| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you mean running around a decade ago. The canon is changing. The canon for almost everything is going to change quite a lot. I mean every single NPC is going to be capable of different things in PF2E than they were in PF1E.
The canon of goblins, on the other hand, clearly talks about goblins as creatures of violence and evil. Not their forebears, but the ones running around today.
Rebuilding the mechanics of classes (etc) is one thing and rebuilding the narrative canon is quite another.
Now, you could be right that they are throwing a lot of canon out the window. Everything I have read has suggested that you are wrong.Also, the half of you that think core goblins won't change anything and the half of you who are happy that core goblins as part of "almost everything is going to change a lot" should have your own chat. One of these groups (at a minimum) must be wrong.
I think you mean running around a decade ago. The canon is changing. The canon for almost everything is going to change quite a lot. I mean every single NPC is going to be capable of different things in PF2E than they were in PF1E.
The canon of goblins, on the other hand, clearly talks about goblins as creatures of violence and evil. Not their forebears, but the ones running around today.Rebuilding the mechanics of classes (etc) is one thing and rebuilding the narrative canon is quite another.
Now, you could be right that they are throwing a lot of canon out the window. Everything I have read has suggested that you are wrong.Also, the half of you that think core goblins won't change anything and the half of you who are happy that core goblins as part of "almost everything is going to change a lot" should have your own chat. One of these groups (at a minimum) must be wrong.
I dunno about that. I think goblins can work in core as the canon currently exists, and I also think there will probably be changes in the canon that make that pill easier for many to swallow. And it is possibly to make those changes in a way that builds on the current canon rather than throwing it away. The world and the people in it evolve.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, fair enough. I was looking at population numbers, not NPC codex. I'm not sure one metric is more relevant than the other. I will say that casually leafing through those NPCs makes the half-orcs seem rather disproportionately evil.
good point.
Let's round in your favor and call it 7 to 1 :) (and that is without subtracting off the evil humans)The second is harder. We don't have all the answers yet for what may change in canon. But at the heart of the matter, how NPCs react to goblins is up to a GM and/or the authors of the material on hand. Biases against lots of things already exist in Golarion. I bring up half-orcs because many people hate them too. They are less hated than goblins, and there may be a lot less to justify resentment towards half-orcs, but being discriminated against is the defining aspect of the half-orc, and players knows this.
But there is still a huge distinction between people (often wrongly) assume half orcs are scum and "goblins burn things, eat everything that moves, and quite simply *are* evil".
So when a player rolls up a half-orc PC, the GM needs to consider how much she wants to play up the discrimination in game. She might opt to simply never touch on the issue. ...
Totally irrelevant to the point. The GM can play up "everybody knows goblins are evil" or the GM can completely sweep that aside. Goblins as a race are still evil. It isn't a bad or unfair reputation, it is a known reality.
A LG half-orc is not an exception to the rule any more than a LG human. Both races are expected to be very diverse.A 1 in a million non-evil goblin is cool. But they are not a diverse race. Making them core will have negative consequences.
I'm certain that it will have some negative impact on the popularity of the game just by looking at the outcry. I'm also confident that despite a world of positive thinking, the presumption of goblin PCs will cause people to drift away over time because they will get sick of it.
I truly want PF2 to be super popular.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has really made me think:
I've got a player - a long time friend - who has always wanted to play an evil character. I've always banned evil characters because I don't want the disruption.
But ya know what?
I trust my friend to not be a dick. There's literally no reason for me to deny him the enjoyment of playing the PC he's always wanted to play.
Because that's what good gaming is about: trust between you and your fellow players for mutual enjoyment and fun. And if you can't trust your fellow players and your friends to not be jerks about it, then why are they your friends?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@bookrat sure why not try it? Though I will say sometimes best friends make the worst gamers.
This thread has really made me think:
I've got a player - a long time friend - who has always wanted to play an evil character. I've always banned evil characters because I don't want the disruption.
But ya know what?
I trust my friend to not be a dick. There's literally no reason for me to deny him the enjoyment of playing the PC he's always wanted to play.
Because that's what good gaming is about: trust between you and your fellow players for mutual enjoyment and fun. And if you can't trust your fellow players and your friends to not be jerks about it, then why are they your friends?
Place and time are important.
Evil adventures exist, an evil PC could even fit in a aventure party of your usual neutral/good guys if he plays his cards right.
Now say that your friend can play an evil PC and then watch as the other guy who didnt know makes a paladin and all hell breaks lose eventually.
Which is why it is important the GM and all players are on the same page about what everyone is making and how the party will work together.
If everyone on the table knows your friend is evil and are ok to game on with it, then all should be fine.
@bookrat sure why not try it? Though I will say sometimes best friends make the worst gamers.
