| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are all sorts of horrific implications to taking that too seriously though. The truly good thing to do with goblins apparently isn't to kill them on sight, but to destroy their tribes, saving as many as possible and bringing them individually under wiser strong leaders, so that they'll develop loyalty and eventually perhaps empathy and compassion.
Such a campaign would certainly be able to redeem goblin children and even many of the adults. At least kidnap them and sell them as servants for their own good.Obviously just intended to justify Goblin PCs,...
I would read it differently. Like plausily the reason Goblin tribes are generally evil it's that goblin culture is at a point where the person who ends up in charge is the biggest power-hungry jerk and sociopath around, who then proceeds to shape norms and cultural values based on their own warpred sense of propriety.
If you somehow got someone sufficiently powerful so as to not be immediately deposed to seize power within a goblin group and instead shape norms and values to be less destructive and more compatible with "getting along with your neighbors" I think that would work too.
Like the model for how to handle this is that RotRL book 1 dungeon where you raid the goblin village, if the one guy who approaches the party peacefully at the start is less "just trying to save his own skin" and more "trying to depose the jerkwad leader and his inner circle, so we can have someone in charge who is more concerned with goblins and keeping goblins safe than acquiring loot", you can theoretically have non-goblin PCs work to help goblins without destroying their goblinness (goblinity?).
I mean, regime change via military action absolutely does not have a 1.000 batting average, but it's probably more morally defensible than "kill them all."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other issue is that Detect Evil can be spoofed pretty readily (misdirection being the most obvious way) so smiting anyone who detects that way is gonna hit an innocent at some point.Though actually Smiting won't work in that case, as I understand it. I don't think Smite can be fooled that way.
But mostly, I agree. Attacking anyone who detects as evil is a good way to move yourself into that category real fast in any game I run.
Yeah, unless the person is actually Evil (and not simply detecting as Evil), Smite Evil doesn't work. It's wasted.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are all sorts of horrific implications to taking that too seriously though.
More horrific implications than 'They're born Evil, you can tell by how they look. Kill 'em all and let the Gods sort 'em out'?
I really don't think so.
The truly good thing to do with goblins apparently isn't to kill them on sight, but to destroy their tribes, saving as many as possible and bringing them individually under wiser strong leaders, so that they'll develop loyalty and eventually perhaps empathy and compassion.
'Destroy' is probably excessive. 'Take over' or 'conquer' seems likely to work just as well.
And yes, taking over and stopping the goblins from keeping their children in cages and feeding them little enough they sometimes eat each other is probably a morally sound thing to do.
Such a campaign would certainly be able to redeem goblin children and even many of the adults. At least kidnap them and sell them as servants for their own good.
Selling people as slaves does not generally make them loyal to their owners or improve their attitude towards those who did that. So, no, that's not encouraged.
Obviously just intended to justify Goblin PCs, but has some really nasty real world parallels if taken seriously on a cultural level.
It also neatly parallels social services taking children away from hideously abusive parents. Or girls having to be sent to school over the objection of parents who think women shouldn't learn to read. Or several other examples I can think of.
There are some potential unfortunate implications given what's been done historically to some real world cultures (Native Americans leap immediately to mind), but those cultures didn't keep their children in cages. Cultural imperialism is generally bad...unless the cultural trends you're trying to get rid of involves hideous human (or humanoid) rights abuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need to be encountered that way regularly - not just a rumor of a peaceful goblin village somewhere, but goblins living openly in cities or something.
This is what some clearly do not want as it's a HUGE game changing shift in the game.
|
|
They need to be encountered that way regularly - not just a rumor of a peaceful goblin village somewhere, but goblins living openly in cities or something.This is what some clearly do not want as it's a HUGE game changing shift in the game.
Sure. But I'm fine with it as long as it's justified in-universe. Which Paizo can totally do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, the guard will probably be fine. But his job isn't to guard himself, it's to guard weaker people under his protection. People for whom a single goblin could be a major threat.What people? I'm gonna be honest here, per the Gamemastery Guide's sample characters, most people are 2nd level or higher. Those without armor or weapons would certainly die if they fought a goblin, but their odds of dying before the guard gets to them if they run away are extremely low.
Children would spring to mind. I've never looked at the sample character in the Gamemastery Guide, but I have to admit I find that the majority are at least level 2 kind of surprising.
I would expect most town guards to look at a goblin in town as a warning sign that a major infestation might be coming. You know, like how you're supposed to assume that if you see one mouse in your house, there's probably like 10 more hidden around that you haven't seen yet. Except these mice might decide to kill the family dog and spit roast the baby.That's definitely a possibility of you see them lurking in an alley and I'd absolutely expect an investigation, but chasing them off and investigating is a bit different from hunting them down and killing them.
This is also not a response that a goblin known to be part of a PC group will likely provoke.
True. And in fairness, most guards wouldn't be able to catch a fleeing goblin either. I dunno about the not killing them thing though. Historically people are pretty quick to try to kill anything they deem a potential threat, or even a major nuisance. Also bear in mind that in a pre-modern society, theft of food is potentially a pretty big deal. That food in the storage the goblin just stole a tenth of and ruined half of the rest? That was the difference between everybody in the family surviving the winter or not. None of that really matters for the potential goblin PC in a group of non-goblins, but it certainly matters for lone unknown goblins. Also like to point out here, I'm not opposed to goblins as PCs. I just don't like the idea of them being a core race.
