Goblins as a race


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
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.

I dont think it is hyperbolic when some one in this very thread called him sexist for not liking a hypothetical film with a female lead due to elements not related to the leads sex.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not necessarily incorrect.

But how long does it take to ease people into things? Many people will always complain... no matter how long it took to ease them into the things they are complaining about. They'd never be put at ease.

I spent a quarter of my life around those kinds of people. Enabled them. It's one reason I don't believe you should let them dictate what direction you go.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

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.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

*notices 150 new messages*

hmmm, i don't think i care that much about this topic

what even happened?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The internet.

Bandw2 wrote:

*notices 150 new messages*

hmmm, i don't think i care that much about this topic

what even happened?


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

I think if starting with the Ironfang Invasion, they'd offered up goblins as a legitimate player choice in the various AP player guides, and not a niche one, more would have been used to it.

That it would have been a challenge to naturally include goblins as a good choice with II, Ruins of Azlant, and War for the Crown, would have made the endeavor more worthwhile, not less in my opinion. After all, some of the primary questions people have had have been along the lines of "How can I fit Goblins into Oppra? Into an extremely size limited colony ship? Into a story about a war against golbinoids?" Getting those answers out in front of us might have started us thinking along those lines a little earlier.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And for completionist’s sake, yes there have been more than one instance on these boards of people trying to defend their character being a rapist, or others retelling horror stories where it played out at the table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think their will ever be a general consensus on who lies or does not like that Goblins are PCs.

Either way Session Zero exists to see what is allowed or not as a playable race.

I allow them as a pc depending on the type of campaign. Interesting though in terms of stats that the Goblin is so much more well off than a Kobold. -4 STr is imo crippling for some builds.

Rysky wrote:
And for completionist’s sake, yes there have been more than one instance on these boards of people trying to defend their character being a rapist, or others retelling horror stories where it played out at the table.

Fortunately I missed such threads nor do I go looking for them. That type of behavior or playstyle is not acceptable for myself at all.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I doubt Koblolds will be stuck with -4 Str long term. Edit: In PF2, I mean.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, where did the OP go?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I think if starting with the Ironfang Invasion, they'd offered up goblins as a legitimate player choice in the various AP player guides, and not a niche one, more would have been used to it.

A good reason they didn't do this was that the PF1 goblin was designed for "make the monster work the way it is supposed to" which made it pretty unsuitable for a PC unless it's a build where "dex is the only thing that matters" (like a gunslinger).

Since PF2 decouples "how monsters are built" and "how PCs are built" (though you can always build NPCs as PCs) we don't have this problem anymore- PC orcs don't have to have penalties to all mental scores, PC kobolds don't need to be pathetic, and PC goblins can be just a +2/+2/-2 option like the rest.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
I doubt Koblolds will be stuck with -4 Str long term. Edit: In PF2, I mean.

I just wondered why for so long. Next to Goblins very similar imo. The +1 bonus due to Natural AC and the Crafty Racial trait hardly makes up for the -4 to STr bonus imo.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I doubt Koblolds will be stuck with -4 Str long term. Edit: In PF2, I mean.

truly the easiest thing for me to homebrew was a different stat array for kobolds. 5RP race, just really bad


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In most games I've played in certain races (including but not limited to orcs, goblins, gnolls) are typically attacked when met in the wilderness. And if the PC's don't take the initiative and attack them, then the other side will 99% attack them.
Annnnd you never stopped to think why this setup might not be a good thing?

Nah, I actually like having fun and don't try to look at everything from the perspective of everythings racist/sexist.

The game involves going around killing people, I'm sure I could pull negative implications out of my ass on just about all of it it, if that was the aim.

So what about when things are racist/sexist?

There’s nothing to pull, are you going around killing people because they’re doing evil things or because of what they look like?

Then its racist or sexist and my character will react how I've designed them whether its the paladin I played who teamed up with a Goblin tribe to take down invading giants (3.5) or the Hobgoblin I played who considers Goblins an underclass.

Depends on the character.

But it's clear that you've made generalizations about real people if they do something involving make believe characters.

You don’t keep a look out for racist or sexist elements but you’ll just know if it’s racist or sexist?

And If they [general] are trying to pass off fantasy racism as a good thing and try to justify it that tells me quite a bit about them.