We've literally only known each other through gaming. We met because I advertised that I was looking for players online and he responded, and our friendship grew out of gaming. We still game to this day, and have even ventured out to games beyond D&D. In fact, we're starting a Gloomhaven game this weekend.
So I'm not worried about that. :)
|
| 8 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...
the problem here is players not races , using the logic from your article you might as well ban paladins, rogues, gnomes, halflings , and barbarians at the very least.
But there is still a huge distinction between people (often wrongly) assume half orcs are scum and "goblins burn things, eat everything that moves, and quite simply *are* evil".
Not everyone just thinks half-orcs are lazy and can't be trusted, though. Many people think half-orcs are basically just orc. "They take slaves from other races, orc men brutalize orc women, and both abuse children and elders." And there is that whole sexual violence thing too. That is at least as bad as the reputation goblins have, and I'd argue it is significantly worse. The fact that these assumptions are often wrong doesn't change the fact that lots of people hold them and probably act accordingly.
Reactions to goblins may be worse, and they may be actually justified. But I'd argue half-orcs are meant to be treated as something closer to goblins than dwarves.
It isn't a bad or unfair reputation, it is a known reality.
A LG half-orc is not an exception to the rule any more than a LG human. Both races are expected to be very diverse.
A 1 in a million non-evil goblin is cool. But they are not a diverse race.
See, I don't think there needs to be more than 1 in a million good goblins for them to be core. I think in whatever changes Golarion gets for PF2e, we will probably find out good/neutral goblins are more common than we think of them now. But PCs are meant to be exceptions to the norm.
You may be right that this will backfire in terms of sales, but I don't think that means the idea doesn't have legs. The market rejects good ideas in favor of bad ones all the time for all sorts of reasons.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument that adding goblins to core somehow is going to increase character conflict and cause problems would be a lot stronger if objective alignment and paladins weren't also a thing in Core as well.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument that adding goblins to core somehow is going to increase character conflict and cause problems would be a lot stronger if objective alignment and paladins weren't also a thing in Core as well.
The problematic interpretations of paladins and alignment are based on fringe, super-literal interpretations of the Core Rule Book. Setting material and modules all do not depict paladins as acting Lawful Stupid.
The problematic interpretation of goblins is the objectively best supported and until-this-announcement undisputed interpretation of their portrayal throughout the entirety of pathfinder. It is up to Paizo to convincingly explain what is indisputably a change. Some of the suggestions on other threads have persuaded me that there are several sufficient ways to do this. It now falls on Paizo to do one of them well.
If they do, they might even address my player behavior concerns. For instance, if they establish that adventuring goblins are generally worshipers of a newly ascended Chaotic Good god who is definitively not okay with the kind of dickbad behavior that has be worried, goblin adventurers will not be able to play the "it's what my character would do" card and be factually correct like I expressed worry about in my op.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the objectively best supported and until-this-announcement undisputed interpretation of their portrayal throughout the entirety of pathfinder. It is up to Paizo to convincingly explain what is indisputably a change.
As someone said earlier
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I mentioned in another post, just put them as an appendix as the end of the Bestiary. With guidelines for DMs and players, roleplay advices, and how to introduce them or not in your setting. The Bestiaries tend to be DM’s books, so each DM will have the opportunity to choose to incorporate them or not, and will have solid ground to do so.
He will also have the opportunity to show to the players, at the character creation, the part they should read if they want to be Goblins. I don’t want Goblin to be in the Core player book, and I am not the only one. I believe that if a new race has to be core, from what we said earlier and the popularity of other exotic races, it should not be Goblins but Tieflings or Aasimars.
But I have no problem with them being playable. I just don’t want them to be one the middle of the races of the first base book of the game, like they are a common adventurer choice just as a Dwarf or a Human.
This solution will satisfy everybody, make it clear that they are an option, and Paizo could use the work they done on them. And we could have one more core race instead of them. Why not with a sondage on the forum? It would be also clear that they are the DM choice to incorporate them or not.
And yes every DM as the right to choose what you can play. But I don’t want to ban anything from the core book, even more when this will be the only player rule book we have for a certain amount of time.
Problem solved.
Edit: and I am not a huge fan of Tieflings and Aasimars, it is just that as someone pointed out they are the most favorite non core race for a lots of players (there was a study somewhere but I don’t remember the name if someone does link it please). And they are probably from my experiences the exotic races I saw the most as a DM. My personal choice would have been Tengu.
As I mentioned in another post, just put them as an appendix as the end of the Bestiary.
But then how will my players read about all of the awesome abilities of their new Goblin PC in the Players Handbook? Having to switch to a separate book is going to be a real pain for them.
I believe that if a new race has to be core, from what we said earlier and the popularity of other exotic races, it should not be Goblins but Tieflings or Aasimars.
