Goblins as a race


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

John Lynch 106 wrote:
I mean, you can totally call the townsfolk racist. The ones who act the way your advocating though will probably end up dead. But at least they weren't racist. Right?

I know the thread is heated, but I'm trying to have an honest discussion and bring it down. I am not "advocating" anything, I'm just saying recognizing that people act racist sometimes is a useful tool as a GM, in order to make sure things are consistent in your game and your NPCs have appropriate reaction s to things that happen. It can lead to interesting adventure hooks, and allow players to ask bigger questions about Golarion, making it feel more like a world and less like a static sandbox. You seem to be making this weird jump where, if any NPC in your game does something racist, that makes you a racist, so therefore you are trying to argue that they aren't in fact racist for discriminating based on race. Maybe the other conversation in this thread has bled into this one, unfortunately. I do not hold that position at all; my monsters and NPCs do things all the time which I might not IRL, because it would be a dull world otherwise. Luckily, I am not personally in a position where I have to choose between being racist or risking my life.

John Lynch 106 wrote:


Well typically in games I play townsfolk don't have a 100% negative experience with dwarves. Typically that's reserved for foes from the monster manual like orcs and gnolls and such.

Their past experiences might lean them towards making a racist choice. That does not make the choice less racist, or the hypothetical goblin they are killing any more guilty of raiding their town.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
I am not "advocating" anything, I'm just saying recognizing that people act racist sometimes is a useful tool as a GM, in order to make sure things are consistent in your game and your NPCs have appropriate reaction s to things that happen.

I typically don't have racism portrayed in my games. It's simply an issue I don't have any joy in exploring at the gaming table in my recreation time. So yes, if you want to label entire towns of NPCs racist then I'm going to want to change that. Fortunately people I game with don't walk around going "that's so racist" so it's a non issue :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
My statement before your edit was rather explicit.

I can't tell. Is that a yes or a no?

Let me ask again: Do you agree with this statement: "If you play a game where racist things are carried out by your character by your choice then you are racist"?

And again, actually read what I wrote.
Quote:
And talk about ascribing motives, I think racist elements are racist. If someone is trying to justify killing a humanoid race, not a fiend, a person just because of their race and not because of anything they’ve done as Good, well, that’s racist.
If they’re trying to pass the Character off as Good or the actions as Good then yes. Because they’re trying to claim racism is good.
Quote:
Rysky wrote:
You still haven’t addressed why the townsfolk haven’t tried to call out to the approaching goblins or otherwise try to gauge their motives.
Sorry. "The local goblin tribe are constant liars and will constantly try to deceive the townsfolk in an attempt to better kill them."

Are the goblin warband (of 5) from the local tribe? Do the townsfolk have anyway to guess the goblin’s motives? Why are they programmed to just attack on sight or let themselves be killed without attempting anything, why just those two options? People don’t do that.

Quote:
Rysky wrote:
If a town is being attacked by a goblin tribe going the next country over and attacking a goblin tribe there just because they’re goblins doesn’t help the town being attacked.
What a strange thing to say. No-one said anything about townsfolk traveling away from the towns and killing goblins in some other region. I won't say your trying to deliberately misunderstand me and just chalk this up to a genuine misunderstanding.

It was a counter to your misreading others that people currently under attack shouldn’t attack cause they would be seen as racist. They’re both nonsensical.

If you’re under attack you defend yourself from your attacker. You fight because they’re attacking you, not because they’re goblins. If a human or dwarf was attacking would they let them kill them?

Dealing with a goblin attack and then going and attacking a completely unrelated goblin tribe because they’re goblins is a racist course of action.

Quote:
Rysky wrote:
At this point you’re intentionally misreading what others are saying.
Nope! Read the part I'm quoting. BellyBeard 100% said the townsfolk killing groups of armed goblins who approach their town are racist. Let me quote the relevant part because you seemed to have missed it:
BellyBeard wrote:
But that's beside the point. I think in their situation the townsfolk may be justified in being racist, if you're an "ends justify the means" sort of person, because being less cautious about goblins may get them and their families killed. But it is nonetheless racist.
No deliberate misunderstanding. I hope I've cleared up bellybeard's point for you.

You are misreading, you’re of the assumption that if goblins are attacking people no one should fight them lest they be accused of being racist, which is what I was responding to. Absolutely no one here has that stance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Setting does matter, and we had explicitly been talking about Pathfinde where orcs and goblins are people and are not innately evil (unlike say Goblin Slayer, where goblins are very much...

I can scroll up a bit (and back a page) and find mentions of Tolkein, Lovecraft, Final Fantasy, other DnD settings, and a hypothetical set up forming the mother of all strawmen. This topic hasn't been restricted to Golarion since somewhere around the halfway point of page 2 and there's been more than a few universal claims that it's a problem someone might enjoy playing a game where there are bad things that are just bad because that's how they are without being demons or whatever.

And that's my main problem with this discussion. You can say setting matters and take things from there (I have no problem with that, even if I personally don't think there's automatically a judgement call about the person if he makes a dwarf that hates elves or whatever) but you're not the only voice here.

(And to carry on the digression of fungal orcs in WHFB, greenskins are "born" by clawing their way out of the dirt inside mushroom filled caves. No one may have dissected them to see if they're fungal, but that's heavy implications there in addition to the possible origin as spores from godlike space aliens)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
(does Golarion have fantasy Australia?).

Considering how much local flora and fauna is out to kill you in Golarion (and fantasy settings in general), you wouldn't be wrong saying everywhere is fantasy Australia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
And again, actually read what I wrote.
Quote:
And talk about ascribing motives, I think racist elements are racist. If someone is trying to justify killing a humanoid race, not a fiend, a person just because of their race and not because of anything they’ve done as Good, well, that’s racist.
If they’re trying to pass the Character off as Good or the actions as Good then yes. Because they’re trying to claim racism is good.

