Well, Demons. If you think some creatures ARE pre-set with a behavure, then it's not hypocritical: it's a disagreement on which creatures fall under which categories.
The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset. I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very heavily on the side of not murdering on sight here: Yes.
Just to be clear, murder is a legal issue. Now killing of sight is a moral issue. ;)
Torag
You seem to have an issue with the lore and the game as general then. Descriptions of dwarves repeatedly talkes about hatred of goblins, at war with goblins, special training againbst them... NOT against 'only bad ones'... Lots of people have an issue with the code, it is illustrates that modern sensibilities don't match with pathfinder morals, alignment and point of view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Not everybody plays on Golarion, so your cries of 'against the lore' are meaningless.
2. It just means PF needs to get with the times ... and amply demonstrates, yet again, why alignment is frelling stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you are worried about goblins being disruptive let me point you to the most disruptive pathfinder class i played alongside of. the Paladin. more often than not, the Paladins i most often encountered played Lawful Stupid to the Hilt and were often hard core smite on sight. i'd argue they were more evil than even the demons they were slaying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, being in the corebook does imply that those races are more commonly encountered. Sure, there are probably numerically more goblins than tieflings, but most goblins live in junkyards, forests, and caves, only leaving to go on brutal and horrifying raids. Encountering one peacefully is a very rare event. Something that being included in the core rules would contradict.Half-orcs and half-elves are rare, they are most certainly not more numerous than goblins. The average Golarion will encounter more goblins than they will a half-orc. In fact, with how numerous goblins are, the odds of there being oddballs that don’t comply to standard goblin tropes. So it certainly doesn’t mean the race is more numerous on the world. And depending on what region the campaign takes place in, dwarves or elves or gnomes might also be an extreme minority. And if Paizo decides that core does not mean “most commonly encountered” for 2E, what leg does your argument have to stand on then?
If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean? If it means 'most commonly selected by players' we should remove most of the core races and replace them with tiefling, ratfolk, kobold, and orc. But nobody is saying we should do that, and Paizo certainly isn't going to do it even if people want them to. So then it stands to reason that being in the core rules does mean these races are the most commonly encountered. And as far as the average Golarion resident encountering more goblins than half-orcs or half-elves is concerned, that just doesn't make sense. Half-elves and half-orcs live in towns. There may be only a few of either in a given village, but the residents would see them daily since most people in fantasy worlds spend their lives in the same town or city where they were born and don't roam about the wilderness, swamps, dark caves, and junkyards. Which are the places where goblins live. So no, the average Golarion resident wouldn't encounter more goblins than other core races.
And as for there being oddball goblins who don't conform to their culture, sure I'm sure there are a ton of them considering the alarming amount of goblins in existence. However, most of the oddballs probably end up dead at the hands of their own tribe. A kind, trusting, thoughtful goblin would be the first one to get pickled and eaten when the tribe hit hard times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean?
It means 'published in a particular book.' If you insist it's any more significant thaan that, maybe, 'considered iconic enough to be a major part of initial marketing and branding.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset.
It requires not using existing lore. That's fine but if you do, then we aren't arguing the same thing anymore as we've diverged worlds.
I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if they exist unless the person in question knows that: it's NOT common knowledge. So when npc #615 sees a demon, he has NO reason to imagine the possibility. It's not hacking down something you KNOW might be ok, but taking down something that everything you've ever known tells you is bad.
So if you make a world where it's common knowledge every farmer, child, peasant and guard of every race all over your world knows, I could see your point of view. If however you have a world where everyone isn't an expert on race and how it relates to morals and free will, you don't expect them to use OOC modern theories on nature vs nurture when presented with a potentially dangerous creature.
1. Not everybody plays on Golarion, so your cries of 'against the lore' are meaningless.
Then you're debating the wrong person as I have NO opinion on non-Golarion goblins. I'm 100% talking about the new goblins in the new pathfinder that's going to have the golarion baked in. If you're talking another setting, you might as well be talking about Orion's and Tribbles.
