| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... a rat in an alleyway or a subway? Not something I'm going to go after. Rats on garbage cans looking at me as I leave a restaurant? Cool! Rats chewing up my garden? Guess it's terrier time. Someone introduces me to their rat? "Aw, what a cutie!"
Roaches in a garbage dump? Not an issue. Roaches in a sewer? Not an issue. Roaches in my cereal? Ick. Roaches in a friend's terrarium? Nifty!
Squirrels in trees chittering? Annoying but not targets. Squirrels in my insulation? DEATH. Someone's pet rescue squirrel? Well, I friggin' hate squirrels, but I can at least be polite.
An addendum to my previous post:
I do know of times when a pest needed to be 100% killed. For xample, pikes in a California lake needed to be completely erradicated, as they were an invasive species to that lake, introduced at some point in the past, and were completely taking over the ecosystem. Worse, there was a risk of them escaping into the rivers, which would have decimated the fishing industry in northern California. Several efforts have been made to 100% erradicate these fish in this one lake, and the most recent effort seems to have worked.
But that was for an invasive species that was destroying the local ecosystem and had a potential to destroy even more.
Are goblins like that?
What about in Virisia, where the books say goblins lived first and later the humans moved in, forcing the goblins out? That reminds me a lot of the local mountain lions, who were here long before humans ever arrived. And while they have the potential to pose a significant threat, especially to children, for the most part they're tolerated so long as they don't attack people. And the ones that do are hunted and killed.
My mom lives in a suburb where there's a mountain lion in the creek between her house and the local park, and it's been there for years. Hasn't bothered anyone, but it does kill an occasional deer (I saw it happen). And that was in a city with a 100k population.
I'm on 5 acres, and I've got deer on my property. And where there are deer, there are mountain lions. Pretty much gaurunteed. Also. We've got a black bear nearby; left some paw prints on my car window just a few months ago. Dangerous? You bet. As dangerous as a single goblin? Maybe, maybe not. But we don't go down killing them just because they have the potential to be dangerous. We only kill them when they've proven to be dangerous and have actually attacked someone. Until then, well, you gotta learn to coexist.
| 3 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.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.
I mean, there were (and still are) rat catchers in cities. People whose sole purpose is to go out and keep the rat population under control. And you do that by killing them. And this is a constant struggle precisely because rats, like goblins, breed a lot and elimiating them completely is impossible.
So there's people whose sole job is to go out and exterminate pests. They most certainly will go into an alleyway and kill the random rats they see. And a city of any size will employ many of these if they don't want to be knee deep in rats.
Do you honestly think there's not something like that for goblins? Who in addition to spreading disease and causing food shortages (like rats), are intelligent, can use tools and love fire. Actually rat-catchers probably go after goblins anyway, considering they use plenty of dogs. Just another pest to deal with.
Not to mentio goblins are incredibly dangerous as far as pests go, and are known to literally steal babies.
Comparisons to animals also break down because those are animals, incapable of rational thought. Goblins are capable of rational thought and have been shown to almost exclusively choose to be horrible beings to be around.
|
Do you honestly think there's not something like that for goblins?
Specifically for goblins? Not most places, they aren't common enough. And they usually live far enough into the dangerous wilderness that, an occasional mercenary aside, trying to go after them in their lairs is more trouble than its worth.
But yeah, there are probably people who keep goblins out of settlements and the like. It's probably usually the city guard, honestly, since they're equipped and already there.
But that's not 'everyone kills them on sight', that's 'the guards don't like them'. Those are different orders of magnitude, as the problem with having one as a PC goes.
And even rat catchers don't kill people's pet rats, which once again is the closest analogy to a PC goblin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there were (and still are) rat catchers in cities. People whose sole purpose is to go out and keep the rat population under control. And you do that by killing them. And this is a constant struggle precisely because rats, like goblins, breed a lot and elimiating them completely is impossible.So there's people whose sole job is to go out and exterminate pests. They most certainly will go into an alleyway and kill the random rats they see. And a city of any size will employ many of these if they don't want to be knee deep in rats.
Actually, they probably won't do that unless someone is paying them to do it. IE, he's only going to kill rat's in alleys that are adjacent to clients who pay him. That's the thing about jobs. You do it for free and people won't bother hiring you. And the rat catcher isn't going to kill someone's pet rat, especially if the rat owner and the rat itself are well armed.
Now, there ARE people who would kill a goblin on sight or pay someone to kill one out of principle. Daviren Hosk from Rise of the Runelords springs to mind. Thing is, Hosk is a regarded as a weirdo who is obsessed with killing goblins to the point it is freaking creepy. I imagine one might bump into a Hosk every now and then. Could make for an interesting RP encounter. But even Hosk is going to be reluctant to pick a fight with the entire party over it.
Comparisons to animals also break down because those are animals, incapable of rational thought. Goblins are capable of rational thought and have been shown to almost exclusively choose to be horrible beings to be around.
Eh... Goblins as written are rarely THAT rational. They hide in ovens, for gods' sake.If you are going to compare them to people instead of animals, you'd probably be talking more like the mentally ill.
But if you are going to treat goblins as any form of people rather than just a beast doing what it does, we also start getting into weird racial commentary.
I grant you goblins aren't quite like real world pests, but they are still pests.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you honestly think there's not something like that for goblins?Adventurers. (Some of whom are known to think the weirdest things are adorable and attempt rehabilitation.)
"This one time in Kaer Maga I ran into a *bunch* of poor enslaved goblins that were hungry for freedom and were willing to listen to me. We got them safely relocated to a nice community up in Irrisen, and they even send pieces of paper with smudges on them sometimes saying they're doing alright in thanks."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A voice pipes up from the sword at Rae's side. "I keep telling him those smudges are probably poison, but he won't listen!"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, people seize on a single word and decide to interpret that single word in a way that is most sympathetic to their beliefs while ignoring the mountains of other clarifying and contextual information.
goblins are 'remarkable' for their drive to cause others pain and suffering. They eat other sentient races. Humanity has tried to completely eradicate them, mon multiple occasions. They participated in recent wars which are notible for their high casualty rate.
Pest control is an entire domain of human expertise that involves the systemic removal of a species from certain zones. We spray deadly chemicals on entire fields to remove these pests. We are developing methods to try and completely eliminate some pests such as mosquitoes.
I don't know about you but I don't tolerate rats and cockroaches in my domicile, traps are set and exterminators are called.
Entire apartment buildings are vacated and fuminated to kill bed bugs.