Thank you! For all the people claiming that no-one is calling people racist, Rysky has flat out admited that they are willing to call people racist based on how they play a board game.

Also: If someone has said your position isn't clear. Constantly requoting something doesn't actually impart further information.

I'm now done with this thread.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And “racism is justified otherwise we’ll be killed” isn’t doing your stance any favors.
Again I don't have anyone killing people because their ancestors hailed from fantasy Africa or fantasy Asia or anything like that (does Golarion have fantasy Australia?). So claiming I'm justifying racism seems like a really strange thing for you to keep saying.

Misdirect isn’t going to work here.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Well typically in games I play townsfolk don't have a 100% negative experience with dwarves. Typically that's reserved for foes from the monster manual like orcs and gnolls and such.

I mean, you can totally call the townsfolk racist. The ones who act the way your advocating though will probably end up dead. But at least they weren't racist. Right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
...

"You're attempting to normalize and rationalize genocide. Take a moment and try and think about that being 'good'."

How did you manage to get that out of what I wrote? Is my english not clear enough? That is not in any way what I wrote.

That's exactly what you wrote. You 'asked' if one would not find it realistic. If someone wanted to wipe out a people (In this instance goblins) due to 'reasons'. Wiping out a people, is genocide. As has been described up thread, by people attacking and killing people simply for aspect of being 'that kind of person' (goblin)

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


So you don't find it realistic for a person who has suffered atrocities at the hands of a group of beings, a group of beings that is well known for perpetrating atrocities mind you, to want to wipe them out?

You implied you find it realistic for the person to commit genocide, by coaching your question as "So you don't find it realistic ______" Meaning you DO find it realistic.

It may not feel as nice when it's pointing out you're advocating genocide, but you are. lol

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


"It is sort of a strong statement to make. The flip side is "Why do you WANT to play a racist character". There's 'exploring aspects that we don't live', which is why the White wolf games made mad bank overall. But there's also "You're a raicst as your hobby" and 'where/how's that get fun'??"
You kind of answered yourself there.

So.... for the record. You think it's fun to explore the life of a rapist? Because that's what you're saying here. And lots of people are going to have a problem with that.

Killing people as a bad guy is one thing. You're 'playing a bad guy" enjoying aspects of rape is another.

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Exploring aspects of life that we don't live or even want to live. It gets fun in the same way acting as the villain is fun. Maybe I'm different because I'm usually the DM, which means I play ALL the bad guys, and I try to understand their motivations and mindsets so they aren't boring cardboard cutouts.

Again. There's a difference.

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


The rest of your post seems like you're trying to equate a character that is somewhat racist with being a mass murderer and a rapist, which I can only say I entirely disagree with. Apologies if I'm mistaken in my reading there.

The rest of my post was pointing out that genocide is a bad thing even if you try and act like it's not, and that while yes, people role play 'bad guys' there's a difference between them, and how they're played.

That playing a bad guy in a game is one thing. Playing a serial rapist is quite another.

Not only did your post advocate genocide of a people under the lawful good alignment, but tried to justify it as being ok because of 'reasons'. You then went further to imply that a simple act of evil doesn't make one evil. And I pointed out that it depends on the act.

Stealing a slice of pie because you're hungry. Probably not an alignment altering action. Raping a bar girl because you're horny, yes. You're evil. Even if it's just the one act.

I see that you're trying to move the goal posts to "Some what racist' when you started off with "Justification of genocide based on someone's race"

If you're going to "Wipe out" an entire sapient species, because some members of that species treated you badly (Very badly even) that's still genocide.

Wiping out a species because it 'is' that species isn't a "little racist" dude.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And again, actually read what I wrote.
Quote:
And talk about ascribing motives, I think racist elements are racist. If someone is trying to justify killing a humanoid race, not a fiend, a person just because of their race and not because of anything they’ve done as Good, well, that’s racist.
If they’re trying to pass the Character off as Good or the actions as Good then yes. Because they’re trying to claim racism is good.

Thank you! For all the people claiming that no-one is calling people racist, Rysky has flat out admited that they are willing to call people racist based on how they play a board game.

Also: If someone has said your position isn't clear. Constantly requoting something doesn't actually impart further information.

I'm now done with this thread.

Yes I am willing to call someone who tries to justify racism as racist. Not on how or what they play, but what things they the player try to justify.

Play a character with a tragic backstory that wants to avenge their parents? Sure.

Play a non-Good racist character? Sure, I probably wouldn’t like them but sure.

Play a character with G on their sheet and try to justify racism as a player? Yeah no.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Setting does matter, and we had explicitly been talking about Pathfinde where orcs and goblins are people and are not innately evil (unlike say Goblin Slayer, where goblins are very much...

I can scroll up a bit (and back a page) and find mentions of Tolkein, Lovecraft, Final Fantasy, other DnD settings, and a hypothetical set up forming the mother of all strawmen. This topic hasn't been restricted to Golarion since somewhere around the halfway point of page 2 and there's been more than a few universal claims that it's a problem someone might enjoy playing a game where there are bad things that are just bad because that's how they are without being demons or whatever.

And that's my main problem with this discussion. You can say setting matters and take things from there (I have no problem with that, even if I personally don't think there's automatically a judgement call about the person if he makes a dwarf that hates elves or whatever) but you're not the only voice here.

