|
Fine, goblins are not renowned for their sadism and cruelty, they are... "remarkable" or perhaps "Distinctive" or "Exceptional" for their sadism and cruelty.
"singularly eager" actually. So they aren't necessarily actually exceptional in their cruelty. They're exceptional in their eagerness and enthusiasm for it. If we want to be precise.
I'm not saying they're nice, I'm saying they aren't actually renowned for much of anything but being pathetic and amusing. And that their reputation is thus a lot less bad than people are making it out to be.
Now, they might deserve as bad a reputation as people are saying they have...but they don't seem to actually have such a rep in canon.
You are aware that goblins are a goblinoid yes?
Sure. My point was that they aren't generally perceived as threats. Or at least not very big ones.
What other core race has roving death squards dedicated to their eradication?
Half Orcs come in for some of this. Also Tieflings, though I admit they aren't core.
This above quotes are from the Race Guide. So yeah, there needs to be a definite walk back of the Canon.
Actually...the Advanced Race Guide like all core rulebook line books in PF1 is not necessarily 100% canonical for Golarion since it's written as setting neutral.
Their Inner Sea Races entry reemphasizes the points I made previously about them being viewed as pests and not being viewed as threats (while also definitely acknowledging their antisocial behavior), and actually deemphasizes the cruelty element very slightly (making them less sadistic and more completely uncaring about the pain of others...not a big improvement, I'll grant).
And there certainly needs to be a change in canon...but not a 'walk back'. An in-universe event is more than sufficient to explain the presence of goblin adventurers if done properly.
|
| 3 people 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.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.
Deadmanwaking is right. The Inner Sea World Guide entry on Isger states clearly that it was hobgoblin tribes that attacked. They were augmented by goblin slaves, yes, but hobgoblins were the primary aggressors.
|
|
I'm not saying they're nice, I'm saying they aren't actually renowned for much of anything but being pathetic and amusing. And that their reputation is thus a lot less bad than people are making it out to be.
Now, they might deserve as bad a reputation as people are saying they have...but they don't seem to actually have such a rep in canon.
It’s not a great idea to leave the little scavengers alone at the edge of town, but Inner Sea Monsters says that some folks do just that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still not convinced on how Paizo can incorperate the Goblin as a "socially acceptable" race in the current setting of Golarion. Even though the system is 2.0 it does not mean that the world of Golarion is also in a 2.0 state, and its stated that all previous Paizo material would be usable for the 2.0 system aswell if i dont misremember.
We heard all of the lore reasons for Goblins should not be around, and personally i dont think there is anything less than a retcon that could make them work proper, or maybe just make a sub-spieces of Goblins or "Goblin-like" or "Mini-Orc" race.
I am not going to pull the "player race X cause disruption", but i can pull the state of the established lore and player conception of Goblins is that they are basically "Adventures first monster". They are monsters to destroy in Pathfinder 1.0, they are monsters to destroy in D&D all editions, they are monsters to destroy in nearly every fantasy setting. The only exception i know of is the Warcraft goblins which were technological and merchant-like beings.
How are they going to change the perception of Goblins being anymore than a easy pile of XP for a level 1 adventures without having a very good established reason for being anything less than "kill on sight"?
A Lore retcon or adjustment is easy, but here we are going to retcon a conception of a ICONIC monster that have been fodder since the dawn of time, and personally i think thats something you kind of have to setup from the start of your world, retcon or a story point that progresses this notion.
I may have missed out on some other settings that have Goblins that are more than fodder, but in those settings they are wastly different than the Paizo Goblins which is very like the standard established goblins we see in fantasy.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the argument that Goblins shouldn’t be in the core rulebook because of canon is the worst argument against them of all. And people who demand, not even just voice apprehension unless they get it, but DEMAND that Paizo fork over an explanation for how they will work this around the canon of their setting are the height of problematic fandom.
On the first part, it is canon that pretty much any and all races can be adventurers, which is why they have stat blocks for PCs. So regardless of your feelings on how it fits into canon of their setting that you play in, the people who write that canon and publish this game for you want you to be able to play these races, so using their material they created to call them wrong is nonsensical. The material has existed that shows the game was intended to allow races other than Elves, Gnomes, Dwarves, Humans, half-breeds and halflings, and them adding one more race to the special main book is not some violation of their sacred texts that you are the only one who is dedicated enough to point out.
And on the second point, if Paizo says that in the second edition Goblins are more commonly adventurers and people in cities and villages recognize that goblins have a chance at not being about to slit their throat at any second the same way that any single other member of any other race has a chance at doing so, then that is frankly all that you should need. The people who make this game can make changes to the story that will allow for the gameplay they want to achieve, and if that is unacceptable to you then I think you should really take a long think on why you think a game developer owes you so much more than a fun and exciting game to play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadmanwaking is right. The Inner Sea World Guide entry on Isger states clearly that it was hobgoblin tribes that attacked. They were augmented by goblin slaves, yes, but hobgoblins were the primary aggressors.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.
No he's wrong, the exact quote is "legions of goblin slaves"
Goblins were a prominent component of the Goblinblood wars. Go read the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting
hundreds of goblin tribes exploded
from the forest like a great green
geyser. The goblins murdered an
untold number of travelers and
merchants along the Conerica
Straits before their momentum
carried them to the Isgeri towns
eking out existences at the feet of
the Five Kings Mountains.