Now personally, I prefer for alignment to primarily be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. In other words, this person is evil because they have willingly committed a number of evil acts without remorse not because they have a pre-set code of behavior that they have to follow slavishly. Now to a certain degree proclivity should be included in that, but I think primarily it should be based on what you have done rather than what you probably would do given the right circumstancesThis is really and clearly explicitly how this works in Pathfinder. Alignment is explicitly descriptive in pretty much all Pathfinder stuff.
On close reading, I think they did intend that, but they didn't really say it explicitly, and it's not applied consistently. In fact they word the descriptions of the individual alignments as "This is what X alignment does." Hopefully they'll be more explicit about it in PF2.
I think Pathfinder actually suffers somewhat, as have previous iterations of D&D, because they haven't properly defined which of those alignment is based on, and so you have both types of case cropping up. After all, if I'm playing a Paladin, and I Detect Evil on somebody it matters which is the case. If alignment is descriptive, the fact that that person glows means they have done things that would almost certainly be punishable by law if publicly revealed. If it's prescriptive, then that person may never have done anything wrong, and the Paladin investigating/smiting him would be doing so purely on the basis of what he might do. Which is the sort of thing that is usually frowned on as "dystopian" when you use it in sci-fi.The issue with smiting people for being Evil even if Alignment is descriptive is that you don't have to have done anything death-worthy to be Evil. A moneylender who simply never makes any allowances for circumstances might be Evil for taking away family homes...but that's probably not an execution offense, y'know? In fact, it's likely not even illegal. There are a lot of other examples I could give of people who are Evil due to doing things that are not really worthy of death, and such people are almost certainly more common, even among the Evil, than those whose crimes are worthy of death.
The other issue is that Detect Evil can be spoofed pretty readily (misdirection being the most obvious way) so smiting anyone who detects that way is gonna hit an innocent at some point.
I'm not advocating Smite-on-Sight tactics, I think they do vastly oversimplify the world, and any Paladin who uses them regularly would wind up a criminal in short order even if he doesn't fall. But even a Paladin that doesn't do that will have any investigation he runs colored by his knowledge that "that guy is evil." In the case of descriptive alignment, an investigator who checks into the activities and past of an evil person is likely to find something that is if not criminal at least socially unacceptable (except in Cheliax). But if alignment is prescriptive, then you can investigate that evil guy all you want, he may not have done anything yet.
But really I'm trying to make a parallel here. In a descriptive system, goblin babies are neutral, because they haven't done anything yet. In a prescriptive setting they could be evil because they probably will do evil stuff in the future, or just because goblins are an evil race. When alignment is something that can (generally) be determined with some reliability it shapes how people will view a race. There would be a big societal difference in attitude towards goblins if all goblins detect as evil vs. if only a large portion of them do. And realistically, most goblins wouldn't have done anything significantly evil *yet*, if only because they hadn't had the chance yet.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
God, I wish they hadn't put in that bit with the goblin kids in cages.Obviously just intended to justify Goblin PCs, but has some really nasty real world parallels if taken seriously on a cultural level.It also neatly parallels social services taking children away from hideously abusive parents. Or girls having to be sent to school over the objection of parents who think women shouldn't learn to read. Or several other examples I can think of.
There are some potential unfortunate implications given what's been done historically to some real world cultures (Native Americans leap immediately to mind), but those cultures didn't keep their children in cages. Cultural imperialism is generally bad...unless the cultural trends you're trying to get rid of involves hideous human (or humanoid) rights abuses.
You mean playpens? What's wrong with playpens? :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe. If the first case is that they're just monsters and they really are just monsters. And I don't have to try to take any of this seriously. I don't have to pretend goblin society actually makes any sense and that it's somehow purely cultural, but essentially the same culture, spread over continents in tiny little isolated tribes.
Well, who says their culture is universal? The books all focus on the Inner Sea area, which is big but not the whole world or anything. And it talks about commonalities, not necessarily things being universal to every single goblin tribe everywhere.
I know. And that's what bothers me about making the setting like that.
"Take over or conquer" will still require a lot of destruction. And unlike most colonial enterprises you can't let the goblins run themselves. You've got to break them apart and keep them away from the influence of other goblins. That's pretty much destroying the tribe, even if you don't kill them all.
Do you? If they generally follow a strong leader, breaking them up may or may not be necessary to reform them.
People no. Goblins, apparently yes.
It's certainly not how humans work, but it apparently is how goblins work. Fits in with them often working for more powerful evil races too.
I think you may be taking that bit of text overly literally. Talking about something as inevitable doesn't always mean it literally is.
God, I wish they hadn't put in that bit with the goblin kids in cages.
Mind you, I prefer not to play "born evil", unless I'm doing some kind of Tolkienesque Dark God War of Good vs Evil thing, with the evil races as footsoldiers in the Evil Hordes. Generally doesn't matter then anyway - you're not dealing with killing monsters because they're evil, you're fighting the Enemy's soldiers.
I'm normally perfectly fine with dealing with humanoid types as real people, but when I do they tend to be more humanized than PF goblins. Perhaps savage and dangerous, but able to be reasoned with and dealt with. PF goblins are in a weird place and it's not one I like, if I have to deal with them as real people
Well, I always took all of those as common cultural traits, not literally universal truths. I suspect the new edition and its focus on what non-Evil Goblins there are will also follow a bit more nuanced perspective. Which should make this problem a lot less of one for you.
