| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the currently hot button topics has been the inclusion of Goblins as a Core Ancestry, a change I fully welcome. But, of course, overall there's been a lot of back and forth about this change. One issue that's been brought up is: Goblins will be disruptive, how can these "baby-eating pyromaniacs" be anything but?
The thing is, they don't have to be disruptive at all. Your choices aren't just between horrid fiery murderhobos and green-skinned Halfings. You can play aspects of Goblins without going to the worst extremes.
A Goblin's distaste for dogs and horses doesn't have to go to full blown murder. Surely some of you dislike some animals, but I feel confident you don't go and smash your neighbor's pet's head in over it. A Goblin can be in a party with a Cavalier, and not murder their horse. They may find it upsetting, but they can vent that frustration through insults, a rivalry, or any number of other methods.
A penchant for fire doesn't have to turn into burning down villages. They can be the first to light campfires, create fireworks for entertainment, or use fire in combat against foes in a more controlled manner.
Raiding junk and a love for singing don't even need much change to work fine in any given party, you could totally play MacGuyver while singing a little Goblin ditty to yourself.
Sneaky tendencies, an issue with getting stuck in tight spaces, and a fear of writing/pictures aren't too much of an issue either. Hell, maybe your Goblin can gradually overcome that fear, and become a well-read individual who wants to bring back beautiful knowledge to their people.
Their half-cocked actions, meanwhile? Any adventurer can do that. To what extend is up to you. Find a nice mix that fits your character without hurting the mood of the campaign.
Hell, if you really want to keep the "baby-eating" aspect, your Goblin could totally have a refined pallet, and insists on only eating the finest Veal steaks. The most that will cost you is some confused looks and some decent gold.
The only real limitations in roleplaying are your imagination and the cruel dice gods who punish you with poor rolls.
Thanks for your time reading my post, and I hope it was at least thought provoking, if nothing else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know i'm neutral on gobos currently, but with each new thread im getting closer and closer to nobo territory...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know i'm neutral on gobos currently, but with each new thread im getting closer and closer to nobo territory...Just wait for the paladin preview...
That will be something to behold. Like the great fire of London, back in 1666.
As for the topic: all good points, that most people already accept. For single, exceptional Goblins. Which in some eyes is not enough to plonk them into Core.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is more to goblin dislike than the fear that playing a goblin will be used as an excuse to be annoying and/or disruptive. A large aspect is that the current bestiary calls goblins universally hated creatures, so making them common adventurers is immersion breaking.
Yes, you can play a character against stereotypes and yes, that can be a fun, interesting, compelling character. Look at how popular driizt is, but that doesn't mean drow should be core.
The argument for is look how popular driizt is. The archetype of misunderstood monster is common in fantasy stories. The character who has to fight against racial prejudice and constantly prove they aren't villains. Since this is a popular character archetype, it deserves space in core.
So partly it comes down to whether you think core should only include common races in the golorion world, or if you think it should include popular or diverse choices regardless of how rare they are in golorion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's anyone who claims that every Goblin will be disruptive. Of course, it's possible to play milder versions of all of the standard Goblin ticks. There are two issues. First, the Cavalier doesn't know that the goblin won't kill their horse and should have every reason to think that they will until they know each other very well. This is why, barring some in Universe explanation for goblins getting a better image than they have, the Cavalier effectively can't roll play a character that values the life of their companion. In order to not be a dick and engage PVP, every other character has to distort themselves around the fact that the goblin is there. It's possible to come up with explanations efficient to keep everyone in character in a specific case, but such things are going to be lacking a lot of the time as well.
Table ruining disruption is also not the only kind of disruption. Milder versions the goblin ticks are still going to be very annoying. I suspect one of the challenges of GMing a goblin will be keeping players on task when they're too busy reveling in their quirks to pay attention to the adventure that they're supposed to be playing, and that perhaps the other players would like to play.
Not that no Goblin will stay on task, not even that no Goblin that represents those quirks somewhat well will stay on task, but I strongly suspect goblins in general are going to be attention hogging characters.
I also don't think goblins can be role-played in a game with a non comedic tone without discarding their identity. Goblins are built to be fundamentally non-serious comic relief, and I imagine GM's like myself who like to run a game with a more dramatic tone are going to struggle to maintain that tone in the presence of goblin Antics, even Goblin Antics mild enough that one can't justify calling them disruptive and punishing them.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why, barring some in Universe explanation for goblins getting a better image than they have, the Cavalier effectively can't roll play a character that values the life of their companion.
You talk about this like Jason Bulmahn has not already specifically and explicitly noted that an explanation like this is gonna happen. Which is weird, since he has.
The argument for is look how popular driizt is. The archetype of misunderstood monster is common in fantasy stories. The character who has to fight against racial prejudice and constantly prove they aren't villains. Since this is a popular character archetype, it deserves space in core.