(And to carry on the digression of fungal orcs in WHFB, greenskins are "born" by clawing their way out of the dirt inside mushroom filled caves. No one may have dissected them to see if they're fungal, but that's heavy implications there in addition to the possible origin as spores from godlike space aliens)

This thread is, and has been about Pathfinder. Those other settings have been addressed when they were brought up.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To the OP Goblins as a race were included in the game for two reasons. To increases sales by trying to cater to those who play World of Warcraft and (though I have never met anyone interested in playing one) popularity.

As to why the want to call you a racist because they can due to playing differently then they do. While also to myself at least coming off intolerant in the extreme. The word racist seems to be thrown about way too easily nowadays. "You don't agree with my position 1000% must be a racist". Reality is much different than personal narratives.

I get called called an incel and misogynistic because I refuse to rubber stamp a good rating for a movie simply because of the gender of the main actor/actress. I could care less about the gender of the lead if the movie has a terrible script it's not going to get a good recommendation from me. Nor will I simply overlook the bad script due to the gender of main star.

In my games the majority of goblins are still using the pre-1E lore with the majority of them being sociopathic, psychotic, hate the written word and horses maniacs. Their will exceptions to this of course. Yet the goods one are the exception and not the norm. Goblins exist yet they are the ones that need to prove themselves due to actions of the majority of their race. Blame the devs for making the race as they were.

All the evil races unfortunately have up until recently been written as caricatures of evil. They will attack anything non-evil or not like them on sight. Any good member is either exiled (if lucky) or killed on the spot. Diplomacy was for the weak and might makes right.

If any Goblonoid race should have been redeemed it should have been Hobgoblins. Much more intelligent, rational and with the military skills to make themselves be accepted by the rest of Golarion. Not to mention I find the most interesting of all Goblinoid races.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
I am not "advocating" anything, I'm just saying recognizing that people act racist sometimes is a useful tool as a GM, in order to make sure things are consistent in your game and your NPCs have appropriate reaction s to things that happen.
I typically don't have racism portrayed in my games. It's simply an issue I don't have any joy in exploring at the gaming table in my recreation time. So yes, if you want to label entire towns of NPCs racist then I'm going to want to change that. Fortunately people I game with don't walk around going "that's so racist" so it's a non issue :)

Actually no you don't have to change a damn thing. If you and your group are having fun than that is all that matters. Not what someone on the Internet is telling you. I rather play in your campaign and not one where the basic premise is that somehow every good and evil aligned race just get along.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
”I want to be able to kill [race] on sight” is pretty self explanatory.
Please explain it to me. What you consider self explanatory is completely going over my head. I would definitely appreciate you enlightening me :)
”I want to kill someone because of their skin color or physical features rather than because of anything they’ve done” is bad.

I don't see anyone talking about skin colour. What a strange thing for you to bring up. I see people talking about fictional species.

I think I'll let this conversation drop as you seem quite ready to ascribe motives to people based on very little.

If you honestly think someone is a racist because they like to play D&D where monsters in the monster manual are attacked and killed, then shame on you.

Naaa you 'get it'. You're playing purposefully obtuse to try and ape being ignorant of what you're actually advocating. So you can't be called out directly for advocating it.

You're not fooling anyone. It's common behavior of those that have such views. Sad thing is they think they're clever when they do it.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Particular Jones wrote:
The word racist seems to be thrown about way too easily nowadays. "You don't agree with my position 1000% must be a racist"

The position in question is “don’t kill people on sight just because of their skin color or physical features”.

Quote:
All the evil races unfortunately have up until recently been written as caricatures of evil. They will attack anything non-evil or not like them on sight. Any good member is either exiled (if lucky) or killed on the spot. Diplomacy was for the weak and might makes right.

This isn’t true in the slightest.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Particular Jones wrote:
I rather play in your campaign and not one where the basic premise is that somehow every good and evil aligned race just get along.

Good and Evil aligned races (as in Humanoids) aren’t a thing in Pathfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So anyways, trying to get back to the topic, I think it's important for any GM to make a decision with their players about how goblins will be viewed by the other races as a whole, in particular for the regions the game will take place in, and for the players to know about that decision before deciding to play a goblin. They might not have as much fun if they didn't realize their goblin would be so ostracized they wouldn't be let into the city, and thus are potentially restricted or even totally cut off from some aspects of the game. I think this is especially important with goblins (for better or worse) being one of two ancestries with a charisma boost, and thus making a natural pick for the party's face characters. If they are totally cut off from fulfilling face roles in the party by the mindset of the society they are in, that would be a very unfun character to play.

For me personally, I am writing an adventure centered in Katheer in Qadira, and the 1e source material gives me an easy out in that everyone foreign needs immigration papers. So, as long as the goblin can find sponsorship and get immigration papers, they are allowed to be in town. I expect that the "sponsorship" route, whether through immigration papers or a notice from a local noble, is a good way for any ancestry generally regarded as an outsider to mingle into the general population, though of course they will still face resistance depending on the culture they are in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"That's exactly what you wrote. You 'asked' if one would not find it realistic. If someone wanted to wipe out a people (In this instance goblins) due to 'reasons'. Wiping out a people, is genocide. As has been described up thread, by people attacking and killing people simply for aspect of being 'that kind of person' (goblin)"

Yes? That is what genocide is. I don't think I've written anywhere that it isn't?

"You implied you find it realistic for the person to commit genocide, by coaching your question as "So you don't find it realistic ______" Meaning you DO find it realistic.

It may not feel as nice when it's pointing out you're advocating genocide, but you are. lol"

Sorry, I still don't see how that is advocating genocide. I think it is realistic that someone who has suffered at the hands of others to want revenge. And in some people that might extend to the entire group that their attackers belonged to. At no point did I say this was a desirable thing, but it is a realistic thing.
"X killed my family so I'm trying to get revenge on them" is a fairly common character backstory in my experience.