And I hate to say it, but there have been real human cultures that did stuff every bit as morally repugnant as most of the 'Evil Races' in Pathfinder (goblins included). The Spartans and the Aztecs leap immediately to mind. Both of those groups were pretty horrific if examined.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. But I'm fine with it as long as it's justified in-universe. Which Paizo can totally do.They need to be encountered that way regularly - not just a rumor of a peaceful goblin village somewhere, but goblins living openly in cities or something.This is what some clearly do not want as it's a HUGE game changing shift in the game.
This is where we diverge as I have a very hard time imagining a "justified in-universe" reason that is both satisfying AND will fit into the incredibly short time frame we've been told separates the two editions. There is just SUCH an incredibly large gap between the two 'norms' it just seems incomprehensible to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where we diverge as I have a very hard time imagining a "justified in-universe" reason that is both satisfying AND will fit into the incredibly short time frame we've been told separates the two editions. There is just SUCH an incredibly large gap between the two 'norms' it just seems incomprehensible to me.Sure. But I'm fine with it as long as it's justified in-universe. Which Paizo can totally do.They need to be encountered that way regularly - not just a rumor of a peaceful goblin village somewhere, but goblins living openly in cities or something.This is what some clearly do not want as it's a HUGE game changing shift in the game.
This is exactly my problem as well. It would be one thing if they had presented stuff like that throughout the run of PF1, but they haven't. I'm sure they can write an in-setting explanation, but I feel like anything they can come up with will feel forced or unrealistic. Though I'd be okay with it if they can prove me wrong on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though I'd be okay with it if they can prove me wrong on that.
100% agree. If they really WOW me and knock my socks off, great! I'd be truly impressed if they manage to pull off such a herculean task though and it's not something I'd bet money on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Children would spring to mind.
Children are definitely in the most danger. That's true of most things that might eat people, though, and goblins remain low on the 'danger list'.
I've never looked at the sample character in the Gamemastery Guide, but I have to admit I find that the majority are at least level 2 kind of surprising.
A lot are Experts or Commoners, but yeah, level 1 is mostly reserved for the young and the not very competent.
True. And in fairness, most guards wouldn't be able to catch a fleeing goblin either. I dunno about the not killing them thing though. Historically people are pretty quick to try to kill anything they deem a potential threat, or even a major nuisance.
Eh. I live in Montana. We don't kill grizzly bears or mountain lions unless they've already attacked somebody, and mountain lions are known to occasionally eat small children.
People legitimately don't try and exterminate things most times.
Also bear in mind that in a pre-modern society, theft of food is potentially a pretty big deal. That food in the storage the goblin just stole a tenth of and ruined half of the rest? That was the difference between everybody in the family surviving the winter or not.
This is less true in Golarion than it was in real medieval times (at least in most places). You can pretty readily figure out how much GP value a farmer acquires over a year and it's more than enough to feed a family and a substantial surplus. Why that is can be hypothesized to involve magic, or to simply be that Golarion is extra fertile (the latter would help explain the high biodiversity).
But yeah, if people catch a goblin stealing I expect they kill it, I'm just talking threat hierarchies here.
None of that really matters for the potential goblin PC in a group of non-goblins, but it certainly matters for lone unknown goblins. Also like to point out here, I'm not opposed to goblins as PCs. I just don't like the idea of them being a core race.
Well, like I said, goblins being more accepted requires an in-universe event as explanation. Paizo has just said they'll provide something, and I have faith it'll be something good.
On close reading, I think they did intend that, but they didn't really say it explicitly, and it's not applied consistently. In fact they word the descriptions of the individual alignments as "This is what X alignment does." Hopefully they'll be more explicit about it in PF2.
That'd be nice. It'd cut down on the number of alignment arguments I get into substantially.
I'm not advocating Smite-on-Sight tactics, I think they do vastly oversimplify the world, and any Paladin who uses them regularly would wind up a criminal in short order even if he doesn't fall. But even a Paladin that doesn't do that will have any investigation he runs colored by his knowledge that "that guy is evil." In the case of descriptive alignment, an investigator who checks into the activities and past of an evil person is likely to find something that is if not criminal at least socially unacceptable (except in Cheliax). But if alignment is prescriptive, then you can investigate that evil guy all you want, he may not have done anything yet.
Depends on the nature of the actions. Maybe they're just a bully and needlessly cruel to animals. That's not okay and could result in Evil alignment, but it also isn't necessarily socially damaging.
But really I'm trying to make a parallel here. In a descriptive system, goblin babies are neutral, because they haven't done anything yet. In a prescriptive setting they could be evil because they probably will do evil stuff in the future, or just because goblins are an evil race. When alignment is something that can (generally) be determined with some reliability it shapes how people will view a race. There would be a big societal difference in attitude towards goblins if all goblins detect as evil vs. if only a large portion of them do. And realistically, most goblins wouldn't have done anything significantly evil *yet*, if only because they hadn't had the chance yet.
Actually, in the official setting, almost no goblins detect as Evil. Non-Cleric humanoids need 5 HD to show up on Detect Evil. So...detect evil is almost useless for determining the morality of most people on the street, or most minor monsters like goblins.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What people? I'm gonna be honest here, per the Gamemastery Guide's sample characters, most people are 2nd level or higher. Those without armor or weapons would certainly die if they fought a goblin, but their odds of dying before the guard gets to them if they run away are extremely low.