2. It just means PF needs to get with the times ... and amply demonstrates, yet again, why alignment is frelling stupid.
On one hand, I disagree on "get with the times". I feel it should be viewed through the perceptions of the people that live in the setting and NOT on how we see our world. It seem OCC/meta to bring in outside morals to overwrite the ones that make sense in setting.
On the other hand, I too find alignment "frelling stupid". The thing is, my arguments have nothing to do with alignment but known actions and MANY generations of known behaviour. So in a non-alignment Golarion, I'd smack down the nearest goblin without a moral qualm.
if you are worried about goblins being disruptive let me point you to the most disruptive pathfinder class i played alongside of. the Paladin. more often than not, the Paladins i most often encountered played Lawful Stupid to the Hilt and were often hard core smite on sight. i'd argue they were more evil than even the demons they were slaying.
Then wouldn't a goblin paladin be twice as disruptive? :P
If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean?
When did it ever mean that? I've been in games where humans didn't even exist. This is 100% campaign setting dependent, and was never stated, or even implied, to be any kind of rule.
In my game world, you're more likely to encounter a goblin than a half-elf, because half-elves don't exist.
Golarion is not the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place, so saying 'because Golarion' is a nonsense argument.
if you are worried about goblins being disruptive let me point you to the most disruptive pathfinder class i played alongside of. the Paladin. more often than not, the Paladins i most often encountered played Lawful Stupid to the Hilt and were often hard core smite on sight. i'd argue they were more evil than even the demons they were slaying.
Then wouldn't a goblin paladin be twice as disruptive? :P
a Goblin Paladin wouldn't be any more disruptive than a paladin of any other race. the same kind of player that would play a Disruptive Goblin or Kobold can get the same Disruptive Kick out of a Halfling, Dwarf, or Gnome
most characters tend to be more defined by their class than they are by their race. the same person playing a disruptive orc or lizardfolk could just play a disruptive Norse flavored human or dwarf and get the same disruption factored.
i even once homebrewed a half nyxad that was a conversion of a 2e boss monster called the Nyxad that was a type of Nymph Associated with the night. it was underpowered as heck compared to a dwarf despite being built on a similar but slightly higher race point total due to the cost of fast healing 1. a dwarf or half elf had it beat and kyrt can bring up his memory of the race which was designed around learning social skills and languages extremely easily. i explained it as a Nymph Dhampir as the closest thing at the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion is not the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place, so saying 'because Golarion' is a nonsense argument.
it might not be the "the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place" but it's the one that's going to be used when talking about something from pathfinder as it's the only common setting everyone knows. So it's not really productive to rail against Golarion because we don't have any other basis to work with since we don't know how any individual setting works we don't have access to. I can't debate an unknown like how goblins work in your world, only the was they work in a world we both know, Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a Goblin Paladin wouldn't be any more disruptive than a paladin of any other race.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. :P
Golarion is not the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place, so saying 'because Golarion' is a nonsense argument.it might not be the "the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place" but it's the one that's going to be used when talking about something from pathfinder as it's the only common setting everyone knows. So it's not really productive to rail against Golarion because we don't have any other basis to work with since we don't know how any individual setting works we don't have access to. I can't debate an unknown like how goblins work in your world, only the was they work in a world we both know, Golarion.
there are third party and even first party settings published for the Pathfinder Ruleset that are not Golarion. Broken Earth by Sneak Attack Press and Star Finder by Paizo Publishing are two of them, plus there are a ton of Pathfinder Compatible adventures that don't reference Golarion. you can literally run 5 years worth of unique choice pathfinder adventurers without having to Homebrew or Modify a Golarion Adventure.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean?It means 'published in a particular book.' If you insist it's any more significant thaan that, maybe, 'considered iconic enough to be a major part of initial marketing and branding.'
Well, no, according to the developers themselves it means:
"This book divides races into three types: common, uncommon, and rare. Common races (sometimes also called “core” or “primary” races) are those populous enough to be familiar faces in most major cities around the Inner Sea. Races that aren’t quite as common, but that ordinary folk still generally know about, are referred to here as uncommon races. Those that are hardly ever seen in the Inner Sea region are called rare races."