Pretty sure that Paizo didn’t HAVE to add another race and settled on Goblin, they wanted to add Goblins so that is what they did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I mentioned in another post, just put them as an appendix as the end of the Bestiary.But then how will my players read about all of the awesome abilities of their new Goblin PC in the Players Handbook? Having to switch to a separate book is going to be a real pain for them.
I believe that if a new race has to be core, from what we said earlier and the popularity of other exotic races, it should not be Goblins but Tieflings or Aasimars.Pretty sure that Paizo didn’t HAVE to add another race and settled on Goblin, they wanted to add Goblins so that is what they did.
From what we know Ancestry feats and the like should not take more place than a race in the Race Guide? I really don’t think that players will have to come back all the time to their ancestry rules? But I am not sure.
As for your remark I am sorry I use the wrong verb. I am decent in English but I lack subtility to exprim myself sometimes it is annoying, even more when he have a debate like this one. If Paizo want to add a new race, and they want them to be Goblins, that’s what I meant. From what I understand they said that nothing is set in stone, right?
I don’t know I can be wrong but it seems to me that could be a middle ground that all people can agree on.
Edit:
Goblins will be an ancestry in the Playtest Rulebook; that much we are committed to.
We are going to ask for your feedback after playing with them during the playtest, and that feedback will contribute to how, when, and where they are presented in the Second Edition rule system.
That is what Vic Wertz said on another thread on the same subject.
...
I was being facetious with my first statement, if English is not your native language I totally understand how that and my second statement didn’t come across to you the way I intended them. Humor is not always universal, especially bad humor.
I do assume that ancestry feats would take up a small amount of space, but the crux of my response is that there are plenty of people excited to play as goblins, and I don’t think it is fair now that they have announced that they are getting core treatment to then take that away and bump them back to the bestiary where they were before just because a few people are not happy with it. I think the better compromise is for people who don’t want to play goblins not to do it, because players who want to play them and are not prone to disruptive behavior at the table are not going to inhibit other players fun at the table.
I wasn’t trying to correct your word choice, but if the idea I got from your post wasn’t what you meant then I again understand the language barrier issue. What I was responding to was the idea that Paizo decided to add another race before they chose goblins. That has not been the impression I got, they made it clear that the popularity of their goblins amongst themselves, players and people just familiar with the setting was what inspired them to add a new race in the first place, being Goblins. So a substitute race would not achieve their goal, since their goa was not to add another race, but to add Goblins.
I do get that some people have a problem with Goblins being core, but I think more people either don’t care or are excited, because being core means more support and options. I do strongly believe that next year when the full material is published many of the naysayers will be starting adventures with goblins as allies and will be relieved to see they are still having fun.
Edit: saw your edit. That is an interesting statement, and does leave open the door to them not being in the final version of the core rulebook. I would be disappointed if the play test yields that result, but if it turns out that there really are that many people who don’t like the change then at least it will be decided by actual play instead of people yelling on the internet before even trying it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My bad for not getting the joke! You understood me right, and you make a fair point. Official support could be less if they are not in the core book, and people who seems very excited by them could be disappointed. I did not think of that.
Maybe I will just houserule what I do most of the time, the only « one exotic ancestry » per group and introduce Goblins to my players as exotic. And it is true that I judge them from what I know from the setting but I have no clues so far how they are going to retcon them so maybe I could like it. It is just that they felt really like Drow from the Forgotten Realms for me and I did not liked seeing all my players wanted to play good Drows after discovering Drizzt Do’Urden. Because what was supposed to be rare just became part of every campaign we played in the FR. And I don’t like to tell no to my players, from a roleplay standpoint or a mechanical standpoint. Sometimes I have to, but generally not with the core book.
And I know a few of them could jut become savage with Goblins. Because of how we encountered them in our adventures they have expectations of Goblins, and who want to play them as crazy as we used them as DM.
the objectively best supported and until-this-announcement undisputed interpretation of their portrayal throughout the entirety of pathfinder. It is up to Paizo to convincingly explain what is indisputably a change.As someone said earlier
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.
Yep exactly. They have been slowly walking back the ALWAYS EVIL thing for a couple of different races, goblins as well as Drow and even Orcs. They
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument that adding goblins to core somehow is going to increase character conflict and cause problems would be a lot stronger if objective alignment and paladins weren't also a thing in Core as well.The problematic interpretations of paladins and alignment are based on fringe, super-literal interpretations of the Core Rule Book. Setting material and modules all do not depict paladins as acting Lawful Stupid.
The problematic interpretation of goblins is the objectively best supported and until-this-announcement undisputed interpretation of their portrayal throughout the entirety of pathfinder. It is up to Paizo to convincingly explain what is indisputably a change. Some of the suggestions on other threads have persuaded me that there are several sufficient ways to do this. It now falls on Paizo to do one of them well.
