| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has been moving away from universally evil sapients for a while now so it's not even worth debating, always-evil goblins were always a symptom of bad and lazy writing, something even Tolkien himself regretted with his orcs.
I once partially redeemed a lamia matriarch. These creatures are not just chaotic evil. Their description (Lamia Matriarch) says, "The queens of a race consumed by bitterness and predatory instinct, lamia matriarchs mastermind all manner of foul plots in hopes of breaking the bestial curse that afflicts their race. They move with shocking ease from silken-tongued temptresses to dervishes, striking with all the deadly precision of vipers. Quick to covet, enslave, and overindulge, lamia matriarchs luxuriate in gory feasts, violent trysts, and bloody entertainments, reveling until their playthings are broken or until they tire and move on."
The villain at the end of the original D&D 3.5 version of The Skinsaw Murders was the lamia matriarch sorceress Xanesha. She lost to the party on the rematch (how the party survived the first match is another story), but she escaped via Dimension Door. The module said that she would never return again.
However, two modules later the party was returning to Sandpoint, their hometown in the first module. The party had some new players who had never seen Sandpoint, so I decided to run a little side quest to reintroduce them to the town. I had to run side quests occassionally, because we had chosen the medium level progression for this adventure path when we adapted it to Pathfinder, but really we should have selected the fast level progression. I returned Xanesha for that side quest.
Xanesha gained a new level and had put her skill ranks into Disguise. She had worn a mask in the battle against the party, so a mundane disguise was enough to fool the party and less detectable by magic. She also work a Ring of Youthful Appearance that she said was for vanity. She introduced herself to the party as Deedee Baythorne from Korvosa, there to deal with the Foxglove estate for the heirs of Lord Foxglove. She knew that the party had survived the haunts at the estate already and she wanted to hire them to permanently remove the haunts. She told them that Ghostbane Dirge on the main haunt would give it physical form so that the party could kill it permanently.
Oh, Deedee radiated evil. She explained to the party that she was the black sheep of the Baythorne family, taking care of the dirty work for them. She also drank to excess and seduced the party's rogue. She admitted that she was not going to Foxglove Manor because she was afraid of the haunts. The party liked her because she seemed so open about her underhanded goals.
However, she had been friends with Lord Foxglove and knew the secrets of the haunts. The main haunt was a disembodied lich. She figured that the lich would kill the party and she would get her revenge.
The party was clever enough to figure that out themselves. They carefully surrounded the lich where it would appear and killed it quickly before it could respond. They claimed the valuable treasure it materialized with. And Deedee Baythorne paid them (with money stolen elsewhere).
Deedee appeared again. She secretly helped the giant raiders in Fortress of the Stone Giants and openly helped the heroes. She decided to play the heroes against her boss, leader of the stone giants, so that they would defeat him and she could step into the power vaccuum. The evil lamia matriarch became a double agent serving the good guys.
The party figured out her secret identity (and the rogue was very embarrassed at his tryst with her) and took her along with them to the Fortress of the Stone Giants to prove it. She deserted the party to go to the fortress, but left the party with a map showing the secret entrance to the fortress. The party used the map, but were scared when the alarm was raised and retreated. After a few more sorties and retreats and the giants tracking them to their camp, the party took to retreating by teleporting back to Magnimar. The wizard leader of the giants figured this out and scryed the comfortable inn where they stayed in Magimar. He had his supposedly loyal minion Xanesha teleport a commando party to the inn before the party wizard prepared his teleport spells. The party won legitimately, but Xanesha was prepared to sabotage her own assignment if necessary to maintain the rivalry between the party and the giants.
The party met her again in Xin-Shalast during the final module. Finally, she had to choose sides. She sided with the party, because if they disapproved of her, then they would merely lock her up. The big boss would kill her for a petty failure or perceived disloyalty or as a whim. When the party became the conquerers of Xin-Shalast, the party made her regent of Xin-Shalast in their absence (they were still adventureres, after all). Xanesha was still evil, but she loyally kept to their standards of good (except for her secret police). She needed the party to keep her safe from ambitious political coups and was not going to risk her high position by earning their disapproval.
That lamia matriarch stayed evil in her heart, but she had joined the party to kill her boss before he killed her for failing her mission. She became disciplined, civilized, and loyal to the party as they kept a watchful eye on her. The players were fascinated by the flavor of that NPC, though some characters did not fully approve of her. And she allowed me to add more intrigue to the campaign, which the players wanted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way you've phrased it (players who want to play ancestries you don't like need to remove themselves from the Pathfinder setting entirely) is pretty offensive.
Apologies for giving offence. That was not the intent. My intent was:
Problem: GM doesn’t like goblins and other monstrous races as PCs in Golarion.Problem: Players want to use the full suite of ancestries that Paizo produce as PC appropriate content.
so we have a few solutions:
1) GM let’s players play what they want but has NPCs act in accordance with how he thinks they should and completely derails every campaign by refusing to let monstrous races in cities.
2) GM changes the setting to something he dislikes.
3) Players are banned from using the rule content they want
4) GM finds a setting that better handles monstrous races.