You're making things up at this point. I don't look for sexism/racism in everything vs know it when I see it and if its fictional I don't overreact.

It shows your inability to separate fantasy from reality and when it comes down to it you're only doing this because racism is the popular cause for people looking for problems.

I don't need to justify my characters actions but if I where to justify killing one specific race on sight in a fictional setting it would be because if left to their own devices they will kill others. That's the way they where written.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I think if starting with the Ironfang Invasion, they'd offered up goblins as a legitimate player choice in the various AP player guides, and not a niche one, more would have been used to it.

A good reason they didn't do this was that the PF1 goblin was designed for "make the monster work the way it is supposed to" which made it pretty unsuitable for a PC unless it's a build where "dex is the only thing that matters" (like a gunslinger).

Since PF2 decouples "how monsters are built" and "how PCs are built" (though you can always build NPCs as PCs) we don't have this problem anymore- PC orcs don't have to have penalties to all mental scores, PC kobolds don't need to be pathetic, and PC goblins can be just a +2/+2/-2 option like the rest.

"Dex is the only thing that matters" and "Dex is the biggest thing that matters" covers a looot of builds in PF1. Especially late PF1.

I'm not pretending Goblins suddenly became a well-balanced option until PF2 came in to fix them, but Goblins have been a choice (if not a great one) for a while. Putting it into Player's guides that, say, a small band of goblins stowed away on the Peregrine in Ruins, or Phaendar was home to a colony of tolerated goblins in Ironfang, or that one of Eutropia's more controversial reforms was inclusions of goblins into polite(r) society, and as consequence several had attached themselves to her retinue as personal attendants and allies (somewhat to her chagrin), might have been useful.

Sprinkle in a few named Goblin NPCs over those APs as well, as well as allowing goblins to be freely available in Pathfinder Society (and there they COULD do a big event that massively changes how the Society views its Goblin members), and that would make a lot more players think of Venture Captain Tibbles, or Eutropia's handmaiden Clara, or the Angry Albatross tribe of Ancorato Island when they think of goblins, instead of "Burnt Offerings."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Particular Jones wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I doubt Koblolds will be stuck with -4 Str long term. Edit: In PF2, I mean.
I just wondered why for so long. Next to Goblins very similar imo. The +1 bonus due to Natural AC and the Crafty Racial trait hardly makes up for the -4 to STr bonus imo.

Can't really blame Paizo for that one. Wizards wrote that one initially, and even they acknowledged that Kobolds needed help to not be absolutely terrible.

THere was an WotC article forever ago that offered the following additional racial traits:

*Craft (trapmaking) is a class skill for all kobolds
*Natural Weapons: Kobolds have two primary claw attacks that deal 1d3 points of slashing damage plus Strength bonus, and a secondary bite attack that deals 1d3 points of piercing damage plus 1/2 Strength bonus. Despite possibly being the weakest reptilian humanoid, kobolds retain a connection to their feral nature.
*Slight Build: The physical stature of kobolds lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category smaller. Whenever a kobold is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as Hide), the kobold is treated as one size smaller if doing so is advantageous to the character. A kobold is also considered to be one size smaller when "squeezing" through a restrictive space. A kobold can use weapons designed for a creature one size smaller without penalty. However, the space and reach of a kobold remain those of a creature of their actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject's size category.
*Weapon Proficiency: Kobolds receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the heavy pick and light pick as bonus feats. Kobolds are born and bred miners, regardless of their actual profession, allowing them to easily wield these weapons.
*Weapon Familiarity: Kobolds may treat greatpicks (see below) as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
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.

I dont think it is hyperbolic when some one in this very thread called him sexist for not liking a hypothetical film with a female lead due to elements not related to the leads sex.

He entered the thread bragging about being called an incel for that exact thing.

And the hyperbole was for his BS made up situation in which the hypothetical person was called racist for bad food. Because it's an absurd set up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
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.

I dont think it is hyperbolic when some one in this very thread called him sexist for not liking a hypothetical film with a female lead due to elements not related to the leads sex.

He entered the thread bragging about being called an incel for that exact thing.

And the hyperbole was for his BS made up situation in which the hypothetical person was called racist for bad food. Because it's an absurd set up.