If they do, they might even address my player behavior concerns. For instance, if they establish that adventuring goblins are generally worshipers of a newly ascended Chaotic Good god who is definitively not okay with the kind of dickbad behavior that has be worried, goblin adventurers will not be able to play the "it's what my character would do" card and be factually correct like I expressed worry about in my op.
For those of us who are neutral or okay with goblins(as I have mentioned before, goblins wouldn't be my first choice), we don't really see much different in player behavior between the Chaotic stupid Paladin and someone who plays a goblin as a homicidal pyromaniac arsonist. And their is certainly nothing in the setting itself that obligates Goblins as NPC only characters, given some of their appearances in paizo products.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the distinct sense that most people arguing for goblins in core are unfamiliar with golarion Canon.
Go read the Pathfinder wiki, the first sentence sums it up:
Considered nothing more than murderous pests by most, goblins dwell on the fringes of other societies, scavenging amongst their waste and building their society in squalor.
Not convinced, go read about the goblinblood wars
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Goblinblood_Wars
That was less then 20 years by Canon, it was a Savage, bloody, continent scale war by humanity against goblins.
To include goblins in core is pretty much a complete rewrite of Canon which is upsetting to people who pay attention to the Canon. It would have been nice if the goblins preview actually tried to address this concern.
He will also have the opportunity to show to the players, at the character creation, the part they should read if they want to be Goblins. I don’t want Goblin to be in the Core player book, and I am not the only one. I believe that if a new race has to be core, from what we said earlier and the popularity of other exotic races, it should not be Goblins but Tieflings or Aasimars.
I would bet money, especially on Aasimars, that their popularity has less to do with people loving there flavor and more to do with mechanics, something that PF2E will probably bake into all races what with the direction that ancestries are going (I am pretty sure the success of the player's guides for these races is why they are setting up ancestry the way they are)
Sure, Goblins wouldn't be my first choice, but they are the most obvious. I doubt any other non core race is as iconic or has such a pool of popularity for inclusion. THe fact that..thousands of posts have been written about this move probably goes to support the iconic nature of goblins for Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there is still a huge distinction between people (often wrongly) assume half orcs are scum and "goblins burn things, eat everything that moves, and quite simply *are* evil".Not everyone just thinks half-orcs are lazy and can't be trusted, though. Many people think half-orcs are basically just orc.
It isn't about who or how many npcs hold what grudges. It is about what a race *is*.
"They take slaves from other races, orc men brutalize orc women, and both abuse children and elders." And there is that whole sexual violence thing too. That is at least as bad as the reputation goblins have, and I'd argue it is significantly worse. The fact that these assumptions are often wrong doesn't change the fact that lots of people hold them and probably act accordingly.
No, these are things about orcs and the lineage of the half orc, not about the half orc. It has nothing to do with the core race itself.
Half-orcs parents are evil =/= goblins themselves are evil.
Even given that there are super rare exceptions.
Reactions to goblins may be worse, and they may be actually justified. But I'd argue half-orcs are meant to be treated as something closer to goblins than dwarves.
The narrative way that others treat half-orcs could be reasonably said to be closer to how they see goblins than how they see dwarves. This is true. This is also 100% irrelevant.
How people see half-orcs =/= to ubiquitous truth about the built in character of the race as a whole.
Evil pyromanic eats everything evil == ubiquitous truth built into the character of the goblin race as a whole.
Not sure why the chasm of distinction between reputation and canon racial reality isn't clicking. You could argue that this doesn't make goblins bad. Bringing you around to this point won't change anything, but your point is so off the issue as to just be a waste of time.
See, I don't think there needs to be more than 1 in a million good goblins for them to be core. I think in whatever changes Golarion gets for PF2e, we will probably find out good/neutral goblins are more common than we think of them now. But PCs are meant to be exceptions to the norm.
Again, it isn't about your opinion on it or my opinion on it. It is about how having them core will impact future products and the fanbase at large.
You may be right that this will backfire in terms of sales, but I don't think that means the idea doesn't have legs. The market rejects good ideas in favor of bad ones all the time for all sorts of reasons.
Yeah, but not as often as good brands get kicked in the teeth over one bad idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument that adding goblins to core somehow is going to increase character conflict and cause problems would be a lot stronger if objective alignment and paladins weren't also a thing in Core as well.
I'm pretty sure that if I had a race as described in GoG and used that as canon in a game of GURPS with no alignment, that race would still be problematic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "we shouldn't have obvious bad guys" is just really bad advice.
In Star Wars the Storm Troopers are human. But they wrap them in solid armor for a reason. And that reason has nothing to do with in story need (shoehorned justifications not withstanding) They wear complete anonymous armor so that the good guys can mow them down and not being killing "people". They have no identity.
You don't have to dig far to find arguments that Tolkien orcs are nazis.
The archetype is very strongly established.
The commanders on the Death Star don't have to have their faces covered because their behavior, comments, and quasi-nazi uniforms all make them instant black hearted evil and we smile when they get cut in half. Everybody else has no face.
