I for one, welcome our Core Goblin Overlords...


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the Goblins will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new emerald skinned overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted DM, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground pickle caves.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I had a player play a goblin on the first chapter of the play test.. I created unique names for every goblin foe, and told him all their names as he knew them, being their ex-companion... it was so fun. They fought gloriously against Gnawst, Pickle, Snorst, Pickle-Pickle, Kreefton, Pickletoo...
This created such a great dynamic... him trying to reason with them, and trying to just knock out most of them when reason didn’t work. Something that couldn’t happen if it wasn’t core.

And really, on MY Golarion, it VERY probable that gobs could start getting accepted, even in Sandpoint, as the Dwarf Barbarian in my Rise of the Runelord group saved a baby and raised him in the school with the help of the headmaster. I made her roll for raising the child, and surprisingly did VERY well. It took less than two months for him to be able to be integrated with the other kids. :3

I LOVE Paizo’s Goblins, and am very sad to see how much some people can’t see them as anything else than pure evil... >_>
Even more so when it’s CLEAR that it’s not how Paizo see, and want to portray, them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:

I had a player play a goblin on the first chapter of the play test.. I created unique names for every goblin foe, and told him all their names as he knew them, being their ex-companion... it was so fun. They fought gloriously against Gnawst, Pickle, Snorst, Pickle-Pickle, Kreefton, Pickletoo...

This created such a great dynamic... him trying to reason with them, and trying to just knock out most of them when reason didn’t work. Something that couldn’t happen if it wasn’t core.

And really, on MY Golarion, it VERY probable that gobs could start getting accepted, even in Sandpoint, as the Dwarf Barbarian in my Rise of the Runelord group saved a baby and raised him in the school with the help of the headmaster. I made her roll for raising the child, and surprisingly did VERY well. It took less than two months for him to be able to be integrated with the other kids. :3

I LOVE Paizo’s Goblins, and am very sad to see how much some people can’t see them as anything else than pure evil... >_>
Even more so when it’s CLEAR that it’s not how Paizo see, and want to portray, them.

Those names made me giggle. Great post, would read again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep I plan on my 1st main being a remake of my playtest goblin alchemist, Zaphriel Pitch, a chain smoking cloak wearing cockney speaking scoundrel with a soft spot for kids


2 people marked this as a favorite.

ALL ABOARD THE I.G.S. FUNBREAKER!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As long as we can play Goblins in Evil campaigns, I am happy :-)

(Fond memories of a long-ago Goblin Ninja in an All-Evil Palladium FRPG game set in kind of Middle-Earth)


if a player wants to explore being prejudiced against, goblin is a good idea.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I've never played a goblin or even really wanted to. Goblins aren't just very close to any of my RPing comfort zones. But I don't really see a difference between "core" and "not core" other than "what books these things are in" so I have no quarrel with core goblins. Golarion has enough of everything that any random type of person can be a PC in any campaign that does not specifically preclude that thing being a good choice (e.g. a Hobgoblin PC in Ironfang Invasion probably does not work.)

I'm happy about adding literally any ancestry or class to the core rulebook, honestly.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just hope the Core comes packed with a few Goblin themes pieces of equipment since they're getting the Core treatment.

I'm talking -
Dogslicer
Horsechopper
Pickle Barrel
Pic(ckle)tograph book -To help communicate with those illiterate goblins
Pickle Sticker
Toad Pets
Old Shoes
The homeless guy from towns trash barrel/fun-wheel


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

I just hope the Core comes packed with a few Goblin themes pieces of equipment since they're getting the Core treatment.

I'm talking -
Dogslicer
Horsechopper
Pickle Barrel
Pic(ckle)tograph book -To help communicate with those illiterate goblins
Pickle Sticker
Toad Pets
Old Shoes
The homeless guy from towns trash barrel/fun-wheel

Dogslicer and Horsechopper made the cut for the Playtest Rulebook.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, I've never played a goblin or even really wanted to. Goblins aren't just very close to any of my RPing comfort zones. But I don't really see a difference between "core" and "not core" other than "what books these things are in" so I have no quarrel with core goblins. Golarion has enough of everything that any random type of person can be a PC in any campaign that does not specifically preclude that thing being a good choice (e.g. a Hobgoblin PC in Ironfang Invasion probably does not work.)

