole bit about guards and townspeople descending on them. If a goblin who is well dressed and well equipped walks into a town with a group of equally well equipped adventurers of different races then it should be pretty obvious he is not a group of raiding gobbos.
If that were true, that player wouldn't have felt the need to make that character a halfling so that he'd have the excuse that he was doing a throwback to an old, similar race. If disruptive players are always disruptive, I wouldn't have had perfectly normal, non-disruptive sessions with both of the players I've mentioned. Why is it that 66% of goblins I've GMed have been disruptive, while I've never had a problem with a Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Gnome, Tengu, Kitsune, Catfolk, or any other race besides a goblin and a halfling?
So you'd be willing to risk your life on the off chance that a goblin you encounter isn't a murderer just because they're well-dressed and equipped for the specific task of murdering things? The books specifically state that communities who tolerate goblins in their general vicinity pay the cost for it in pets and children. How little do you value the lives of those in your community that you'd risk them being slaughtered and cannibalized just because a goblin is walking into town with some human companions?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read it. I don’t agree. No race is a monolith, as intelligent beings they all have the ability to be individual and different than others of their kind. If a player decides to role play goblins in a distiluptive way they probably would be the same person to play a halfling like a Kender. Nobody is obligated to have their characters behave in a set way, so your points are not really accurate.
Same thing with the whole bit about guards and townspeople descending on them. If a goblin who is well dressed and well equipped walks into a town with a group of equally well equipped adventurers of different races then it should be pretty obvious he is not a group of raiding gobbos.
I wont tell you how to run your games man, but that wouldnt get you past the city gates in mine. Sure this one goblin might not be a evil murder, but how will people know? Can he prove it?
Just like people wouldnt just look at a red dragon and say "Hey, they are intelligent, maybe this red dragon is unlike all the other red dragons we totally should call him in and be nice."
Can use that example for other equivalent cases.
At most what this one goblin could do is eventually become so famous in a given town that he finally after many adventures and lots of effort puts the stigma behind him. Mind you, HIS stigma, any other goblin still is in for it when they also first appear.
Ofc, a human or even a living person has also places that it is unwise for them to walk into. Still often adventures arent for the places goblins/orcs... are meant to be welcomed in.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for writing this. I agree Core is not the place. Explicitly-non-Core assumption venues like We Be Goblins are. Other specific venues like AP involving 'enlightened Goblin tribe' could specifically address it from opposite angle as WBG. Core is just not the place.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wont tell you how to run your games man, but that wouldnt get you past the city gates in mine. Sure this one goblin might not be a evil murder, but how will people know? Can he prove it?
So any given civilized town in Golarion, a world which generally tolerates humanoids of varied skin colors, transgenders, and non-hetero sexual orientations, is rabidly xenophobic against one goblin being vouched for by a party of adventurers at the town gates? And to be otherwise is wholly implausible?
Sure, there will be some xenophobic settlements, but how about Magnimar? Absalom? Korvosa? Riddleport? Surely Osirion’s cities have seen stranger? I feel like some people are pushing the argument so hard to say “no goblins no way no how!” That they are forcing the argument to fit, when there are plenty of counter-examples of the perceptions of a group changing over time in a society.
Just like people wouldnt just look at a red dragon and say "Hey, they are intelligent, maybe this red dragon is unlike all the other red dragons we totally should call him in and be nice."
I dare say I’d trust him further than I’d trust that crazed nutter of a gold dragon who runs Hermea, for darned sure. Lawful Good, hah!
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So any given civilized town in Golarion, a world which generally tolerates humanoids of varied skin colors, transgenders, and non-hetero sexual orientations, is rabidly xenophobic against one goblin being vouched for by a party of adventurers at the town gates? And to be otherwise is wholly implausible?
Yes. It seems odd that a race known to be psychopathic pyromaniacs that want to kill your pets and work animals WOULD be welcome in any civilized area unless they don't mind arson and random animal murder...
PS: and how much weight does the word of some murder-hobo's count for? By the time the hero's have enough good deeds under their belt to 'vouch' for a goblin, the goblin's good deed are most likely enough on their own.
So any given civilized town in Golarion, a world which generally tolerates humanoids of varied skin colors, transgenders, and non-hetero sexual orientations, is rabidly xenophobic against one goblin being vouched for by a party of adventurers at the town gates? And to be otherwise is wholly implausible?Yes. It seems odd that a race known to be psychopathic pyromaniacs that want to kill your pets and work animals WOULD be welcome in any civilized area unless they don't mind arson and random animal murder...