And then:
Common Races:
"Yet whether they be inclusive or standoffish, certain societies always rise to dominance, and such is the case in the Inner Sea region, where humanity is the most populous of all intelligent races, with dwarves, elves, gnomes, half lings, half-elves, and half-orcs being almost as widespread and familiar. So why have these seven races risen to prominence while the others haven’t?
The simple answer is often numbers, as these seven races are far and away the most numerous in the Inner Sea region. Yet often there are other factors at play—boons or faults that eclipse mere birth rate—that allow some cultures to rise while others fall. Each of the so-called “common races” of the Inner Sea region has its own unique strategies or aspects of its personality that has led it to greatness."
Uncommon Races:
"While one can expect to encounter members of the common races presented in this book’s first chapter in almost any settlement or nation in the Inner Sea region, the same cannot be said of the region’s uncommon races. More widespread than the rare races detailed in this book’s third chapter, members of these seven uncommon races may well have entire nations of their own, yet one should not expect to bump into an aasimar, kobold, or orc in just any city. Most common folk live their entire lives without meeting a member of some of the races detailed in this chapter.
This is not to say that they are few in number, though. Orcs, for example, control an entire region in the heart of Avistan—the orcs hordes have ruled the Hold of Belkzen for millennia, and there is no sign that their crushing grip will relent anytime soon. Goblin tribes exist throughout the Inner Sea region, primarily along its coastlines, and as soon as one clan of these violent little maniacs is put down, it seems that two more spring up in its place. The drow rule an empire in the Darklands realm of Sekamina whose scope and reach, were it a surface nation, would stretch to the ends of Avistan itself.
Yet despite their fecundity, the strength of their armies, or the power their individual members wield, these races remain uncommon among most settlements in the Inner Sea region. What holds them back from asserting a more dominant role? Why have they not achieved the same inf luence and spread as the common races? The answers are complex, and different for each of the seven races discussed here."
Rare racec:
"The societies and cultures of the truly rare and obscure inhabitants of the Inner Sea region often appear alien compared to the human norm. These creatures are hardly ever glimpsed by most of the residents of this area, many of whom are unaware that they even exist"
That's what the developers have to say about Inner races, according to....well, Inner Sea Races. And while you can say "My Game isn't Golarion", that's fine, but the developers have said the new edition will be more heavily influenced by Golarion. And within the setting, the Inner Sea is the most important region bar none.
Note that the developers also consider the distinction important enough that Tian-Xia has entirely different Core races than the Inner Sea. They are: Human, Kitsune, Samsaran, Nagaji, Tengu and Wayang.
And also, they're putting the Golarion Goblin in core, not just a generic Goblin, if we go by the Ancestry Feats presented. So it's good to look at it that way (IE through the lenses of Golarion)
The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset.It requires not using existing lore. That's fine but if you do, then we aren't arguing the same thing anymore as we've diverged worlds.
I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.The thing is, it doesn't matter if they exist unless the person in question knows that: it's NOT common knowledge. So when npc #615 sees a demon, he has NO reason to imagine the possibility. It's not hacking down something you KNOW might be ok, but taking down something that everything you've ever known tells you is bad.
So if you make a world where it's common knowledge every farmer, child, peasant and guard of every race all over your world knows, I could see your point of view. If however you have a world where everyone isn't an expert on race and how it relates to morals and free will, you don't expect them to use OOC modern theories on nature vs nurture when presented with a potentially dangerous creature.
One of the Demigods of the setting is a Risen Devil, as it happens--and not just any devil, he's literally the Son of one of the Lords of the Nine Hells. Ragathiel isn't a core deity, but he's *far* from obscure in setting. And if the events of Wrath of the Righteous become canon, the stories of the redeemed succubus who helped *close the Worldwound* are going to be everywhere.