The list of what pest control means in a real world societal usage amounts to a continuous murderous rampage by humans against those creatures that damage our well being.
Turning around and saying pests really means your annoying six year old cousin who can't stop taking is a complete nonsequitor. Thats not the extremely clear usage of the word in this context.
Yes it's true words have multiple meanings, purposely picking the alternative meaning to bolster a flimsy argument is... Well certainly not polite nor constructive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, people seize on a single word and decide to interpret that single word in a way that is most sympathetic to their beliefs while ignoring the mountains of other clarifying and contextual information.
Quite a few people feel you're doing the same.
We spray deadly chemicals on entire fields to remove these pests.
Only when those pest are trying to destroy a crop or a field.
We are developing methods to try and completely eliminate some pests such as mosquitoes.
Only when those mosquitoes are carrying disease.
I don't know about you but I don't tolerate rats and cockroaches in my domicile, traps are set and exterminators are called.
And most people wouldn't tolerate an uninvited goblin in their home, but I can guarantee that you accept rats and cockroaches in the same town or city you live in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rat bait is placed in public land commonly by private companies and local governments.
That's just rats. Again for productive assets like fields of corn we shower it in killer chemicals. We, as a species, seriously discussing the complete eradication of mosquitoes through genetic engineering.
You can make the claim I am being obtuse but you can't actually furnish any proof, meanwhile I can quote multiple bad faith interpretations from others in this discussion. But let's not, it's just toxic, and normally I would just give up and move on since it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall, but in this instance the argument against my singular point is so ludicrous I keep trying because it is comedic the depths of absurdity of please are willing to stoop to defend -- and what are they even defending, goblins, Paizo desire to make goblins a core race for adventurers? Even the developers acknowledged that the current goblin Canon needs to change to make that happen. That's been my only point, the current Canon is unequivocal -- goblins are not tolerated by the vast majority of civilization and are often hunted down and killed without qualms or legal complicatiobs or ethical complications. They are killed on sight, if a gobin shows up outside a city gate and a guard puts a crossbow bolt through it's torso, no one bats and eye, the only thing that happens is they argue about whose duty it is to throw the corpse in the nearest dung heap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes! I hope so, I hope it's not hand waived or half hearted but big and memorable.
My gripe was the preview didn't include a single mention of this, but it was added later by a Dev. I wish they'd put it in the preview, but so it goes.
|
|
| 1 person 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.
as it has been mentioned before
goblins have been showing up as non evil npcs for years.hero pc's for years
the inner seas book calls out that some attach them selves to adventures and others and can become compassionate heroes.
they live in and around almost every city in golarian , which means having them around is not at all hard to rationalize them being around and rationalizing that every tribe tends to have a few good black sheep among them.
there is no reason for a lore retcon though they may very well add some lore changes in pf2.
a lot of players want to have them as a player race from the start and this happening is not going to hurt your game.
there is nothing wrong with not liking them, im not big on elves.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparisons to animals also break down because those are animals, incapable of rational thought. Goblins are capable of rational thought and have been shown to almost exclusively choose to be horrible beings to be around.
The animal comparison works because killing goblins on sight is only justifiable* if you treat them as subhuman creatures incapable of rational thought or moral choice.
The moment you acknowledge that they are people rather than monsters or animals, capable of rational thought and moral choice, you must necessarily admit the possibility of innocent goblins who don't deserve to be killed. No matter how rare you think they might be, the fact that they can exist makes indiscriminately slaughtering goblins morally dubious.
*For good or neutral people, anyway.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparisons to animals also break down because those are animals, incapable of rational thought. Goblins are capable of rational thought and have been shown to almost exclusively choose to be horrible beings to be around.The animal comparison works because killing goblins on sight is only justifiable* if you treat them as subhuman creatures incapable of rational thought or moral choice.
The moment you acknowledge that they are people rather than monsters or animals, capable of rational thought and moral choice, you must necessarily admit the possibility of innocent goblins who don't deserve to be killed. No matter how rare you think they might be, the fact that they can exist makes indiscriminately slaughtering goblins morally dubious.
*For good or neutral people, anyway.
At the risk of causing this thread to spiral out of control (again), that opens up a broader philosophical question. How likely does it have to be that someone is a deadly threat before killing them is justified? That question is too big to fit on these forums, but I'll say two things:
As goblins have been portrayed in material until now, the answer to "should this goblin die" without any other information, and no options besides killing them or doing nothing, is "yes," because most goblins will probably kill at least two people or a do a proportionate amount of evil in their lifetime.
Comparisons to real-world discrimination are not suitable because no real group of people is similarly dangerous. The problematicness you sense comes from how screwed up the idea of an intrinsically evil race is and has been since time immemorial when it was invented, not from what I'm saying about the hypothetical implications of one existing.
as it has been mentioned before
goblins have been showing up as non evil npcs for years.
hero pc's for years
the inner seas book calls out that some attach them selves to adventures and others and can...
I'll need quoted texts from cited sources before I'll even begin to entertain such opinions.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll need quoted texts from cited sources before I'll even begin to entertain such opinions.as it has been mentioned before
goblins have been showing up as non evil npcs for years.
hero pc's for years
the inner seas book calls out that some attach them selves to adventures and others and can...
Well, for the last one, check p. 141 of Inner Sea Races. To quote:
"Some goblins do become genuine adventurers, almost always after banishment, seeing their tribe wiped out, getting lost, or otherwise finding themselves separated from the group. Without a strong leader, lone goblins drift until they find someone else offering food and protection. They eventually grow a shameful streak of loyalty toward any companions—even humans—with whom they travel long enough. Goblins separated from their own kind long enough may even begin to shy away from murderous impulses or express uncharacteristic qualities such as empathy and compassion, ensuring their tainted hearts will never find acceptance among their own kind again."
Which actually also provides really compelling textual evidence that almost all goblin Evil is cultural rather than genetic.
because most goblins will probably kill at least two people or a do a proportionate amount of evil in their lifetime.
I sincerely doubt that is true. 30 goblins attacked during the Swallowtail Festival. There were not 30 casualties among the citizens, and most if not all of the goblins died. Many from unintentional suicide or friendly fire. If nothing else, the average goblin seems just as likely to kill itself in it's stupidity than successfully murder a longshank.
Comparisons to real-world discrimination are not suitable because no real group of people is similarly dangerous. The problematicness you sense comes from how screwed up the idea of an intrinsically evil race is and has been since time immemorial when it was invented, not from what I'm saying about the hypothetical implications of one existing.