I think option 4 is best for any group that has this dilemma.
Perhaps you could rephrase it as "my group and I are going to limit ourselves to traditional ancesteries in our home games".
I could. But that would just be an outright lie. So I won’t be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the demographics of cities change drastically? These are races that already exist in the world. Making a new ancestry in a TRPG doesn't *pop* them into the world like an MMO expansion.
I prefer games where players play races appropriate to the region that the game is taking place in. So either you make the ancestry appropriate to the place or you ban it from the game. I prefer not to ban countless options from a rule set. I consider that working against the game and would just play a different game instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can tell a story about how any kind of person ended up anywhere. I see no problem with letting PCs play goblins, orcs, lizardpeople, ambulatory voids, or whatever provided that's the story they want to tell.
Like "player characters" are exceptionally rare. There's probably like 100 of them in the world at any given time. If a dozen of them are goblins, 6 of them are changelings, 9 of them are planar scions, etc. that's NBD as far as I see it.
You can tell a story about how any kind of person ended up anywhere. I see no problem with letting PCs play goblins, orcs, lizardpeople, ambulatory voids, or whatever provided that's the story they want to tell.
Like "player characters" are exceptionally rare. There's probably like 100 of them in the world at any given time. If a dozen of them are goblins, 6 of them are changelings, 9 of them are planar scions, etc. that's NBD as far as I see it.
I completely agree with you, but remember that JL106 is talking about THEIR preference in a game. So I can see them making the appropriate changes to their home game.
That said, if it's coming down to table preference, then this whole thread is just rather silly. I mean, this whole thread IS rather silly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a town that routinely gets attacked by orcs and the only orcs they’ve ever known are “rough and savage humanoids ... surviving primarily by raiding other races” turn to an orc PC they’ve never, ever met for help?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a town that routinely gets attacked by orcs and the only orcs they’ve ever known are “rough and savage humanoids ... surviving primarily by raiding other races” turn to an orc PC they’ve never, ever met for help?
They wouldn't. And therein lies good roleplaying and problem solving.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a town that routinely gets attacked by orcs and the only orcs they’ve ever known are “rough and savage humanoids ... surviving primarily by raiding other races” turn to an orc PC they’ve never, ever met for help?
Because a town that is regularly attacked by human bandits aren't going to attack every human who wanders into town?
Like "one lone anything" isn't much of a raid, so you're probably just going to keep an eye on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a town that routinely gets attacked by orcs and the only orcs they’ve ever known are “rough and savage humanoids ... surviving primarily by raiding other races” turn to an orc PC they’ve never, ever met for help?They wouldn't. They might, however, turn to the elf, dwarf and humans accompanying the orc. If the other party members can vouch for the orc, or at least promise to keep him in line, then the town might, reluctantly, put up with him.
Yeah. I find going through that process each and every time the PCs go somewhere new to be quite obnoxious. I mean, I’ve done it. I played Living Forgotten Realms for crying out loud where almost no one played a PHB1 race.. I’d just rather play a game where orcs (and other races)have a completely different culture/attitudes towards the playable ancestries Paizo is producing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think option 4 is best for any group that has this dilemma.
I mean, if a GM hates monstrous races, they won't suddenly like monstrous races more if you change the paint job on the setting.
Option 4 only really applies if someone very specifically hates monstrous races in one specific context but is otherwise fine with them for whatever reason.
Which I know is your circumstance, but it's also a really specific one and so I'm not sure is really generally applicable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a town that routinely gets attacked by orcs and the only orcs they’ve ever known are “rough and savage humanoids ... surviving primarily by raiding other races” turn to an orc PC they’ve never, ever met for help?Because a town that is regularly attacked by human bandits aren't going to attack every human who wanders into town?
Like "one lone anything" isn't much of a raid, so you're probably just going to keep an eye on them.
And when the party is a goblin, hobgoblin and 2 orcs? Or god forbid just four orcs? Hardly a lone orc then. Certainly looks like a raiding party to me.
It's like you said earlier, it doesn't sound like a game YOU want to run. And that's okay! But it sounds like a game that those four players want to play. And I'm not speaking for every GM here, but I know that I've run those sorts of games plenty of times in the past (in PF1 and others). I don't see how goblins being core is still suddenly awful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it sounds like a game that those four players want to play...I don't see how goblins being core is still suddenly awful.
1) That’s why I’m facilitating that play by giving them a setting where they can choose whatever mechanical benefits they want.
2) If they want to play a PC that is distrusted in every town I can facilitate that play as well (most players in my experience don’t want that sort of play.2) I have not said once in this thread that goblins as core is bad :)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If everyone is playing orcs somewhere in Avistan, I'd expect that dealing with and overcoming such prejudices are major things they are interested in.
Of course, as has been established for years that's not their reputation at all in the Mwangi Expanse, which is also part of Golarion, and one where orcs are seen in a much more positive light. Likewise, a game set in Katapesh or Nex nobody's gonna look twice at a Goblin, Tiefling, or just about anything else a player might play.