From the same book:
Logas: Nestled dangerously close to the
Chitterwood, the city of Logas keeps a fresh
supply of dead goblins mounted on pikes
along its walls at all times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the argument that Goblins shouldn’t be in the core rulebook because of canon is the worst argument against them of all. And people who demand, not even just voice apprehension unless they get it, but DEMAND that Paizo fork over an explanation for how they will work this around the canon of their setting are the height of problematic fandom.
Who are these people that "demand" and proverbally stomp their feet until they get their wants? However it is right that people would prefer to get a proper explaination to why one of the most iconic monster/fodder creatures in fantasy suddenly become socially acceptable.
And the argument with canon is valid as people like the setting, and if the setting can just change major aspects by itself by the drop of a hat then people ofcourse are going to want to hear why.
If fandom is a problem, then the downplaying of others concern is a problem of the other side of the scale with the "Problematic Apathetics".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No he's wrong, the exact quote is "legions of goblin slaves"Goblins were a prominent component of the Goblinblood wars. Go read the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting
And you seem to ignore that slaves means they did not have a choice in the matter. So that is another strike against your arguments.
If it were human slaves forced to fight we would not even have this discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys! These are nt PF1 goblins! These are PF2 goblins. The "canon" of golarion is obviously different! It is pointless to argue about this. And judging from the preview we got, things are indeed different. Hell, considering goblings now have a CHA bonus, they could easily ease their way into society.
|
| 3 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? Also, presumably, these same guards are ignoring the armed and armoured human fighter strolling through town (who, would likely have been killed on sight in the real medieval Europe)
1. Problem players getting to play a race of crazy psychopaths with an affinity for bombs? Sure, not much more of an issue...
2. There are two goblin weapons in existence specifically for killing the things they fear. Horse Chopper and Dog Slicer.
3. If I'm a guard of a town, I'm not letting the goblin in, sorry. He might not be acting up as we speak, but what happens when it turns to night? Also, what happens if that goblin does go on a killing spree? Who's responsible? In a world where it is generally accepted that Goblins are crazy, and evil, if I'm a guard I am not taking that chance.
| 2 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? Also, presumably, these same guards are ignoring the armed and armoured human fighter strolling through town (who, would likely have been killed on sight in the real medieval Europe)
1. Problem players getting to play a race of crazy psychopaths with an affinity for bombs? Sure, not much more of an issue...
2. There are two goblin weapons in existence specifically for killing the things they fear. Horse Chopper and Dog Slicer.
3. If I'm a guard of a town, I'm not letting the goblin in, sorry. He might not be acting up as we speak, but what happens when it turns to night? Also, what happens if that goblin does go on a killing spree? Who's responsible? In a world where it is generally accepted that...
I don't actually have a problem with some yokel guard acting as you describe. My issue is that the same guard could have the same reaction to half-orcs. And I think that is fair game for a GM. Facing discrimination is hard coded into the race, and a player should be aware of that danger. Goblins might have it worse, but it isn't a new problem.
If you want to have it happen in your game, cool. If I play a half-orc, goblin, tiefling, or whatever else it is only fair for me to pay that price.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Problem players getting to play a race of crazy psychopaths with an affinity for bombs? Sure, not much more of an issue...
Since they already have access to a species that must constantly seek new experiences or potentially die? Yes. It really isn't much more of a problem.
2. There are two goblin weapons in existence specifically for killing the things they fear. Horse Chopper and Dog Slicer.
Nasty descriptive names for what are basically slashing shortswords and a kind of glaive/halberd made out of garbage. Humans also have the Goblin Squash Stables.
3. If I'm a guard of a town, I'm not letting the goblin in, sorry. He might not be acting up as we speak, but what happens when it turns to night? Also, what happens if that goblin does go on a killing spree? Who's responsible? In a world where it is generally accepted that Goblins are crazy, and evil, if I'm a guard I am not taking that chance.
And this one? I LIKE this one. Because you're absolutely right. Who in their right mind would allow a wandering creature with a penchant for violence, unstable behavior, and no one to vouch for them into town?
*Hard side-eye at Valeros, Merisel, and literally anyone else who goes around inflicting freelance violence for a living*
Now, would goblins be a step or three worse? Maybe. A group of just goblins? Definitely. But if one goblin shows up with a bunch of the usual adventurer trouble magnets?
"Is that thing with you?"
"Uh... yeah, Mimdel's with us, she-"
"If that thing so much as sneezes near the mayor's poodle? If ANY fires start in this town while it's here? We're going to do to you exactly what we do to it. You get me, lowlife?"
|
|
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.
Actually there HAS been instances of Goblin slaves and other times within published material where goblins were featured within society...
|
| 1 person 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?
Indeed. I'm willing to discuss most play options when I run games. That doesn't mean I'm going to ALLOW the options discussed, but I will consider them. There are some people I would allow to play evil characters. There are others I would not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kill the orc and take his pie will always be fundamental to *successful* RPGs. [meaning those which have a lasting significant chunk of marketshare]
The number of successful superhero RPGs makes that a patently false statement.
And this one? I LIKE this one. Because you're absolutely right. Who in their right mind would allow a wandering creature with a penchant for violence, unstable behavior, and no one to vouch for them into town?
*Hard side-eye at Valeros, Merisel, and literally anyone else who goes around inflicting freelance violence for a living*
Now, would goblins be a step or three worse? Maybe. A group of just goblins? Definitely. But if one goblin shows up with a bunch of the usual adventurer trouble magnets?
"Is that thing with you?"