PS: and how much weight does the word of some murder-hobo's count for? By the time the hero's have enough good deeds under their belt to 'vouch' for a goblin, the goblin's good deed are most likely enough on their own.
Does the same apply in larger cities as well, as I noted? Absalom allows open slave trading - Minotaurs even walk its streets! Magnimar is another town where any indiscretion is accepted as long as it is not blatant. There are plenty of places in the Inner Sea where a single goblin who didn’t cause too much trouble would at worst get evil looks but would take his coin just the same. In the real world, people of color and different gender orientations stay away from small towns and keep to big cities for the same reason.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you'd be willing to risk your life on the off chance that a goblin you encounter isn't a murderer just because they're well-dressed and equipped for the specific task of murdering things? The books specifically state that communities who tolerate goblins in their general vicinity pay the cost for it in pets and children. How little do you value the lives of those in your community that you'd risk them being slaughtered and cannibalized just because a goblin is walking into town with some human companions?
Lions and tigers are dangerous beasts that kill people and destroy valuable livestock. Would you really risk your life or your children's lives by letting a lion or tiger walk around town--not even on a leash or anything!--just because some weird tree-hugger murder-hobo says it's their "animal companion" or some nonsense like that?
And yet, Big Cat animal companions are incredibly popular, and I almost never see GMs try to police them in settlements. Most seem to feel that the benefits of getting out of the PCs way and letting them get on with the adventure outweigh the costs of stretching verisimilitude a little bit.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Awakened Dire Tiger for Core PC Race FTW!
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try and treat these 'points' one at a time.
1. I'm sure there are all sorts of problem players. Including quite a few whose playstyle simply doesn't mesh with the rest of their group. Either way, there's nothing here to suggest that gobbos are inherently worse than gnomes, elves, paladins, rogues, or evil and chaotic alignments all frequent targets on this board for allegedly fostering antisocial behaviour.
2. None of the behaviours you described are inherent parts of the goblin psyche. Take the horse thing for example. One of my best friends is a hippophobe, but miraculously has not killed a single horse in his 40 or so years giving them a wide berth instead. Same with dogs. Pyromania is a bit different due to the potential for accidental conflagration, but there's still a huge glow -in-the-dark line with spotlights and concertina wire between 'fascinated by flame' and 'serial arsonist'.
3. Assuming the guards in question are competent and the goblin in question isn't behaving in a hostile fashion,surely it would make far more sense to take her in for questioning if they suspect an impending attack and if they're not in conflict with goblins, why would they care one way or another? Again, if the town were at war with, say Chelax, wouldn't the same logic apply?
1: I have encountered good examples of all of those things, including evil alignments. I have only seen two types of goblins: people being disruptive, and people playing green halflings who wanted a +4 to Dex. I've never seen someone play a goblin as a PF goblin non-disruptively.
2: They are. They constitute the goblin psyche, as elaborated upon by James Jacobs ad the beginning of RotR. This doesn't mean that every goblin engages in them at every opportunity. It does mean goblins who abstain from them are weirdos who do not represent the norm.
3: Every settlement is at war with goblins all the time, at least if there are any goblins around. Not being at war with goblins is like not being at war with pirates. You don't have to suspect an invasion. That specific goblin is a danger to anyone around them. Goblins stab and goblins bite.
Considering the minuscule chance that they're anything but the evil monster they appear to be, only if you do suspect an attack does capturing them make sense. Supposing that that did happen, congratulations, the entire session has been derailed because someone wanted to play a goblin.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you'd be willing to risk your life on the off chance that a goblin you encounter isn't a murderer just because they're well-dressed and equipped for the specific task of murdering things? The books specifically state that communities who tolerate goblins in their general vicinity pay the cost for it in pets and children. How little do you value the lives of those in your community that you'd risk them being slaughtered and cannibalized just because a goblin is walking into town with some human companions?Lions and tigers are dangerous beasts that kill people and destroy valuable livestock. Would you really risk your life or your children's lives by letting a lion or tiger walk around town--not even on a leash or anything!--just because some weird tree-hugger murder-hobo says it's their "animal companion" or some nonsense like that?
And yet, Big Cat animal companions are incredibly popular, and I almost never see GMs try to police them in settlements. Most seem to feel that the benefits of getting out of the PCs way and letting them get on with the adventure outweigh the costs of stretching verisimilitude a little bit.
Tame instances of normally wild animals are an established part of both Golarion and the real world. Non-evil goblins do not feature in anything Paizo has ever published.
Nor are tigers inherently malicious and sadistic in a way analogous to goblins. Tigers can be dangerous. Goblins are.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's pretty easy to handle.