If any goblin is as mopey as Drizzt about their lot in life, I'm going to be bitterly disappointed...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why, barring some in Universe explanation for goblins getting a better image than they have, the Cavalier effectively can't roll play a character that values the life of their companion.You talk about this like Jason Bulmahn has not already specifically and explicitly noted that an explanation like this is gonna happen. Which is weird, since he has.
No, he has denied that it will happen. He said that there would be some level of explanation for the introduction of goblin Adventures, and in response to people interpreting that comment the way you have, he specifically said that there would be no big magical explanation for how goblins got a better reputation.
It's just barely possible to interpret his comment as meaning simply that that explanation will not wipe out the stigma entirely, but the more likely interpretation is that there's going to be some minor concession toward explaining how more goblins are starting to be Adventures, and the plot hole is going to go on being immersion breaking.
For reference to those that may have missed it, this is Jason's post:
http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkog&page=26?Goblins#1272
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players that are disruptive are disruptive. They dont need a race/class/feat... to be.
With this said, if you give a player a dinamite and tell him his PC loves to blow things up... chances are he will blow things up.
A simple form to understand this is the other thread, where people point to the gnomes, and point to the fact that, sometimes due to their races lore, they themselves are disruptive by always trying new things and on and on.
Notice that most of the core races are very... bland by nature when it comes to this. They dont have a highly disruptive behavior built in for the most part. The PC sure can have them, but is on him, not the race as a whole.
Now take the goblin, he is literally a walking bomb.
Sure, good players will bypass this, but we all know that even when not in bad faith, not everyone is a good player, a vast majority isnt.
I agree that "disruptive players are gonna be disruptive and non-disruptive players aren't" but what I'm not sure about is the middle ground.
Absolutely there exist some players for whom certain options are a bad idea, which they will take to some extreme based on how they think it should be played and thereby ruin everyone's experience. Likewise, however, there are combinations which will spark something in a lower-skill RPer that helps them grow into a better player, and perhaps "Okay, how do I make a Goblin that is fun for everybody and not just me" is that spark. Like it should be obvious "a goblin *can* be annoying" and you just need to get people to think about "how do I avoid that." So how many problems can I head off by just having a "goblin talk" with players ("Goblins and you: Beetlejuice is not a team player")
I do not know about how large the two aforementioned sets are relative to each other, but I do know that "I come from an evil culture but I am trying to make good" is a reliable and relatively easy decent character arc for a lot of people. Heck some of my favorite characters are just "that, in hardmode".
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, he has denied that it will happen. He said that there would be some level of explanation for the introduction of goblin Adventures, and in response to people interpreting that comment the way you have, he specifically said that there would be no big magical explanation for how goblins got a better reputation.
No, what he said was:
3. There is more to the shift in goblins that I can honestly talk about here. Some of it would be a spoiler for things that are still in the planning phases, making them way to premature to talk about. Even if I could, I would not want to ruin the reveals.
Followed by:
We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.
The bolded part strongly implies, especially combined with the first bit he said, that some events effecting peoples opinions on goblins are extremely likely. It just isn't going to magically remove all prejudice or anything absurd like that.
It's just barely possible to interpret his comment as meaning simply that that explanation will not wipe out the stigma entirely, but the more likely interpretation is that there's going to be some minor concession toward explaining how more goblins are starting to be Adventures, and the plot hole is going to go on being immersion breaking.
Actually reading his words, I do not feel that is a reasonable interpretation. There's a really clear implication that something is gonna happen, just not something that magically erases all prejudice.
Additionally, let's assume competence on Paizo's part. Including Goblins without something to justify the change is, in fact, not a great plan. Assuming an interpretation where Paizo doesn't realize that is sort of assuming they aren't good at their job, which seems a poor assumption to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Notice that most of the core races are very... bland by nature when it comes to this. They dont have a highly disruptive behavior built in for the most part. The PC sure can have them, but is on him, not the race as a whole.
You could make a very fair argument this aspect of Dwarves could be disruptive, especially if you have, say, a Half-Orc PC in the group:
"Hatred: Dwarves gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes because of their special training against these hated foes."
Hell, unlike the Goblin PC of old, this isn't even just a bit of story, it's also mechanically baked into normal Dwarves and you have to pick alternative racial traits to remove it.
That can be just as disruptive, yet because they've traditionally been a core race, I feel like people overlook that.
What about how Elves view racially mixed people?
"Elves have difficulty accepting crossbreeds of any sort, however, and usually disown such offspring. They similarly regard half-orcs with distrust and suspicion, assuming they possess the worst aspects of orc and human personalities."