Yeah it's a typical chud setup. We all can tell what it is they're trying to pull here, and they're making a scene because no one bought their bull. It's a standard tactic meant to get people saying that people are just being plain too mean to reactionaries, and they get squirmy when people don't buy their nonsense at face value. The others in the thread may have been overly defensive of bad ideas, but I wouldn't necessarily accuse them of being here in bad faith. This one in particular is doing your standard crypto nonsense, however. Anyone coming in hot identifying as an incel is not here for a good reason.

Also, could we cut it with the hand-wringing over people challenging this nonsense? People talk all the time about how the community needs to improve and be more welcoming, but part of that process is going to be calling out stuff like this and making it clear it's not welcome. Do your part, call out chuds when they start acting up. Yeah, it's not fun, but voicing opposition keeps those ideas from being normalized. If you don't like that people are talking about bigotry, then get mad at the people defending it, not those calling it out.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My biggest complaint about Goblin player characters is how people roleplay them. I played my 2nd 2ePFS game last night, The Mosquito Witch...which is written to be a more serious, horror themed scenario. The GM is great, and warned people ahead of time that they were going to lean heavy into the horror aspects (which I was super excited for)...then one of the players chose to play a Goblin Bard, and proceeded to completely derail any attempts at seriousness, within an hour the GM gave up even trying to run a serious game.

It completely ruined my enjoyment of the game, to the point where I almost withdrew from the table. The same thing happens in Starfinder most of the time when people decide to play Skittermander characters...they play them as ridiculous comic relief characters, hell bent of turning every game into a comedy.

I will probably never sit at another table with someone playing either of those races again because of how annoying and disruptive they are, and the in-universe lore completely backs up and encourages that type of behavior.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Real talk: "I have been called [whatever] for not liking [work of fiction]" is not a winning argument ever. If you don't like a movie, book, video game, album, or whatever a valid option is always "keep your opinion to yourself" since most people do not care what random strangers think about movies, books, video games, albums, etc.

If you're trying to "rally the troops" by leading a hate-on for whatever it is you dislike, there's a strong chance you just shouldn't do that.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In most games I've played in certain races (including but not limited to orcs, goblins, gnolls) are typically attacked when met in the wilderness. And if the PC's don't take the initiative and attack them, then the other side will 99% attack them.
Annnnd you never stopped to think why this setup might not be a good thing?

Nah, I actually like having fun and don't try to look at everything from the perspective of everythings racist/sexist.

The game involves going around killing people, I'm sure I could pull negative implications out of my ass on just about all of it it, if that was the aim.

So what about when things are racist/sexist?

There’s nothing to pull, are you going around killing people because they’re doing evil things or because of what they look like?

Then its racist or sexist and my character will react how I've designed them whether its the paladin I played who teamed up with a Goblin tribe to take down invading giants (3.5) or the Hobgoblin I played who considers Goblins an underclass.

Depends on the character.

But it's clear that you've made generalizations about real people if they do something involving make believe characters.

You don’t keep a look out for racist or sexist elements but you’ll just know if it’s racist or sexist?

And If they [general] are trying to pass off fantasy racism as a good thing and try to justify it that tells me quite a bit about them.

You're making things up at this point. I don't look for sexism/racism in everything vs know it when I see it and if its fictional I don't overreact.

It shows your inability to separate fantasy from reality and when it comes down to it you're only doing this because racism is the popular cause for people looking for problems.

I don't need to justify my characters actions but if I where to justify killing one specific race on sight in a fictional setting it would be because if left to their own devices they will kill others. That's the way they where written.

I’m not making anything up. You can’t not look for racism/sexism and then state you’ll react when you somehow see it despite not looking for it.

Fantasy games or real life don’t really have much to do with the situation. But if you go out of your way to make your PCs racist in game I’m gonna ask why.

You do need to justify your character’s actions of they’re doing Evil stuff and they or you are trying to pass it off as Good.

You can play a racist character fine, it’s when you try to pass the character or the racism off as Good that brings the issues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Real talk: "I have been called [whatever] for not liking [work of fiction]" is not a winning argument ever. If you don't like a movie, book, video game, album, or whatever a valid option is always "keep your opinion to yourself" since most people do not care what random strangers think about movies, books, video games, albums, etc.

If you're trying to "rally the troops" by leading a hate-on for whatever it is you dislike, there's a strong chance you just shouldn't do that.