I agree with you that this is a broader problem, and perhaps one Paizo is looking to start distancing itself from. It also raises issues with the alignment system. A tiger that eats you is Neutral because it is just being a tiger. If goblins are all the same, why is a goblin that eats you evil when it is just being a goblin?
But that's far from the only way Alignment falls apart under scrutiny.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll need quoted texts from cited sources before I'll even begin to entertain such opinions.as it has been mentioned before
goblins have been showing up as non evil npcs for years.
hero pc's for years
the inner seas book calls out that some attach them selves to adventures and others and can...Well, for the last one, check p. 141 of Inner Sea Races. To quote:
"Some goblins do become genuine adventurers, almost always after banishment, seeing their tribe wiped out, getting lost, or otherwise finding themselves separated from the group. Without a strong leader, lone goblins drift until they find someone else offering food and protection. They eventually grow a shameful streak of
loyalty toward any companions—even humans—with whom they travel long enough. Goblins separated from their own kind long enough may even begin to shy away from murderous impulses or express uncharacteristic qualities such as empathy and compassion, ensuring their tainted hearts will never find acceptance among their own kind again."Which actually also provides really compelling textual evidence that almost all goblin Evil is cultural rather than genetic.
yeah goblins seem to be pack animals in a social sense more so then say humans,
raised like goblins are raised and having to deal with there extreme hunger is a recipe for a dangerous creature, but when they bond with a better role model they can come around.which shows why you have some goblin heroes as well as goblins like the one that helps the old lady with her shop and of course goblin servants and the like.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of causing this thread to spiral out of control (again), that opens up a broader philosophical question. How likely does it have to be that someone is a deadly threat before killing them is justified? That question is too big to fit on these forums, but I'll say two things:
As goblins have been portrayed in material until now, the answer to "should this goblin die" without any other information, and no options besides killing them or doing nothing, is "yes," because most goblins will probably kill at least two people or a do a proportionate amount of evil in their lifetime.
Comparisons to real-world discrimination are not suitable because no real group of people is similarly dangerous. The problematicness you sense comes from how screwed up the idea of an intrinsically evil race is and has been since time immemorial when it was invented, not from what I'm saying about the hypothetical implications of one existing.
The problem is, you're putting arbitrary limits on what I can know and what I can choose to do in that situation. I'd argue that doesn't accurately reflect most encounters between humans and goblins, especially when you bring goblin PCs into the mix. If you want to see why that's a problem, try replacing "should this goblin die" with "should I kill all goblins?" in your formulation. Suddenly, you've talked yourself into committing genocide. Feels a little unsavory, doesn't it?
And that doesn't change the fact that TheFinish can't have their cake and eat it too.
Either you want people in-world to treat goblins like beasts, in which case it makes sense to address how people in the real world treat animals like rats and cockroaches...
OR, you want people in-world to treat goblins like people, in which case you have to grapple with the problematic nature of Kill on Sight.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of causing this thread to spiral out of control (again), that opens up a broader philosophical question. How likely does it have to be that someone is a deadly threat before killing them is justified? That question is too big to fit on these forums, but I'll say two things:
As goblins have been portrayed in material until now, the answer to "should this goblin die" without any other information, and no options besides killing them or doing nothing, is "yes," because most goblins will probably kill at least two people or a do a proportionate amount of evil in their lifetime.
Comparisons to real-world discrimination are not suitable because no real group of people is similarly dangerous. The problematicness you sense comes from how screwed up the idea of an intrinsically evil race is and has been since time immemorial when it was invented, not from what I'm saying about the hypothetical implications of one existing.
The problem is, you're putting arbitrary limits on what I can know and what I can choose to do in that situation. I'd argue that doesn't accurately reflect most encounters between humans and goblins, especially when you bring goblin PCs into the mix. If you want to see why that's a problem, try replacing "should this goblin die" with "should I kill all goblins?" in your formulation. Suddenly, you've talked yourself into committing genocide. Feels a little unsavory, doesn't it?
And that doesn't change the fact that TheFinish can't have their cake and eat it too.
Either you want people in-world to treat goblins like beasts, in which case it makes sense to address how people in the real world treat animals like rats and cockroaches...
OR, you want people in-world to treat goblins like people, in which case you have to grapple with the problematic nature of Kill on Sight.
The problem being, of course, that Goblins are intelligent, malicious cockroaches. To put it one way.
I can most certainly have my cake and eat it too, thank you. That's the whole point of a cake, no?
Goblins, as presented in Golarion, are essentially 99%+ evil. If you run into one, there's probably more around (I mean, the Bestiary itself says the smallest unit you find of goblins is a gang), and they'll shank you for giggles. Or to eat you. The slim chance that it won't is not enough to not kill it, in the eyes of a Golarionite (is that how you call someone from Golarion?).
As for genocide? I mean, it doesn't matter what you think of it, or what I think of it, Avistani people sure as hell try to genocide Goblins, going by the Inner Sea Race Guide. It just doesn't stick.
Kill on Sight is not problematic because Golarion is a fantasy setting with Evil races. Just because an Angel fell doesn't mean you should attack all Angels on sight. Just because a Demon was redeemed doesn't mean you won't attack them on sight. It's the same for Goblins.
As an aside, are the Absalom Goblins servants? I was under the impression they were slaves. But then, I don't have the comics (at least I think they appear in a comic.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like having Goblins as a core race because having more viable options that allow players to engage in the setting in a meaningful way is a good thing. I feel like Player's Handbooks/Guides should start off with as many races as you can shake a stick at, because races are a surefire way to ground your players in the setting. More options = better, so long as there aren't trap options or overpowered options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even going with the assumption that people will try to kill goblins on sight, that doesn't seem like it would be easy to do to a goblin accompanied by a whole party. I feel like when a 7 foot tall Kellid Barbarian steps between the guard and the goblin, the guard may see the wisdom in diplomacy. Then it becomes a question of whether you can talk people into leaving the goblin alone on the grounds that he behaves himself. There's room to haggle over a compromise between barring him from the town and letting him scurry around unchecked. It is now just some role-play to make it happen.