That could definitely be problematic in many groups given Half-Elves and Half-Orcs aren't uncommon choices.
You do a mission in a town run by a Half-Orc, only for your party's Elf to demean the leader's heritage, that could lead to severe problems.
A character is only as problematic as the player playing them allows said character to be.
If there's issues, talk it out with your player. If they won't bother fixing it, that's on them.
That will be something to behold. Like the great fire of London, back in 1666.
You know that fire was started by a goblin...
#TotallyNotFakeNews
As for the topic: all good points, that most people already accept. For single, exceptional Goblins. Which in some eyes is not enough to plonk them into Core.
I think the VAST number of people wouldn't think twice if they said 'and the playtest is going to have rules for goblin PC's!!!'. The addition of the word "core" is what whipped everything into a froth.
Additionally, let's assume competence on Paizo's part. Including Goblins without something to justify the change is, in fact, not a great plan. Assuming an interpretation where Paizo doesn't realize that is sort of assuming they aren't good at their job, which seems a poor assumption to make.
Oh I'm think they are extremely competent: however if we follow the skill blog, even THEY fail 5% of the time... :P
Seriously though, I know for myself that it'll be a monumental task for them to come up with something that'll make sense to me: their rep is JUST so very, very bad. It's pretty universally know common sense that goblins are just the worst kind of humanoid. So I'll be super pleased if they manage to pull it off by WOWing me but the realist in me thinks it's unlikely.
|
|
No, he has denied that it will happen. He said that there would be some level of explanation for the introduction of goblin Adventures, and in response to people interpreting that comment the way you have, he specifically said that there would be no big magical explanation for how goblins got a better reputation.No, what he said was:
3. There is more to the shift in goblins that I can honestly talk about here. Some of it would be a spoiler for things that are still in the planning phases, making them way to premature to talk about. Even if I could, I would not want to ruin the reveals.Followed by:
We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.The bolded part strongly implies, especially combined with the first bit he said, that some events effecting peoples opinions on goblins are extremely likely. It just isn't going to magically remove all prejudice or anything absurd like that.
It's just barely possible to interpret his comment as meaning simply that that explanation will not wipe out the stigma entirely, but the more likely interpretation is that there's going to be some minor concession toward explaining how more goblins are starting to be Adventures, and the plot hole is going to go on being immersion breaking.Actually reading his words, I do not feel that is a reasonable interpretation. There's a really clear implication that something is gonna happen, just not something that magically erases all prejudice.
Additionally, let's assume competence on Paizo's part. Including Goblins without something to justify the change is, in fact, not a great plan. Assuming an interpretation where Paizo doesn't realize that is sort of assuming they...
Huh, how about that. That was not what I had remembered it saying.
Supposing that their explanation is sufficient, my realism problems would be adequately addressed. There was another thread talking about theories of how they would go about it, and several of them were good enough, so I do think it's possible.
I guess that just leaves the player behavior issues for me. This race just begs people to be the kind of attention hogging jokester that I least like to play with. I previously made the mistake of focusing on major misbehavior, and while I think there will be more of that too, I'm more worried about people just being generally annoying.
The image that pops into my head of someone who wants to play a Goblin, barring of course the possibility that they're being a goblin for mechanical reasons because it Best Suits their build, is someone who wants to be make every encounter about the fact that they are a goblin, prevent any kind of serious tone or investment from developing, and generally make the session about them rather than any of the other players including me.
#NotAllGoblins of course, hell, I'm probably going to try out goblins as soon as I get the opportunity to... though actually I am a little worried I'll slip into that without realizing it, and my game store friends all seem like the kind of people who would do the same thing, equally unintentionally.
Also the blog post mentioned puns. This is a dangerous thing to say in public because people are going to bombard me with them now, but for the record, f*** puns.
To bring some data into the discussion, this poll suggests about 20% of goblins are disruptive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be curious how many people find other things to be disruptive: Paladins, Rogues, Evil characters, Lawful Good characters, Chaotic Neutral characters, etc.
To bring some data into the discussion, this poll suggests about 20% of goblins are disruptive.
For myself, I don't think that PC goblin are the main issue some have so I'm unsure how much weight I can give to the poll. IMO it's having common goblins in the game that is my concern.
I would be curious how many people find other things to be disruptive: Paladins, Rogues, Evil characters, Lawful Good characters, Chaotic Neutral characters, etc.
Alignment in general and tangentially paladins as they are inexorably intertwined with it: Paladins and kender are the 2 things I'll never have in a game I'm in.
]Alignment in general and tangentially paladins as they are inexorably intertwined with it: Paladins and kender are the 2 things I'll never have in a game I'm in.
I feel like we have diametrically opposed experiences since I have never seen a disruptive Paladin and I have seen several tolerable Kender.