Or alternatively, people should be allowed to voice non-"ist" opinions without being labelled an "ist." Complaining about being labelled an "ist" when it happens is not proof that said person is an "ist." People have a right to defend themselves without being defacto presumed guilty just because someone said so. I've been called a sexist for not liking Captain Marvel, despite my reasons for disliking the character being exactly the same as my reasons for disliking Superman.

Case in point, apparently I'm a racist for thinking gnomes on average having less str than a human (but also having the same upper and lower bounds) is reasonable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Real talk: "I have been called [whatever] for not liking [work of fiction]" is not a winning argument ever. If you don't like a movie, book, video game, album, or whatever a valid option is always "keep your opinion to yourself" since most people do not care what random strangers think about movies, books, video games, albums, etc.

If you're trying to "rally the troops" by leading a hate-on for whatever it is you dislike, there's a strong chance you just shouldn't do that.

Can't agree at all. There are poster in this thread who all but outright say you are morally wrong for killing make believe fictional races.

So many people love the opinions of others, there are YouTube channels and sites dedicated to gathering the opinions of random strangers.

Do you know what the real lesson should be, if you are about to make a personal attack or accusation against a real flesh and blood person over a fictional character or setting, rethink your priorities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Real talk: "I have been called [whatever] for not liking [work of fiction]" is not a winning argument ever. If you don't like a movie, book, video game, album, or whatever a valid option is always "keep your opinion to yourself" since most people do not care what random strangers think about movies, books, video games, albums, etc.

If you're trying to "rally the troops" by leading a hate-on for whatever it is you dislike, there's a strong chance you just shouldn't do that.

*blinks* So there's no room for a dissenting opinion with works of fiction? I mean, "X is a load of donkey butts" isn't productive or worth noting sure, but people are allowed to not like stuff and say as much. Sometimes a cigar's a cigar and a guy just didn't like something for xyz and isn't trying to start a flamewar, score political points, or lead the next great crusade...


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:

My biggest complaint about Goblin player characters is how people roleplay them. I played my 2nd 2ePFS game last night, The Mosquito Witch...which is written to be a more serious, horror themed scenario. The GM is great, and warned people ahead of time that they were going to lean heavy into the horror aspects (which I was super excited for)...then one of the players chose to play a Goblin Bard, and proceeded to completely derail any attempts at seriousness, within an hour the GM gave up even trying to run a serious game.

It completely ruined my enjoyment of the game, to the point where I almost withdrew from the table. The same thing happens in Starfinder most of the time when people decide to play Skittermander characters...they play them as ridiculous comic relief characters, hell bent of turning every game into a comedy.

I will probably never sit at another table with someone playing either of those races again because of how annoying and disruptive they are, and the in-universe lore completely backs up and encourages that type of behavior.

This can be a problem, but is a 'player/individual' problem vs a problem in general. People CAN do this. It IS a thing. But it doesn't have to be.

Goblins CAN be played for a more comedic aspect and for fun.

But they can also be played straight.

I've played both sides of it. And it depends on the group/story. You can get down right dark and creepy with a goblin, or yeah a bit funny.

The thing is to stop a player that's just getting stupid with it, before they get too much steam and be like "ok I'm glad you're having fun, but you're a little too much Jim Carrey with this and it's taking away from every one elses enjoyment.

The same can be done with Gnomes and Halflings too.

It 'is' a thing, but not one to totally boycott games for. Just let people know -before- they get stupid with it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Slyme wrote:

My biggest complaint about Goblin player characters is how people roleplay them. I played my 2nd 2ePFS game last night, The Mosquito Witch...which is written to be a more serious, horror themed scenario. The GM is great, and warned people ahead of time that they were going to lean heavy into the horror aspects (which I was super excited for)...then one of the players chose to play a Goblin Bard, and proceeded to completely derail any attempts at seriousness, within an hour the GM gave up even trying to run a serious game.

It completely ruined my enjoyment of the game, to the point where I almost withdrew from the table. The same thing happens in Starfinder most of the time when people decide to play Skittermander characters...they play them as ridiculous comic relief characters, hell bent of turning every game into a comedy.

I will probably never sit at another table with someone playing either of those races again because of how annoying and disruptive they are, and the in-universe lore completely backs up and encourages that type of behavior.