"Uh... yeah, Mimdel's with us, she-"
"If that thing so much as sneezes near the mayor's poodle? If ANY fires start in this town while it's here? We're going to do to you exactly what we do to it. You get me, lowlife?"
Yeah, exactly. Another solution: Keeping the goblin on a short leash is no longer a metaphor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...the Campaign Setting book is explicitly non-canonical. A lot of stuff changed between when it was written in 3.5 and when Pathfinder became its own game (check the Alkenstar timeline, for example).
Using it as a source is thus super dubious.
Can I use the Inner Sea World Guide then?
"Amassed by powerful hobgoblin commanders, the likes
of which were never before seen in Isger, hundreds of
hobgoblin tribes, augmented by legions of goblin slaves
and thralls, exploded from the forest. The goblinoids
murdered an untold number of travelers and merchants
along the Conerica Rover before their momentum carried
them to the foothills of the Five Kings Mountains."
"Logas: Nestled dangerously close to the Chitterwood, the city of Logas keeps a fresh supply of dead goblins mounted on pikes along its walls at all times. The corpses act as a constant warning to the goblin hordes that quietly multiply in the caves beneath the woods. For good measure, trebuchets hurl giant rocks into the forest at random intervals, just to remind the goblins that Logas’s vigilance has not relaxed"
"This is Ganda-Uj, “city” of the arboreal monkey goblins. Travelers journeying through known monkey goblin territory do so in large, well-armed groups, for smaller parties are easy prey for the monkey goblins, who swoop out of the trees with nets and poison darts to take prisoners back to their treetop city. No one is sure what happens to such unfortunate travelers—it is not believed that the monkey goblins eat their captives, but they may be sacrificed to whatever foul demons the goblins worship."
Or, From Inner Sea Races:
"Generally behaving like a cross between wild baboons and schoolyard bullies, goblins whiplash between curious frolicking and wanton destruction, playing cruel pranks on their foes and each other. By their reckoning, most of the world is too big and frustratingly complex to bother playing by anyone else’s rules. Instead, the frivolous creatures bring suffering wherever they tread: sowing chaos, stealing whatever fills their bellies, and indulging their short attention spans. The world exists solely for their entertainment, and goblins live—and, as is often the case, die—for their own amusement"
"Goblins are strange little creatures of impulse and improvisation, rarely planning things out and frequently paying the price for their lack of foresight. Left to their own devices, they sing and dance, drink and eat, and play nasty games with ever-changing rules. Pintsized braggadocios and sneaky thieves, goblins leave no stone unturned in their constant quests for food and merriment, and their general lack of empathy means they rarely hold back from any sort of cruelty. Eventually, their celebrations spill out into neighboring communities, and fires and bloodshed inevitably ensue. Though small and weak, goblins cause enough trouble to make enemies wherever they go, stealing supplies and torching fields."
"Humans and other races have made repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure. Time and again the pests seem extinct, only to quietly swell to massive numbers in some remote forest or cavern, and finally explode outward in ravenous waves of chaos and fire once they have eaten everything within immediate reach. While goblins rarely pose a threat to large nations, the jabbering hordes may strip entire towns and even small cities from the face of Golarion during these population explosions."
"The most recent of these goblinoid blights—the Goblinblood Wars—spilled forth in 4697 ar, when the uncountable hordes of goblins across the nation of Isger finally exhausted their local food supplies and spilled out to raid, conquer, and devour other humanoid settlements. Hobgoblin tribes took advantage of their smaller cousins’ half-starved madness to shape the chaotic masses into true armies. Bugbears took advantage of the chaos to stalk and feed freely, often seizing—whether by accident or design— important civil and military leaders days or mere hours before a goblin raid. Goblinoids seized lands across the country eventually overwhelming Isger’s army. Over the 4-year onslaught, some of Avistan’s bloodiest battles left thousands dead, reducing entire settlements to ruins."
"The war likewise reshaped Isger’s goblins, and they became hardened and more disciplined in the years of battle, and far stealthier and crueler in the lean times since."
"While goblins rarely shape world history to such an extent, they often leave an indelible stamp on personal and local histories. They steal babies, burn homes, ruin fields, and otherwise destroy lives. Entire communities may see a genuine threat from goblins every decade or so, and many adventurers get their start taming these uprisings. In cities, goblin tribes in ruins or sewers drive out human criminals and thieves’ guilds, and work as pawns in political machinations far beyond their understanding. Goblin filth may speed the spread of plagues, while goblin thieving exacerbates famine. Goblins do not often appear in history tomes, but when they do, they inevitably make the story bloodier."
This sure sounds like a race that will be welcomed with open arms by the people of golarion, doesn't it?
Also keep in mind the Goblinblood wars will have happened barely twenty years ago by PF2. That's nothing in medieval standards, especially considering they've kept being a menace since.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I use the Inner Sea World Guide then?
Sure!
I never said they weren't involved. I said that people didn't seem to blame them, based on their stated reactions to them.
Or, From Inner Sea Races:
Let me pull some quotes from there, too:
"Taller races consider goblins pests, charitably describing them as smelly, ugly, amoral scavengers with mean streaks and bad taste."
So they're viewed as pests, not horrible threats to be killed on sight.
"Goblin raiding parties generally do not pose a threat against any serious defense—or even against a single guard dog—thanks to the cowardice and poor organization of their kind."
And people are mostly right to view them in this way, since they're pretty ineffective.
Now, those attitudes may be harsher in, y'know, Isger. But that's one country, not the whole setting. It might also be more true in the immediate vicinity...which adds to my hope that in Return of the Runelords we get some heroic goblin examples famous in Varisia, which would mean that the 'good reputation' they get from that goes a ways to countering prejudice against goblins right in the general area it would be worse.