I'm happy about adding literally any ancestry or class to the core rulebook, honestly.

This, really. I don't really get the hangup about it being core, except for PFS where I guess you need boons to use non-core races. But even that seems rather pedantic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Core does tend to get a lot more emphasis and support - more rules, abilities, archetypes, etc.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If nothing else, Paizo loves to put out 'We Be Goblin..." adventures. Goblins being core, with all the level of detail that thejeff mentions, will facilitate that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually playing Kingmaker for the first time and playing as a Chaotic Good Goblin Rogue (with an impressive 14 Charisma, which would be 18 Charisma under 2E Playtest rules). Let's just say my Gobbo's going to be making a strong argument about changing society and the world at large.

I've never been a player who likes the assertions of some race or another being inherently "evil". So, I'm always down with adding options for playable races.

Well, I suppose Ancestry now.

Either way, definitely want to do a face Goblin down the road in 2E. Maybe a Bard. Having fun with my Bard in another game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Sir Sneed the Wise, LG Paladin of Iomedae. It's happening.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Playing a goblin is like playing a drow 10 years ago.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, I've never played a goblin or even really wanted to. Goblins aren't just very close to any of my RPing comfort zones. But I don't really see a difference between "core" and "not core" other than "what books these things are in" so I have no quarrel with core goblins. Golarion has enough of everything that any random type of person can be a PC in any campaign that does not specifically preclude that thing being a good choice (e.g. a Hobgoblin PC in Ironfang Invasion probably does not work.)

I'm happy about adding literally any ancestry or class to the core rulebook, honestly.

This, really. I don't really get the hangup about it being core, except for PFS where I guess you need boons to use non-core races. But even that seems rather pedantic.

I think there are multiple parts of core vs. non-core that are important to many people. The fact that core ancestries get more details and options is part of it. As is the assumption that core should be all fair game all the time instead of restricted by the GM. PFS another layer of it. And core also seems to imply a commonness. A town like Sandpoint could easily have a number of members of every PF1 core ancestry, but you're probably not going to be seeing many or even any fetchlings or ratfolk or grippli or ghorans or Astomoi. Would the goblin population be more like gnomes and half orcs, or fetchlings and ratfolk in number? It seems clear to me that the later is the case. Goblins included in core does give the implication that they're another part of mainstream society. Not necessarily without prejudice, as half-orcs face a lot, but at least a part of it. Goblins previously haven't really been a part of that.

I'm not actually against core goblins (although I started a bit skeptical). But there is a real difference between a core and non-core ancestry, at least to many people. It might not matter to you, but it does to many others.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
If nothing else, Paizo loves to put out 'We Be Goblin..." adventures. Goblins being core, with all the level of detail that thejeff mentions, will facilitate that.

But isn't part of the appeal of We be Goblins the fact that you're going well outside the norm? They're not doing series like "Elfing around" or "Gnomeapalooza" after all. But maybe they should.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Time for We be Kobolds :-)


The thing about goblins is that while they may not have been super in "settlements," especially in places like Sandpoint, they have also been fecund af from the beginning. There are tons of them. They are a bit like roaches. If you see one goblin there are probably dozens in the woods nearby. So if goblins gain a foothold in polite society, then they could plausibly come out of the woodwork.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
But I don't really see a difference between "core" and "not core" other than "what books these things are in" so I have no quarrel with core goblins.

I believe this will be objectively shown to be an erroneous assessment in the near future.

Now, I certainly will hold out hope that I'm wrong. But it seems unlikely.

If goblins get equal treatment with other core races in their appearances as NPCs in published material, then that will make a huge difference. And it will seriously dampen the appeal of those products to some portion of the fan base.

And how far you go with "what books these things are in" is important. How much page count per book becomes goblin themed? I seriously doubt it will be high. How much PF1 material can be called "elf specific"? Not an overwhelming amount. But on the other hand, how much is "too much"?

If the 2E NPC guide has roughly equal representation of goblins as the 1E version does for half-orcs, then the value of the product will be sharply harmed to me.