By this logic, the NPCs in town should never die as the guards can handle anything. Goblins, rats, weak undead; wait why do we need PCs again? GM can handle everything, the players can sit there for 4 hours listening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Children are definitely in the most danger. That's true of most things that might eat people, though, and goblins remain low on the 'danger list'.
I don't see the distinction. I don't see why ANYTHING on the danger list gets a pass.
Eh. I live in Montana. We don't kill grizzly bears or mountain lions unless they've already attacked somebody, and mountain lions are known to occasionally eat small children.
People legitimately don't try and exterminate things most times.
Your own words work against not killing a random goblin though. We have a LONG, LONG, LONG history of them attacking people. If a rabid mountain lion is known to be in the area and one is trying to break into your house, do you welcome it in? Normally you'd shot it and not wait and see if it's rabid first. Goblins a rep like a rabid animal.
But yeah, if people catch a goblin stealing I expect they kill it, I'm just talking threat hierarchies here.
Yes, but consider this: If the only interaction you've had with goblins stealing and MUCH, MUCH worse them showing up IS you catching them here to steal, at least in the minds of the average person.
|
|
Not me. But it's broad and isolated and that's what all the goblin groups we've seen seem to be like. (Or at least that I've seen.)
Compare to the broad variety of human cultures in that same region. And those should have more contact and cross-pollination than goblin tribes.
What tribes have we seen? In adventures, the only ones I can think of have been in Varisia and Isger, which are near each other, plus the ones in the River Ringdoms and Irrisen, who seem quite different culturally. Other tribes are referred to and said to have some similar stuff, but we haven't actually seen how similar.
Maybe, but as I said, it fits them well. And even less literally, it's not how humans work, so you can't draw from humans to interpret it.
You probably can. In terms of psychology, most non-human races in Pathfinder have exaggerated human tendencies in some area rather than completely divergent ones.
Differently so. It's not necessarily the moral repugnance, it's the insanity.
I suppose I can see that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By this logic, the NPCs in town should never die as the guards can handle anything. Goblins, rats, weak undead; wait why do we need PCs again? GM can handle everything, the players can sit there for 4 hours listening.
I don't think PCs are necessary for rats.
As for 'weak undead'...a goblin probably averages 7 rounds of attacks to kill an average farmer (maybe more like 6 with a bow), and would take four even if they hit with all attacks. A skeleton or zombie takes more like 3 rounds (and only takes that long because of low accuracy), and can do it in one round with a set of good rolls.
Zombies and skeletons are just lots more lethal than goblins, one for one. And even with goblins, they get dangerous in numbers, as I said, which can definitely make PCs very helpful.
I don't see the distinction. I don't see why ANYTHING on the danger list gets a pass.
Because people lack infinite time and energy and Golarion is dangerous? The Ogres over in the hills are way more dangerous than the goblins in that valley. Which are we gonna focus on?
Your own words work against not killing a random goblin though. We have a LONG, LONG, LONG history of them attacking people. If a rabid mountain lion is known to be in the area and one is trying to break into your house, do you welcome it in? Normally you'd shot it and not wait and see if it's rabid first. Goblins a rep like a rabid animal.
No it isn't. It's like a non-rabid animal. An unpleasant one that sometimes attacks people but usually flees them. Much like mountain lions, actually.
And mountain lions don't need to be rabid to eat children. And are much more competent predators and killers than most goblins.
And sure, if anyone or anything tries to break into your house you probably try to kill it, if you think you can. Goblins are not special in that regard.
Yes, but consider this: If the only interaction you've had with goblins stealing and MUCH, MUCH worse them showing up IS you catching them here to steal, at least in the minds of the average person.
That's not the only interaction people have with them, though. They're actually much more likely to be going through the trash for things, which is annoying, but not damaging.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because people lack infinite time and energy and Golarion is dangerous? The Ogres over in the hills are way more dangerous than the goblins in that valley. Which are we gonna focus on?
The one that shows up trying to get into town? You know what we've been talking about? As far as i know, we haven't been talking about a campaign to go out and murderize a race, just chopping down one in our line of sight.
No it isn't. It's like a non-rabid animal. An unpleasant one that sometimes attacks people but usually flees them. Much like mountain lions, actually.
Not really. They are know to be insane and are ACTIVELY are a problem. I've seen my share of mountain lions and they have never tried to burn down my house for the fun of it or break into my refrigerator and either steal my food or defile it so I can't eat it. Seriously, how people see a goblin is much closer to a rabid animal than a normal one.
And mountain lions don't need to be rabid to eat children. And are much more competent predators and killers than most goblins.
They generally don't TRY to eat children over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Do you have deadly encounter with animals? sure. Do you keep having issues with the exact same one on a continuous basis? no. I just don't see your point that people will overlook the incompetent serial killer... 'LOL don't worry about them. no matter how often they try, they only steal children once in a while, it's fine...". :P
And sure, if anyone or anything tries to break into your house you probably try to kill it, if you think you can. Goblins are not special in that regard.
Replace home with town then. I feel that way about the goblin. Most people are seeing the goblin coming to town in the same light.
That's not the only interaction people have with them, though. They're actually much more likely to be going through the trash for things, which is annoying, but not damaging.