]Alignment in general and tangentially paladins as they are inexorably intertwined with it: Paladins and kender are the 2 things I'll never have in a game I'm in.I feel like we have diametrically opposed experiences since I have never seen a disruptive Paladin and I have seen several tolerable Kender.
LOL As I've said somewhere else, anyone playing a "tolerable Kender" wasn't actually play a kender as they are built from the ground up to be inherently annoying as a race. The race write up without anyone playing one makes me want to strangle something. They are intolerable by nature.
On paladins, they aren't always an issue but the majority of major meltdown arguments have been over paladins and alignment and it's the only time I've seen a literal table flip. It all revolves around the subjectiveness of alignment vs the black and white requirements of ANY evil action, no matter how minor makes you lose all your class abilities. In my experience, no two people boil every situation into the exact same tiny blocks as things are far too fluid for that. It's why I'd LOVE if they ditch alignment all together or at least remove all mechanical significance from it.
However, the correct way to play anything is not "as the designer/developer/writer intended it" it is "how the player judges it would be most entertaining/interesting/beneficial to the people in the game." Authorial intent is generally worthless, but especially so in cooperative storytelling games.
However, the correct way to play anything is not "as the designer/developer/writer intended it" it is "how the player judges it would be most entertaining/interesting/beneficial to the people in the game." Authorial intent is generally worthless, but especially so in cooperative storytelling games.
Agreed, Not sure how that and my post intersect.
Paladins lose power on evil act. No two people ever 100% agree on what is evil. The further apart opinions are the more issue you have. It's built to be a problematic class at its core. It's why a code would be better: everyone can agree if you're wearing green or eat pork...
I'm saying "the wrong way to play a kender/goblin" is "the way that isn't fun for the rest of the people in the game."
|
|
Paladins lose power on evil act. No two people ever 100% agree on what is evil. The further apart opinions are the more issue you have. It's built to be a problematic class at its core. It's why a code would be better: everyone can agree if you're wearing green or eat pork...
I've never had a problem with a Paladin committing an Evil act (or indeed, even had one do so at all). This is probably partly because I discuss with my players who play Paladins how Good is defined in my games. This strategy works well for other potential problem sources as well, and I highly recommend it.
I'm saying "the wrong way to play a kender/goblin" is "the way that isn't fun for the rest of the people in the game."
Oh, I'm all for people playing characters how they like: the issue is that kenders don't have choice: They have no fear, ALL of them. They are klepto's with no understanding of personal property or introspection, ALL of them. There isn't a variation in the race. your free to play it another way but then you aren't playing a kender but one that looks like one. it's like playing a normally blind race but write in that you can see... You can do it, but you aren't playing the race.
For the kender, they are literally made so that they can't be "fun for the rest of the people in the game", or at least anyone I've ever met or played with. I literally read the race description and thought 'why hadn't everyone banded together and started the great genocide'. They work in the book because they have plot armor but in a real game... no...
SO in the end, if you ignore the racial writeup of the race you're playing something that looks like the race instead of actually playing it.
Paladins lose power on evil act. No two people ever 100% agree on what is evil. The further apart opinions are the more issue you have. It's built to be a problematic class at its core. It's why a code would be better: everyone can agree if you're wearing green or eat pork...I've never had a problem with a Paladin committing an Evil act (or indeed, even had one do so at all). This is probably partly because I discuss with my players who play Paladins how Good is defined in my games. This strategy works well for other potential problem sources as well, and I highly recommend it.
That's fine in principle but has never worked in practice [for me at least]. If you have a game with even a bit of morally gray content, what's evil because a judgement call any the alignments aren't anywhere close to being well enough defined for that.
And for perspective, this is with a 3-4 home games and several online games, all with different players and DM's. Roughly 1/2 the time introducing a paladin resulted in an issue. In the end, it was either 100% dumb alignment or axe paladins: I went for minimizing alignment as much as possible AND axing paladins and haven't looked back since. Now, there are still the off issues but since then I've never seen anything close to a table flip again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Sneaky tendencies, an issue with getting stuck in tight spaces, and a fear of writing/pictures aren't too much of an issue either. Hell, maybe your Goblin can gradually overcome that fear, and become a well-read individual who wants to bring back beautiful knowledge to their people.
I know the dislike words but I thought they liked to draw pictures albeit crass, crude drawings.
Their half-cocked actions, meanwhile? Any adventurer can do that. To what extend is up to you. Find a nice mix that fits your character without hurting the mood of the campaign.
Hell, if you really want to keep the "baby-eating" aspect, your Goblin could totally have a refined pallet, and insists on only eating the finest Veal steaks. The most that will cost you is some confused looks and some decent gold.
The...
Goblins are NE...that's an easy transition to N. They are also not stupid...they probably just don't know better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