It absolutely does. But as others have pointed out on different threads, that problem isn't actually how goblins or skittermanders are written, it's that people are being jerks to you and your DM. Were neither to exist, you'd still have Gnomes and the entire CN alignment for those shenanigans, if shenanigans is what they'd like to accomplish.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


*blinks* So there's no room for a dissenting opinion with works of fiction? I mean, "X is a load of donkey butts" isn't productive or worth noting sure, but people are allowed to not like stuff and say as much. Sometimes a cigar's a cigar and a guy just didn't like something for xyz and isn't trying to start a flamewar, score political points, or lead the next great crusade...

It's okay as long as it follows the narrative. if one dissents from the narrative one is a bad person. It's one I'm starting to see here. Poster XYZ has something they like or very supportive of either feel the same way or the pejoratives starting getting very causally thrown their way. Dissenting opinion now mens having whatever word they can look up in a Thesaurus that ends with ist. Don't like the way certain dice are made well your racist towards the person who designed them.

I only defended the OP because I felt their was an unjust dogpiling and casual pejoratives being thrown his way for having a dissenting opinion. Nothing more. Apparently some think I am on some moral crusade of some sort.

Doompatrol wrote:


Can't agree at all. There are poster in this thread who all but outright say you are morally wrong for killing make believe fictional races.

So many people love the opinions of others, there are YouTube channels and sites dedicated to gathering the opinions of random strangers.

Do you know what the real lesson should be, if you are about to make a personal attack or accusation against a real flesh and blood person over a fictional character or setting, rethink your priorities.

What I'm seeing is a more general intolerance hidden behind a slim veil of tolerance in that one is allowed to give one opinion as long as it is coincides with their opinion. Otherwise they don't want to hear what one has to say no matter how inoffensive because it contradicts their own. Last time I checked this forum was not an echo chamber validation style forum. Dissenting opinions as long as they follow the board rules can and should be encouraged. O


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I’m not making anything up. You can’t not look for racism/sexism and then state you’ll react when you somehow see it despite not looking for it.

Fantasy games or real life don’t really have much to do with the situation. But if you go out of your way to make your PCs racist in game I’m gonna ask why.

You do need to justify your character’s actions of they’re doing Evil stuff and they or you are trying to pass it off as Good.

You can play a racist character fine, it’s when you try to pass the character or the racism off as Good that brings the issues."

Let me be clear, I am trying to say you see it when it's not there.

Well yes they do. We are talking about a fictional setting, it has everything to do with it. My characters racist because that's practical in the setting, you can be that guy who applies real life to a fictional setting and argues with the party as the village residents get raped and murdered.

In a fictional setting racism/speciesism or whatever you want to call it can be justified. Borg, Daleks, Zombies, demons, goblins.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, if you're called out for "I don't like [foo]" then most likely what you're being called out for is not "failing to toe the party line" it's most likely your stated reasons for your dislike or the way you conduct yourself in defending your opinion.

Like I can just come out and say "I didn't like Captain Marvel very much" and no one's going to accuse me of wrongthink because my opinion does not extend beyond "how much I enjoyed a movie I watched". It could very well be the best movie ever made, but people are allowed to like and dislike different things. If people genuinely care about why I like one thing and not another, they can just ask me- I see no value in broadcasting it far and wide.

It is liberating to realize that no one really cares what you think about art.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Real talk: "I have been called [whatever] for not liking [work of fiction]" is not a winning argument ever. If you don't like a movie, book, video game, album, or whatever a valid option is always "keep your opinion to yourself" since most people do not care what random strangers think about movies, books, video games, albums, etc.

If you're trying to "rally the troops" by leading a hate-on for whatever it is you dislike, there's a strong chance you just shouldn't do that.

*blinks* So there's no room for a dissenting opinion with works of fiction? I mean, "X is a load of donkey butts" isn't productive or worth noting sure, but people are allowed to not like stuff and say as much. Sometimes a cigar's a cigar and a guy just didn't like something for xyz and isn't trying to start a flamewar, score political points, or lead the next great crusade...

Sometimes that's true. Thus we look at context.

When someone comes in bragging about such things and then continues to make multiple posts on points that re-enforce the perception, that's on them. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but the guy making lude motions with it, and obscene gestures with it and bragging about doing so.... sometimes it IS what people think when you do what you can to re-enforce the notion.