When there aren't any positive interactions and some interactions are violent and dangerous ones, I'm not seeing this as changing anyones attitudes. 'Sometimes instead trying to kill us, they just wreck the place, toss trash everywhere or ruin our food... WOW, invite them over for brunch!' :P
I mean in the human world we literally do this all the time.
We're talking about a MUCH different world though. Your also talking about things that might kill sometime in the future and I'm talking about something dangerous NOW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. I live in Montana. We don't kill grizzly bears or mountain lions unless they've already attacked somebody, and mountain lions are known to occasionally eat small children.
People legitimately don't try and exterminate things most times.
Not in modern times, but there's good reasons a lot of larger predator animals are extinct or endangered.
Also bear in mind that in a pre-modern society, theft of food is potentially a pretty big deal. That food in the storage the goblin just stole a tenth of and ruined half of the rest? That was the difference between everybody in the family surviving the winter or not.This is less true in Golarion than it was in real medieval times (at least in most places). You can pretty readily figure out how much GP value a farmer acquires over a year and it's more than enough to feed a family and a substantial surplus. Why that is can be hypothesized to involve magic, or to simply be that Golarion is extra fertile (the latter would help explain the high biodiversity).
Interesting point. A bigger margin of error before starvation does actually make for a much more open society in a lot of ways. Survival mode often allows/requires people to set aside a lot of moral niceties.
Actually, in the official setting, almost no goblins detect as Evil. Non-Cleric humanoids need 5 HD to show up on Detect Evil. So...detect evil is almost useless for determining the morality of most people on the street, or most minor monsters like goblins.
Hmm good point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they aren't dangerous NOW all the time. They are dangerous NOW relatively rarely.
They are ALWAYS dangerous. A grenade is always dangerous, even with it's pin in. There is a difference between dangerous and deadly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, in already published adventures, there are examples of goblins living in at least larger cities without over-running the place or the city guard launching massive purges.
Sure I would agree that smaller towns (say...Sandpoint for instance) are not likely to tolerate goblins. But then smaller towns probably are not going to tolerate groups of well-armed strangers: In fact the latter are likely to be able to cause far more problem than goblins.
I am actually fine if goblins are not tolerated in smaller towns with a history of goblin activity. Thankfully, large swathes of the Inner Sea have limited goblin activity (either because they were eliminated or they just aren't to active in that area), or are cosmopolitan enough that a goblin would probably not be the oddest thing a town guard saw that day.
Also keep in mind...biology is probably going to drive a lot of goblin characteristics. of the PF2 core races, they are going to be by far the most alien.
Baby cages sounds horrible, but you know what? human babies are not born with a full set of teeth and the ability to somewhat forage for themselves. If human infants could scuttle into our beds while sleeping and gnaw off our toes, we would probably keep them in cages too!
Really, if you want goblins to be on good behavior? Keep them fed. That constant hunger seems to drive them more than anything else.
As sapient creatures, they should be afforded the same rights and rules as anyone in a town. Follow the rules? Enjoy your stay. Rob someone? Might spend some time in jail. Kill people? Not going to end well.
If you've got a Goblin in town competently playing music at the bar, working as a janitor, or even an effective lawperson or political figure, then one shouldn't treat them any differently than a human in the role.
Assumptions of an entire race being evil is incredibly problematic. If you run into an evil Goblin, they aren't evil because they're a Goblin. They're evil because of a mix of circumstances that led their life to that moment. Whether that's from how they were raised, or because of a series of events that led to such a point. Or they were just a bad person. But all of those things happen to all sapient races, not just Goblins.
A Goblin can be a kindly saint just as readily as a Human can be a cannibalistic pyromaniac.
It just depends if you're willing to let that Goblin be the best person they can be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just depends if you're willing to let that Goblin be the best person they can be.
Best person by lore and example seems to be expect them to kill or run from horses, dogs too, sing loud songs and cause some fire and or mayhem.
It's weird these traits keep showing up as things Good Goblins will still do but they also won't somehow be evil or at very least Netrual.
Side note, explain Demons as Problematic, or do we wave Outsiders right to be good or evil as well? Or Sahagins who tend to pillage and kill anything on the ocean? Deepones are actually warm and cuddly when you get to know them right?
Best person by lore and example seems to be expect them to kill or run from horses, dogs too, sing loud songs and cause some fire and or mayhem.
It's weird these traits keep showing up as things Good Goblins will still do but they also won't somehow be evil or at very least Netrual.
Side note, explain Demons as Problematic, or do we wave Outsiders right to be good or evil as well? Or Sahagins who tend to pillage and kill anything on the ocean? Deepones are actually warm and cuddly when you get to know them right?
That's only the best if both the DM (playing the NPCs and telling the story) and the Players (if any are Goblins) allow that to be the best.
Whether it's by player deed as a Goblin, player deed positively influencing a Goblin, or simply the DM creating such an NPC, it can happen.
Hell, I have no qualms about the idea of getting a demon to the side of good, though I have heard alignment shifts change what they are due to being made from said alignment-based planes.
But yeah, I absolutely avoid judging any races when I roleplay. I let any individual's deeds and morality speak for themselves.
Hell, one of the first missions my group had in our longest campaign (level 1 to level 18) was to help a Goblin village being attacked by an angry Dryad because they had accidentally killed said Dryad's sister by chopping down her tree. Negotiated a peace from that incident. 200 years later, our next campaign will open up in that village.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But yeah, I absolutely avoid judging any races when I roleplay. I let any individual's deeds and morality speak for themselves.Maybe this mind flayer doesn't really consume sapient brains like the rest of them do. I'm sure he'll be a fine resident of our little town.