More directly on Pathfinder and RPGs, "the glory of combat" is a pretty primal thing. If you think they are going to stop having "kill on sight" orcs, you might as well suggest they do away with the fighter class and fireball spell. Goblins as an idea for core is not a step in that direction, and as sold to date that doesn't even seem to be part of the consideration. As they put it "Goblins are iconic to the brand". [maybe not a direct word for word there]
Kill the orc and take his pie will always be fundamental to *successful* RPGs. [meaning those which have a lasting significant chunk of marketshare]
But there is still a huge distinction between people (often wrongly) assume half orcs are scum and "goblins burn things, eat everything that moves, and quite simply *are* evil".Not everyone just thinks half-orcs are lazy and can't be trusted, though. Many people think half-orcs are basically just orc.It isn't about who or how many npcs hold what grudges. It is about what a race *is*.
"They take slaves from other races, orc men brutalize orc women, and both abuse children and elders." And there is that whole sexual violence thing too. That is at least as bad as the reputation goblins have, and I'd argue it is significantly worse. The fact that these assumptions are often wrong doesn't change the fact that lots of people hold them and probably act accordingly.No, these are things about orcs and the lineage of the half orc, not about the half orc. It has nothing to do with the core race itself.
Half-orcs parents are evil =/= goblins themselves are evil.
Even given that there are super rare exceptions.Reactions to goblins may be worse, and they may be actually justified. But I'd argue half-orcs are meant to be treated as something closer to goblins than dwarves.The narrative way that others treat half-orcs could be reasonably said to be closer to how they see goblins than how they see dwarves. This is true. This is also 100% irrelevant.
How people see half-orcs =/= to ubiquitous truth about the built in character of the race as a whole.
Evil pyromanic eats everything evil == ubiquitous truth built into the character of the goblin race as a whole.Not sure why the chasm of distinction between reputation and canon racial reality isn't clicking. You could argue that this doesn't make goblins bad. Bringing you around to this point won't change anything, but your point is so off the issue as to just be a waste of time.
...
See, I don't think there needs to be more than 1 in a million
So what are you arguing exactly? Just because goblins are an evil race, it still doesn't mean a PC needs to be an evil goblin. What goblins are on the whole only matters for /a specific goblin PC/ in how others will react to them, if the PC is dedicated to playing a goblin that doesn't fit the norm.
What other barrier do you see in the way of people playing as goblins? Because the the two answers I can come up with are players using it as an excuse to be jerks (which I feel has been refuted a lot by now) and how other characters react to goblins. For the latter, you need to establish what sets the treatment of existing core races apart from how a goblin would be treated.
The thing about people having racial aversions is their prejudice doesn't tend to intersect with facts. That half-orcs aren't as evil as goblins doesn't matter if enough people treat them as no better than goblins. The individual PC pays for the sins of the father either way. Or they don't, because reasons.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the distinct sense that most people arguing for goblins in core are unfamiliar with golarion Canon.
You'd be factually incorrect in this statement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the distinct sense that most people arguing for goblins in core are unfamiliar with golarion Canon.
Go read the Pathfinder wiki, the first sentence sums it up:
Considered nothing more than murderous pests by most, goblins dwell on the fringes of other societies, scavenging amongst their waste and building their society in squalor.
Not convinced, go read about the goblinblood wars
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Goblinblood_WarsThat was less then 20 years by Canon, it was a Savage, bloody, continent scale war by humanity against goblins.
To include goblins in core is pretty much a complete rewrite of Canon which is upsetting to people who pay attention to the Canon. It would have been nice if the goblins preview actually tried to address this concern.
Okay, your tone comes of as rather condescending.
But concerning those wars, those were not "Continental". It was regional and there is a lot more in the Inner Sea than Isger. And the chief perpetrators of that war were the Hobgoblins. While the Goblins did participate, it was the Hobgoblins that are the face of that conflict.