I mean, if you want to have people who not only think goblins should be killed, but will actively try and kill them over the protest and potential violent reprisals of non-goblins, that's cool. But if you can't imagine a scenario where goblin PCs are allowed to exist, it strikes me as a failure of imagination.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even going with the assumption that people will try to kill goblins on sight, that doesn't seem like it would be easy to do to a goblin accompanied by a whole party. I feel like when a 7 foot tall Kellid Barbarian steps between the guard and the goblin, the guard may see the wisdom in diplomacy. Then it becomes a question of whether you can talk people into leaving the goblin alone on the grounds that he behaves himself. There's room to haggle over a compromise between barring him from the town and letting him scurry around unchecked. It is now just some role-play to make it happen.
I mean, if you want to have people who not only think goblins should be killed, but will actively try and kill them over the protest and potential violent reprisals of non-goblins, that's cool. But if you can't imagine a scenario where goblin PCs are allowed to exist, it strikes me as a failure of imagination.
Sure. Of Course Goblin PCs are allowed to exist. The question was never that. Goblin PCs have existed as rarities, exceptions, singular things. The question, which has been now lost to the endless mists of time, over yonder in ye olde Monday, April 2nd, was if that was enough to make Goblins core. That is, after all, the title of the very thread you're posting in.
I don't think so. Plenty of people don't think so. Plenty others (including the Developers, obviously) think they do. And both present their arguments, as they should. But there's far more published material pointing to how Goblins are detested setting wise than there is that they're accepted in any numbers. And thus, one wonders how there's all that many goblin adventurers, unless they're all party mascots with people to vouch for them (which probably wouldn't work all the time anyway. Try walking a goblin into anywhere in Isger and see what happens, party or no.)
And that is only from a setting standpoint. The OP was nice enough to detail two other concerns he has on the matter.
an Aasimaar Paladin i found to be an equal or worse problem player in a typical table of adventurers because the stuff adventurers partake in is ill suited for a Typical Lawful Good Follower of Iomedae because most Adventurers do some very pragmatic things and a paladin doesn't do well with even a single pragmatic player character.
i mean you can make a paladin that isn't a disruptive character if you remove the alignment restrictions and the code of conduct which are not even a required set of balancing factors but players would still bring up the stereotypes of multiple generations of paladin baggage. i honestly think that removing alignment restrictions would be the best way to make the paladin playable outside of highly specific parties tailored to accomodate their code of conduct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of causing this thread to spiral out of control (again), that opens up a broader philosophical question. How likely does it have to be that someone is a deadly threat before killing them is justified? That question is too big to fit on these forums, but I'll say two things:
As goblins have been portrayed in material until now, the answer to "should this goblin die" without any other information, and no options besides killing them or doing nothing, is "yes," because most goblins will probably kill at least two people or a do a proportionate amount of evil in their lifetime.
Comparisons to real-world discrimination are not suitable because no real group of people is similarly dangerous. The problematicness you sense comes from how screwed up the idea of an intrinsically evil race is and has been since time immemorial when it was invented, not from what I'm saying about the hypothetical implications of one existing.
The problem is, you're putting arbitrary limits on what I can know and what I can choose to do in that situation. I'd argue that doesn't accurately reflect most encounters between humans and goblins, especially when you bring goblin PCs into the mix. If you want to see why that's a problem, try replacing "should this goblin die" with "should I kill all goblins?" in your formulation. Suddenly, you've talked yourself into committing genocide. Feels a little unsavory, doesn't it?
And that doesn't change the fact that TheFinish can't have their cake and eat it too.
Either you want people in-world to treat goblins like beasts, in which case it makes sense to address how people in the real world treat animals like rats and cockroaches...
OR, you want people in-world to treat goblins like people, in which case you have to grapple with the problematic nature of Kill on Sight.
The problem being, of course, that Goblins are intelligent, malicious cockroaches. To put it one way.
I can most certainly have my cake and eat it too, thank you. That's the whole point of a cake, no?
I saw this in another thread and ignored it, so I felt I had to address it here just to keep things balanced.
The phrase is supposed to be “eat your cake and have it too”. It’s supposed to convey the unreasonableness of wanting two mutually exclusive things. The phrase as is commonly and mistakenly used lists them in the wrong order. That order implies a time element; “[first] you have your cake and [then] you eat it too”. And of course this doesn’t convey the idea of unreasonably wanting two mutually exclusive things because everyone in the history of mankind and cakes who has ever eaten a cake has had the cake first.
Putting them in the correct order also implies a time element, but this time it highlights the aforementioned unreasonableness. I.e., without unsavory regurgitation or stomach-pumping, no one can “[first] eat their cake and [then] have it too”. It’s unreasonable to want this.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem being, of course, that Goblins are intelligent, malicious cockroaches. To put it one way.
I can most certainly have my cake and eat it too, thank you. That's the whole point of a cake, no?
The point of the idiom is that, once you've eaten your cake, the cake is gone. You cannot simultaneously eat the cake and retain the cake for later eating.
Once you open the door to considering goblins rational creatures, you have to actually treat them like rational creatures, and that means Kill on Sight and goblin genocide become problematic. You have eaten your cake, there is no more cake.
Goblins, as presented in Golarion, are essentially 99%+ evil. If you run into one, there's probably more around (I mean, the Bestiary itself says the smallest unit you find of goblins is a gang), and they'll shank you for giggles. Or to eat you. The slim chance that it won't is not enough to not kill it, in the eyes of a Golarionite (is that how you call someone from Golarion?).
As for genocide? I mean, it doesn't matter what you think of it, or what I think of it, Avistani people sure as hell try to genocide Goblins, going by the Inner Sea Race Guide. It just doesn't stick.
And I'm saying that the Avistani who try to wipe out goblins do so because they don't think of goblins as rational creatures capable of moral choice. They think of them, as you suggest, as destructive and dangerous pests.
Given that, it makes sense to use examples of how pest creatures in the real world are treated as a basis for understanding how those Avistani communities might treat goblins.
Kill on Sight is not problematic because Golarion is a fantasy setting with Evil races. Just because an Angel fell doesn't mean you should attack all Angels on sight. Just because a Demon was redeemed doesn't mean you won't attack them on sight. It's the same for Goblins.
Angels and Demons are a poor comparison--they're outsiders with alignment subtypes. Their alignment is intrinsic to their being in a way that simply isn't true of goblins or other mortal races.
As an aside, are the Absalom Goblins servants? I was under the impression they were slaves. But then, I don't have the comics (at least I think they appear in a comic.)
I haven't read the comics either, but can't they be both? Or do you mean to ask if they are employed as servants, rather than enslaved and forced to work as servants?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once you open the door to considering goblins rational creatures, you have to actually treat them like rational creatures, and that means Kill on Sight and goblin genocide become problematic. You have eaten your cake, there is no more cake.
