My Opinion on Goblins

[magnaangemon01]

In the playtest, I will be playing a Goblin Paladin. But in my honest opinion, goblins, like the 1/e half-orcs, should be too chaotic in nature to become Paladins. I think they should only be able to take alignments along the chaotic axis.

Don't get me wrong, I love goblins. As I've mentioned before, I have a Goblin DK on WoW and she is my main on horde. I just feel that for tabletop RPGs, it'd just be more realistic for them not to be lawful good Paladins. Now, if they make it to where Paladins can be any alignment, it would make more sense.

Just my thoughts.

[CommanderCoyler]

'Realistic', in a game where goblins exist in the first place...
Who's to say certain goblins can't focus, like any other intelligent race, and work towards being a holy warrior or law and good?
(Also: have I mentioned today that I am very much against the concept of alignment restrictions)

[Rysky]

No Humanoids have innate Alignments.

"I just feel that for tabletop RPGs, it'd just be more realistic"

This doesn't make any sense, Pathfinder isn't the only tabletop setting, and it's not the only bit of media with Goblins. What Goblins are runs the gamut all over the place.

[magnaangemon01]

I imagine goblins as tricksters and pranksters. But, it's just my opinion. Will have to see how our playtest turns out this weekend.

[CommanderCoyler]

magnaangemon01 wrote:

I imagine goblins as tricksters and pranksters. But, it's just my opinion. Will have to see how our playtest turns out this weekend.

That's just some/most of them #notallgoblins :p

[Elleth]

Tbh the goblin lore as given in PF2 calls them out on having an almost dog-like loyalty to folks that save their lives. I think that's a perfect fit for a paladin, and can be tied into a backstory really well.

[Tzakkesh]

I can certainly see that with Goblins there is a fundamental biological reason why they wouldn't generally be found in classes that require years of training, dedication, study and focus.

They just don't live all that long and they don't have time for that crap. They need to have babies NOW, as many as they can, or just fundamentally fail the simple task of a biological organism to pass on their genes.

But a hard-line "Heritage X is forbidden to be Archetype Y" is too much of a hard line to take on the matter. Rather than printing that, in a more expanded rulebook it would be good under the Heritage section to explain why, purely from a thematic and narrative perspective rather than mechanical, why certain heritages might be drawn to certain archetypes and avoid others. And in that case, explaining why Goblins would have issues becoming Paladins would make sense.

[Anguish]

I suspect the train left the station long before the playtest was announced and this isn't one of the things that will see change, but my issue is that the very things that made goblins interesting as NPCs and as once-a-year Free RPG Day PCs are the things that made them inappropriate for core inclusion. Run-on sentence aside.

[sherlock1701]

Rysky wrote:

No Humanoids have innate Alignments.

"I just feel that for tabletop RPGs, it'd just be more realistic"

This doesn't make any sense, Pathfinder isn't the only tabletop setting, and it's not the only bit of media with Goblins. What Goblins are runs the gamut all over the place.

Goblins are goblinoids, not humanoids.

[EberronHoward]

Also, the Core Rulebooks for official release should have options for Chaotic Good Paladins, if that helps.

[Tzakkesh]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

No Humanoids have innate Alignments.

"I just feel that for tabletop RPGs, it'd just be more realistic"

This doesn't make any sense, Pathfinder isn't the only tabletop setting, and it's not the only bit of media with Goblins. What Goblins are runs the gamut all over the place.

Goblins are goblinoids, not humanoids.

All Goblinoids are humanoids. Goblinoid is just a subgroup within humanoids that is used to describe a group of races that are more closely related than most other races.

Although, I imagine from a goblin's perspective, they would categorize humans, dwarfs, elves, gnomes, etc. all as "Goblinoids" as they would presumably describe anything that has similar body structure and features as them as a "Goblinoid" as they wouldn't see humans as the central race.

You could similarly group Dwarfs and Gnomes into a category called "Dwarfoids" or Elves, Nymphs, Dryads, etc. under a category called "Elfoids" while if those races used those terms, they would probably include humans under that umbrella term.

But-- it isn't a species thing at all. Anything that is basically human but with some odd features (usually borrowed from other real life animals) is a "humanoid".

It isn't a term native to D&D/Pathfinder and is instead a more general term to describe a lot of beings in fiction. For instance, most aliens in fiction are "humanoid" from the Predator to the Navi to the Twi'leks to the Cardassians and so forth.