"So.... for the record. You think it's fun to explore the life of a rapist? Because that's what you're saying here. And lots of people are going to have a problem with that. "
No I wouldn't find it fun. But I won't condemn others who might. Wanting to explore a taboo in a safe and non harmful way isn't something bad. Playing an evil PC can be fun. It doesn't mean I agree with or advocate that PCsviews, morals or actions irl.

"Killing people as a bad guy is one thing. You're 'playing a bad guy" enjoying aspects of rape is another. "
As I said, I wouldn't enjoy that. But I would enjoy the roleplaying of playing someone with problematic views and how the other pc's can change their minds. A redemption story sort of.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Consider the Paizo baseline. There is a list of topics in the CRB that Paizo has said they will not depict, players should never be allowed to do, and if they feel it is important this one time to have something in a story they will give considerable advance warning. If you are running a Pathfinder 2nd edition game, the expectation of your players is that you are also following this baseline- it is, after all, in the CRB.

If you want to play a game about exploring the dark side of evil people, you're pretty much going to want to get your players explicitly on board with the notion. It's not something that's automatically okay because "you like the idea" or whatever. It's not fundamentally different from if you're changing anything else from the CRB for a given game- you have to let people know and get their consent.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

"That's exactly what you wrote. You 'asked' if one would not find it realistic. If someone wanted to wipe out a people (In this instance goblins) due to 'reasons'. Wiping out a people, is genocide. As has been described up thread, by people attacking and killing people simply for aspect of being 'that kind of person' (goblin)"

Yes? That is what genocide is. I don't think I've written anywhere that it isn't?

"You implied you find it realistic for the person to commit genocide, by coaching your question as "So you don't find it realistic ______" Meaning you DO find it realistic.

It may not feel as nice when it's pointing out you're advocating genocide, but you are. lol"

Sorry, I still don't see how that is advocating genocide. I think it is realistic that someone who has suffered at the hands of others to want revenge. And in some people that might extend to the entire group that their attackers belonged to. At no point did I say this was a desirable thing, but it is a realistic thing.
"X killed my family so I'm trying to get revenge on them" is a fairly common character backstory in my experience.

"So.... for the record. You think it's fun to explore the life of a rapist? Because that's what you're saying here. And lots of people are going to have a problem with that. "
No I wouldn't find it fun. But I won't condemn others who might. Wanting to explore a taboo in a safe and non harmful way isn't something bad. Playing an evil PC can be fun. It doesn't mean I agree with or advocate that PCsviews, morals or actions irl.

"Killing people as a bad guy is one thing. You're 'playing a bad guy" enjoying aspects of rape is another. "
As I said, I wouldn't enjoy that. But I would enjoy the roleplaying of playing someone with problematic views and how the other pc's can change their minds. A redemption story sort of.

Could you please quote people properly so it’s clear who you’re replying to? Its hard to understand this post as your points and the people you’re repling to are mixed together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:


Good and Evil aligned races (as in Humanoids) aren’t a thing in Pathfinder.

Yes they kind of are. The SRD

has Goblins typical alignment as NE. Orcs as CE. Hobgoblin as LE, Bubears as CE. Ogres as CE.

Of course if one goes by the write-up as playable races then one can be any alignment if allowed by the DM.

In the 1E M&M

has Goblins typical alignment as LE. Orcs as LE. Hobgoblin as LE, Bubears as CE. Ogres as CE.

In the 2E M&M

has Goblins typical alignment as LE. Orcs as LE. Hobgoblin as LE, Bubears as CE. Ogres as CE.

Now I agree not every member of each race has to be evil and if I ever run another campaign in Golarion Hobogoblins will have an empire.

To claim that they were never evil is simply engaging in revisionist history due to not liking the past history of how the above creatures were presented in past editions of D&D. I have had players complain that many of their favored evil monsters were not acting like how they were portrayed in the books.

Even TSR tried it's best to try and make the setting both too cartoony for my tastes an too Tolkien. Dwarf race in decline. Elves leaving to go to a special island to be left alone.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

OK now we just have randoms hopping in here to vent about the Star Wars movies having a female lead like no one's gonna notice. These threads are like a siren's song for extremely yikes takes.

It is not against the forum rules to point out something being bigoted. If your gameplan is to just double dog dare people to call you racist, your argument probably isn't great and you should maybe reconsider what brought you to the point where you're trying to double dog dare people into calling you racist. Maybe it's not a great position to be defending!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"The rest of my post was pointing out that genocide is a bad thing even if you try and act like it's not, and that while yes, people role play 'bad guys' there's a difference between them, and how they're played."
At no point have I tried to say genocide was a good thing.

"That playing a bad guy in a game is one thing. Playing a serial rapist is quite another." OK? I don't understand your point here.

"Not only did your post advocate genocide of a people under the lawful good alignment, but tried to justify it as being ok because of 'reasons'. You then went further to imply that a simple act of evil doesn't make one evil. And I pointed out that it depends on the act.

Stealing a slice of pie because you're hungry. Probably not an alignment altering action. Raping a bar girl because you're horny, yes. You're evil. Even if it's just the one act."

Right here I think I can see where there is misunderstanding. I was trying to explain my view using the example of a LG dwarf following Torags tennets. That is to say, the dwarf would be LG because they follow act and behave LG. That one of the tennets says "Show enemies of dwarves no mercy" can be interpreted by this dwarf as "wipe out all orcs/goblins/whatever the enemy is" doesn't change this UNLESS the dwarf actually acts on it. If the dwarf acts on this and starts killing goblins left and right, then yes, they would lose their LG alignment.