Not really... When they have always, as far back as ANYONE recalls [and that can be hundreds of years depending on race], are KNOWN for a fact goblins are bad and every few years come to raid you and do all sorts of despicable things, is their being capable of thought really important in determining if you chop a random goblin in half? Not to me.
Lets even say people know that there are super rare exceptions once in a while... I really don't see anyone taking a chance with their life on that off chance. Is the 1% chance they aren't a bad one worth a shiv in the gut or some unseen goblins sneaking into your town?
"Wow, there is some Viking ships coming this way... Should we prepare for a raid or should we all get ready to set out tea because , you know, they are rational thinking creatures and deserve our trust... I know the 99 times before they attacked us but maybe THIS time it's different." :P
Once you open the door to considering goblins rational creatures, you have to actually treat them like rational creatures, and that means Kill on Sight and goblin genocide become problematic. You have eaten your cake, there is no more cake.Not really... When they have always, as far back as ANYONE recalls [and that can be hundreds of years depending on race], are KNOWN for a fact goblins are bad and every few years come to raid you and do all sorts of despicable things, is their being capable of thought really important in determining if you chop a random goblin in half? Not to me.
Lets even say people know that there are super rare exceptions once in a while... I really don't see anyone taking a chance with their life on that off chance. Is the 1% chance they aren't a bad one worth a shiv in the gut or some unseen goblins sneaking into your town?
"Wow, there is some Viking ships coming this way... Should we prepare for a raid or should we all get ready to set out tea because , you know, they are rational thinking creatures and deserve our trust... I know the 99 times before they attacked us but maybe THIS time it's different." :P
Goblins really have their flavor decided by the individual writing the world. in Traditional Golarion, Goblins might be evil, but different worlds have different goblins for Example Azerothian Goblins are a Race of Highly Proficient Engineers and Architects motivated by their own greed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins really have their flavor decided by the individual writing the world. in Traditional Golarion, Goblins might be evil, but different worlds have different goblins for Example Azerothian Goblins are a Race of Highly Proficient Engineers and Architects motivated by their own greed.
Yeah, that's true but we KNOW which world this is getting written for: Golarion. In a home world, anything is up for grabs so it's not really an issue if they are core or not for homebrew as the individual is setting the expectations.
So while what you said is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the topic at hand: we aren't talking about removing goblin PC's from the game but not having them as core.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins really have their flavor decided by the individual writing the world. in Traditional Golarion, Goblins might be evil, but different worlds have different goblins for Example Azerothian Goblins are a Race of Highly Proficient Engineers and Architects motivated by their own greed.Yeah, that's true but we KNOW which world this is getting written for: Golarion. In a home world, anything is up for grabs so it's not really an issue if they are core or not for homebrew as the individual is setting the expectations.
So while what you said is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the topic at hand: we aren't talking about removing goblin PC's from the game but not having them as core.
i honestly would rather have kobolds or orcs as a core race.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i honestly would rather have kobolds or orcs as a core race.Goblins really have their flavor decided by the individual writing the world. in Traditional Golarion, Goblins might be evil, but different worlds have different goblins for Example Azerothian Goblins are a Race of Highly Proficient Engineers and Architects motivated by their own greed.Yeah, that's true but we KNOW which world this is getting written for: Golarion. In a home world, anything is up for grabs so it's not really an issue if they are core or not for homebrew as the individual is setting the expectations.
So while what you said is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the topic at hand: we aren't talking about removing goblin PC's from the game but not having them as core.
Myself, I'd rather NONE of those options where core. There are plenty of PC friendly options around to fill in. If you want edgy, add the tiefling. Catfolk are exotic. Kitsune fill an 'eastern' niche. 'Monster' races though? Not core at least.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem being, of course, that Goblins are intelligent, malicious cockroaches. To put it one way.
I can most certainly have my cake and eat it too, thank you. That's the whole point of a cake, no?
The point of the idiom is that, once you've eaten your cake, the cake is gone. You cannot simultaneously eat the cake and retain the cake for later eating.
Once you open the door to considering goblins rational creatures, you have to actually treat them like rational creatures, and that means Kill on Sight and goblin genocide become problematic. You have eaten your cake, there is no more cake.
Goblins, as presented in Golarion, are essentially 99%+ evil. If you run into one, there's probably more around (I mean, the Bestiary itself says the smallest unit you find of goblins is a gang), and they'll shank you for giggles. Or to eat you. The slim chance that it won't is not enough to not kill it, in the eyes of a Golarionite (is that how you call someone from Golarion?).
As for genocide? I mean, it doesn't matter what you think of it, or what I think of it, Avistani people sure as hell try to genocide Goblins, going by the Inner Sea Race Guide. It just doesn't stick.
And I'm saying that the Avistani who try to wipe out goblins do so because they don't think of goblins as rational creatures capable of moral choice. They think of them, as you suggest, as destructive and dangerous pests.
Given that, it makes sense to use examples of how pest creatures in the real world are treated as a basis for understanding how those Avistani communities might treat goblins.
Kill on Sight is not problematic because Golarion is a fantasy setting with Evil races. Just because an Angel fell doesn't mean you should attack all Angels on sight. Just because a Demon was redeemed doesn't mean you won't attack them on sight....
The cake thing was a joke, although it is interesting to know the idiom was originally in reverse. That probably works better, but doesn't sound quite as good.
As for the other points:
Golarion lore makes no difference when it comes to intelligence when it comes to goblins and being considered pests. People know they're intelligent, and still try to exterminate them. And these are not called out as Evil people.
I mean, the most clear example: Daviren Hosk in Sandpoint. This is a man whose hatred of goblins is called out as legendary. He has:
- A stable, whose sign is a horse trampling a goblin.
- A collection of Goblin ears on display, all of them preserved.
- All of these ears are also tagged with the name of the Goblin they belonged to, because he knows writing down a Goblin's name is the best way to desecrate their spirit.
- Has, also on display, the pickled body of an old Goblin Warchief he personally killed.
- It's also mentioned he's the one that exterminated most of that Warchief's tribe.
- Is written as willing to offer PCs 5 GP per pair of gobline ars, to get them to go out and kill as many goblins as they can.
This man is also True Neutral. And he's intimately knowlegeable about Goblins. He knows they're intelligent. He's still willing to exterminate them (and pay people to do it for him). But he's Neutral.