Paizo has been *very* clear that innate alignments are not, in fact, part of Pathfinder. I'd say you're the one disregarding the lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there are third party and even first party settings published for the Pathfinder Ruleset that are not Golarion. Broken Earth by Sneak Attack Press and Star Finder by Paizo Publishing are two of them, plus there are a ton of Pathfinder Compatible adventures that don't reference Golarion. you can literally run 5 years worth of unique choice pathfinder adventurers without having to Homebrew or Modify a Golarion Adventure.Golarion is not the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place, so saying 'because Golarion' is a nonsense argument.it might not be the "the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place" but it's the one that's going to be used when talking about something from pathfinder as it's the only common setting everyone knows. So it's not really productive to rail against Golarion because we don't have any other basis to work with since we don't know how any individual setting works we don't have access to. I can't debate an unknown like how goblins work in your world, only the was they work in a world we both know, Golarion.
Yes... And? When someone is debating something like a goblin, we need to have a common basis for doing so. If you don't SAY you're talking about a Broken Earth one how do I know and even if I didn't, how do I meaningfully contribute when i know nothing of them.
Look, I'm not saying ANYTHING against other settings. I'm saying that when people are talking in the general, it's going to be on the base setting we all have access to.
The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset.It requires not using existing lore. That's fine but if you do, then we aren't arguing the same thing anymore as we've diverged worlds.
I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.The thing is, it doesn't matter if they exist unless the person in question knows that: it's NOT common knowledge. So when npc #615 sees a demon, he has NO reason to imagine the possibility. It's not hacking down something you KNOW might be ok, but taking down something that everything you've ever known tells you is bad.
So if you make a world where it's common knowledge every farmer, child, peasant and guard of every race all over your world knows, I could see your point of view. If however you have a world where everyone isn't an expert on race and how it relates to morals and free will, you don't expect them to use OOC modern theories on nature vs nurture when presented with a potentially dangerous creature.
One of the Demigods of the setting is a Risen Devil, as it happens--and not just any devil, he's literally the Son of one of the Lords of the Nine Hells. Ragathiel isn't a core deity, but he's *far* from obscure in setting. And if the events of Wrath of the Righteous become canon, the stories of the redeemed succubus who helped *close the Worldwound* are going to be everywhere.
Paizo has been *very* clear that innate alignments are not, in fact, part of Pathfinder. I'd say you're the one disregarding the lore.
We'll see how *very* clear they are when Paladin gets their info out.
Then we'll be right back here to discuss it.
there are third party and even first party settings published for the Pathfinder Ruleset that are not Golarion. Broken Earth by Sneak Attack Press and Star Finder by Paizo Publishing are two of them, plus there are a ton of Pathfinder Compatible adventures that don't reference Golarion. you can literally run 5 years worth of unique choice pathfinder adventurers without having to Homebrew or Modify a Golarion Adventure.Golarion is not the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place, so saying 'because Golarion' is a nonsense argument.it might not be the "the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place" but it's the one that's going to be used when talking about something from pathfinder as it's the only common setting everyone knows. So it's not really productive to rail against Golarion because we don't have any other basis to work with since we don't know how any individual setting works we don't have access to. I can't debate an unknown like how goblins work in your world, only the was they work in a world we both know, Golarion.Yes... And? When someone is debating something like a goblin, we need to have a common basis for doing so. If you don't SAY you're talking about a Broken Earth one how do I know and even if I didn't, how do I meaningfully contribute when i know nothing of them.
Look, I'm not saying ANYTHING against other settings. I'm saying that when people are talking in the general, it's going to be on the base setting we all have access to.
Broken Earth's Core Races are humans, which have 4 cultural variants with different game mechanics, Synths which are sentient biological androids, Simians which are sentient talking gorillas and Freaks which are basically fallout ghouls and mutants which are anybody who took a beneficial mutation as a feat or took a negative mutation to gain a bonus feat.
if you count the 4 variants of human as separate races and lump human mutants as a separate category for each of the 4 humans, there are literally 11 mechanically distinct races.
different settings have different core races.
if you look at Azeroth as an Example, Goblins and Kobolds in Azeroth are considered extremely greedy races of highly advanced engineers and architects that literally dominate the market with their advanced tech and are the primary producers of piloted combat robots, explosives, firearms, and such things as televisions, cars, or microwave ovens. they literally put the advancements of the gnomes to shame. another Azeroth thing is paladins draw their power from the Naaru, and just because an individual Naaru is a being of holy radiance doesn't mean they are good or righteous. in fact, the goblin cartels are so greedy they sell to both factions to keep the war between the alliance and horde going on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ilina Aniri: I think you missed my point. I'm debating Golarion by default unless I and the person involved agree to something else. Not that the Broken Earth info isn't nifty.