"I see that you're trying to move the goal posts to "Some what racist' when you started off with "Justification of genocide based on someone's race" "
I haven't moved any goal posts at all. Again, nothing I wrote was an attempt to 'justify genocide'.

"If you're going to "Wipe out" an entire sapient species, because some members of that species treated you badly (Very badly even) that's still genocide.

Wiping out a species because it 'is' that species isn't a "little racist" dude."
I never said it was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

"That's exactly what you wrote. You 'asked' if one would not find it realistic. If someone wanted to wipe out a people (In this instance goblins) due to 'reasons'. Wiping out a people, is genocide. As has been described up thread, by people attacking and killing people simply for aspect of being 'that kind of person' (goblin)"

Yes? That is what genocide is. I don't think I've written anywhere that it isn't?

"You implied you find it realistic for the person to commit genocide, by coaching your question as "So you don't find it realistic ______" Meaning you DO find it realistic.

It may not feel as nice when it's pointing out you're advocating genocide, but you are. lol"

Sorry, I still don't see how that is advocating genocide. I think it is realistic that someone who has suffered at the hands of others to want revenge. And in some people that might extend to the entire group that their attackers belonged to. At no point did I say this was a desirable thing, but it is a realistic thing.
"X killed my family so I'm trying to get revenge on them" is a fairly common character backstory in my experience.

"So.... for the record. You think it's fun to explore the life of a rapist? Because that's what you're saying here. And lots of people are going to have a problem with that. "
No I wouldn't find it fun. But I won't condemn others who might. Wanting to explore a taboo in a safe and non harmful way isn't something bad. Playing an evil PC can be fun. It doesn't mean I agree with or advocate that PCsviews, morals or actions irl.

"Killing people as a bad guy is one thing. You're 'playing a bad guy" enjoying aspects of rape is another. "
As I said, I wouldn't enjoy that. But I would enjoy the roleplaying of playing someone with problematic views and how the other pc's can change their minds. A redemption story sort of.

Saying it's realistic and fine for a Lawful Good person to commit genocide is advocating for genocide by indicating that there's nothing wrong with it, if the person committing it has 'reasons'.

And yes, I personally have a BIGASS problem with someone exploring rape for fun in an RPG. I would not enjoy role playing with someone else who is going around raping people.

To be honest it'd likely last right up till they tried to do stuff and My PC would capture/imprison/kill the other PC for trying it, and I would SERIOUSLY question the other guy out of character as to what he's thinking.

Playing out rape, or playing WITH someone doing so is not fun for me. It's objectionable in the extreme.

"Does rape happen in real life" Yes, it does.
"Do we have to entertain people enjoying themselves roleplaying rape" No, we don't.

And again, -you- said that people shouldn't be dinged on their alignment for one bad act... in the same post you said it was ok for them to wipe out a species.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
OK now we just have randoms hopping in here to vent about the Star Wars movies having a female lead like no one's gonna notice. These threads are like a siren's song for extremely yikes takes.

Yeah, I didn't want to be the first to point that out, but this is a sure sign we have veered off course. I think the original question was...

"How can we as a community come together and better represent our hobby to a rapidly growing audience that has more recently become a media darling?"

Wait, no? That wasn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If you want to play a game about exploring the dark side of evil people, you're pretty much going to want to get your players explicitly on board with the notion. It's not something that's automatically okay because "you like the idea" or whatever. It's not fundamentally different from if you're changing anything else from the CRB for a given game- you have to let people know and get their consent.

And just as important, get everyone else's consent before doing it as a player. I personally find that 9 times out of 10 it's another player introducing something uncomfortable, because lots of players seem to have this idea that they don't need to consider the other people at the table because that's the GM's job, and they can just do whatever they want. But that's a whole different topic.


Paul Watson wrote:


Could you please quote people properly so it’s clear who you’re replying to? Its hard to understand this post as your points and the people...

Sorry. For some reason, trying to quote large posts using the reply function results in half the text getting cut so I've had to do it with cut-n-paste.

I was replying to Pepsi Jedi in that post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:


For me personally, I am writing an adventure centered in Katheer in Qadira, and the 1e source material gives me an easy out in that everyone foreign needs immigration papers. So, as long as the goblin can find sponsorship and get immigration papers, they are allowed to be in town. I expect that the "sponsorship" route, whether through immigration papers or a notice from a local noble, is a good way for any ancestry generally regarded as an outsider to mingle into the general population, though of course they will still face resistance depending on the culture they are in.

I actually kind of like this. May I borrow this for my game?

Helmic wrote:

OK now we just have randoms hopping in here to vent about the Star Wars movies having a female lead like no one's gonna notice. These threads are like a siren's song for extremely yikes takes.

Great assumption and wrong on so many levels. Strange to believe yet before the Star Wars movies were released we had, Have and will have strong female lead in movies. Wanting to enjoy a movie on the script rather than whomever stars in it is not being racist. Do some of you even know what true racism is. Or is society reached a point where someone says something we disagree "yeah must racist. Coming across as intolerant while preaching tolerance is being anything but.

BellyBeard wrote:


It is not against the forum rules to point out something being bigoted. If your gameplan is to just double dog dare people to call you racist, your argument probably isn't great and you should maybe reconsider what brought you to the point where you're trying to double dog dare people into calling you racist. Maybe it's not a great position to be defending!

I don't think the OP is being bigoted. He runs his game differently than I do that does not mean his racist. For the longest time I ran campaigns where many of the evil creatures were simply enemies and an occasional npc or pc. I am beginning to change that because it is both boring and in some cases for races such as hobgoblins and orcs it makes no sense. Orcs and Hobgoblins have numbers and the skill to make a nation of their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:


Saying it's realistic and fine for a Lawful Good person to commit genocide is advocating for genocide by indicating that there's nothing...