1. If you think a player is behaving badly, tell them that, and ask them to stop. If they tell you they're just roleplaying their character, tell them they're harming the fun of the whole group, and that a decent person will stop doing that.
2. Don't run the world where everyone is racist and will immediately attack goblins. Like, seriously, you're the GM. It's perfectly reasonable to decide in-world that people see a goblin and think, "Hm, that's a sentient being who I am distrustful of, but I will not be hostile to it unless it gives me reason."
I'd argue that if you are insisting on the world being hostile to a goblin PC, then you don't have a problem player. You are a problem GM.
my message was removed because I am not a fan of goblins? hardcore Sara hardcore (I say in jest)
but really I don't think that any protest is going to have them taken out not after the investment Paizo has made. (art and such)
|
|
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your well thought out arguments, and please understand those of us who are enthusiastic about goblins are not blind to what you're talking about. However, I have some counterpoints.
The Psychology of the Problem Player
By your own example, the two most disruptive players were not unusual character choices. They were halflings (I would guess one was a halfling rogue, one of the most archetypal characters in Pathfinder).
Now the issue you were running into is fairly common, and it's a result of backwards logic. The most pernicious backwards logic that exists in RPGs:
"It's what my character would do."
However, this phrase is pure nonsense when analyzed for even a moment. Your character would only do what you want the character to do, because the player controls the character, not the other way around.
When a GM makes it clear to their players that this kind of excuse won't fly that immediately cuts down on that kind of thing.
It Actually is What Faithfully Role-Playing their Characters Requires
The blog post above makes it clear that adventuring goblins that are played by characters are not going to be typical for their race.
In recent decades, however, a new sort of hero has emerged from among these rough-and-tumble tribes. Such goblins bear the same oversized heads, pointed ears, red eyes, and jagged teeth of their crueler kin, but they have a noble or savvy streak that other goblins can't even imagine, let alone understand. These erstwhile heroes roam Golarion, often maintaining their distinctive cultural habits while spreading the enthusiasm, inscrutable quirkiness, love of puns and song, and unique mirth that mark goblin adventurers.
If a player is being disruptive, and a problem player, they are actually playing the character counter to the description provided.
Let's look at the specific cultural habits goblins have:
[1]: Horse Hate: Goblins excel at riding animals, but they don't quite get horses. In fact, their hatred of all things horse is matched only by their fear of horses, who tend to step on goblins who get too close.
[2]: Dog Hate: Although goblins raise horrible rat-faced doglike creatures to use as mounts (and ride wolves or worgs if they can get them—goblins are quick to explain that wolves are NOT dogs), their hatred of ordinary dogs nearly matches their hatred of horses. The feeling is mutual, so if your dog's barking at the woodpile for no reason, chances are good he smells a frightened goblin hiding in there somewhere.
[3]: Goblins Raid Junkyards: Garbage pits, gutters, sewers… anywhere there's garbage, you can bet goblins are nearby. They're weirdly adept at crafting weapons and armor from refuse, and are fond of killing people with what they throw away.
[4]: Goblins Love to Sing: Unfortunately, as catchy as their lyrics can be, goblin songs tend to be a bit too creepy and disturbing to catch on in mainstream society.
[5]: They're Sneaky: An excited or angry goblin is a noisy, chattering, toothy menace, but even then, they can drop into an unsettling silence in a heartbeat. This, matched with their diminutive size, makes them unnervingly adept at hiding in places you'd never expect… stacks of firewood, rain barrels, under logs, under chicken coops, in ovens, etc.
[6]: They're A Little Crazy: The fact that goblins think of things like ovens as good hiding places reveals much about their inability to think plans through to the most likely outcome. That, and they tend to be easily distracted, particularly by shiny things and animals smaller than them that might make good eating.
[7]: They're Voracious: Given enough supplies, a goblin generally takes nearly a dozen meals a day. Most goblin tribes don't have enough supplies to accommodate such ravenous appetites, which is why the little menaces are so prone to going on raids.
[8]: They Like Fire: Burning things is one of the great goblin pastimes, although they're generally pretty careful about lighting fires in their own lairs, especially since goblins tend to live in large tangled thistle patches and sleep in beds of dried leaves and grass. But give a goblin a torch and someone else's home and you've got trouble.
[9]: They Get Stuck Easily: Goblins have wiry frames but wide heads, and live in cramped warrens. Sometimes too cramped.
[10]: Goblins Believe Paintings and Writing Steal Your Soul: The walls of goblin lairs and ruins of towns goblins have raided are littered with pictures of their enemies. They never draw pictures of goblins, though—that's mean. Writing steals words out of your head. You can't get them back.