This sure sounds like a race that will be welcomed with open arms by the people of golarion, doesn't it?
Nobody has ever stated that goblins as portrayed aren't mostly completely awful. What I've been saying is that people don't generally take them seriously as a threat. Which results in a less than a 'kill on sight' attitude.
That's literally my whole argument. People keep acting like I'm arguing that goblins aren't awful. I'm not. I'm arguing that they are viewed as too pathetic to be a real threat and thus rarely killed on sight. That's not always true by any means, but it appears to be the prevailing attitude.
Also keep in mind the Goblinblood wars will have happened barely twenty years ago by PF2. That's nothing in medieval standards, especially considering they've kept being a menace since.
Pathfinder is not precisely medieval in many ways. Literacy is nearly universal, for example. Holding it to medieval standards is weird and inaccurate. It's also not modern, mind you, but it's not medieval either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I use the Inner Sea World Guide then?Sure!
I never said they weren't involved. I said that people didn't seem to blame them, based on their stated reactions to them.
Or, From Inner Sea Races:Let me pull some quotes from there, too:
"Taller races consider goblins pests, charitably describing them as smelly, ugly, amoral scavengers with mean streaks and bad taste."
So they're viewed as pests, not horrible threats to be killed on sight.
"Goblin raiding parties generally do not pose a threat against any serious defense—or even against a single guard dog—thanks to the cowardice and poor organization of their kind."
And people are mostly right to view them in this way, since they're pretty ineffective.
Now, those attitudes may be harsher in, y'know, Isger. But that's one country, not the whole setting. It might also be more true in the immediate vicinity...which adds to my hope that in Return of the Runelords we get some heroic goblin examples famous in Varisia, which would mean that the 'good reputation' they get from that goes a ways to countering prejudice against goblins right in the general area it would be worse.
This sure sounds like a race that will be welcomed with open arms by the people of golarion, doesn't it?Nobody has ever stated that goblins as portrayed aren't mostly completely awful. What I've been saying is that people don't generally take them seriously as a threat. Which results in a less than a 'kill on sight' attitude.
That's literally my whole argument. People keep acting like I'm arguing that goblins aren't awful. I'm not. I'm arguing that they are viewed as too pathetic to be a real threat and thus rarely killed on sight. That's not always true by any means, but it appears to be the prevailing attitude.
Also keep in mind the Goblinblood wars will have happened barely twenty years ago by PF2. That's nothing in medieval...
Goblins are things you kill on sight because if you don't, they breed, multiply, and then come erase your town from the map as a ravening horde. As explained by my third paragraph from Inner Sea Races.
It doesn't matter that they're pathethic. There's evidence, time and again, that if left alone they will become a credible threat even to small cities, if not entire countries. There have been concious efforts by civilised society to exterminate them precisely for this reason.
Again, from Inner Sea Races
"Wherever a pair of goblins wanders together, a full population can spring up in just a few decades, allowing goblins to appear in the most unlikely places."
"More terrifying still, those tribes pushed back into the Darklands remain strong and are quickly breeding a new generation of soldiers. Within a decade, goblin war songs may once again echo across central Avistan."
"They scavenge and steal most of what they need, and consequently live close to other humanoid settlements. Their stolen treasures usually fill roles unrelated to their original purpose, as new owners transform cookware into weapons or boots into armor. What they can’t carry off, they destroy in hopes of reassembling later, or at least keeping any “longshanks”—taller humanoids—from turning that mystery treasure against them. Sadly, this same philosophy also applies to livestock and prisoners."
"Few cultural elements survive for long without being powerful loves or repulsive hatreds for the entire species."
"No one truly likes goblins—not even other goblins. Most races consider them pests to be driven off or hunted. Humans build walls against goblin invaders, elves work rituals to bar tribes from their lands, and dwarves hunt goblins for sport."
So yeah, they're pests. That can grow into great threats if unchecked. Therefore, kill them on sight, or at least drive them off.
Which makes for a poor race for a PC.
|
|
Goblins are things you kill on sight because if you don't, they breed, multiply, and then come erase your town from the map as a ravening horde. As explained by my third paragraph from Inner Sea Races.
It doesn't matter that they're pathethic. There's evidence, time and again, that if left alone they will become a credible threat even to small cities, if not entire countries. There have been concious efforts by civilised society to exterminate them precisely for this reason.
Okay, see, this would potentially be a logical thing for people in Golarion to do but there is not a single bit of evidence that they actually do this on any widespread basis. And quite a bit that they do not do anything of the kind.
Again, from Inner Sea Races
So yeah, they're pests. That can grow into great threats if unchecked. Therefore, kill them on sight, or at least drive them off.
Which makes for a poor race for a PC.
Again, you are providing evidence for killing goblins being a good idea. You are not providing evidence that people actually do so in-universe.
People are not perfectly logical and do not actually always do things because they are a logical thing to do. I'm asking for evidence that they actually do this. which you have provided none of.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins are things you kill on sight because if you don't, they breed, multiply, and then come erase your town from the map as a ravening horde. As explained by my third paragraph from Inner Sea Races.
It doesn't matter that they're pathethic. There's evidence, time and again, that if left alone they will become a credible threat even to small cities, if not entire countries. There have been concious efforts by civilised society to exterminate them precisely for this reason.