Again, I have not written anywhere that "it was fine" for someone to want to commit genocide if they have reasons. I DID say that it would be realistic if they held that view.

No one is asking you to game with anyone wanting to explore that (sexual violence). I too wouldn't want to explore that subject in game.

I still won't condemn someone else (and their gaming group) for exploring whatever subjects they want though. I don't think it's my place to police other peoples games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


Again, I have not written anywhere that "it was fine" for someone to want to commit genocide if they have reasons. I DID say that it would be realistic if they held that view.

Apparently if you don't agree with the general consensus of those posting in the thread your a bad person. Wanting a movie to be judged on a script and not by the gender of the cast meant I had to be talking about new Star Wars while trying to be made out to be some kind of misogynist.

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


I still won't condemn someone else (and their gaming group) for exploring whatever subjects they want though. I don't think it's my place to police other peoples games.

Welcome to 2019 if your not playing the so called "right" way your doing it wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


If you want to play a game about exploring the dark side of evil people, you're pretty much going to want to get your players explicitly on board with the notion. It's not something that's automatically okay because "you like the idea" or whatever. It's not fundamentally different from if you're changing anything else from the CRB for a given game- you have to let people know and get their consent.

Absolutely. The darker games I've played, and run, have always started with with a pre-game discussion about what would and would not be allowed in the game. And the degree to which it would be described.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the love of... The question was...

Jek wrote:
When in Golarion did this happen? I mean, there were stats for them, but... as a serious race? The 2e rulebook describes them like they're some persecuted minority.

The rest of this boiled down to the dumbest and -borderline- offensive slapfight. YES, it isn't your place to police other peoples' games. It's no one's. That's the whole point of this thread. This started because someone was angry about goblins being in Core. Then JL had to take things too far, as usual. Ethics and morality in roleplaying games comes up and people are arguing about what is appropriate for other people to run.

Just stop.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In any case whatever races are included in a campaign and how they are going to be portrayed and what is to be included as themes and subjects needs to be talked about during session 0.

If the campaign is essentially being hired to clear out an area for settlement by Dwarves of Goblins and the DM refuses to change the Goblins to some other enemy then join another game. Not every DM will be willing to change the premise of their campaign. It is also the players personal responsibility to join the game that works for them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:


Saying it's realistic and fine for a Lawful Good person to commit genocide is advocating for genocide by indicating that there's nothing...

Again, I have not written anywhere that "it was fine" for someone to want to commit genocide if they have reasons. I DID say that it would be realistic if they held that view.

No one is asking you to game with anyone wanting to explore that (sexual violence). I too wouldn't want to explore that subject in game.

I still won't condemn someone else (and their gaming group) for exploring whatever subjects they want though. I don't think it's my place to police other peoples games.

Yes you did Natan. In the first post I quoted you did so specifically.

As for the rest, no you didn't technically ask me to. You're right in that. You just implied that it's a normal and nothing wrong with it.

As for condemnation. I will.

*Raises hand*

I'll condemn someone else for wanting to rape people at the gaming table. It's totally our place to police other people in our hobby. It's totally our place to tell them "Dude that's NOT Ok" and "That's NOT wanted here".

Not only is it our place. It's our responsibility.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ruzza wrote:

For the love of... The question was...

Jek wrote:
When in Golarion did this happen? I mean, there were stats for them, but... as a serious race? The 2e rulebook describes them like they're some persecuted minority.

The rest of this boiled down to the dumbest and -borderline- offensive slapfight. YES, it isn't your place to police other peoples' games. It's no one's. That's the whole point of this thread. This started because someone was angry about goblins being in Core. Then JL had to take things too far, as usual. Ethics and morality in roleplaying games comes up and people are arguing about what is appropriate for other people to run.

Just stop.

Let's not forget that the thread got posted on Saturday, because they always are posted on Friday evening/Saturday for some reason that eludes me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Let's not forget that the thread got posted on Saturday, because they always are posted on Friday evening/Saturday for some reason that eludes me.

Truly, it is a mystery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:


Yes you did Natan. In the first post I quoted you did so specifically.

As for the rest, no you didn't technically ask me to. You're right in that. You just implied that it's a normal and nothing wrong with it.

As for condemnation. I will.

*Raises hand*

I'll condemn someone else for wanting to rape people at the gaming table. It's totally our place to police other people in our hobby. It's totally our place to tell them "Dude that's NOT Ok" and "That's NOT wanted here".

Not only is it our place. It's our responsibility.

I re-read that post and I still can't see how that can be taken to say 'genocide is ok'.

So just to make things absolutely clear, I do not think genocide is ok.

As for deciding how other people should play their games, we'll just have to agree to disagree on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Particular Jones wrote:
Wanting to enjoy a movie on the script rather than whomever stars in it is not being racist.

Objection sustained, the defendant is clearly a sexist, not a racist.

Court warns members of this forum to look up all labels prior to assigning them to other strangers on the internet, so they may be properly and accurately categorized. Take particular note of less common labels such as "ableist", as it could be wrongly assumed to have no meaning whatsoever*.

(*Note that such assumption automatically assigns both the "ignorant" and "ableist" labels to any person making such assumption.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, fundamentally isn't the question about "why don't the town guards constantly hassle the armed goblin wandering around town" the same as the question of "why don't the dottari hassle the armed halfling wandering around Egorian?" There are probably parts of Cheliax where being a halfling puts you more in people's crosshairs more than being a goblin (again, there is a goblin canonically in the *Hellknights*).