Goblins hate horses. There is nothing that says any character needs to like horses to be non-disruptive. Maybe if there's a long overland journey, but it doesn't take much to hitch a wagon, or buy a donkey instead. Maybe you're fighting a knight on horseback, and the goblin focuses on killing the horse. That's still valuable.
Goblins hate dogs. So probably no dog animal companions for a goblin. And if another player has a dog animal companion you could easily play up the cartoon rivalry between the two rather than trying to murder the dog.
Goblins love junk. Absolutely no problems here.
Goblins love to sing. No more disruptive than your average bard. (So unless you're going to ban bards...)
They're sneaky. Cool, they are good at stealth. Sometimes they'll look for wacky places to hide. No issue here.
They're a little crazy. That's what the wisdom penalty is for, they make hasty decisions. You know what, the character that kicks in the door is a godsend for GMs because that player gets people playing the game rather than endlessly planning for every eventuality. And you know what if you're playing an "act first, think later" type, out of character you can say: "Guys, here's the crazy thing I'm about to do, do you think it crosses the line?" If the players are okay then you do it and live with the consequences. If they aren't you say: "Okay, what's reasonable then." Roleplaying should be a conversation.
They're voracious. No issue here. Eat away.
They like fire. So basically a typical adventurer then. No worse than a fire bloodline sorcerer or typical alchemist.
They get stuck easily. Awesome GM Fodder for when the Goblin fails skill checks, or player fodder to explain their failures and wacky hyjinks.
Goblins believe painting and writing steal your soul. Unless you're an alchemist, wizard or other heavy reading class it's not a big deal. And if you are one of those classes then you're atypical for a goblin (which as previously noted is the baseline expectation), or you have adapted with a book of pressed objects that evoke smells and textures.
None of the basic goblin assumptions above are specifically a problem for adventurers.
You can faithfully play a goblin without being a disruptive player.
Burning Down the Suspension of Disbelief
Roughly 12 years have passed since Pathfinder AP #1. That's an entire generation of goblins, we do not know what cultural shifts we're going to see in Golarion's lore that has caused more goblins than ever to throw off the roots of their psychopathic culture and integrate into larger society. Or even if some tribes entirely have brokered peace with some societies. Your baseline assumptions of the setting are based on Pathfinder 1st edition, rather than the new edition with additional lore.
But the biggest thing is that towns, villages, NPC villagers attitudes are entirely set by the GM. "It's what my character would do" is a crappy excuse for players, "It's what my NPCs would do" is a crappy excuse for GMs.
Here's a perfectly cromulent example from another thread:
Mogo: "Mogo help Longshanks! Mogo not even like this tribe!"
GM: "The guards see you fighting on their side, alongside the other PCs, and seeing actual threats go and fight them instead."
Later
GM as Ameiko: "Here, wear this hat, I know it looks silly, but I'll spread the word that the goblin in the bright red hat is not to be attacked or they won't be served another mug of ale here again."
Later
GM as shopkeep: "Filthy goblin, you might have tricked Ameiko, but you can't shop here."
Mogo: "Mogo understand, shopkeeper not like shiny gold."
Shopkeep: "Goblins killed my family!"
Mogo: "Longshanks killed Mogo family? We gonna play who got more dead family, or can Mogo buy new sword to avenge Shopkeepers tragic backstory?"
GMs can shift the attitudes of their NPCs at will, they don't even need a successful Diplomacy check from a player. GMs who are holding onto their precious fantasy racism as a valid excuse to exclude the goblin from the new edition are trying to hold onto something that isn't necessarily that valuable to telling adventure stories in a fantasy setting.
In Conclusion
I truly disagree with the premise of your argument. I value your right to hold your opinions based on your experiences.
However, your experiences aren't universal. And most problems can be mitigated or negated entirely if Paizo takes the time to present best practices for GMing and Roleplaying in the new game.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's pretty easy to handle.
1. If you think a player is behaving badly, tell them that, and ask them to stop. If they tell you they're just roleplaying their character, tell them they're harming the fun of the whole group, and that a decent person will stop doing that.
2. Don't run the world where everyone is racist and will immediately attack goblins. Like, seriously, you're the GM. It's perfectly reasonable to decide in-world that people see a goblin and think, "Hm, that's a sentient being who I am distrustful of, but I will not be hostile to it unless it gives me reason."
I'd argue that if you are insisting on the world being hostile to a goblin PC, then you don't have a problem player. You are a problem GM.