The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset.It requires not using existing lore. That's fine but if you do, then we aren't arguing the same thing anymore as we've diverged worlds.
I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.The thing is, it doesn't matter if they exist unless the person in question knows that: it's NOT common knowledge. So when npc #615 sees a demon, he has NO reason to imagine the possibility. It's not hacking down something you KNOW might be ok, but taking down something that everything you've ever known tells you is bad.
So if you make a world where it's common knowledge every farmer, child, peasant and guard of every race all over your world knows, I could see your point of view. If however you have a world where everyone isn't an expert on race and how it relates to morals and free will, you don't expect them to use OOC modern theories on nature vs nurture when presented with a potentially dangerous creature.
One of the Demigods of the setting is a Risen Devil, as it happens--and not just any devil, he's literally the Son of one of the Lords of the Nine Hells. Ragathiel isn't a core deity, but he's *far* from obscure in setting. And if the events of Wrath of the Righteous become canon, the stories of the redeemed succubus who helped *close the Worldwound* are going to be everywhere.
Paizo has been *very* clear that innate alignments are not, in fact, part of Pathfinder. I'd say you're the one disregarding the lore.
We'll see how *very* clear they are when Paladin gets their info out.
Then we'll be right back here to discuss it.
However restrictive or unrestrictive they make Paladin alignments in this edition, Paladin alignment is not innate. In much the same way that Demon alignment isn't really 'innate' in Golarion. Demons exist because of the the evil that mortals committed in life weighing on and mutating their soul in the afterlife. They're not evil because they are demons--they are demons because they are evil. Likewise, a Paladin is not good because they are a Paladin. They are Paladins *because* they are Good and have received blessings because of it.
Graystone. i also Brought up Azeroth which is the popular setting of the Infamous World of Warcraft stuff. i honestly think the core rulebook should be setting neutral and all the setting specific stuff should be in the different setting books that pertain to their respective settings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However...The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset.It requires not using existing lore. That's fine but if you do, then we aren't arguing the same thing anymore as we've diverged worlds.
I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.The thing is, it doesn't matter if they exist unless the person in question knows that: it's NOT common knowledge. So when npc #615 sees a demon, he has NO reason to imagine the possibility. It's not hacking down something you KNOW might be ok, but taking down something that everything you've ever known tells you is bad.
So if you make a world where it's common knowledge every farmer, child, peasant and guard of every race all over your world knows, I could see your point of view. If however you have a world where everyone isn't an expert on race and how it relates to morals and free will, you don't expect them to use OOC modern theories on nature vs nurture when presented with a potentially dangerous creature.
One of the Demigods of the setting is a Risen Devil, as it happens--and not just any devil, he's literally the Son of one of the Lords of the Nine Hells. Ragathiel isn't a core deity, but he's *far* from obscure in setting. And if the events of Wrath of the Righteous become canon, the stories of the redeemed succubus who helped *close the Worldwound* are going to be everywhere.
Paizo has been *very* clear that innate alignments are not, in fact, part of Pathfinder. I'd say you're the one disregarding the lore.
We'll see how *very* clear they are when Paladin gets their info out.
Then we'll be right back here to discuss it.
Demon alignment is entirely innate in Golarion. It is prescriptive as well. Demons, and other outsiders, are made of raw Evil/Good/Law/Chaos. Unlike mortals, it's not "I am Chaotic Evil because I do Chaotic Evil things" it's "I'm Chaotic Evil, therefore I do Chaotic Evil things"
I can find you the developer quote if you want. It also applies to Undead, for some reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However...The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset.It requires not using existing lore. That's fine but if you do, then we aren't arguing the same thing anymore as we've diverged worlds.