In practice it mostly works out by "the GM chooses not to hassle players for what they have chosen to play, because that doesn't make the game any more fun."

I have had parties that were quite conspicuously a travelling band of oddities, and I just talked to my players a la "Hey, how do you want people to react to you? Obviously the four of you wandering into town is not something that happens every day." We determined out that the initial response might be some mixture of curiosity and trepidation, but it should be possible to convince the locals, and after a while the party will develop a reputation where people from places they have never been will know them right away since there's no other group of adventurers that match their description.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:


Yes you did Natan. In the first post I quoted you did so specifically.

As for the rest, no you didn't technically ask me to. You're right in that. You just implied that it's a normal and nothing wrong with it.

As for condemnation. I will.

*Raises hand*

I'll condemn someone else for wanting to rape people at the gaming table. It's totally our place to police other people in our hobby. It's totally our place to tell them "Dude that's NOT Ok" and "That's NOT wanted here".

Not only is it our place. It's our responsibility.

NO ONE and I mean no one here would ever find any campaign that included sexual assault acceptable. Or want to be around any DM or group which included such a subject in their campaigns.

I do think bringing a napalm strike to put out a forest fire when the discussion is getting heated is the wrong thing to do imo.

Again no one not myself, the OP, or anyone even remotely hinted that the above was even acceptable. I don't know how this thread took a turn from the OP subject matter to the distasteful topic above. I have been gaming for the better part of 20+ years if not more and never and I do mean never in my life have I ever come across someone who would find it acceptable.

If a DM wants to run Orcs as mostly npcs to be fought for XP I may not agree and find another game. I can ask and only ask ( not demand) he try to change that aspect of his campaign. They are free to listen or ignore my suggestion. Or to put it another way unless the game is being held at your home your not going to casually walk into someone home and point a finger and begin condemning the person or their game. Chances are good they will show you the door.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Particular Jones wrote:
Rysky wrote:


Good and Evil aligned races (as in Humanoids) aren’t a thing in Pathfinder.
Yes they kind of are.

Typical is not the same as all nor innate.

Belkzen orcs lean toward Evil.

Snow orcs around the Crown of the World and the Rain orcs of the Mwangi lean Good, and I’d say they outnumber the single country in Avistan.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Particular Jones wrote:
Rysky wrote:


Good and Evil aligned races (as in Humanoids) aren’t a thing in Pathfinder.
Yes they kind of are.

Typical is not the same as all nor innate.

Belkzen orcs lean toward Evil.

Snow orcs around the Crown of the World and the Rain orcs of the Mwangi lean Good, and I’d say they outnumber the single country in Avistan.

Good point though many DMs take what is written in the Monster Manuals as the only way to run such creatures. I do things differently now though would be lying if I did not do the same for many years. Not ever DM is going to run or do things as I am. Neither will I make the wrong assumption that they will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say I'n finding it quite disturbing the ease of which some posters toss around such terms as racist, sexist, ableist etc..

So if I go eat at a restaurant and I am served terrible food or worse rotten food. With the cook being a POC and not male if I give a bad review of the restaurant according to posters here I would be racist and sexist because no matter what I have to be happy with the service simply because it's a non-male POC as the chef. That seems to be what I'm being told.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Particular Jones wrote:
I have to say I'n finding it quite disturbing the ease of which some posters toss around such terms as racist, sexist, ableist etc..

The point is that we live in a society where all of these prejudices are deeply entrenched, and "things which reinforce those injustices" are worth calling out and correcting.

Like there's no middle ground between "racist" and "antiracist" and the status quo will treat your silence as consent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


The point is that we live in a society where all of these prejudices are deeply entrenched, and "things which reinforce those injustices" are worth calling out and correcting.

Like there's no middle ground between "racist" and "antiracist" and the status quo will treat your silence as consent.

I agree they should be called out.

Yet judging a movie on it's own merits and I'm getting called sexist and whatever a posters feels like throwing my way. I watched the movie Commando with Arnold Schwarzenegger at the movie theater when it came out. I enjoyed it yet not worth the price of admission. I could care less if it was Arnold, a female actress or a POC in the lead. I still would have felt the same way.

Call me out and rightfully so if I say don't go watch a movie because the main character is portrayed by a POC or something equally disturbing and truly ignorant. Calling me out for wanting to judge a movie on the script and nothing else. That is just not being able to find the right thing to say and toss the above insults my way.

Police when their is a reason to so. Not because of a difference in play. With some exceptions most Monstrous races are going to be just npcs for the players to gain experience with at many tables including my own. I am not going to go through every entry of the first Bestiary and try to incorporate every race into my campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Particular Jones wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:


Yes you did Natan. In the first post I quoted you did so specifically.

As for the rest, no you didn't technically ask me to. You're right in that. You just implied that it's a normal and nothing wrong with it.

As for condemnation. I will.

*Raises hand*

I'll condemn someone else for wanting to rape people at the gaming table. It's totally our place to police other people in our hobby. It's totally our place to tell them "Dude that's NOT Ok" and "That's NOT wanted here".

Not only is it our place. It's our responsibility.

NO ONE and I mean no one here would ever find any campaign that included sexual assault acceptable. Or want to be around any DM or group which included such a subject in their campaigns.

You may want to read up. The person I was responding to, directly and more than once said that he would be fine with it, and thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to do.

Particular Jones wrote:


I do think bringing a napalm strike to put out a forest fire when the discussion is getting heated is the wrong thing to do imo.

It wasn't a "napalm strike" It started with me pointing out that one evil act CAN make you an evil person. Such as Rape. Then it went back and forth from there.

Particular Jones wrote:


Again no one not myself, the OP, or anyone even remotely hinted that the above was even acceptable.