Of course, the term has a bit of fuzziness to it. For example, if you have Centaurs or a lot of fantasy world's interpretations of Naga, instead of legs they have something different there so it becomes somewhat debatable whether they term applies. Similarly, if something has a different number of arms or eyes or whatever, there is some fuzziness whether the term should apply. After a certain number of differences a creature stops being a humanoid, but generally one or two differences in body shape or features don't disqualify the term from being used.

Although, with Goblinoids-- it isn't even questionable. They have 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 ears, 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 1 mouth, stand upright, use hands to manipulate objects... yeah, they are definitely within the human family of creatures. One could easily imagine them existing as some other off-shoot of Australopithecus.

Also, a lot of things that are categorized differently under the rules such as Succubi or Satyrs or Pixies and such are actually still Humanoids by definition, it is just that their magical natures are considered more important mechanically than their general human shape and appearance so they get stuck in a category separate from the mundane humanoids.

[captain yesterday]

A couple of points from my perspective.

1. They tried racial restrictions on classes in 1st and 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons, I absolutely hated it, I can't go back to that.

2. Elves are aliens, no relation to Nymphs and Dryads.

3. I like goblins.

4. With how many goblin orphanages set up on these boards during the Pathfinder Classic heyday there should be more than enough Goblin Paladins to go around, so go nuts!

[Oswald the Dirty and Smelly]

Goblins are funny, they are zanny, they are dirty, they are smelly, and they are not quite right in the head. They are my peeps. It would be a tragedy to have goblins to become ordinary, mundane, and/ or human. There should be a question you should ask yourself, can I play crazy?

[PossibleCabbage]

I figure a disciplined and virtuous goblin is not any more a contradiction in terms than a saintly tiefling, a generous and kindly changeling, or an aasimar who is truly evil person.

Like people who have even more of a reason to be inclined one way or the other (since outsider are made of the elemental stuff of alignment) don't have a preference for one alignment over another, so why should goblins for whom their negative behavior is 100% cultural?

Plus I mean, "overcoming one's nature/upbringing" is a fun RPing hook.

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Plus I mean, "overcoming one's nature/upbringing" is a fun RPing hook.

For a single isolated character, sure. For an entire core race? IMO, not so much.

[PossibleCabbage]

graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Plus I mean, "overcoming one's nature/upbringing" is a fun RPing hook.

For a single isolated character, sure. For an entire core race? IMO, not so much.

Rules for PCs are designed to represent single isolated characters, not entire species.

Like Dwarves, as a people, tend to be extremely lawful, but there are precisely no rules that restrict or otherwise favor one alignment over another for PC Dwarves, but this doesn't mean most Dwarves aren't lawful.

PCs, by the very fact that they go on adventures and do great things while most of their childhood friends and neighbors will not, are universally iconoclasts.

Plus, I mean, when was the last time you saw someone play a changeling or a tiefling who wasn't trying to overcome their nature and be a good person?

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Plus I mean, "overcoming one's nature/upbringing" is a fun RPing hook.

For a single isolated character, sure. For an entire core race? IMO, not so much.

Rules for PCs are designed to represent single isolated characters, not entire species.

That's kind of dodging the point. It's one thing to have a goblins seeking to play against type. It loses all meaning when you have 4 people in the group all doing the same thing. You can't call them "iconoclasts" while looking at multiple instances of the same exception.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Plus, I mean, when was the last time you saw someone play a changeling or a tiefling who wasn't trying to overcome their nature and be a good person?

Ah... Me a few months ago. I can't recall a time I DID play a tiefling or changeling seeking redemption. Or in fact have someone else do so. So for me it's 'when was the last time you've seen someone use the old 'bad blood trying to do good' trope'? The few times people called out their demon/demon/hag blood, it was to double down on it as a demon summoner or a gingerbread witch.

PS: I do know of someone that played a tiefling paladin that might have done the 'redemption' thing but I can't be sure as I didn't play with them as I have a strict 'no paladin in my group' rule.

From my perspective, I've NEVER had a changeling or a tiefling seen in anywhere close to the negative light goblins are seen as. At best those two have a 'bad boy' vibe while the goblins has a more 'cannibal eat your face off and set you on fire' vibe.