1: Some damage has already been done by this point, and no, they won't. Furthermore, I might not always be the GM. Sometimes it'll be a fellow player acting this way. Furthermore, no they won't. They'll whine about it, then promise to change but barely do so.
2: You misunderstand. I wouldn't do that. The problem is that I shouldn't have to choose between doing that and portraying the world realistically.
And that is simply not how people would react to a goblin. I can show you in modules where people don't. PFS 3-01 opens with a good example.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Non-evil goblins do not feature in anything Paizo has ever published.
Flora Fumblepot never struck me as particularly evil. His mission is basically to domesticate his fellow goblins through the power of theatre.
And the proprietor Krebble-Jeggle is neutral, as published.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: Some damage has already been done by this point, and no, they won't. Furthermore, I might not always be the GM. Sometimes it'll be a fellow player acting this way. Furthermore, no they won't. They'll whine about it, then promise to change but barely do so.
Stop playing with people who don't respect your comfort or enjoyment of the game. I'm sorry, but this right here tells me that these players are going to be bad players no matter the options they are presented.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the case against Core Goblins is already made. It's utterly clear if one considers system implications, and not just "can I imagine a game with Goblin PCs going OK". Of course anybody can make any game work, of course exceptional Goblins can exist. That isn't the issue, which is actual advisability of this direction for Core. The playtest is irrelevant to this, we don't need to wait for playable Goblin PCs, they are possible now. I think people are discounting the relevance of Jason's statement, after long silence, the main proponent of Core Goblins openly said they aren't written in stone and they were considering alternate races and commissioned art doesn't dictate their decision. Like, they just don't do that when people b&%!* about Power Attack etc. Really it's not implausible for alternate Core race to hit the playtest instead, although Paizo's decision to make print run of Playtest accelerates schedule deadline (unless they would be OK with print run varying from live PDF rules, which actually makes it collector's edition... considering the option of issuing live PDF updates mid-playtest may be attractive aside from this issue, I wouldn't discount them considering that if relevant). But it's a playtest, if they bash out some ancestry feats that aren't quite up to par for the new Core race, doesn't matter, they'll tweak it all for final rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the same apply in larger cities as well, as I noted?
It applies unless they "don't mind arson and random animal murder"... People USUALLY mind if the building they sleep in is set on fire...
There are plenty of places in the Inner Sea where a single goblin who didn’t cause too much trouble would at worst get evil looks but would take his coin just the same.
Do you recall the great fire of london? Thought to have started from a spark from an oven? It destroyed 1/3 of the city and left 100,000 homeless. It destroyed 436 acres of London, including 13,200 houses and 87 out of 109 of it's churches... DO YOU really want a known arsonist/pyromaniac into your town?
In the real world, people of color and different gender orientations stay away from small towns and keep to big cities for the same reason.
In the real world, we don't have an entire race with mental issues like pyromania...
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: I have encountered good examples of all of those things, including evil alignments. I have only seen two types of goblins: people being disruptive, and people playing green halflings who wanted a +4 to Dex. I've never seen someone play a goblin as a PF goblin non-disruptively.
Well, since they no longer get +4 Dex, that second problem is gone entirely! Now you can just avoid the first and you're good to go. ;)
2: They are. They constitute the goblin psyche, as elaborated upon by James Jacobs ad the beginning of RotR. This doesn't mean that every goblin engages in them at every opportunity. It does mean goblins who abstain from them are weirdos who do not represent the norm.
Huh? Where does it say that? The closest it comes is referring to them as 'The Ten Commandments of Goblining' and that's both an obvious joke, and, frankly, a reference to a set of rules that get broken all the time.
3: Every settlement is at war with goblins all the time, at least if there are any goblins around. Not being at war with goblins is like not being at war with pirates. You don't have to suspect an invasion. That specific goblin is a danger to anyone around them. Goblins stab and goblins bite.
Where is this stated? I can't find a single reference. Indeed, in Classic Monsters Revisited it is noted that 'most view them as little more than annoying pests.'
Goblins are not the bogeyman. They're considered a joke. People do not murder jokes on sight, that's reserved for things they're actually scared of.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your well thought out arguments, and please understand those of us who are enthusiastic about goblins are not blind to what you're talking about. However, I have some counterpoints.
The Psychology of the Problem Player
By your own example, the two most disruptive players were not unusual character choices. They were halflings (I would guess one was a halfling rogue, one of the most archetypal characters in Pathfinder).
Now the issue you were running into is fairly common, and it's a result of backwards logic. The most pernicious backwards logic that exists in RPGs:
"It's what my character would do."However, this phrase is pure nonsense when analyzed for even a moment. Your character would only do what you want the character to do, because the player controls the character, not the other way around.