So if a person can be like that and still not be considered Evil, what does it say about Golarion as a setting when it comes to Goblins? And this is without getting into the whole Torag Paladin Code thing.
If anything, a person that knows that goblins are rational creatures, when presented with all the evidence of what 99% of Goblins do, would think them worse than Demons (assuming they know what a Demon is). A Demon is compelled by it's own nature. A goblin is not, but does all those things anyway.
As for the Goblin servants, I asked merely for clarification and so I could track down the source. If someone tells me "servant" I assume they're a hired servant, which has a lot of different implications about the servant than if they're a slave servant.
Well obviously the canon is not going to be the same as in pf1,especially after how much conversation there has been over the subject.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
a Point that I think some people have difficulties to accept is that even if they did not have any issues with Goblins PCs, it is probably because these players did not played canon Goblins, but exceptions. And because it was a member of the group, a lots of players and DMs choose to look the other side sometimes, accepting things they would not have accepted for a more basic race.
On the other hand the Goblins players played probably « less Goblin » that the Goblins in the canon. And that is ok. This is a team game.
But it is supposed to be rare. Goblins in canon are evil, and evil in a disruptive and crazy way. They have a spot in the game, just not as a core race.
Because the Core book is supposed to be all game friendly. Yes as a DM you can do whatever you want, but I firmly believe that having to ban something from the core book is harsh, for roleplay or mechanical reasons. The fact that we are having this conversations shows that them being core is a bad idea. I never heard people complains as much about a new option in a core book. I like new options and diversity, and yet I don’t want them in the most basic book in the game. I don’t want the basic assumptions that Goblins adventurers are as common as Dwarf Fighter or Human Wizard. It makes no sense in Golarion and in a lot of other published settings to be honest.
Even more when they introduced them as the iconic enemy. They are the first monster we killed in Pathfinder for a lots of us.
To be honest they are exactly like the Drow in 3E Forgotten Realms. Because they are funny, or iconic, or they sell well, they are added to the game. But from a lore standpoint, so far, it is utterly nonsense. They don’t belong in the Core book, where you meet the “most common kind of adventurers in a generally speaking good party”.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once you open the door to considering goblins rational creatures, you have to actually treat them like rational creatures, and that means Kill on Sight and goblin genocide become problematic. You have eaten your cake, there is no more cake.Not really... When they have always, as far back as ANYONE recalls [and that can be hundreds of years depending on race], are KNOWN for a fact goblins are bad and every few years come to raid you and do all sorts of despicable things, is their being capable of thought really important in determining if you chop a random goblin in half? Not to me.
Lets even say people know that there are super rare exceptions once in a while... I really don't see anyone taking a chance with their life on that off chance. Is the 1% chance they aren't a bad one worth a shiv in the gut or some unseen goblins sneaking into your town?
"Wow, there is some Viking ships coming this way... Should we prepare for a raid or should we all get ready to set out tea because , you know, they are rational thinking creatures and deserve our trust... I know the 99 times before they attacked us but maybe THIS time it's different." :P
But like The PuppyTurtle, you’re arbitrarily limiting your options to “kill” or “do nothing”.
Those aren’t your only options. There are ways to protect yourself and your community without killing every goblin you see on sight, no questions asked.
To know that some goblins are innocent, and yet still kill them indiscriminately, without even making a token effort to avoid killing the innocent ones...that’s not good.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really... When they have always, as far back as ANYONE recalls [and that can be hundreds of years depending on race], are KNOWN for a fact goblins are bad and every few years come to raid you and do all sorts of despicable things, is their being capable of thought really important in determining if you chop a random goblin in half? Not to me.
They don't do despicable things (well, beyond stealing and killing dogs) on most raids. They raid for food, not to get into more fights than necessary or actively commit atrocities. Not that they don't enjoy murder and atrocities, but those tend to be riskier to do, and they're cowards.
Really, most goblin cruelty and evil is directed inward at other goblins. They're usually not brave or competent enough to inflict it on other groups.
Lets even say people know that there are super rare exceptions once in a while... I really don't see anyone taking a chance with their life on that off chance. Is the 1% chance they aren't a bad one worth a shiv in the gut or some unseen goblins sneaking into your town?
It's really not a chance on your life most times. Most goblins are individually pathetic. The odds of a single goblin killing you are pretty low. Even if you're unarmed, you can probably survive long enough for the guards to get there.
"Wow, there is some Viking ships coming this way... Should we prepare for a raid or should we all get ready to set out tea because , you know, they are rational thinking creatures and deserve our trust... I know the 99 times before they attacked us but maybe THIS time it's different." :P
Nobody is suggesting that people respond to goblin raiding parties with offers of trust and friendship. But a raiding party and three goblins coming up with a white flag are different things. And being distrustful and prepared for battle and slaughtering someone on sight are very different things.
Also, this analogy is actually pretty much exactly the opposite of the one you want to use. Vikings were traders at least as often as they raided, and being open to trading with them was a common and reasonable response for the most part. Which doesn't mean people didn't prepare for them to be violent, just that they were also probably usually prepared for peace, too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really... When they have always, as far back as ANYONE recalls [and that can be hundreds of years depending on race], are KNOWN for a fact goblins are bad and every few years come to raid you and do all sorts of despicable things, is their being capable of thought really important in determining if you chop a random goblin in half? Not to me.They don't do despicable things (well, beyond stealing and killing dogs) on most raids. They raid for food, not to get into more fights than necessary or actively commit atrocities. Not that they don't enjoy murder and atrocities, but those tend to be riskier to do, and they're cowards.
They consider everything to be food, though, up to and including: halflings, gnomes, children/babies of any race, non-dog pets, cattle.
When it comes to goblins, "raiding for food" and "commit atrocity" have a high chance of being the same thing.
Also, even when they're raiding for foor they still burn down what they can (or try to) and destroy anything they can't carry. Which can also very easily turn into an atrocity.
|
|
They consider everything to be food, though, up to and including: halflings, gnomes, children/babies of any race, non-dog pets, cattle.
When it comes to goblins, "raiding for food" and "commit atrocity" have a high chance of being the same thing.
Sure...but those are the risky to get food and they are, as repeatedly stated, cowards. I'm not saying they won't eat somebody they kill, but the goal is to get food, and if they have a choice between fighting someone larger than them (ie: just about everyone) or even just something likely to make noise and draw attention (ie: children and pets) and simply taking non-animate food, they're gonna go for the food that doesn't fight back or draw attention. Because they're hungry and the goal here is food.