And Deep Ones just want hugs. Hey maybe we can get the Derro do make up some sleeping pills to take everyone to a happy dream state where nothing bad happens and we all folic in peace and happiness.
Oh and if we're going to slag on races being evil(Not you jeff but other people) how do we feel about a race who's majority of members are Insane?
Yeah, how about that Paizo, what are you trying to say here hmmm? GMs what are you doing running them, what deep seated issues do you have, hmmmmmm? PLayers, why don't you try to be nice to them, they just want some of your brain matter, what do you have against mental illness, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? I am insightful.
*The Above is sarcasm so hard, you could probably make a bunker out of it. Do not take at full face value. But do consider Derro as another example of Evil races*
Now I'll agree, evil races for the SAKE of being ONLY Evil is bloody boring. What else? Do they pillage for food and come into conflict with others(Goblins)? Do they take slaves and use those tend the fields or maybe sell them for materials(Gnolls are a good/bad example). Do they have some old curse or corruption that has bent them to this state(Hello Drow).
Exampling why they are evil and how they continue to exist as "Evil" or at the very least self serving sounds like it could lead to more creative ideas than races/cultures that are good because.... well it's the right thing to do.
Maybe this mind flayer doesn't really consume sapient brains like the rest of them do. I'm sure he'll be a fine resident of our little town.
...And what if he doesn't? What if this Mind Flayer genuinely doesn't harm the minds of aware species, and feeds on his own livestock instead? What if he is genuinely a Lawful Good Mind Flayer that just wants to be a simple farmer to keep himself fed while he uses his excesses in gold gained via trade to purchase literature for his personal fulfillment and growth mentally?
Would you still kill him or drive him away knowing that? And even if you didn't know that, would assaulting/killing an innocent creature based on an assumption because of race be considered a good or evil deed?
It's worth thinking about.
There can be specific tribes/villages/cities of a group that are predominantly evil without an assumption that an entire race is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this mind flayer doesn't really consume sapient brains like the rest of them do. I'm sure he'll be a fine resident of our little town....And what if he doesn't? What if this Mind Flayer genuinely doesn't harm the minds of aware species, and feeds on his own livestock instead? What if he is genuinely a Lawful Good Mind Flayer that just wants to be a simple farmer to keep himself fed while he uses his excesses in gold gained via trade to purchase literature for his personal fulfillment and growth mentally?
Would you still kill him or drive him away knowing that? And even if you didn't know that, would assaulting/killing an innocent creature based on an assumption because of race be considered a good or evil deed?
It's worth thinking about.
There can be specific tribes/villages/cities of a group that are predominantly evil without an assumption that an entire race is evil.
I can think of several reasons why to kill it. Or drive it further away. However, lemme do it without suggesting it pings Evil.
1) It's Wizard or Sorcerer. Magic in nature I really don't want to get into just HOW it's casting spells but it casts spells. Most wizards live alone to not bother with the common folk due to fear.
2) IF not fear of it but fear of what might come after. Good Aligned Mind Flyer, yeah if I'm smart enough to know what it is I'm probably smart enough to realize any number of things could be after it, if not now than later. Starting with quite possibly other mind flyers.
3) If I'm too stupid to know what it is.... it's a squid head on legs! Quick get the torches before it devours the life stock or women folk!
I can probably think up more reasons as to WHY the common folk in universe would drive it out or attack it. Oh and all because it's not evil but due to other reasons.
Now the PCs well, that could make for an interesting rescue mission to stumble into.
And your right, it CAN be a group of Whatever that's actually peaceful. It could also be a trap/backstab. And you won't know until they are either life long allies or your blood is spilling out on the floor.
Read; It's not the race or group that has to prove themselves. It's the DM. Till then the hand is on the sword grip, in the spell pouch and someone's walking a few steps behind to make a break for it.
Also keep in mind...biology is probably going to drive a lot of goblin characteristics. of the PF2 core races, they are going to be by far the most alien.
Baby cages sounds horrible, but you know what? human babies are not born with a full set of teeth and the ability to somewhat forage for themselves. If human infants could scuttle into our beds while sleeping and gnaw off our toes, we would probably keep them in cages too!
Really, if you want goblins to be on good behavior? Keep them fed. That constant hunger seems to drive them more than anything else.
This is where it gets weird. Cages seems to us to be a horrible way to raise kids and likely to lead to people as damaged as goblins seem.
If that's actually a good way to raise goblins though, because their biology and psychology is that alien, then what?
Leaving aside metaphysical questions of evil and free will, if goblins aren't just short human beings with bad upbringings, where does that leave us?
With a lot of roleplaying potential. I honestly prefer things like this versus what we see in most of the core races, which basically come down to "pretty long-lived humans" and "gruff squat humans" and "short friendly humans". Goblins may legitimately have aspects of their biology and psychology that innately govern/influence their behavior (specifically in this case, a super high metabolism). That doesn't excuse them and what they do, nor does it have to mean they are evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As sapient creatures, they should be afforded the same rights and rules as anyone in a town.
Here's the thing: do the vast majority of the pathfinder world agree with that? Do they actually think they have free will or do they think they are inherently insane and evil? Most people don't seem to hold them in a good light or even a neutral light.