Now, I can back up to the underlying philosophy and agree with you. I have absolutely everything I need to drop a goblin PC in my P1 campaign tomorrow. And if a player came to me and requested to play one, then I would have a large "sell me on the concept and why it fits" hurdle in front of them. But I'd also be looking to interact with them on their idea and help them overcome the hurdle. Their is an important yin/yang between the archtypes of my story and setting and the great value of players cutting hard against the grain. So I want to find a way to say yes. But the standards behind yes must still survive.

In 2E, assuming I play, this will be the same. I've no interest in a setting which embraces the ideas implicit to goblins as core. But a one off would be welcome, once it passes the same threshold as I have for 1E. This is really a completely system neutral thing. The story and ideas are 100% unchanged.

So I ban goblins from the word go and then we work from there. Of course, players will be even less likely to ask to play a race if I've found the need to ban it up front....

So all the products that Paizo sells month over month have to either give short shift to goblins and alienate the people who likes the idea, or they have to embrace them and alienate the people who are opposed. It is a self-inflicted no-win wound.

And, with all that aside, if we presume that PFS is thriving two years from now, I think it is a very safe bet that the "goblin thread" will be a thing with the same unending arguments over "the new kender" bringing down the fun, and goblin players complaining that people unfairly refuse to game with them because that other guy played a jerk goblin.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"Honey what's wrong"

What she wants to say: Goblins are an excellent choice for a core ancestry. As well as being iconic to Golarion, they're entertaining to play as and with. They can be done in a nuanced way, a city dwelling creature which experiences discrimination at the hands of those who see them as vermin (Nott from Critical Role being an exemplary character here) or as a more feral creature being introduced to society and struggling with interesting fish-out-of-water personal arcs, such as Fumbus. The ancestry has quirks which are equally entertaining to embrace or to ignore (a goblin who rolls their eyes at other illiterate Goblins vs a Goblin genuinely terrified of writing), allows for a fresh and wild approach otherwise impossible aside from maybe the gnome, experience discrimination and hatred rivalling and perhaps eclipsing that of half-orcs and overall adding a new spin on ancestries that can be played in just as many ways as any other. People who reject Goblins and refuse to allow them at their table are valid in their fear of change, but I really wish they'd give these new adventurers (heroic or not) a chance to prove that they're not the vermin we've come to expect them to be.

What she says: I'm fine


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

So all the products that Paizo sells month over month have to either give short shift to goblins and alienate the people who likes the idea, or they have to embrace them and alienate the people who are opposed. It is a self-inflicted no-win wound.

And, with all that aside, if we presume that PFS is thriving two years from now, I think it is a very safe bet that the "goblin thread" will be a thing with the same unending arguments over "the new kender" bringing down the fun, and goblin players complaining that people unfairly refuse to game with them because that other guy played a jerk goblin.

Is that really bad though? I mean even with the ranger/paladin less magical weird rework, pigeonholing paladins into the armor and rangers into the weird category it only made the community debate what it means to make them unique characters.

I think the debates about goblins adventurers will likely only open new doors, i mean half orcs are an example of a weird evolution where they were monsters before and now are quite widely accepted as heroes. So i wonder if that wound is really a no-win wound, or you are just pessimist because you don't like the idea.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, regarding "Goblins are going to be everywhere, you won't be able to avoid them"... how many PF1 products had such a heavy gnome presence that their essential gnomeyness is unavoidable? How many games were derailed by the fact that gnomes are biologically compelled to be pranksters? Anime haired mischief-addicted gnomes are every bit as much a potential minefield as goblins are, IMO, and yet it was fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:

Is that really bad though? I mean even with the ranger/paladin less magical weird rework, pigeonholing paladins into the armor and rangers into the weird category it only made the community debate what it means to make them unique characters.

I think the debates about goblins adventurers will likely only open new doors, i mean half orcs are an example of a weird evolution where they were monsters before and now are quite widely accepted as heroes. So i wonder if that wound is really a no-win wound, or you are just pessimist because you don't like the idea.
possible cabbage wrote:
I mean, regarding "Goblins are going to be everywhere, you won't be able to avoid them"... how many PF1 products had such a heavy gnome presence that their essential gnomeyness is unavoiable? How many games were derailed by the fact that gnomes are biologically compelled to be pranksters? Anime haired mischief-addicted gnomes are every bit as much a potential minefield as goblins are, IMO, and yet it was fine.