And Cheliax worships devils and enslaves others now, but you still see the Chelish ethnicity allowed. I don't think conflict really affects that, considering that Half-orcs are in core.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
are we both reading the same entries? I will attempt to assist you in the task:
The Wars
In the four year span beginning in 4697 AR,[2][3] hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes, primarily from Isger's Chitterwood, to attack countless rural settlements in that nation.[4] A series of wars resulted, from Varisia to Taldor, as humanity struggled against the goblinoids who spread across the surface world, attacking and eating everything in their path.[5] The organization of the hobgoblins made these goblinoid tribes particularly dangerous.[4][1] The government in Elidir was at first slow to respond to the goblin menace, perhaps because most of the fighting took place in the nation's more rural areas, leaving the capital largely unscathed. This discrepancy created a fair amount of resentment in Isger's hinterlands, with many declaring that nation's military response would have come much sooner had the capital been threatened.[6]
Untold number of travelers and merchants died along the Conerica Straits, and whole towns were destroyed as far from the Chitterwood as the Five Kings Mountains. The size and deadliness of these attacks triggered an unlikely alliance of neighboring powers to become involved: a small order of Hellknights from Cheliax, a contingent of Druma's Mercenary League, and a regiment of Eagle Knights of Andoran. They combined forces to fight the goblin hordes and contain their spread beyond Isger. Although the alliance was eventually able to destroy the goblinoid forces and drive the survivors back to the Chitterwood, the number of dead on all sides were staggering.[4][1]
Aftermath
Much of the Chitterwood was burned to the ground after the war, causing any goblinoid survivors to hide in caverns below the forests.[4] Notable tribes among these survivors are the True Hoard, the Spine Threshers, and the People of the Stirge.[7] Isger's army was so devastated by the Goblinblood Wars that its steward, Hedvend VI, ordered his remaining forces to ignore most of the country and concentrate its effort along the vital trade route along the Conerica River. As a result much of Isger's hinterlands fell into banditry, which in turn caused the steward to offer bounties for bandit leaders in the hopes of attracting foreign mercenaries to deal with the problem; whether he succeeded in this strategy has yet to be determined.[1]
Greenskin Stalkers
The Greenskin Stalkers are a group that formed during the Goblinblood Wars, but has remained active in the years since. Members specialize in the killing of goblinoid foes and the protection of Isger's population, and have become notorious for their guerilla tactics and occasional suicidal dedication. The group's popularity has grown, and has even spread to neighboring nations with their own goblinoid problems, such as Varisia, and the River Kingdoms.[8]
~~~
That war was so deadly that to this day there are roving bands of suicidal death squads whose only function is to kill goblins.
Come on, try to at least respond to the facts.
|
|
are we both reading the same entries? I will attempt to assist you in the task:
The Goblinblood Wars were huge and horrible. That said, hobgoblins were the foes feared in those wars, pretty explicitly. That's not to say that goblins weren't involved, but they make s!+&ty frontline combatants and wouldn't be the foes most people who fought in that war are gonna remember most vividly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
are we both reading the same entries? I will attempt to assist you in the task:The Goblinblood Wars were huge and horrible. That said, hobgoblins were the foes feared in those wars, pretty explicitly. That's not to say that goblins weren't involved, but they make s$+@ty frontline combatants and wouldn't be the foes most people who fought in that war are gonna remember most vividly.
dude he just GAVE you references of why goblins are the face of that conflict and remain a plague on the regions like an uncleared minefield. What do you have to back up this "hobgoblins were explicitly the foes feared".
|
|
dude he just GAVE you references of why goblins are the face of that conflict and remain a plague on the regions like an uncleared minefield. What do you have to back up this "hobgoblins were explicitly the foes feared".are we both reading the same entries? I will attempt to assist you in the task:The Goblinblood Wars were huge and horrible. That said, hobgoblins were the foes feared in those wars, pretty explicitly. That's not to say that goblins weren't involved, but they make s$+@ty frontline combatants and wouldn't be the foes most people who fought in that war are gonna remember most vividly.
The entire first paragraph quoted? Y'know, the one referring repeatedly to the hobgoblins as the ones in charge and the ones who made the army dangerous due their organization? Because, uh, that's like half the first paragraph quoted.
And that's entirely aside from just about every other reference to goblins and hobgoblins anywhere making it clear that this is the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
dude he just GAVE you references of why goblins are the face of that conflict and remain a plague on the regions like an uncleared minefield. What do you have to back up this "hobgoblins were explicitly the foes feared".are we both reading the same entries? I will attempt to assist you in the task:The Goblinblood Wars were huge and horrible. That said, hobgoblins were the foes feared in those wars, pretty explicitly. That's not to say that goblins weren't involved, but they make s$+@ty frontline combatants and wouldn't be the foes most people who fought in that war are gonna remember most vividly.
My guess would be that exact same text.
The poster seems to believe that "goblinoid" means solely "goblin." But it doesn't. Much like Humanoid doesn't refer to solely humans, Goblinoid includes at least several different races, including hobgoblins.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
do you have any diary entries or interviews or other canon textual evidence back up that assertion because otherwise that's pretty much a convenient opinion to hold to ignore the canon reality that goblins are universally despised as murderous pests.
it isn't called the hobgoblinblood wars. And the entry is rather explicit about the large role goblins played as common fodder which makes since because goblins breed like rabbits and mature within five years.
Go open a copy of the inner sea world guide and read the entry on goblins:
Goblins are insane, destructive, parasites on greater societies. These diminutive humanoids make use of the refuse and trash such civilizations leave behind. Goblins are singularly eager in the pursuit of sadism and cruelty.