It's all fine and good for us to say "it's sapient" but why would the normal folk of the world know this OR even if they do have the same moral outlook? If a local farmer takes a hoe upside the head of a goblin because he actually loves his children and doesn't want them to go missing in the night, is he REALLY losing any sleep wondering if that goblin might be that one in a million goblin that didn't suck, especially since he'd never heard of such a thing was possible?
Here's the thing: do the vast majority of the pathfinder world agree with that? Do they actually think they have free will or do they think they are inherently insane and evil? Most people don't seem to hold them in a good light or even a neutral light.
It's all fine and good for us to say "it's sapient" but why would the normal folk of the world know this OR even if they do have the same moral outlook? If a local farmer takes a hoe upside the head of a goblin because he actually loves his children and doesn't want them to go missing in the night, is he REALLY losing any sleep wondering if that goblin might be that one in a million goblin that didn't suck, especially since he'd never heard of such a thing was possible?
But should what the majority think be the sole decider of what's right and wrong? I think human history shows that letting the majority decide right and wrong has often been...unideal. There's been countless examples in human history where the majority were in favor of rather unethical views/laws/etc.
There's no magical evil that Goblins are capable of that Humans are incapable of, just as there's no good that Humans are capable of that Goblins are incapable of.
Really, let's be honest here, many times humans can be worse monsters than the worst monsters we imagine.
If said local farmer kills a Goblin in cold blood over what if when they had no evil intentions...an evil act was committed that day out of hatred and fear.
As sapient creatures, they should be afforded the same rights and rules as anyone in a town.Here's the thing: do the vast majority of the pathfinder world agree with that? Do they actually think they have free will or do they think they are inherently insane and evil? Most people don't seem to hold them in a good light or even a neutral light.
I would offer that if multiple people on the message boards (itself a small portion of the people who play Pathfinder) are thinking it, then people within the diagesis are probably thinking of it.
Like it doesn't require more than one person thinking "maybe I could stand to benefit from giving the goblins a chance" for a number of goblins get a chance.
It's not as though we need for goblins to be instantly accepted throughout the game world, since the player's guide for Carrion Crown has this to say about Half-Orcs
half-orcs are seen as monsters by most Ustalavs, and a half-orc in any Ustalavic setting is often the subject of extreme prejudice.
So there's no reason you couldn't have an extremely similar note for any adventure in a part of the world where "being a goblin" *is* extremely likely to get you stabbed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing: do the vast majority of the pathfinder world agree with that?
What other metric is there? We have a paladin code that goblins MUST be killed without mercy and somehow they don't fall.
I think human history shows that letting the majority decide right and wrong has often been...unideal.
That's democracy baby!
There's been countless examples in human history where the majority were in favor of rather unethical views/laws/etc.
And?
There's no magical evil that Goblins are capable of that Humans are incapable of, just as there's no good that Humans are capable of that Goblins are incapable of.
And? There is A HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference. Humans are capable of great good and evil. Goblins are JUST know for great evil.
Really, let's be honest here, many times humans can be worse monsters than the worst monsters we imagine.
And great good, something that isn't know for goblins.
If said local farmer kills a Goblin in cold blood over what if when they had no evil intentions...an evil act was committed that day out of hatred and fear.
Frame it as you will, it's not cold blood but self defence. In america, it's called standing your ground. You are focused on the goblin having "no evil intentions" but ignore the farmer ALSO having "no evil intentions". It goes past hate and fear but a KNOWN danger: these creature ARE evil and DO kill people, EAT them, SET fires, KILL your pets and mounts and MANY other atrocities... It's closer to stopping a natural disaster than murdering a 'peaceful' humanoid.
But again, I'll leave a question. If I mistakenly kill someone that is disguised as something that's fine to kill without consequence, is it evil?
It's not self-defense because they aren't inherently evil, and your belief that's true doesn't make it true. It's absolutely evil to kill them at random because you fear something bad will happen.
Also, your first response to intelligent life should be diplomacy, not murder. If it tries to attack you or innocent civilians, that's one thing, but not when someone's out having a drink at the bar or sitting by the campfire making s'mores.
Hell, even if it was an animal, you should only kill if it starts attacking you or you need food to survive/you produce food goods for markets/cities/etc.
So yes, you crash a Halloween party and stab some guy because he's wearing a pair of pointed horns, a tail, and carrying around a pitchfork, that's still murder, and the law won't look kindly to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would offer that if multiple people on the message boards (itself a small portion of the people who play Pathfinder) are thinking it, then people within the diagesis are probably thinking of it.
I'd disagree with all of them as it's a case of using a meta look at the situation instead of looking at it from the point of view of the person in question: Because I know they are sapient and not inherently evil, it's bad to kill them even when the person in question doesn't. That's OOC info IMO.
Like it doesn't require more than one person thinking "maybe I could stand to benefit from giving the goblins a chance" for a number of goblins get a chance.
I'm talking about the 'average' person. The farmer, the guard, the clerk. For most of them, it's not even a question: goblin = bad. If you find an exceptional person, maybe? I don't see any widespread change in dealing with them though: If someone sees a goblin in town and it's vouched for, I think it's more likely to have them think 'it's a one time aberration' or 'they used some kind of magic on it' vs 'oh this ONE goblin is ok, lets open the gates to all goblins!' or even ''lets talk to every monster that comes out of the woods on the off chance they aren't evil like every other instance we know of'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not self-defense because they aren't inherently evil, and your belief that's true doesn't make it true. It's absolutely evil to kill them at random because you fear something bad will happen.