In looking at context it's also typically ------verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry-------- easy to tell which people 'Dislike something for XYZ" and those people that are being bigoted and trying to hide their bigotry behind "XYZ".

The bigots seem to think they're SO AMAZINGLY CLEVER with their obfuscations. Typically its' about as subtle as a firework display at midnight. The bigots think "Oh look. I'll cleverly hide this with 'reasons' that hide the bigotry. Tee hee. Look how clever I am!" but it's really not. It's plain as day to those that don't share the views.

As a note. I'm not saying there IS no reason not to like Captain Marvel. And that reasons "XYZ' not exist. They may.

I'm saying that when Bigots USE those reasons to cover their bigotry, they are not half as clever as they think they are and it's easy to pick them out. They can't help but give themselves away.

Kinda a case of "it's not nessisarly 'what' you say but 'how' you say it".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Like I can just come out and say "I didn't like Captain Marvel very much" and no one's going to accuse me of wrongthink because my opinion does not extend beyond "how much I enjoyed a movie I watched". It could very well be the best movie ever made, but people are allowed to like and dislike different things. If people genuinely care about why I like one thing and not another, they can just ask me- I see no value in broadcasting it far and wide.

I thought the point of a forum was to discuss different topics even one you and I like may not like to want read about as long as they follow the board rules. This place is not an echo chamber nor should it ever become one. I have to say one of the few times where a poster complains about other posters posting on a forum.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But what does "how much I enjoyed a particular work of fiction" have to do with anything?

Theoretically, if someone knows that they like the sorts of things I like, that opinion might be valuable to them, but someone who already knows they like the sorts of things I like probably knows me personally and can just ask for recommendations.

Like "we had fun playing this AP" doesn't really help anybody, does it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:


Or alternatively, people should be allowed to voice non-"ist" opinions without being labelled an "ist." Complaining about being labelled an "ist" when it happens is not proof that said person is an "ist." People have a right to defend themselves without being defacto presumed guilty just because someone said so. I've been called a sexist for not liking Captain Marvel, despite my reasons for disliking the character being exactly the same as my reasons for disliking Superman.

Case in point, apparently I'm a racist for thinking gnomes on average having less str than a human (but also having the same upper and lower bounds) is reasonable.

Pretty much agree 1000% with this post. My point about being called an incel which was lost or deliberately ignored here was that I said nothing negative about the lead actress in anyway. I was called one for simply disliking the movie. Of course no one bothered to ask why I was called one. The automatic reflex was "he deserved it he must be guilty of being one!" Dislike something the other person feels very strongly about is when the pejoratives get thrown around casually on this site.

I'm certain in the eyes of some here that you are a bad person for hating the Captain Marvel and are sexist. They don't know your from Adam yet since they like the movie no dissent is allowed and your sexist.

Those that do refuse to stubbornly see how dangerous that can be. you can be sure though if it happens to them they would be the first to claim about unfair treatment.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Particular Jones wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


Or alternatively, people should be allowed to voice non-"ist" opinions without being labelled an "ist." Complaining about being labelled an "ist" when it happens is not proof that said person is an "ist." People have a right to defend themselves without being defacto presumed guilty just because someone said so. I've been called a sexist for not liking Captain Marvel, despite my reasons for disliking the character being exactly the same as my reasons for disliking Superman.

Case in point, apparently I'm a racist for thinking gnomes on average having less str than a human (but also having the same upper and lower bounds) is reasonable.

Pretty much agree 1000% with this post. My point about being called an incel which was lost or deliberately ignored here was that I said nothing negative about the lead actress in anyway. I was called one for simply disliking the movie. Of course no one bothered to ask why I was called one. The automatic reflex was "he deserved it he must be guilty of being one!" Dislike something the other person feels very strongly about is when the pejoratives get thrown around casually on this site.

I'm certain in the eyes of some here that you are a bad person for hating the Captain Marvel and are sexist. They don't know your from Adam yet since they like the movie no dissent is allowed and your sexist.

Those that do refuse to stubbornly see how dangerous that can be. you can be sure though if it happens to them they would be the first to claim about unfair treatment.

Read up thread.

You're trying to play the victim now. (Again)

I asked why.