Okay, see, this would potentially be a logical thing for people in Golarion to do but there is not a single bit of evidence that they actually do this on any widespread basis. And quite a bit that they do not do anything of the kind.
Again, from Inner Sea Races
So yeah, they're pests. That can grow into great threats if unchecked. Therefore, kill them on sight, or at least drive them off.
Which makes for a poor race for a PC.
Again, you are providing evidence for killing goblins being a good idea. You are not providing evidence that people actually do so in-universe.
People are not perfectly logical and do not actually always do things because they are a logical thing to do. I'm asking for evidence that they actually do this. which you have provided none of.
Wait. Wait. What?
Again:
"Humans build walls against goblin invaders, elves work rituals to bar tribes from their lands, and dwarves hunt goblins for sport."
"Humans and other races have made repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure."
|
|
Wait. Wait. What?
Again:
"Humans build walls against goblin invaders, elves work rituals to bar tribes from their lands, and dwarves hunt goblins for sport."
Dwarves are definitely the most anti-goblin by the text. Dwarves are also rare, so this is not usually gonna be an issue. And even among dwarves, 'hunt for sport' and 'kill on sight' are actually very different things.
"Humans and other races have made repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure."
That's historically, indeed it's noted in the same section as 'millennia ago' stuff. People in real life have historically tried to exterminate all sorts of things, doesn't mean they're still doing it right now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait. Wait. What?
Again:
"Humans build walls against goblin invaders, elves work rituals to bar tribes from their lands, and dwarves hunt goblins for sport."
Dwarves are definitely the most anti-goblin by the text. Dwarves are also rare, so this is not usually gonna be an issue.
"Humans and other races have made repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure."That's historically, indeed it's noted in the same section as 'millennia ago' stuff. People in real life have historically tried to exterminate all sorts of things, doesn't mean they're still doing it right now.
No, the "repeated, concentrated efforts" are never called out as Millenia ago. Ever. In any piece of the text.
Please provide any sort of source on this.
Also note: "but these attempts always meet with failure". Meet. Not Met. Meaning they're still ongoing.
EDIT: Since you edited
"And even among dwarves, 'hunt for sport' and 'kill on sight' are actually very different things."
Yeah, it measn dwarves go out of their way to hunt goblins for fun, even if the goblins are doing nothing. Do you think they won't kill them on sight? Seriously?
|
|
No, the "repeated, concentrated efforts" are never called out as Millenia ago. Ever. In any piece of the text.
Please provide any sort of source on this.
My point was not that they were milennia ago. It was that they were in the 'History' section rather than one of the sections on current interactions.
Also note: "but these attempts always meet with failure". Meet. Not Met. Meaning they're still ongoing.
The full bit is:
"Humans and other races have made repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure. Time and again the pests seem extinct, only to quietly swell to massive numbers in some remote forest or cavern, and finally explode outward in ravenous waves of chaos and fire once they have eaten everything within immediate reach."
That's clearly a past tense statement, and does not parse otherwise in English.
Yeah, it measn dwarves go out of their way to hunt goblins for fun, even if the goblins are doing nothing. Do you think they won't kill them on sight? Seriously?
Depends on context. Most people who hunt deer for sport don't kill all deer on sight, for example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, the "repeated, concentrated efforts" are never called out as Millenia ago. Ever. In any piece of the text.
Please provide any sort of source on this.
My point was not that they were milennia ago. It was that they were in the 'History' section rather than one of the sections on current interactions.
Also note: "but these attempts always meet with failure". Meet. Not Met. Meaning they're still ongoing.The full bit is:
"Humans and other races have made repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure. Time and again the pests seem extinct, only to quietly swell to massive numbers in some remote forest or cavern, and finally explode outward in ravenous waves of chaos and fire once they have eaten everything within immediate reach."
That's clearly a past tense statement, and does not parse otherwise in English.
Yeah, it measn dwarves go out of their way to hunt goblins for fun, even if the goblins are doing nothing. Do you think they won't kill them on sight? Seriously?Depends on context. Most people who hunt deer for sport don't kill all deer on sight, for example.
1) It's not Past Tense. It's Present Perfect tense. What is Perfect used for?
"An action or situation that started in the past and continues in the present. I have lived in Bristol since 1984 (= and I still do.)"
So, still ongoing. Of course, it's still used for:
"An action when the time is not important. He has read 'War and Peace'. (= the result of his reading is important)"
But given the context? I got with the first one.
2) There's laws against killing deer willy nilly in most countries. There's probably no such laws protecting goblins, especially the type you hunt for sport.
If you're willing to go out of your way to stalk and kill something for fun, it's a safe bet to assume you'd kill it on sight if nothing stops you. Particularly when that thing is a goblin, much more dangerous if left alone than a deer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I see a deer I always go all murder hobo on it...
Seriously though, there is just as much prejudice against orcs as there is against goblins. And I'd bet most people can't tell the difference between half-orc and full orc. Why is that we are OK with half-orcs, wyvarans, ratfolk, or tengu, but with goblins we're all like, "nope, I kill them on sight". Really breaking my immersive experience here, people. And since I'm not having fun, you're not allowed to have fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I see a deer I always go all murder hobo on it...
Seriously though, there is just as much prejudice against orcs as there is against goblins. And I'd bet most people can't tell the difference between half-orc and full orc. Why is that we are OK with half-orcs, wyvarans, ratfolk, or tengu, but with goblins we're all like, "nope, I kill them on sight". Really breaking my immersive experience here, people. And since I'm not having fun, you're not allowed to have fun.