I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.The thing is, it doesn't matter if they exist unless the person in question knows that: it's NOT common knowledge. So when npc #615 sees a demon, he has NO reason to imagine the possibility. It's not hacking down something you KNOW might be ok, but taking down something that everything you've ever known tells you is bad.
So if you make a world where it's common knowledge every farmer, child, peasant and guard of every race all over your world knows, I could see your point of view. If however you have a world where everyone isn't an expert on race and how it relates to morals and free will, you don't expect them to use OOC modern theories on nature vs nurture when presented with a potentially dangerous creature.
One of the Demigods of the setting is a Risen Devil, as it happens--and not just any devil, he's literally the Son of one of the Lords of the Nine Hells. Ragathiel isn't a core deity, but he's *far* from obscure in setting. And if the events of Wrath of the Righteous become canon, the stories of the redeemed succubus who helped *close the Worldwound* are going to be everywhere.
Paizo has been *very* clear that innate alignments are not, in fact, part of Pathfinder. I'd say you're the one disregarding the lore.
We'll see how *very* clear they are when Paladin gets their info out.
Then we'll be right back here to discuss it.
Aren't good because of Paladin but need to remain Good to be Paladin.
I feel we are spliting hairs or just crossing intents fairly close to each other.
Meh, I'm off to my Strange Aeon's game where a Shambler fight is coming. Who's the evil one; the monster, the PCs, the PLayers, or the GM.
Heck if I know, I just want to roll some dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, in the case of Demons, it's specifically, "The soul of a sinful mortal mutated in the afterlife and reformed out of the raw physical Evil of the Abyss into an embodiment of sin stripped of any semblance or memory of its previous life and whatever few redeeming qualities there may have been.' And in Wrath of the Righteous, a succubus is able to start down a path of redemption because deific intervention allows her to remember her pre-Demon life--and a demonic bounty hunter sent after her specifically comments to the PCs about how Arushaelae had already made her choices in a previous life.
I'm not saying that Demon's aren't a case where 'Always Evil' can fairly be treated as a fact--I'm pointing out that, per the particular lore in this case, 'innate' is a somewhat slippery term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This also assumes a group of goblins, which isn't universal by any means. And assumes that seeing, say, a group of 7 to 9 people armed and in gang colors or foreign military uniforms would be self defense, which I'd say is dubious.
Well the thing is, the WORLD assumes a gang of 7-9 [smallest number of expected goblins you meet] PRD:bestiary. And goblins are known to be sneaky, so it's hardly a stretch to assume the rest of the gang is around. And goblins are known to sometimes have nasty bites, so even if they don't have a seen weapon, they could have a deadly attack.
I'd call it less of an assumption and MORE of an inference. ;)
Graystone. i also Brought up Azeroth which is the popular setting of the Infamous World of Warcraft stuff.
I understand why, I just think it was tangential to the point I was making.
i honestly think the core rulebook should be setting neutral and all the setting specific stuff should be in the different setting books that pertain to their respective settings.
Honestly, I agree but it seems that we're getting Golarion 'infused'. That's really neither here nor there though as you still need a common point to debate and that going to be the rules so it wouldn't matter if it was Golarion or neutral, I'd STILL be debating the goblin from the point of how it's presented in those rules. In the case of the goblin, BOTH the Golarion specific and the more generic info paint the goblin as I'm presenting them.
"almost universally despised"
'feed on weaker members of more civilized races'
"other races view them as virulent parasites that have proved impossible to exterminate"
"they frequently go to war or execute raids against other races to sate their pernicious urges"
"they prefer human and gnome flesh"
"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."
"most of the world is too big and frustratingly complex to bother playing by anyone else’s rules."
"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."
"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."
"Pintsized braggadocios and sneaky thieves"
"Taller races consider goblins pests, charitably describing them as smelly, ugly, amoral scavengers with mean streaks and bad taste."