You never answered.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The way Goblins and Skittermanders are written actively encourages that style of play though...Have you played any of the We Be Goblins series, or pretty much any PFS scenario where you encounter Goblins? Or Skitter Shot/Crash in SF? The really push the whole comedic narrative in basically every bit of official published material related to those races.

Gnomes are a bit more random in how they are portrayed, I've only run across super comedic Gnomes in Paizo material once or twice. A lot of players have been tainted by Blizzard's portrayal of them in Warcraft, but Paizo has done a pretty good job of not writing them as the comic relief most of the time.

Same for Halflings...if anything, Halflings are written as being a pretty grim, oppressed race in Golarian. Most of them are either slaves in Cheliax, or freedom fighters trying to end slavery in Cheliax.

Look at the Gnome and Halflings iconics. None of them are written as comedic. Lem is a former slave, Lini is a pretty straight forward Druid focused on nature, Balazar and Enora are both serious students of the arcane, Meligaster is pretty dark, having used his Mesmerist powers to dominate the people keeping him as a slave, and also tyrannizing the other Halfling slaves in the household before running off and joining the Pathfinders.

Then you get Fumbus...the 2e iconic Goblin Alchemist...whose backstory revolves around an exploding pickle barrel and wildly unreliable alchemy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saying one had fun with an AP while not helpful is still someone opinion. Saying I like "AP ZYZ because of the encounter design/creature design etc" is more helpful. I may listen to someone saying they don't like AP XYZ yet if speaking to two people one just says they hate the other goes into more detail as to why both are valid opinion. I would base my purchase of the AP more on the second person opinion while completely ignoring the third person opinion


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


Read up thread.

You're trying to play the victim now. (Again)

I asked why.

You never answered.

I did not answer because you posted

Pepsi Jedi wrote:


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?

Instead of asking me only why I was called an Incel you already assumed wrongly that it was due to sexist or misogynistic. Why would I respond to such a question presented to me in such an inflammatory manner with assumptions and accusations.

"So they called you an incel..was it because you said something sexist and misogynistic" is going to be given a very hard pass in not being given a response. Now if you had asked "why did they accuse you of that?" would have been given a response.

Only on the Internet. One wants to find out more information from another poster while also at the same time throwing out unfounded accusations towards the poster and coming across as already assuming the other person is guilty. Then they wonder why the question is never answered. I don't know how about while asking the question not fully assuming the other person is guilty.

I was approached by many posters here without being given any benefit of the doubt. The assumption was " he was called an incel therefore he MUST be one" was not going to be given any response let alone consideration towards being given an answer. If your going to assume I'm guilty I'm not going to waste my time answering any questions thrown my way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Slyme wrote:

My biggest complaint about Goblin player characters is how people roleplay them. I played my 2nd 2ePFS game last night, The Mosquito Witch...which is written to be a more serious, horror themed scenario. The GM is great, and warned people ahead of time that they were going to lean heavy into the horror aspects (which I was super excited for)...then one of the players chose to play a Goblin Bard, and proceeded to completely derail any attempts at seriousness, within an hour the GM gave up even trying to run a serious game.

It completely ruined my enjoyment of the game, to the point where I almost withdrew from the table. The same thing happens in Starfinder most of the time when people decide to play Skittermander characters...they play them as ridiculous comic relief characters, hell bent of turning every game into a comedy.

I will probably never sit at another table with someone playing either of those races again because of how annoying and disruptive they are, and the in-universe lore completely backs up and encourages that type of behavior.

As usual when this sort of thing comes up...

Ya got a player problem here, not a goblin problem.

Your GM stated, "guys, we're doing serious horror."
Your fellow player said, "I'm gonna run a goofball goblin bard."

I mean... I can whip up a goblin for a horror story pretty easily. I could possibly, with a bit of work, even make a goblin song slinging goblin bard who'd fit. But it would take work, and I probably wouldn't try if Session Zero set clear expectations.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Doompatrol wrote:
Let me be clear, I am trying to say you see it when it's not there.
And you’re also saying you won’t look for it but will definitely know it when you see it.
Quote:
Well yes they do. We are talking about a fictional setting, it has everything to do with it. My characters racist because that's practical in the setting, you can be that guy who applies real life to a fictional setting and argues with the party as the village residents get raped and murdered.
It’s not practical in the slightest. Rape and murder aren’t just the domain of orcs and goblins, nor is it all they do. Humans do that too. That’s putting aside the false situation of someone arguing against defense in the middle of an attack or avenging after hostilities. No one is doing that.
Quote:
In a fictional setting racism/speciesism or whatever you want to call it can be justified. Borg, Daleks, Zombies, demons, goblins.