When a GM makes it clear to their players that this kind of excuse won't fly that immediately cuts down on that kind of thing.
It Actually is What Faithfully Role-Playing their Characters Requires
The blog post above makes it clear that adventuring goblins that are played by characters are not going to be typical for their race.
In recent decades, however, a new sort of hero has emerged from among these rough-and-tumble tribes. Such goblins bear the same oversized heads, pointed ears, red eyes, and jagged teeth of their crueler kin, but they have a noble or savvy streak that other goblins can't even imagine, let alone understand. These erstwhile heroes roam Golarion, often maintaining their distinctive cultural habits while spreading the enthusiasm, inscrutable quirkiness, love of puns and song, and unique mirth that mark goblin adventurers.If a player is being disruptive, and a problem player, they are actually playing the character counter to the description provided.
Let's look at the specific cultural habits goblins have:
** spoiler omitted **...
"please understand those of us who are enthusiastic about goblins are not blind to what you're talking about."
You're not, but you are an outlier from the dismissive tone and condescension that the pro-goblin lobby has largely employed. Most of the people who agree with you think nothing at all is wrong and that those of us who are concerned are being ridiculous.
"When a GM makes it clear to their players that this kind of excuse won't fly that immediately cuts down on that kind of thing."
But the GM can't make that clear without effectively banning the race as it exists in canon.
"The blog post above makes it clear that adventuring goblins that are played by characters are not going to be typical for their race."
This is a break from how people imagine goblins, and, consequently, how people will actually play them. Cruelty is the essence of canonical goblin nature. If a retcon is required to fix this race to make it core, they should make a new race with the retconned personality instead and keep goblins how they are.
"we do not know what cultural shifts we're going to see in Golarion's lore that has caused more goblins than ever to throw off the roots of their psychopathic culture and integrate into larger society."
Yes we do, because published material has been taking place throughout that time, and there has been no hint of anything like that.
"And most problems can be mitigated or negated entirely if Paizo takes the time to present best practices for GMing and Roleplaying in the new game."
They already do that, and yet those problem halflings I mentioned exist. Why could they stop goblins from being problematic?
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why Making Goblins a Core Race is a Good Idea: A Rebuttal
The Psychology of the Problem Player is consistent. Making goblins a core option is not the issue here, all of the desperate attempts to claim it is notwithstanding. A jerk hellbent on being trouble can always play a gnome and claim his asinine behavior is his way of keeping The Bleaching at bay.
It Actually is What Faithfully Role-Playing their Characters Requires if that's the background you work out in your session zero. A goblin can be terrified of horses and dogs without massacring every single one they see- assuming this particular goblin is fussed by it at all. Or do all of your dwarves go take their racial attack bonuses to go pound on good or neutral giants who are leaving them alone? Is every half-orc in your games a surly product of rape with a massive chip on their shoulder? Is every Paladin Awful Good? If you're concerned about how newbies are going to act when playing a goblin, consider that they're going to go off of what's in the core book, rather than the accumulated load of lore most of us here labor under.
Burning Down the Suspension of Disbelief is literally the only point in the OP here that I don't find patently ludicrous. It is indeed a challenge with what we know at present. But since everybody dumping on it is going off of a single blog post which is quite open about how it doesn't tell us everything, it's still shaky. Not ludicrous, but certainly shaky.
And now some reasons that goblins in core are a Good Thing:
'Cause they fill a niche no other core ancestry does. Crazy bitey guys who scuttle around in the dark eating garbage? Preeeeeetty sure even the roughest half-orc has a ways to go to snag that vibe.
'Cause realistically, the goblin population is probably way higher than the half-elf, half-orc, and elf population combined. These guys are everywhere.
'Cause all this pearl-clutching over goblins as a Core option is about eight years too late, people have been responsibly playing and enjoying goblin characters for a long time now.
'Cause the amount of "damage" everyone seems shrilly certain it's going to do is laughable. I played in the days of early Kender. I've played in Ravenloft where use of some pretty standard spells could quickly turn your character into a monster with some bad rolls. I've played in online L5R games with fairly stringent vetting procedures for players. I've played in games where the 1E Assassin was a core class. I've played in RIFTS, of all things. Pathfinder can survive core goblins.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"When a GM makes it clear to their players that this kind of excuse won't fly that immediately cuts down on that kind of thing."But the GM can't make that clear without effectively banning the race as it exists in canon.