Also, even when they're raiding for foor they still burn down what they can (or try to) and destroy anything they can't carry. Which can also very easily turn into an atrocity.
Sure. Setting fires is somewhat (if only somewhat) less of an issue in a setting where any first level Cleric can pour unlimited water on the fire, though. And they generally only do this if it doesn't result in a fight or the like.
Now, I'm not saying there are never any atrocities. There are. I'm saying that, specifically and canonically, they are relatively rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think something that might help a debate on goblins is an answer to the question: Exactly how "Kill on sight" is Golarion, on average, towards its weirdo races.
I, and many in favour of Goblins seem to lean towards guards and things being suspicious by default towards goblins, not hostile. It seems many who are anti-goblin lean towards the default reaction of town guards to be killing goblins the instant they lay eyes on them.
I imagine that the actual answer is "It varies from place to place", but it would be helpful to see some response from Paizo about just how murder-happy the average town/guards are. Are the anti-goblin people correct in assuming that a goblin, even a heroic one can't function in society because everyone would just kill them? If so, what's Paizo's explanation going to be about why PF2 goblins fare better? Or, are the "Kill on sight" folks running Golarion as edgier than it really is, and resorting to a violent response that most guards and whatnot wouldn't resort to for a goblin that wasn't being violent at the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think something that might help a debate on goblins is an answer to the question: Exactly how "Kill on sight" is Golarion, on average, towards its weirdo races.
I, and many in favour of Goblins seem to lean towards guards and things being suspicious by default towards goblins, not hostile. It seems many who are anti-goblin lean towards the default reaction of town guards to be killing goblins the instant they lay eyes on them.
I imagine that the actual answer is "It varies from place to place", but it would be helpful to see some response from Paizo about just how murder-happy the average town/guards are. Are the anti-goblin people correct in assuming that a goblin, even a heroic one can't function in society because everyone would just kill them? If so, what's Paizo's explanation going to be about why PF2 goblins fare better? Or, are the "Kill on sight" folks running Golarion as edgier than it really is, and resorting to a violent response that most guards and whatnot wouldn't resort to for a goblin that wasn't being violent at the time.
This is where it gets tricky, to be sure.
I'd assume anywhere within Isger it's a full on kill on sight clause, given the recent goblinblood wars and subsequent development of the local goblin tribes. It'd also apply to Hobgoblins and Bugbears too.
Kaer Maga, Whitethrone and Thornkeep have Goblin populations living amongst other people (In order: 50 goblins in Kaer Maga, 996 in Whitethrone, 19 in Thornkeep).
Those in Whitethrone (a NE city where monsters are a big part of the population) are full citizens. They still live in the slums (The Warrens) and people generally don't go there (because most don't come back out if they do)
Those in Kaer Maga (a CN City full of weirdos) are tolerated, if not liked. They too live in the slums, and people give them a wide berth, because even though they aren't as aggressive as their normal cousins, they're still goblins.
Thornkeep, in particular, is excellent to demonstrate how goblins are viewed. Keep in mind this is a CN Settlement described as lawless, with mostly self-serving and amoral inhabitants.
Goblins are notorious for being dog-hating, baby-eating, fire-mongering monsters that have little to do with the creature comforts of a civilized humanoid society (unless said society has a nearby junkyard good for looting). Still, many of their kind inhabit Thornkeep, and the people of this town tend to, at the very least, tolerate their presence. The reasons for this strange relationship are several, but below are some of the most commonly cited rationales for the goblins’ permitted existence.
There Aren’t Very Many of Them: A single goblin is more
or less a funny-looking pest, and while it might try to gut your
horse on occasion, it can easily be taken care of if need be.
Because the entire Brambleclaw tribe can fit in a closet and
they generally restrict themselves to the briars on the south
side of town, the people of Thornkeep rarely feel threatened
by the creatures, and even if they did, they have a lot more
firepower than the little monsters.
They’re Useful: Goblins are notoriously good at crafting
crude items out of seemingly unsalvageable junk. Since they’re
already predisposed to picking up scraps, most of Thornkeep’s
residents see no harm in letting the little brats sweep up after
them. Even better, goblins’ ravenous hungers can be sated by
the foulest food sources, and because of this, Thornkeep has
been virtually rat-free for several years.
They’re in Good Company: Even in a settlement of humans,
it’s possible for goblins to garner a few trustworthy allies, and
Great Chief Graalsk is a remarkably good schmoozer when it
comes to fawning the greater powers of Thornkeep. While the
Brambleclaw tribe’s “friends” probably wouldn’t call the goblins
the same, they probably would notice if they were gone, since
the buggers do provide a semi-reliable means of cheap labor
and buffoonish entertainment.
All this being said, goblins are still wicked-evil shorties who believe that they’re great yodelers and that writing steals the words from your head. Given good reason and the opportunity, most of Thornkeep’s normal folk wouldn’t think twice before sticking a sword through each and every goblin in the Briarwarren. As GM, feel free to have these monsters play as big or as little a part in your game as you desire.
After these, there's the Mediogalti Goblin City of Ganda-Uj. AFAIK, no City Stat Block, but travellers going near it do so well armed and in numbers because the goblins like to attack people to drag them back to their city, from which they never return.
Other than that, there's no mention of goblins living in any numbers in other big settlements.
I also already posted about Daviren Hosk and his views, and how Golarion says he's True Neutral.
All in all, not a pretty picture for the little green menaces. Except in Whitethrone.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They don't do despicable things (well, beyond stealing and killing dogs) on most raids. They raid for food.
Yep and people are food... Especially those sweet, sweet gnomes and humans... I count eating my neighbor Joe despicable.
It's really not a chance on your life most times. Most goblins are individually pathetic. The odds of a single goblin killing you are pretty low. Even if you're unarmed, you can probably survive long enough for the guards to get there.
Well if we're talking odds there is rarely if ever a single goblin: the bestiary lets us know the lowest groupings normally found is a gang of 7-9. So it's really a false assumption that it's a 1 on 1 fight: even if you see only one, there should be at least 6-8 more around so you HAVE to assume it's 1 on 7-9 fight and even a well armed low level human is in mortal danger then.
Nobody is suggesting that people respond to goblin raiding parties with offers of trust and friendship. But a raiding party and three goblins coming up with a white flag are different things. And being distrustful and prepared for battle and slaughtering someone on sight are very different things.