Evil DOESN'T matter: Stand your ground [is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats.] Self defence covers the use of force to protect and defend yourself from a perceived threat. Goblin existence is threatening in most people's thinking...
Also, your first response to intelligent life should be diplomacy, not murder.
I KNOW you're a demon and most likely want to eat my entrails but how about we sit down and talk... No, just no.
If it tries to attack you or innocent civilians, that's one thing, but not when someone's out having a drink at the bar or sitting by the campfire making s'mores.
Its kind has raided, killed, stolen, set fires, ect countless times but I HAVE to stand there and wait to get stabbed before I defend myself. No, just no.
Hell, even if it was an animal, you should only kill if it starts attacking you or you need food to survive/you produce food goods for markets/cities/etc.
Three strikes. People kill animals for many other reasons. Trophies, culling the herd, preemptively removing predators near grazing areas, extermination of pests, ect. Or if you are a goblin, for spite.
So yes, you crash a Halloween party and stab some guy because he's wearing a pair of pointed horns, a tail, and carrying around a pitchfork, that's still murder, and the law won't look kindly to it.
You're STILL looking at thing in a modern light and not looking at it from the perspective of a person in pathfinder. Does that hold true you are cursed with an illusion to 100% look like a demon, and someone hacks you down. Evil?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Over the past couple of days of watching the goblin debate, I have come to the conclusion that the issues people have with their inclusion as a core ancestry are really just symptoms of a more integral problem with Pathfinder: the idea that certain sentient species are inherently evil.
In current Pathfinder lore, entire races are genetically predisposed towards evil, despite supposedly being independent individuals with free will and separate souls (unlike outsiders). A few goblins, orcs, drow, etc. may become good through great personal effort and exceptional circumstances, but the general population of these races naturally gravitate towards violence and destruction. Thus, many people are (rightly) concerned by the idea of goblin PCs on a large scale. After all, the first sentence of the goblin entry in the ARG is "Goblins are a race of childlike creatures with a destructive and voracious nature that makes them almost universally despised." And, under current lore, this contempt for goblins is justified: they really are instinctually motivated towards evil.
But why do goblins (or other "monstrous" races) have to be predisposed to favor evil? They aren't outsiders, and they do have free will. Traditional PC races have full control over their alignment, so why should goblins be compelled towards evil? In my opinion, the inherent evil of goblins and orcs is just a cheap way of eliminating any moral qualms the PCs might have about wantonly slaughtering sentient beings. It may be that certain races have more evil individuals than others due to their history or other external circumstances, but they shouldn't be forced into certain alignments by their very nature.
In order to both better justify the inclusion of goblins as a core ancestry and generally increase moral nuance, ancestries in PF2 should not be predisposed towards certain alignments at all. In addition, bestiaries should not list alignment for non-outsider creatures. Published adventures should still list alignment for the monsters and...
Where was it ever said that goblins have free will? They have always been a Monster Manual race. Even the player character races are drawn up from neutral (human) or good (dwarf, elf, gnome & Halfling) monster manual races. Fantasy literature has always been very black and white. Goblins & orcs are EVIL. Red & Blue dragons are too. They even removed previous goblin lore about how goblins ate children and attacked dogs. Their favored weapon is a DOG SLICER. I do not want to see evil monster races such as goblins, orcs, gnolls, ogres, etc remade into a politically correct version for Pathfinder where there is no good & no evil. If not, then the premise of most adventures looses its heroic aspect and just becomes a mercenary scenario. PC goblins are supposed to be the EXCEPTION not the NORM as fare as alignment and behavior goes
So what if the town has one goblin who is accepted because it is vouched for by the locals and it's useful to people to have that goblin around, but eventually there's more for the one trusted goblin to do than they can manage and the goblin everyone likes and trusts says "I've got a cousin who could help, I will vouch for him." So the town welcomes the other goblin with the understanding if Gob2 messes up it's Gob1 that's going to be held accountable, and it turns out Gob2 is fine too, because Gob1 is both trustworthy and a decent judge of character.
So now you have two goblins in town and a mechanism for admitting more that has been proven to work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also keep in mind...biology is probably going to drive a lot of goblin characteristics. of the PF2 core races, they are going to be by far the most alien.
Baby cages sounds horrible, but you know what? human babies are not born with a full set of teeth and the ability to somewhat forage for themselves. If human infants could scuttle into our beds while sleeping and gnaw off our toes, we would probably keep them in cages too!
Really, if you want goblins to be on good behavior? Keep them fed. That constant hunger seems to drive them more than anything else.
Just never, ever feed them after midnight
Your words about them always being hungry struck me. Along with reading on Pathfidnder goblin behavior and they seem like gremlins fom the movie gremlins. I wonder if they multiply if you get them wet.
If you don't want some things to be inherently evil/good/ordered/chaotic, then you may need to remove these associated templates, as well, or at least address them.
"Can a creature be made from chaos?" "Can a group of beings be so strongly influenced by one of the axis forces in the world, that it's part of their makeup?" Or, "are these forces so strong and influential, as to warrant their own templates and forces?"
Or, replace chaos with evil, and same thing.