Again, canon can change in Pathfinder 2. It doesn't take a huge retcon to say: "100% of goblins are the worst" to "Maybe 60% of goblins are the worst". And more importantly the player isn't playing a "goblin monster" they are playing a "goblin adventurer" which is explicitly stated as being atypical. Playing a psychopath, disruptive PC is against the established flavor.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you'd be willing to risk your life on the off chance that a goblin you encounter isn't a murderer just because they're well-dressed and equipped for the specific task of murdering things? The books specifically state that communities who tolerate goblins in their general vicinity pay the cost for it in pets and children. How little do you value the lives of those in your community that you'd risk them being slaughtered and cannibalized just because a goblin is walking into town with some human companions?Lions and tigers are dangerous beasts that kill people and destroy valuable livestock. Would you really risk your life or your children's lives by letting a lion or tiger walk around town--not even on a leash or anything!--just because some weird tree-hugger murder-hobo says it's their "animal companion" or some nonsense like that?
And yet, Big Cat animal companions are incredibly popular, and I almost never see GMs try to police them in settlements. Most seem to feel that the benefits of getting out of the PCs way and letting them get on with the adventure outweigh the costs of stretching verisimilitude a little bit.
Tame instances of normally wild animals are an established part of both Golarion and the real world. Non-evil goblins do not feature in anything Paizo has ever published.
Nor are tigers inherently malicious and sadistic in a way analogous to goblins. Tigers can be dangerous. Goblins are.
Wild tigers can be dangerous, but tiger animal companions are dangerous. They've been specifically trained to attack people, and likely have a taste for human flesh if they've been at it for any length of time. No way any town guard in their right mind lets one walk around without some form of restraint, unless they (like you) possess metagame knowledge of how animal companions work.
And non-evil goblins might not be an established part of Golarion to date, but that's changing. They've said story justifications for goblin heroes are coming (I'm guessing as part of upcoming adventure paths). Furthermore, they'll no doubt address the place of goblin PCs in the wider world in their Core Rulebook entry.
A simple blurb saying something like "Word of goblin heroes has spread through the Inner Sea, and most communities now allow goblins safe passage through civilized areas provided they are not obviously hostile or disruptive." covers any PC goblin when it comes to walking about town.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why Making Goblins a Core Race is a Good Idea: A Rebuttal
The Psychology of the Problem Player is consistent. Making goblins a core option is not the issue here, all of the desperate attempts to claim it is notwithstanding. A jerk hellbent on being trouble can always play a gnome and claim his asinine behavior is his way of keeping The Bleaching at bay.
I'm going to repeat a question I asked someone else earlier. Did you not read my post, or elect to ignore the arguments I made against that point?
No one is hellbent on being trouble. People are trouble because they don't know they're trouble.
Until you tell them that they are causing trouble. Then they are aware. If they don't make a conscious choice to change after it has been directly addressed then they are being an actual jerk.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your well thought out arguments, and please understand those of us who are enthusiastic about goblins are not blind to what you're talking about. However, I have some counterpoints.
The Psychology of the Problem Player
By your own example, the two most disruptive players were not unusual character choices. They were halflings (I would guess one was a halfling rogue, one of the most archetypal characters in Pathfinder).
Now the issue you were running into is fairly common, and it's a result of backwards logic. The most pernicious backwards logic that exists in RPGs:
"It's what my character would do."However, this phrase is pure nonsense when analyzed for even a moment. Your character would only do what you want the character to do, because the player controls the character, not the other way around.
When a GM makes it clear to their players that this kind of excuse won't fly that immediately cuts down on that kind of thing.
It Actually is What Faithfully Role-Playing their Characters Requires
The blog post above makes it clear that adventuring goblins that are played by characters are not going to be typical for their race.
In recent decades, however, a new sort of hero has emerged from among these rough-and-tumble tribes. Such goblins bear the same oversized heads, pointed ears, red eyes, and jagged teeth of their crueler kin, but they have a noble or savvy streak that other goblins can't even imagine, let alone understand. These erstwhile heroes roam Golarion, often maintaining their distinctive cultural habits while spreading the enthusiasm, inscrutable quirkiness, love of puns and song, and unique mirth that mark goblin adventurers.If a player is being disruptive, and a problem player, they are actually playing the character counter to the description provided.
Let's look at the specific cultural habits goblins have:
** spoiler omitted **...
You know what, your post actually changed my opinion to some degree. While I still don't think goblins are core race material, and I would still argue kobolds / hobs / kitsunes or other such civilized orderly races are MUCH better suited for that... I do feel what you said is well reasoned enough to accept the likelihood of goblins at least being less problematic at the table and in the setting than kender.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It Actually is What Faithfully Role-Playing their Characters Requires if that's the background you work out in your session zero. A goblin can be terrified of horses and dogs without massacring every single one they see- assuming this particular goblin is fussed by it at all. Or do all of your dwarves go take their racial attack bonuses to go pound on good or neutral giants who are leaving them alone? Is every half-orc in your games a surly product of rape with a massive chip on their shoulder? Is every Paladin Awful Good? If you're concerned about how newbies are going to act when playing a goblin, consider that they're going to go off of what's in the core book, rather than the accumulated load of lore most of us here labor under.