If you let the deer go, is there a good chance it will go on, reproduce, and within a few years come back with all it's nice deer family and raze your village to the gorund, killing basically everyone in their path?
As for Half-Orcs? You are absolutely right
Again, Inner Sea Races:
Trapped between two worlds and loved by neither, Golarion’s half-orcs live on a the edge between recognition as people and dismissal as savages. Few humans understand the difference between half-orcs
and orcs, and most slay half-orcs with the same fervor they would wield against any supposed monster. Even among humans who do recognize the half-blooded race, ignorant suppositions are taken for hard fact; mothers tuck their children behind them upon catching a halforc’s glance and city guards leap to deadly force for fear of the legendary “orc ferocity.” Fueled by the powerful emotions of their orc forebears, many half-orcs surrender to anger in the face of such injustice, feeding a vicious cycle that has haunted their people for thousands of years."
But, unlike with goblins, you also get:
"Over the thousands of years since the end of orc dominance, half-orcs remained a constant feature thanks primarily to orc strongholds in the Menador Mountains, the Kodar Mountains, and elsewhere. Contact between orcs and their neighbors alternated between violent and mutually beneficial, leading to some generations of halforcs being raised as pitiful war-orphans and others as icons of diplomacy. In either case, both human and orc society gave a place and a name to their bastard children, and half-orcs served as mediators and traders between races, thanks to their assumed neutrality."
"Since the death of Aroden and the upheaval of human empires around the Inner Sea, half-orc fortunes are finally reversing in Avistan. Revolutions and new nations have opened up political and economic vacuums where outcasts can find footing. Though prejudice against half-orcs remains powerful among those human nations cleaved from Taldor—Cheliax, Druma, Isger, Galt, Molthune, and surprisingly, Andoran—outright slavery and pogroms grow increasingly rare. The establishment of the town of Averaka over 50 years ago marked the beginning of a new half-orc civilization, its inhabitants standing proudly apart from their parent races rather than hiding in their shadows."
EDIT: Dammit, forgot to add: Is this enough to show the difference between how Golarion views Goblins and Half-Orcs?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we are going by the default core of Golarion, they will be killed on the spot most of the times. Or put in jail. Even in larges open-minded cities they will be persecuted and molested and put in jail or in slavery.
This is a med fan world. The road are not secured, and full of monsters. You already take enough risks with shady folks and adventurers and merchants from other countries, you will not take it with Goblins too. The life of someone matters less in a world where you live by the sword than it is today in many developped countries. So the life of a Goblin against a chance of fires and cannibalism.... if we are logical they are killed onthe spot. Of course each DM can choose to have a more understanding Golarion, but in there the Goblins are probably less dangerous and more reliable as a species.
The huge problem is that Goblins are crazy. You can find Orcs or Hobgoblins as mercenaries, who understand the value of chain of command, trade, things like that (like a few tribes in Belkzen or the Hobgoblin country in Tian Xia).
Is this why you can tolerate the Church of Asmodeus but not the one of Rovagug.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I see a deer I always go all murder hobo on it...
Seriously though, there is just as much prejudice against orcs as there is against goblins. And I'd bet most people can't tell the difference between half-orc and full orc. Why is that we are OK with half-orcs, wyvarans, ratfolk, or tengu, but with goblins we're all like, "nope, I kill them on sight". Really breaking my immersive experience here, people. And since I'm not having fun, you're not allowed to have fun.
This is an excellent point. Let's examine Inner Sea Races for stuff on Half Orcs:
"Few humans understand the difference between half-orcs and orcs, and most slay half-orcs with the same fervor they would wield against any supposed monster."
Wow. That's a way more specific indication of 'kill on sight' than any of the goblin ones. Yeesh. Still only one lets look for more:
"They exist on the outskirts of far larger populations, and in many regions are at risk of being exiled, enslaved, or exterminated."
And another. Yeesh.
So...yeah, that's way more evidence for Half Orcs being killed on sight than Goblins. Or perhaps the stuff in Inner Sea Races is a bit hyperbolic. Either way, using 'kill on sight' stuff as an argument against goblins suddenly falls a bit flat when comparing them.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well. As for the 'there's stuff on Half Orcs being accepted and not on Goblins' this is absolutely true, and requires an explanation of some sort...but that's hardly an impossible task for Paizo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I see a deer I always go all murder hobo on it...
Seriously though, there is just as much prejudice against orcs as there is against goblins. And I'd bet most people can't tell the difference between half-orc and full orc. Why is that we are OK with half-orcs, wyvarans, ratfolk, or tengu, but with goblins we're all like, "nope, I kill them on sight". Really breaking my immersive experience here, people. And since I'm not having fun, you're not allowed to have fun.
This is an excellent point. Let's examine Inner Sea Races for stuff on Half Orcs:
"Few humans understand the difference between half-orcs and orcs, and most slay half-orcs with the same fervor they would wield against any supposed monster."
Wow. That's a way more specific indication of 'kill on sight' than any of the goblin ones. Yeesh. Still only one lets look for more:
"They exist on the outskirts of far larger populations, and in many regions are at risk of being exiled, enslaved, or exterminated."
And another. Yeesh.
So...yeah, that's way more evidence for Half Orcs being killed on sight than Goblins. Or perhaps the stuff in Inner Sea Races is a bit hyperbolic. Either way, using 'kill on sight' stuff as an argument against goblins suddenly falls a bit flat when comparing them.
Man, and I went to all the trouble of properly quoting just two posts above.