Yes. I agree with both of you.

I can in most cases rework around goblins.

But, first, keep in mind the claim I replied to. It was stated that there was no difference. I've identified differences.

Second, Paizo wants to trade their products for money. Forcing people to work around things has a non-zero negative impact there.

I don't at all agree with the gnome or half-orc equivalences. Half-orcs have been around for decades and accepted as just that "HALF" orc. If you want a half-goblin core race, then I'll start over in the conversation. I'd be just as opposed to an orc core race. As to gnomes, we agree that it didn't appeal to the type. Time will tell on the goblins. And I'm sure you will be here pointing fingers of blame at everyone else.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll back up and stress that I'm still of the opinion that the game should be as open and flexible as possible. I want the game to be able to readily handle goblin PCs. Of course, I also want the game to be able to readily handle orc or other "monster" PCs.

But there is a big difference between embracing a flexible game and making goblin PCs core. And acting like it doesn't change anything is not thoughtful position. It changes things, and it has a cost.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That’s pretty fair, Byron. Thanks for the counterpoint.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:


I don't at all agree with the gnome or half-orc equivalences. Half-orcs have been around for decades and accepted as just that "HALF" orc. If you want a half-goblin core race, then I'll start over in the conversation. I'd be just as opposed to an orc core race. As to gnomes, we agree that it didn't appeal to the type. Time will tell on the goblins. And I'm sure you will be here pointing fingers of blame at everyone else.

I don't think most people will work around goblins, you will and a few people will. About the weird races debate there are still two other examples... Dragonborn and tiefling in 4e? and in 5e i think. I always like new races so to me orcs, kobolds and most other races are just dandy for a player handbook. But i guess some people do see it differently.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the biggest adjustment some tables will have to make is that "goblin" will no longer be code for "acceptable to slaughter on sight". But to recreate that sort of thing (do we need that sort of thing?) we can just dress goblins in bandit regalia.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have qualms with the idea that just because you are part of a specific race then that automatically makes you evil or even good for that matter. Sure in game terms as a general concept as a description i understand but as a player you are the exception, within reason of course. We would never have gotten to meet characters like Drizzt if a race automatically determined your moral compass.

Bring on the Goblins! I look forward to the amazing flavor they can add to my game....not that they weren't an option to play as in 1E...

Players and the Gm make the game not the mechanics.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm right out on the goblins. They've always been the monsters. Hard to change my mindset. I'd only play one in an adventure designed for it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

People have been wanting to play the monsters since the TSR days though. We have a long tradition of this sort of thing in various incarnations of D20 games.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been down with this since 2012.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm okay with Core goblins. I can accept that they were popular, and that this is a way to bank on their popularity. I'm okay with goblin tribes attempting to make peace with longshanks, especially because of all the Pathfinder Good-alignedness with a focus on redemption.
While I do get worried reading about people angrily refuse to accept them as nothing more than silly trash mobs, it'll die down soon enough.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
People have been wanting to play the monsters since the TSR days though.

The Complete Book of Humanoids was the single most dog-eared 2ned edition splatbook I owned.

Besides letting you play as goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins, orcs, lizardmen [sic] and so forth, it also had (occasionally clunky) rules for things like ogres, ogre magi, alaghi (which could inflict 2d6 damage with their fists from level 1! Good times.), aaracockra, and satyrs. Pixies.

Might not have been "core," but it was presented as a setting-neutral set of uniform rules (and "core in the 2e days was so restrictive it's kind of hard to articulate now).

Kinda funny that so many of my games have been all-human since I picked up Pathfinder, but... I digress.

Among the things Paizo are going for with 2nd Edition is a stronger sense of Pathfinder product identity. Various monsters are getting aesthetic tweaks, they're spreading their wings beyond being basically D&D 3.75... by taking their goblins, which they've thoroughly embraced as part of the product identity, and making them a core ancestry, they're simply following through on this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now if I could ever get a PF2 Eberron game going...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Playing a goblin is like playing a drow 10 years ago.