There are certainly places in Golarion that being a goblin will get you looked at funny, and others where it might get you dead, but that isn't nearly as universal as people seem to be saying it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblin entry in Inner Sea World Guide (dont have the page number. Its just a couple of sentences) plus the overwhelming praise that goblins got for their portrayal in the first book of Rise of the Runelords and the first We Be Goblins module might have something to do with that perception, no matter how much Paizo might have tried to walk it back in the years since.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblin entry in Inner Sea World Guide (dont have the page number. Its just a couple of sentences) plus the overwhelming praise that goblins got for their portrayal in the first book of Rise of the Runelords and the first We Be Goblins module might have something to do with that perception, no matter how much Paizo might have tried to walk it back in the years since.
Certainly. But that doesn't mean it's actually a universal impression in-universe. And, indeed, there have been several ongoing things that indicate it isn't.
But it sounds like a game that those four players want to play...I don't see how goblins being core is still suddenly awful.1) That’s why I’m facilitating that play by giving them a setting where they can choose whatever mechanical benefits they want.
2) If they want to play a PC that is distrusted in every town I can facilitate that play as well (most players in my experience don’t want that sort of play.
2) I have not said once in this thread that goblins as core is bad :)
1. Great! But this isn't a thread about your Eberron campaign.
2. Also great!3. So wait, what is your concern?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I find going through that process each and every time the PCs go somewhere new to be quite obnoxious. I mean, I’ve done it. I played Living Forgotten Realms for crying out loud where almost no one played a PHB1 race.. I’d just rather play a game where orcs (and other races)have a completely different culture/attitudes towards the playable ancestries Paizo is producing.Why would a town that routinely gets attacked by orcs and the only orcs they’ve ever known are “rough and savage humanoids ... surviving primarily by raiding other races” turn to an orc PC they’ve never, ever met for help?They wouldn't. They might, however, turn to the elf, dwarf and humans accompanying the orc. If the other party members can vouch for the orc, or at least promise to keep him in line, then the town might, reluctantly, put up with him.
Remember comment #21 I made yesterday, where I described the goblin character that would join the party in my upcoming Ironfang Invasion campaign? The rest of the party's characters will be a halfling, elf, gnome, and lizardfolk. The town of Phaendar consists of 305 humans, 32 half-orcs, 21 dwarves, 17 half-elves, and 28 other. The goblin is an outsider, but the other PCs are part of the "28 other." They are the town's newest and strangest residents: a halfling animal-whisperer scoundrel rogue who herds goats for the blacksmith Blondebeard, an elf Chernasardo-hopeful flurry ranger training under retired half-blind Chernasardo ranger Aurbrin, a gnome herbalist stormborn druid Stormdancer on one of her many visits to town, and a lizardfolk world-weary liberator champion who lives upriver.
That offers potential for a great story. Aubrin will send her apprentice to guard the refugees because Aubrin wants to be in town fighting the hobgoblin raiders rather than babysitting the most helpless townsfolk. The new residents will be told to stay out of the way and guard the helpless because they are strange. And that will put them in the right place to begin the first module, Trail of the Hunted, as written with no dishonor on their part.
And when the goblin refugees mix with the human refugees, they will have friction and conflict for the PCs to resolve. I love a moral dimension to my campaigns.
Why would I want the PCs to fit a standard mold for standard adventures? The histories of the different ancestries of the PCs will matter and will make the campaign unique and memorable.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attitudes don't make you Evil (though they can be indicative of it), but actions do even if they're 'out of character' (ie: you're LG all day every day except for all the genocide).
A LG Dwarf can indeed be racist, and might even call orcs and goblins pests and the like...but the moment he actually tries any extermination efforts (rather than just having an unpleasant attitude), he's crossed a line and is pretty much not Good any more.
A LG racist may have unfortunate attitudes, but is still the sort of person who, if they saw an in injured member of the race they're prejudiced against lying in the road, would stop to help them. That's the part that makes them Good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we’ve wandered a bit off topic, so to summarize the progoblin viewpoints:
While the PF2 take on goblins can feel like a retcon, it is probably more accurately described as a continuation of how goblins have been presented in cannon throughout the course of PF1
It is also a continuation of how Paizo seems to have moved as a company, with their noticeable efforts to make every ancestry less “kill on sight” and more “frowned on” at worst.
No matter how much it has or had not been justified, it won’t work for every table and player. That’s okay. I personally would hope you’d at least trust Paizo far enough to not demand the retcon it all away at THIS point, but rather let them tell the stories they want to tell, even when you aren’t the audience for them.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of what this thread has evolved into is why I’m happy Paizo chose to include that beginning information on inclusion. I’m completely in agreement that committing genocide or even being okay with genocide would allow someone to be good (as a real world example, a group of people believed that they were doing God’s work, being the epitome of good, and saw another group of people as the cause of their social, political, and economic downfall, and as such these people were forced into labor and murdered in vast numbers: this describes the Nazi extermination of Jews, the Transatlantic Slave trade, the genocide of Basque people, and the Hutu and Tutsi genocide, as well as many other cases throughout history). I don’t know of anyone in their right mind who would believe that any of these were the acts of good people.