Please show me where it shows the goblin reversal of fortunes in Avistani viewpoints, as it does with Half-Orcs. I'll wait. And before you say "It will happen between PF1 and 2" keep in mind Half-Orcs are still hated, and killed on sight, 100 years after their fortunes started to shift.
And while you're at it, you've not responded to the fact that the "repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure." are not ongoing.
Because they are. You ignoring that fact doesn't stop it being a fact. For that matter, the Greenskin Stalkers are such a "repeated, concentrated effort". That they kill all goblinoids, not just goblins, changes nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you let the deer go, is there a good chance it will go on, reproduce, and within a few years come back with all it's nice deer family and raze your village to the gorund, killing basically everyone in their path?
As for Half-Orcs? You are absolutely right
Again, Inner Sea Races:
Spoiler:
EDIT: Dammit, forgot to add: Is this enough to show the difference between how Golarion views Goblins and Half-Orcs?
Hold on, goblins don't go around razing villages. It happened a couple times, and there was a war or two, but by and large they are incapable of being a menace. And, as it's been shown, that's how people see them. Ineffectual. There are exceptions, as you have capably pointed out, but they are exceptions.
Overall, Paizo has been doing a significant overhaul to the "goblin brand". Goblins as gray-area NPCs are more common than orcs as gray-area NPCs. You really have not convinced me that people would kill goblins on-sight. Throw out, possibly; mock, certainly. But kill? Nope, not convinced. I think you're ignoring the lore shift that's been happening.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you let the deer go, is there a good chance it will go on, reproduce, and within a few years come back with all it's nice deer family and raze your village to the gorund, killing basically everyone in their path?
As for Half-Orcs? You are absolutely right
Again, Inner Sea Races:
Spoiler:
EDIT: Dammit, forgot to add: Is this enough to show the difference between how Golarion views Goblins and Half-Orcs?Hold on, goblins don't go around razing villages. It happened a couple times, and there was a war or two, but by and large they are incapable of being a menace. And, as it's been shown, that's how people see them. Ineffectual. There are exceptions, as you have capably pointed out, but they are exceptions.
Overall, Paizo has been doing a significant overhaul to the "goblin brand". Goblins as gray-area NPCs are more common than orcs as gray-area NPCs. You really have not convinced me that people would kill goblins on-sight. Throw out, possibly; mock, certainly. But kill? Nope, not convinced. I think you're ignoring the lore shift that's been happening.
Again, no. You're cherry picking, or choosing not to read.
"Time and again the pests seem extinct, only to quietly swell to massive numbers in some remote forest or cavern, and finally explode outward in ravenous waves of chaos and fire once they have eaten everything within immediate reach. While goblins rarely pose a threat to large nations, the jabbering hordes may strip entire towns and even small cities from the face of Golarion during these population explosions."
And also:
"While goblins rarely shape world history to such an extent, they often leave an indelible stamp on personal and local histories. They steal babies, burn homes, ruin fields, and otherwise destroy lives. Entire communities may see a genuine threat from goblins every decade or so, and many adventurers get their start taming these uprisings."
This is normal. This happens at least once every ten years. A goblin reaches maturity in five. I'm not sure how much clearer the Inner Sea Race Guide has to be.
|
|
Man, and I went to all the trouble of properly quoting just two posts above.
Finding it took some time, I think you started first. :)
Please show me where it shows the goblin reversal of fortunes in Avistani viewpoints, as it does with Half-Orcs. I'll wait. And before you say "It will happen between PF1 and 2" keep in mind Half-Orcs are still hated, and killed on sight, 100 years after their fortunes started to shift.
There is none. Yet. Which I addressed above. Paizo can certainly start one, though. As for how long it takes, that, to some degree,
And while you're at it, you've not responded to the fact that the "repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure." are not ongoing.
Then fact that the sentence can be parsed either way and every single other reference is to people as a whole not taking goblins seriously as a threat in the present? I think that's fairly compelling, personally.
Because they are. You ignoring that fact doesn't stop it being a fact. For that matter, the Greenskin Stalkers are such a "repeated, concentrated effort". That they kill all goblinoids, not just goblins, changes nothing.
Oh, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the Greenskin Stalkers kill goblins out of hand. That's a small group in a pretty specific area, though. Not everyone everywhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And while you're at it, you've not responded to the fact that the "repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure." are not ongoing.Then fact that the sentence can be parsed either way and every single other reference is to people as a whole not taking goblins seriously as a threat in the present? I think that's fairly compelling, personally.
Just one last thing before I bow out, since I've made my points as clear as I can, but in all honesty, the sentence cannot be parsed two ways.
""Humans and other races have made repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure."
The have made makes a clear implication that these efforts have taken place repeatedly (or continuously) in the past. However, the meet later on is clear: this attempts meet with failure, right now. In the present. That means those efforts must be taken place in the present as well. If they were a thing of the past, and no longer current, the sentence would have ended with met with failure.
The only correct interpretation is that there are still ongoing purges by humans and other races. They just don't work, which is why goblins are still a thing.
Furthermore, whether people see them as threats or not is irrelevant, because they are specifically called out as being treated as pests at the most charitable. And you don't tolerate pests in your home, you exterminate them. And if you can't, you drive them off.
Which the Inner Sea Race Guide calls out as people in Golarion doing during the present. In a widespread fashion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read some of the other History sections (which is where the paragraph you quote is from). Many use present-tense language for things that are demonstratably and incontrovertibly only in the past (I noticed this while checking the Half Orc section for 'kill on sight' references).