You say this like playing a drow 10 years later is somehow any better.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BryonD wrote:
Time will tell on the goblins. And I'm sure you will be here pointing fingers of blame at everyone else.

Does that mean you'll be here apologizing for comments like that if everything turns out fine?

Shadow Lodge

I like goblins. Many different authors have made interesting different versions of them. However, the Golorion version are homicidal pyromaniacs. They were obviously intended as "evil monsters" for PCs to kill indiscriminately and not feel bad about, because they so evil. So... I don't mind this retcon, I think it is a good direction to go, but it is a retcon. It's going to take time to get used to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Time will tell on the goblins. And I'm sure you will be here pointing fingers of blame at everyone else.
Does that mean you'll be here apologizing for comments like that if everything turns out fine?

I feel like the simple answer is talk to your players, and let them know that "Well its what my character would do" isnt going to fly, be it a rogue stealing from the party, a paladin murdering an ally for revealing he was secretly lawful evil, not neutral-or the DM imposed a shift due to rp. Just because you're a gnome doesnt mean you have to prank. Goblins dont need to be disruptive monsters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My group and I welcome the goblins as core in our games. Will ther be players that Kender out their Goblin? it’s possible for I’ve seen players do that with gnomes as well. Perhaps since I’ve been playing rpg’s since the late 70’s the groups that I tend to play with are a little more mature and we tend to squash overly silly behavior pretty quickly.

Granted we have had our one shot goofball, evil, or just plane murder hobo games and have had fun playing them as well. What’s fun at our tables isn’t fun at anothers and vise versa. We look at the whole goblin “dilemma” as a non issue, play what’s fun at your table.

I promise that my table wont call the “Fun Police” to tell others how they “should” play according to how we have fun. If as a GM your anti goblin and your players are okay with having a core race taken off of the table than it’s okay to squash the little fire starters in the dirt.

Okay were’s that dirty little fumbus, I want my payment........ Woah little guy why are you burning down that buisness? Oh right “Goblin”.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Time will tell on the goblins. And I'm sure you will be here pointing fingers of blame at everyone else.
Does that mean you'll be here apologizing for comments like that if everything turns out fine?

Certainly

Will you be here apologizing if it doesn't?

Dark Archive

11 people marked this as a favorite.

While PF Goblins were a breath of fun fresh air with their whackiness, they were very two-dimensional and painted with a broad brush. Always whacky. Never read or write. Lopsided stat modifiers. Pretty much 'not for PCs' stamped on their foreheads.

I'm all for the 'always' and the 'nevers' to be toned down a bit, and for them to have a range of personality types, perhaps some cultural variations, etc. and become a bit more 'playable' than they have been before.

I'm all for that for all sorts of races, actually. 'Always this' and 'never that' restrictions bug me. Nothing puts my back up in a game than being shown something shiny and told 'that's not for you.'

I have zero desire to play a goblin. But I like the direction the wind is blowing. Wake me up when we get to 'playable gnolls.' Or lizardfolk (with a much lower starting natural AC!), or buffed-up-to-PC-race-equivalent kobolds. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Almost twins, Set. Gnolls and lizardfolk have been my favorites for a long time. My brother could never understand why I would play monsters. I "played" (more really DMPC'd) an orc called Br'luk Screltch back in the ADnD days. My brother played ... elves. And humans. And once, a half-orc.

To be honest, mostly now I like Humans - my current PbP characters are 4 humans, a sylph, a woodborn (3pp plant race), a warforged and two elves - the elves are a rare departure and a sign of me "branching out".There is a goblin but that is in a We Be... game that didn't get past the first pageful of posts. My penchant of old for gnolls and lizardfolk is tempered by the "humans, except with funny masks" concept, so I do try to limit them to games where I really feel the need and where I'm feeling the passion for the race. I liked "lizardmen" ever since finding an encampment of them on the outskirts of the Keep in the Borderlands in Basic DnD. Gnolls? I don't really know why I love 'em. Possibly their ADnD demon god Yeenoghu or their relationship to flinds and the flindbar in the old ADnD 1e Fiend Folio. Golarion's Lamashtu worshipping gnolls continue that theme. Also, being hyenaesque they are more feline and not at all canine...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Almost twins, Set. Gnolls and lizardfolk have been my favorites for a long time. My brother could never understand why I would play monsters. I "played" (more really DMPC'd) an orc called Br'luk Screltch back in the ADnD days. My brother played ... elves. And humans. And once, a half-orc.