"They easily survive others’ attempts to exterminate them"
"Goblin passions run hot, and personal safety and the well-being of their comrades rarely cross their minds once enthusiasm takes hold."
"Humans and other races have made repeated, concentrated efforts to wipe out goblins once and for all, but these attempts always meet with failure."
"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."
"They steal babies, burn homes, ruin fields, and otherwise destroy lives."
"Entire communities may see a genuine threat from goblins every decade or so"
"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."
"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."
"Goblins lack any capacity for organization or planning, or even recalling much of the past."
"Most goblin culture revolves around finding things to eat or things that make funny noises when stabbed."
"Goblins use flame to fell trees, clear rubble, torture animals, and play scarring games, as well as to light swathes of woodland or field af lame so they can pick at any deliciously charred creatures caught in the blaze. Goblins rush into battle wielding torches as often as blades, and the sight of burned farms is a reliable indicator that local goblin tribes are raiding again."
"Their racial pyromania instead seems inspired by the beauty and wanton destruction fire provides."
"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. But none of these efforts can bar goblin passage or wipe out their tribes—at least, not for long. Even orcs detest the small creatures, for the delicate and obnoxious goblins make poor slaves and even worse fare."
"Ultimately, only other goblinoids tolerate goblins for very long, and even then only just. Goblin life is an endless, disjointed battle against the world, other humanoids, other tribes, and fellow tribe-members, in roughly that order."
It's not that goblins are required to be bad/evil. It's that a MASSIVE amount of information says they are. Whole races try to exterminate them, MULTIPLE times. they torture your animals, steal babies, burn homes, ruin fields, kill and eat people, spread plagues, ect. What's missing is the positive info, or that not all goblins are as awful as the ones everyone knows. The average 'person on the street' has no way to understand the innate evil of a demon is different that the 99.999% evil of the goblin unless they have some reason to question it.
The fact that people are arguing about what fictional people who are 100% under the control of people sitting at a table is the most fascinating thing about this entire debate. Like, the only things that these people will or won’t do is whatever the GM wants them to do, and if the GM wants to make the game difficult for the players then they will have random NPCs attack party members of certain races. And if they don’t want things to be difficult for the party, they will work out a way for the party members to progress that will make at least enough sense. What these NPCs would or would not do is pretty irrelevant, because they will literally never ever make any decision.
If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean?
Maybe we will need to wait until we have the 2E rulebooks in our hands before answering that, becausethat is the only source for the definition of “core races” that will matter in 2E.
If it means 'most commonly selected by players' we should remove most of the core races and replace them with tiefling, ratfolk, kobold, and orc. But nobody is saying we should do that, and Paizo certainly isn't going to do it even if people want them to.
People are saying that. Lots of people actually. There is an entire thread about wanting to add more races like the ones you mentioned to balance out for the goblins being added. But Paizo is still probably not going to do that.
And as far as the average Golarion resident encountering more goblins than half-orcs or half-elves is concerned, that just doesn't make sense. Half-elves and half-orcs live in towns. There may be only a few of either in a given village, but the residents would see them daily since most people in fantasy worlds spend their lives in the same town or city where they were born and don't roam about the wilderness, swamps, dark caves, and junkyards. Which are the places where goblins live. So no, the average Golarion resident wouldn't encounter more goblins than other core races.
Most villages won’t have a single half-orc or half-elf. That’s how uncommon they are. Some will have a few, but most won’t. Cities will have a good small fraction of their population be half-breeds, but they are by no means common even then, except in rare cases and areas. There are multitudes more goblins, and even if most people don’t encounter them regularly, more people do than they will half-breeds.
Well, no, according to the developers themselves it means:It means 'published in a particular book.' If you insist it's any more significant thaan that, maybe, 'considered iconic enough to be a major part of initial marketing and branding.'
If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean?
If you had read the comment that MidsouthGuy was responding to, you would see that the question was in regards to Paizo changing the meaning of core from most commonly encountered races in 2E, so there is no more irrelevant material to reference than 1E books. Because those are not 2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