So...even if you're right on tense (which I actually don't agree on, it's ambiguous...as demonstrated by the fact that I read it and never even thought of it being read as ongoing), the fact that it's in the History section and not even referenced in any other is indicative that it's not necessarily currently ongoing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's frustrating because it feels like you're wilfully misinterpreting clear, repeated textual evidence or giving extremely pained interpretations in an effort to avoid the clear meaning: goblins are viewed by civilied society as pests.
Pests, like cockroaches or rats, are exterminated with extreme prejudice. That's the universally understood meaning of the word pests in English in this context. So the simple answer is goblins are often in fact killed on sight. That's what the current golarion Canon overwhelming has to say about goblins.
Pests, like cockroaches or rats, are exterminated with extreme prejudice. That's the universally understood meaning of the word pests in English in this context. So the simple answer is goblins are often in fact killed on sight. That's what the current golarion Canon overwhelming has to say about goblins.
That really depends. Most rats and insects and weeds, despite all being pests, aren't killed down to the last one. They're just controlled so they don't get out of whack and you end up with an infestation.
You always expect there to be some amount of mice and rats around, you just don't want a few hundred in your house. But you're ok with them in the sewers, or in the fields across the way.
Weeds are all around, but you just don't want them on your garden - or the sidewalk and driveway if you're in the city. Except for all those weeds growing in the cracks that many people just ignore and don't care about.
Spiders are everywhere. So are ants. And cockroaches. In the shadows, in the lawn, in crevices and cracks. But most people don't exterminate them down to the last one - they just don't want to be overrun with them.
Pests have never really been something that you aim to eliminate 100%, you just control them enough so they're not a problem. Sure, there might be some portion of the population who wants to completely 100% eliminate one pest or another within a certain radius of them or their home, but that's not how most people react to pests.
Or what about something bigger, like a raccoon. Total pest. They go through the garbage and knock over garbage cans, climb in through pet doors and eat your food, and they can certainly pose a threat if they feel cornered (which I've had to do to get one out of my garage just a few weeks ago). And if they have rabies? Threat increase is massive. But we don't go around trying to eliminate every last racoon around. We just don't want a few family's worth of raccoons living in our houses.
I can see goblins as the same way. You may not want a gaggle of them around, but one or two? They're more likely to hurt themselves than anyone else. And especially so if they've become an established presence, like the goblin working the food stand or working as the Duke's servant. Except maybe around Isger.
And heck, even after the Sandpoint raid, most people remembered the goblins more with humor than they did with fear and loathing.
|
|
It's frustrating because it feels like you're wilfully misinterpreting clear, repeated textual evidence or giving extremely pained interpretations in an effort to avoid the clear meaning: goblins are viewed by civilied society as pests.
No, I agree with that.
Pests, like cockroaches or rats, are exterminated with extreme prejudice. That's the universally understood meaning of the word pests in English in this context. So the simple answer is goblins are often in fact killed on sight. That's what the current golarion Canon overwhelming has to say about goblins.
No. Very few people hunt down and kill random rats they see in alleys. That's a weird thing to do and will make people look at you like a lunatic if you try it. And killing someone's pet rat or cockroach (and people absolutely have those) is illegal, as well as widely regarded as completely inappropriate and verging on the psychotic. People certainly don't spend vast energy to exterminate all the rats or cockroaches in a city absent really specific circumstances.
People pretty exclusively only exterminate pests with extreme prejudice when those pests invade their homes or places of business. And I'd absolutely expect people to kill goblins caught raiding, or those who break into their houses or shops.
That's not the same thing at all as killing them when you see them skulking in an alley going through garbage. It's certainly not the same thing as killing them on sight when they are, say, accompanied by a group of armed adventurers who clearly view them as theirs. And those are the situations PC goblins are gonna be in, mostly.
I'm not saying people have warm fuzzy feelings for goblins. I'm saying people don't kill them on sight whenever they see them, especially if they're clearly backed by someone else (as basically all adventuring goblins will be). That's it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's frustrating because it feels like you're wilfully misinterpreting clear, repeated textual evidence or giving extremely pained interpretations in an effort to avoid the clear meaning: goblins are viewed by civilied society as pests.
Pests, like cockroaches or rats, are exterminated with extreme prejudice. That's the universally understood meaning of the word pests in English in this context. So the simple answer is goblins are often in fact killed on sight. That's what the current golarion Canon overwhelming has to say about goblins.
Interesting. Because I've felt like people are reading the same thing as me and coming to very different conclusions when it comes to goblins.
For instance, that is not at all the context I associate with "pests", i.e. my brother is a pest (but I don't kill him on sight!). I also might swat a cockroach given the opportunity, but unless they're infesting my house I don't go to great lengths to exterminate them.
I've been reading Paizo's version of goblins for years as silly and mischievous. Certainly evil as well, but lower case "e". And why should being evil keep them from being core anyway?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pests, like cockroaches or rats, are exterminated with extreme prejudice. That's the universally understood meaning of the word pests in English in this context. So the simple answer is goblins are often in fact killed on sight. That's what the current golarion Canon overwhelming has to say about goblins.
Let me add my voice to the pile of "no, that's not how I understand the word". And that is not how I understand canon to refer to goblins. You kill the ones that are causing you trouble. You don't organize a genocide, because that is too much effort for not enough gain. (You hire adventurers to do the genociding, because it gets THEM out of your hair too and hopefully they all kill each other so you don't have to deal with them.)