I don't know that anyone was suggesting that the goblins were "coming up with a white flag" either. I see no reason you couldn't engineer a peaceful encounter but that not what people are debating: the debate if if a goblin shows up in front of you with NO set up, what do you do. For the majority of the game world, that reaction is to cleave it in 2.
Also, this analogy is actually pretty much exactly the opposite of the one you want to use.
No, it was exactly on point. If you have a HISTORY of the exact same group attacking on a regular basis, it seems super odd NOT to expect them to attack you the next time you see them. Would you feel better is I used viking raiding ships as opposed to viking trading ships?
Sure...but those are the risky to get food and they are, as repeatedly stated, cowards.
And? Are you willing to risk them being brave enough to kill your child or your dog or your livestock if you make an exception?
I'm not saying they won't eat somebody they kill, but the goal is to get food
They are known to "feed on refuse and the weaker members of more civilized races"... Then they celebrate the capturing or killing of gnomes with a feast... And somehow you think they are going to avoid getting some "flesh of humans and gnomes a rare and difficult-to-obtain delicacy" is they get the chance?
Now, I'm not saying there are never any atrocities. There are. I'm saying that, specifically and canonically, they are relatively rare.
I'd disagree. The canon is that they regularly raid and going by everything about the goblin, it seems disingenuous to say they are going to politely raid someone and commit NO atrocities. At the VERY least do you think they aren't going to do despicable things to your dog of the stable even if they leave the people alone?
PS: TheFinish says it well. Even in Thornkeep where they are tolerated, as individuals, "normal folk wouldn’t think twice before sticking a sword through each and every goblin".
Golarion lore makes no difference when it comes to intelligence when it comes to goblins and being considered pests. People know they're intelligent, and still try to exterminate them. And these are not called out as Evil people.
I mean, the most clear example: Daviren Hosk in Sandpoint. This is a man whose hatred of goblins is called out as legendary. He has:
- A stable, whose sign is a horse trampling a goblin.
- A collection of Goblin ears on display, all of them preserved.
- All of these ears are also tagged with the name of the Goblin they belonged to, because he knows writing down a Goblin's name is the best way to desecrate their spirit.
- Has, also on display, the pickled body of an old Goblin Warchief he personally killed.
- It's also mentioned he's the one that exterminated most of that Warchief's tribe.
- Is written as willing to offer PCs 5 GP per pair of gobline ars, to get them to go out and kill as many goblins as they can.This man is also True Neutral. And he's intimately knowlegeable about Goblins. He knows they're intelligent. He's still willing to exterminate them (and pay people to do it for him). But he's Neutral.
I brought up Hosk earlier. I think there are two problems with using him as an example.
1) He's an anomaly. Yes, he is permitted to have his various grisly goblin displays, but he's presented as bitter old man at best, and most people GMs and players interpret him as kind of a creepy weirdo to boot. He's tolerated, but the other residents of Sandpoint don't go out of their way to kill goblins on sight. As evidenced by by the Goblin Watcher trait from RotRL Anniversary Edition:
2) I think it is worth acknowledging that RotRL has some problematic people qualify as Neutral. Let's consider the CN Orik Vancaskerkin.
--Helped plan the attack on Sandpoint.
--Considers murdering a coworker just because Orik's crush likes them more; only stops because he fears what their boss would do to him.
Or let's look at book 2:
Before meeting the PCs where he still registers as CN, he has murdered his wife and an innocent man out of paranoia and misplaced jealousy. He has then hired a shady secret society to help cover up his murders.
He's also still CN after becoming a ghast and ritualistically murdering a bunch of people. This is probably an oversight-- but if it is, it certainly calls into question how closely the creative team were looking at alignment tags. And Aldern is a main character of book 2. Hosk is just some random throw away NPC. If it isn't an oversight... Well, Neutral doesn't mean much.
I can point to a similar example in book 3, and probably in all the other books if I look hard enough, but I think I've made my point. Paizo had some pretty interesting opinions on what constitutes neutral behavior in this AP. So I'm not super persuaded that Hosk's alignment rating makes him a worthwhile metric of morality.
Basically, while I think that murdering goblins on sight is unlikely to get you in trouble with the law, I don't think it follows that it is morally permissible or that most people in Golarion think it is a good idea to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, while I think that murdering goblins on sight is unlikely to get you in trouble with the law, I don't think it follows that it is morally permissible or that most people in Golarion think it is a good idea to do.
Unlikely? It'll probably get you a pat on the back in most cities, in jail in Whitethrone, a warning in Thornkeep, a shrug in Kaer Maga, and a beer anywhere within Isger (or nothing, since everyone does it all the time. They'd run out of beer pretty soon).
As for whether it's a good idea? I mean, it is yeah. Unless your settlement has a history of good relations with goblins, a goblin is trouble 99 times out of 100. Better kill it and be done with it than worry about it running around, possibly killing infants/dogs/cattle and/or setting things on fire.
Now, I'm not saying there are never any atrocities. There are. I'm saying that, specifically and canonically, they are relatively rare.I'd disagree. The canon is that they regularly raid and going by everything about the goblin, it seems disingenuous to say they are going to politely raid someone and commit NO atrocities. At the VERY least do you think they aren't going to do despicable things to your dog of the stable even if they leave the people alone?
As for this idea that raids are canonically rare, no idea where people get that. Goblins are widely known as dog-hating, baby-stealing, horse-killing, pyromaniacs. That doesn't become vox populi unless there's repeated encounters with them where they exhibit those traits. Claiming the raids are rare is really weird.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for this idea that raids are canonically rare, no idea where people get that. Goblins are widely known as dog-hating, baby-stealing, horse-killing, pyromaniacs. That doesn't become vox populi unless there's repeated encounters with them where they exhibit those traits. Claiming the raids are rare is really weird.Now, I'm not saying there are never any atrocities. There are. I'm saying that, specifically and canonically, they are relatively rare.I'd disagree. The canon is that they regularly raid and going by everything about the goblin, it seems disingenuous to say they are going to politely raid someone and commit NO atrocities. At the VERY least do you think they aren't going to do despicable things to your dog of the stable even if they leave the people alone?
To clarify:
I never said raids are rare. Raids are common. Raids that include atrocities are rare. Most 'goblin raids' come into town and try to steal some food, and are chased off as soon as a single guard or a barking dog or three show up. They may get away with a little something or set a fire, but they're more of an annoyance than a threat.
Raids where they murder children and take their bodies home for dinner are super rare. That requires a raid that the goblins won, and probably a large one at that. Those are super rare.
I can cite various canonical sources for this basic concept if people really want.