To be honest, mostly now I like Humans - my current PbP characters are 4 humans, a sylph, a woodborn (3pp plant race), a warforged and two elves - the elves are a rare departure and a sign of me "branching out".There is a goblin but that is in a We Be... game that didn't get past the first pageful of posts. My penchant of old for gnolls and lizardfolk is tempered by the "humans, except with funny masks" concept, so I do try to limit them to games where I really feel the need and where I'm feeling the passion for the race. I liked "lizardmen" ever since finding an encampment of them on the outskirts of the Keep in the Borderlands in Basic DnD. Gnolls? I don't really know why I love 'em. Possibly their ADnD demon god Yeenoghu or their relationship to flinds and the flindbar in the old ADnD 1e Fiend Folio. Golarion's Lamashtu worshipping gnolls continue that theme. Also, being hyenaesque they are more feline and not at all canine...

I like gnolls because of Digger and have wanted to play one inspired by that since reading it, though I haven't found the right place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Set wrote:

While PF Goblins were a breath of fun fresh air with their whackiness, they were very two-dimensional and painted with a broad brush. Always whacky. Never read or write. Lopsided stat modifiers. Pretty much 'not for PCs' stamped on their foreheads.

I'm all for the 'always' and the 'nevers' to be toned down a bit, and for them to have a range of personality types, perhaps some cultural variations, etc. and become a bit more 'playable' than they have been before.

I'm all for that for all sorts of races, actually. 'Always this' and 'never that' restrictions bug me. Nothing puts my back up in a game than being shown something shiny and told 'that's not for you.'

I have zero desire to play a goblin. But I like the direction the wind is blowing. Wake me up when we get to 'playable gnolls.' Or lizardfolk (with a much lower starting natural AC!), or buffed-up-to-PC-race-equivalent kobolds. :)

Jason Bulmahn is allowing on of the players in the Oblivion Oath Twitch stream to play an Iruxi (Lizardfolk), so they will be demonstrating making custom ancestries right from the start (Iruxi are not in core, but this demo could wind up being in a future rules supplement as Jason—literally—writes the rules!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BryonD wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Time will tell on the goblins. And I'm sure you will be here pointing fingers of blame at everyone else.
Does that mean you'll be here apologizing for comments like that if everything turns out fine?

Certainly

Will you be here apologizing if it doesn't?

I prefer instead to not make rude comments in the first place, so I don't eventually need to apologize for them.

Although - as you can see from my recent apology to N N - I don't always succeed. I do try to own it when I mess up, though.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
I like goblins. Many different authors have made interesting different versions of them. However, the Golorion version are homicidal pyromaniacs. They were obviously intended as "evil monsters" for PCs to kill indiscriminately and not feel bad about, because they so evil. So... I don't mind this retcon, I think it is a good direction to go, but it is a retcon. It's going to take time to get used to.

I'd entirely disagree on calling it a retcon. Paizo has, until recently, only shown goblins in fairly limited geographical areas, and even those have some variance on exactly how goblins interact with others. Sandpoint is in an area where a human colony has spent the last few decades exterminating goblins, so none of the goblins there have grown up with older goblins to provide any examples or leadership. They're basically feral children, which is true of most other places we've typically talked about goblins. In Isger the goblins were used as shock troops by their hobgoblin cousins until the hobgoblins lost the Goblinblood War and basically abandoned the goblins they'd been using to fight for them, leaving Isger's goblins in much the same shape as the Rasp's.

Adding more context doesn't mean that what was true ceases to be true, it just means there's more context. We've had goblins integrated into various locations for a long time; way back in 2008 Paizo talked about the goblins sold as slaves in Katapesh and the CN goblin rogue Krebble-Jeggle running games at the Golden Scarab. That's 11 years ago that we introduced the first non-evil goblin actually holding down a legitimate (by Katapeshi standards) job and working as part of a larger society.