And so on, so yeah I'm actually pretty concerned that there was no in Canon explanation for allowing Goblin adventures because _I_ like the Golarion Canon quite a bit and pay attention to it and it's pretty wild to read people try and walk back the textual evidence we have of how Goblins are viewed in Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically you're going to cling to the SINGLE line about hobgoblin warlords who enslaved HUNDREDS OF TRIBES OF GOBLINS who were the soldiers of that war, then ignore the four paragraphs about goblins SPECIFICALLY, including the regional trait that calls out goblins by name and uses the term goblinoid the way you would a favored enemy type.
You aren't using your context clues
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been gaming for 20+ years, I'm well aware of the definition of goblinoid, and yet people can read a text which explicitly states goblins were involved in a large, bloody war and write it off.
It's right there in the wiki, "hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes". The text even explicitly mentions how much more dangerous the goblins were because they were being organized by hobgoblin leaders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been gaming for 20+ years, I'm well aware of the definition of goblinoid, and yet people can read a text which explicitly states goblins were involved in a large, bloody war and write it off.
It's right there in the wiki, "hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes". The text even explicitly mentions how much more dangerous the goblins were because they were being organized by hobgoblin leaders.
I wasn't addressing you but the "hobgoblins were the face of that conflict" people.
Hobgoblins are one single basically throwaway line, there are like four paragraphs and a regional trait regarding the goblins.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically you're going to cling to the SINGLE line about hobgoblin warlords who enslaved HUNDREDS OF TRIBES OF GOBLINS who were the soldiers of that war, then ignore the four paragraphs about goblins SPECIFICALLY, including the regional trait that calls out goblins by name and uses the term goblinoid the way you would a favored enemy type.
You aren't using your context clues
'Goblinoid' is the generic term for goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and related creatures. And it absolutely is a Favored Enemy type...but applies to all such creatures, not mertely goblins, which are the least threatening of the three common varieties.
If you want a citation, how about the Bestiary? Look at Hobgoblins, their creature type is Humanoid (goblinoid). The same is true of Bugbears.
As for 'hundreds of tribes of goblins', what it actually says is "hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes". So...no. Definitely not more goblins than hobgoblins, or not a lot more anyway.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And so on, so yeah I'm actually pretty concerned that there was no in Canon explanation for allowing Goblin adventures because _I_ like the Golarion Canon quite a bit and pay attention to it and it's pretty wild to read people try and walk back the textual evidence we have of how Goblins are viewed in Golarion.
I also require an actual explanation for goblin adventurers becoming more common.
However, according to Jason Bulmahn (who has the authority to make it true) there is explicitly going to be such an explanation. In the next, y'know, more than a year before the book actually comes out. We don't have it yet because this is a playtest, and one that hasn't even started yet.
I've been gaming for 20+ years, I'm well aware of the definition of goblinoid, and yet people can read a text which explicitly states goblins were involved in a large, bloody war and write it off.
It's right there in the wiki, "hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes". The text even explicitly mentions how much more dangerous the goblins were because they were being organized by hobgoblin leaders.
I'm certainly not denying they were involved. I'm saying that based on lots of other textual evidence (including several references to how people view both goblins and hobgoblins in-universe), most of the anger people feel for this seems to fall on the hobgoblins.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And so on, so yeah I'm actually pretty concerned that there was no in Canon explanation for allowing Goblin adventures because _I_ like the Golarion Canon quite a bit and pay attention to it and it's pretty wild to read people try and walk back the textual evidence we have of how Goblins are viewed in Golarion.I also require an actual explanation for goblin adventurers becoming more common.
However, according to Jason Bulmahn (who has the authority to make it true) there is explicitly going to be such an explanation. In the next, y'know, more than a year before the book actually comes out. We don't have it yet because this is a playtest, and one that hasn't even started yet.
I'm certainly not denying they were involved. I'm saying that based on lots of other textual evidence (including several references to how people view both goblins and hobgoblins in-universe), most of the anger people feel for this seems to fall on the hobgoblins.I've been gaming for 20+ years, I'm well aware of the definition of goblinoid, and yet people can read a text which explicitly states goblins were involved in a large, bloody war and write it off.
It's right there in the wiki, "hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes". The text even explicitly mentions how much more dangerous the goblins were because they were being organized by hobgoblin leaders.
I've provided textual evidence, where's yours? So far you've only given out unsupported opinions. Again, go read the goblin entry in the inner sea world guide, goblins are renowned for their sadism and cruelty.
My point is the Canon is very well established, goblins are a menace to polite society, there are roving death squads dedicated to their eradication. Sure maybe Demons or Hobgoblins or whatever are even more evil, but that isn't a coherent argument that puts goblins in a better light.
Paizo needs to walk back the decisions they made in their Canon to justify Goblin adventures not being killed on sight. I'm rather disappointed we didn't get a single sentence addressing this in the preview.
|
|
I've provided textual evidence, where's yours? So far you've only given out unsupported opinions. Again, go read the goblin entry in the inner sea world guide, goblins are renowned for their sadism and cruelty.