So you favor having more contentious session zeros? And what of organized play settings where no such sessions exist?
This has nothing to do with The Problem Player nor The Good Player, because frankly 90% of people who play roleplaying games are neither. It's borderline players who have good tendencies and bad and goblins are designed to help indulge the bad.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until you tell them that they are causing trouble. Then they are aware. If they don't make a conscious choice to change after it has been directly addressed then they are being an actual jerk.Why Making Goblins a Core Race is a Good Idea: A Rebuttal
The Psychology of the Problem Player is consistent. Making goblins a core option is not the issue here, all of the desperate attempts to claim it is notwithstanding. A jerk hellbent on being trouble can always play a gnome and claim his asinine behavior is his way of keeping The Bleaching at bay.
I'm going to repeat a question I asked someone else earlier. Did you not read my post, or elect to ignore the arguments I made against that point?
No one is hellbent on being trouble. People are trouble because they don't know they're trouble.
That's assuming they agree with you. If they were going to agree that they were being a jerk the instant this was suggested to them, they probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It Actually is What Faithfully Role-Playing their Characters Requires if that's the background you work out in your session zero. A goblin can be terrified of horses and dogs without massacring every single one they see- assuming this particular goblin is fussed by it at all. Or do all of your dwarves go take their racial attack bonuses to go pound on good or neutral giants who are leaving them alone? Is every half-orc in your games a surly product of rape with a massive chip on their shoulder? Is every Paladin Awful Good? If you're concerned about how newbies are going to act when playing a goblin, consider that they're going to go off of what's in the core book, rather than the accumulated load of lore most of us here labor under.
So you favor having more contentious session zeros? And what of organized play settings where no such sessions exist?
This has nothing to do with The Problem Player nor The Good Player, because frankly 90% of people who play roleplaying games are neither. It's borderline players who have good tendencies and bad and goblins are designed to help indulge the bad.
Then they can still play Jerk Paladins, creepy Necromancers with skeletal pals walking around town, anti-social druids who sick their animal companions on people, Dwarves who are super racist against orcs, or gnomes doing dumb stuff to stave off bleaching or pyromaniacal alchemists.
Borderline players who want to be indulge bad tendencies have those options at all times in the core rules. Goblins don't change that.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's assuming they agree with you. If they were going to agree that they were being a jerk the instant this was suggested to them, they probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place.Until you tell them that they are causing trouble. Then they are aware. If they don't make a conscious choice to change after it has been directly addressed then they are being an actual jerk.Why Making Goblins a Core Race is a Good Idea: A Rebuttal
The Psychology of the Problem Player is consistent. Making goblins a core option is not the issue here, all of the desperate attempts to claim it is notwithstanding. A jerk hellbent on being trouble can always play a gnome and claim his asinine behavior is his way of keeping The Bleaching at bay.
I'm going to repeat a question I asked someone else earlier. Did you not read my post, or elect to ignore the arguments I made against that point?
No one is hellbent on being trouble. People are trouble because they don't know they're trouble.
If they disagree, and don't change their behavior then they aren't respecting you and the other players. There's no rule in the book that can make some clueless player get a clue. Only interpersonal skills can do that. If they won't change, cut them from the game. Some people are better friends in contexts outside of gaming.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then they can still play Jerk Paladins, creepy Necromancers with skeletal pals walking around town, anti-social druids who sick their animal companions on people, Dwarves who are super racist against orcs, or gnomes doing dumb stuff to stave off bleaching or pyromaniacal alchemists.
Borderline players who want to be indulge bad tendencies have those options at all times in the core rules. Goblins don't change that.
The second you use the word "want to" is the part where you aren't understanding this.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second you use the word "want to" is the part where you aren't understanding this.
Then they can still play Jerk Paladins, creepy Necromancers with skeletal pals walking around town, anti-social druids who sick their animal companions on people, Dwarves who are super racist against orcs, or gnomes doing dumb stuff to stave off bleaching or pyromaniacal alchemists.
Borderline players who want to be indulge bad tendencies have those options at all times in the core rules. Goblins don't change that.
Yes, because my assumption is people choose what they want to do, via free-will.