There being predominantly evil goblin tribes who frequently come into conflict with the other peoples of Golarion doesn't preclude the existence of less viciously inclined goblins any more than humans being responsible for some of the most vile and destructive acts on Golarion precludes the existence of goodly humans (and I'd have to double-check my notes on this, but I'm 90% sure that evil humans appear in Pathfinder adventures at three or more times the frequency of evil goblins).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
gnoams wrote:
I like goblins. Many different authors have made interesting different versions of them. However, the Golorion version are homicidal pyromaniacs. They were obviously intended as "evil monsters" for PCs to kill indiscriminately and not feel bad about, because they so evil. So... I don't mind this retcon, I think it is a good direction to go, but it is a retcon. It's going to take time to get used to.

I'd entirely disagree on calling it a retcon. Paizo has, until recently, only shown goblins in fairly limited geographical areas, and even those have some variance on exactly how goblins interact with others. Sandpoint is in an area where a human colony has spent the last few decades exterminating goblins, so none of the goblins there have grown up with older goblins to provide any examples or leadership. They're basically feral children, which is true of most other places we've typically talked about goblins. In Isger the goblins were used as shock troops by their hobgoblin cousins until the hobgoblins lost the Goblinblood War and basically abandoned the goblins they'd been using to fight for them, leaving Isger's goblins in much the same shape as the Rasp's.

Adding more context doesn't mean that what was true ceases to be true, it just means there's more context. We've had goblins integrated into various locations for a long time; way back in 2008 Paizo talked about the goblins sold as slaves in Katapesh and the CN goblin rogue Krebble-Jeggle running games at the Golden Scarab. That's 11 years ago that we introduced the first non-evil goblin actually holding down a legitimate (by Katapeshi standards) job and working as part of a larger society.

There being predominantly evil goblin tribes who frequently come into conflict with the other peoples of Golarion doesn't preclude the existence of less viciously inclined goblins any more than humans being responsible for some of the most vile and destructive acts on Golarion precludes the existence of goodly humans (and I'd have to double-check my notes on this, but I'm 90% sure that evil humans appear in Pathfinder adventures at three or more times the frequency of evil goblins).

The difference from them and the evil humans is that we see the non-evil humans all the time. The non-crazy goblins are few and far between. It's a matter of percentages, not overall numbers.

And even write-ups like the new iconic don't assume that the previous portrayal doesn't apply, but that this particular character is an oddball outlier.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The difference from them and the evil humans is that we see the non-evil humans all the time. The non-crazy goblins are few and far between. It's a matter of percentages, not overall numbers.

That's primarily because writing in Pathfinder comes from a very human-centric view. It tends to be easier for people to identify with human characters since they themselves are most likely human. There's certainly an imbalance of representation between humans and any of the other sapient species.

thejeff wrote:
And even write-ups like the new iconic don't assume that the previous portrayal doesn't apply, but that this particular character is an oddball outlier.

I know, I wrote it! And Fumbus comes from one of those very common "Lord of the Flies" goblin communities where war and conflict have heavily decimated their population for an extended period of time. Combine that with their rapid breeding and short time to adulthood, and you've got a recipe for some wild times.

This doesn't mean other groups of goblins like the freed goblin slaves in Katapesh (first visited in 2008 for Dark Markets and then revisited in Pathfinder Society Scenario #10–03: Treason's Chains), the Mudchewer goblins of Magnimar (alluded to in several products but most prominently and recently visited in Doomsday Dawn), the forest goblins of Iobaria (most recently visited in Pathfinder Society Scenario #10–12: Breath of the Dragonskull), or the Pathfinder Society's adopted goblin tribe the Frostfur goblins (who've been around for about 7 years) don't also exist in the same world.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I've read and reviewed Goblins of Golarion. As far as I can tell, the homicidal, pyromaniac goblins we got from Burnt Offerings are pretty widespread across the world. So while I can accept people defending the ret-con, saying it's not a ret-con at all seems dubious, along the lines of saying "Greedo always shot first--you were all just too dim to realize that!" In other words, there's a reason, well-grounded in ten years of setting, for many Pathfinder gamers to view this as a ret-con. We're not crazy :)

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / I for one, welcome our Core Goblin Overlords... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.