Actually, I cited Classic Monsters Revisited earlier very specifically.
To quote p.16-17 of that book: "...since the goblins can’t organize themselves into proper raiding parties and tend to run in terror when confronted with even a half-hearted defense (or a single barking dog), most view them as little more than amusing pests."
And before you bring up the Goblinblood Wars, those are cited in the Hobgoblin description in the same book.
And you misquote the Inner Sea World Guide. It says that goblins are "singularly eager in their pursuit of sadism and cruelty." It says nothing about being renowned, and this is a very relevant distinction, since we're talking about how likely random people are to see them as dangerous and kill them on sight.
My point is the Canon is very well established, goblins are a menace to polite society, there are roving death squads dedicated to their eradication. Sure maybe Demons or Hobgoblins or whatever are even more evil, but that isn't a coherent argument that puts goblins in a better light.
Goblins, as portrayed, are indeed very evil, and something of a menace. Nobody has actually said otherwise. My contention is, and always has been, merely that they are perceived by most people as ineffectually so and are not widely considered major threats (or, in many cases, any threat at all), and are thus rarely killed on sight or anything of the sort.
Even the Greenskin Stalkers are noted as fighting goblinoid threats, not any goblin they happen to run across. And note that it's all goblinoids they fight, not merely goblins.
Indeed, this perception of goblins as 'relatively harmless' makes it very possible for, if there is some major setting event that makes heroic goblins more likely, people to accept those heroic goblins.
To put it another way: Goblins are mostly awful, but they aren't killed on sight and actually have good PR as hostile monster races go (being seen as funny and as pests rather than terrifying threats), and thus have much better odds of achieving acceptance if something happens in setting to enable such a thing than, say, hobgoblins or orcs.
Paizo needs to walk back the decisions they made in their Canon to justify Goblin adventures not being killed on sight. I'm rather disappointed we didn't get a single sentence addressing this in the preview.
No. They don't. Nowhere has such a 'kill on sight' policy been stated, and so they have nothing to walk back from.
They certainly need to justify heroic goblins and people accepting them as more than mere pests, but in no way do they have to un-say something they never said.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
sin·gu·lar·ly
ˈsiNGɡyələrlē/Submit
adverb
in a remarkable or noticeable way.
"you have singularly failed to live up to your promises"
synonyms: remarkably, extraordinarily, exceptionally, very, extremely, really, outstandingly, signally, particularly, incredibly, decidedly, supremely, distinctly, tremendously; More
in a strange or eccentric way.
"Charlotte thought her very singularly dressed"
Fine, goblins are not renowned for their sadism and cruelty, they are... "remarkable" or perhaps "Distinctive" or "Exceptional" for their sadism and cruelty.
Goblins
Most other races view them as virulent parasites that have proved impossible to exterminate.
While they fear the bigger races, goblins' short memories and bottomless appetites mean they frequently go to war or execute raids against other races to sate their pernicious urges and fill their vast larders.
Relations: Goblins tend to view other beings as sources of food, which makes for poor relations with most civilized races. Goblins often survive on the fringes of human civilization, preying on weak or lost travelers and occasionally raiding small settlements to fuel their voracious appetites. They have a special animosity toward gnomes, and celebrate the capturing or killing of such victims with a feast. Of the most common races, half-orcs are the most tolerant of goblins, sharing a similar ancestry and experiencing the same hatred within many societies. Goblins are mostly unaware of half-orcs' sympathy, however, and avoid them because they are larger, meaner, and less flavorful than other humanoids.
Their pernicious nature makes interacting with civilized races almost impossible, so goblins tend to adventure on the fringes of civilization or in the wilds.
~~
You are aware that goblins are a goblinoid yes? What other core race has roving death squards dedicated to their eradication?
This above quotes are from the Race Guide. So yeah, there needs to be a definite walk back of the Canon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and just to continue, what you think roving death squads actually do, do you somehow believe they strike up conversations and ask,
Hey are you like a good goblinoid or like totally evil cause if you're evil we're going to murder you because that's why we're here, we actually named ourselves after the act of hunting you and your kind down for the purpose of murdering.So evil?
Yes, no?
I'm really just amused at this point that you think you can actually defend your position.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Greenskin_Stalkers
The Greenskin Stalkers are a gang of rangers and slayers obsessed with killing all goblinoid creatures. Originally formed in Isger during the Goblinblood Wars, the Stalkers' obsession leads many to disturbingly immerse themselves in the thoughts and acts of goblins in order to better track and kill them, even if it leads to their own deaths.[1]
While inspired by Isger's long-settled signature conflict, the group continues to recruit new members, spreading its influence into the River Kingdoms and Varisia.[1]