Again. You need to re-read some posts. The individual I was replying to said that it was acceptable, as part of playing out things you don't do in real life.

Particular Jones wrote:


I don't know how this thread took a turn from the OP subject matter to the distasteful topic above.

The posts are there for you to read.

But then your first post in the thread was bragging about being called an Incel.... so you might miss it? I'm unsure.

Particular Jones wrote:


I have been gaming for the better part of 20+ years if not more and never and I do mean never in my life have I ever come across someone who would find it acceptable.

Then you're lucky. But the "Black swan" theory doesn't work. (For Reference: Just because you've never seen a black swan, doesn't mean they don't exit.)

Particular Jones wrote:


If a DM wants to run Orcs as mostly npcs to be fought for XP I may not agree and find another game. I can ask and only ask ( not demand) he try to change that aspect of his campaign. They are free to listen or ignore my suggestion. Or to put it another way unless the game is being held at your home your not going to casually walk into someone home and point a finger and begin condemning the person or their game. Chances are good they will show you the door.

Chances are good, that you get up and leave. You can point fingers if you want. If people are acting racist or sexist, or bigoted in other ways you can tell them you're not cool with it. Then if they don't stop you can leave.

Bigots kicking someone out for not liking their bigotry? Sure. it could happen, but I'd just say "Consider the source"


Particular Jones wrote:

I have to say I'n finding it quite disturbing the ease of which some posters toss around such terms as racist, sexist, ableist etc..

So if I go eat at a restaurant and I am served terrible food or worse rotten food. With the cook being a POC and not male if I give a bad review of the restaurant according to posters here I would be racist and sexist because no matter what I have to be happy with the service simply because it's a non-male POC as the chef. That seems to be what I'm being told.

So if you get terrible food, you're saying the chef must be a non-male POC? Prosecution rests.

Also, using the "POC" acronym automatically makes you racist... oh, crap...!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Particular Jones wrote:

I have to say I'n finding it quite disturbing the ease of which some posters toss around such terms as racist, sexist, ableist etc..

So if I go eat at a restaurant and I am served terrible food or worse rotten food. With the cook being a POC and not male if I give a bad review of the restaurant according to posters here I would be racist and sexist because no matter what I have to be happy with the service simply because it's a non-male POC as the chef. That seems to be what I'm being told.

No. And you know better too. This is again feigned ignorance.

If you left a bad review BECAUSE the Chef was a POC you'd be racist.

You know the difference. This is trying to weaken the point by applying hyperbolic statements in an effort to paint them all as hyperbolic and thus with out foundation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Particular Jones wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:


The point is that we live in a society where all of these prejudices are deeply entrenched, and "things which reinforce those injustices" are worth calling out and correcting.

Like there's no middle ground between "racist" and "antiracist" and the status quo will treat your silence as consent.

I agree they should be called out.

Yet judging a movie on it's own merits and I'm getting called sexist and whatever a posters feels like throwing my way. I watched the movie Commando with Arnold Schwarzenegger at the movie theater when it came out. I enjoyed it yet not worth the price of admission. I could care less if it was Arnold, a female actress or a POC in the lead. I still would have felt the same way.

Call me out and rightfully so if I say don't go watch a movie because the main character is portrayed by a POC or something equally disturbing and truly ignorant. Calling me out for wanting to judge a movie on the script and nothing else. That is just not being able to find the right thing to say and toss the above insults my way.

Police when their is a reason to so. Not because of a difference in play. With some exceptions most Monstrous races are going to be just npcs for the players to gain experience with at many tables including my own. I am not going to go through every entry of the first Bestiary and try to incorporate every race into my campaign.

Outside of gaming I actually have a social life and I'm not going to
waste every moment of my free time trying to make every single element acceptable to everyone and anyone. That way lies madness.

It's been tossed out there multiple times, so I'll ask.

You entered the conversation with the statement you've been called an incel due to this view.

Just when/where where you called an Incel because of not liking a movie's female lead? What movie?

Cuz... it wasn't in this thread. It seems like you've kinda popped up here, to complain about mistreatment elsewhere, due to being called an incel, due to possible sexist or misogynistic statements?

Did you want to share the point of reference or are we to just some know know what you're talking about?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Terrible analogy.

As for an answer. If the bad review that was mentioned brought up race, sex, gender, or anything unrelated to the food in question.. it would indeed be racist.. or sexist.

Particular Jones wrote:

I have to say I'n finding it quite disturbing the ease of which some posters toss around such terms as racist, sexist, ableist etc..

So if I go eat at a restaurant and I am served terrible food or worse rotten food. With the cook being a POC and not male if I give a bad review of the restaurant according to posters here I would be racist and sexist because no matter what I have to be happy with the service simply because it's a non-male POC as the chef. That seems to be what I'm being told.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Right...
So, I do think there was a good point made through this mess, and thats that Paizo could have done a better job over the years of signaling that they were headed in this direction. Certainly in the last three or four years; we might not have known there was a new edition on the horizon (whatever we suspected), but THEY did. Goblins could have been made more mainstream within APs and adventurers a lot more thoroughly and in a lot more places than the bits and pieces they've included over the last decade. It might have given the game away early, but it also might have helped ease into this.

Edit: Mind, I do agree that they've made some efforts. But it clearly hasn't been enough, or has made it into the general playerbase as well as they'd hoped. Even I thought they were doing this more for the benefit of the "We Be Goblin" series than as a serious attempt at inclusion, at least at first. Seeing the devs posts on just how many good and neutral goblins over the years has opened my eyes, but I definetely needed the pattern pointed out to see it.

151 to 200 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Goblins as a race All Messageboards