None of those examples are examples. Different media and setting have different setups for creatures.

Borg have a hive mind (I haven’t watched ST in forever).

Daleks are insane cyborg mutant squids with all their emotions and thoughts aside from anger turned off, they almost always have an innate need to kill something.

Zombies are mindless undead corpses.

Demons are literally made of Evil.

And Goblins are humanoids aka people. You have Good and Bad and inbetween. There’s no innate evil or murder to them. Treating all of them as KoS serves no purposes nor justifies anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair the Daleks were engineered that way by Davros. Compassion, empathy and all such emotions were removed from them to be better killing machines. I still consider them evil yet also victims due to how Davros created them .


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


Read up thread.

You're trying to play the victim now. (Again)

I asked why.

You never answered.

I did not answer because you posted

Pepsi Jedi wrote:


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?

Instead of asking me only why I was called an Incel you already assumed wrongly that it was due to sexist or misogynistic. Why would I respond to such a question presented to me in such an inflammatory manner with assumptions and accusations.

"So they called you an incel..was it because you said something sexist and misogynistic" is going to be given a very hard pass in not being given a response. Now if you had asked "why did they accuse you of that?" would have been given a response.

Only on the Internet. One wants to find out more information from another poster while also at the same time throwing out unfounded accusations towards the poster and coming across as already assuming the other person is guilty. Then they wonder why the question is never answered. I don't know how about while asking the question not fully assuming the other person is guilty.

I was approached by many posters here without being given any benefit of the doubt. The assumption was " he was called an incel therefore he MUST be one" was not going to be given any response let alone consideration towards being given an answer. If your going to assume I'm guilty I'm not going to waste my time answering any questions thrown my way.

LOL Get real.

Again you're trying to play the victim as if you've been some how meligned.

WHY ELSE WOULD YOU BE CALLED AN INCEL????

Of COURSE it was for something someone thought was sexist or misogynistic. That's why people get CALLED incels. lol You wern't accused of it due to saying the sky was blue. You said SOMETHING that someone took to be misogynistic in some fashion. (Right or wrongly)

More over you're trying to change what I said.

As for being given the benefit of the doubt. ----YOU---- claimed it. Noone here called you one. You keep repeating it as if you've been some how attacked. Noone here said that to you. You just popped up in the thread, offended that you'd be called an Incel, with out any foundation what so ever, pertaining to the thread. Then used it as some sort of false accusation, and thus a defense against accusations of racism.

Yes. I asked why, after you'd put it out there two or more times as if you were some how being mistreated.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Going back to the OP though. I've played a Goblin in Pathfinder for a long time. Off and on (I play other races too, but never -ever- human). They're 'normal' for me. I won't lie, when I saw them rolled into core races I felt great about it. it's what made me hit the 'Instant buy' button for PF2.

They have their place. I tend to play mine straight (not STUPID crazy) with quirks. Yes mine talks a bit strange, but I don't go full yoda. Yes mine will approach problems from unique perspectives. Yes... more than once "Blow it up?" has been put forth as a solution to problems.

But I try and stay away from getting TOO kooky.

1) it gets old... fast.
2) It takes a lot to get a group of people together to play these days. So much to do. So little time to do it. And if you're hamming it up all the time you don't get as much done.

But it's been standard for our groups almost from the start of Pathfinder. Now that they're a canon core race, I feel justified in what a decade of play?

Good stuff.


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
The bigots seem to think they're SO AMAZINGLY CLEVER with their obfuscations

My favorite is when the bigots use phrases like "the bigots" to nebulously deflect away from their own cruel and hateful behavior. They always think it's a really clever way to make themselves look innocent, but it doesn't work as often as they think.


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


WHY ELSE WOULD YOU BE CALLED AN INCEL????

So no one has ever accused you of something falsely. Called you a liar to your face when instead you you told the truth. Accused you of stealing something when someone else did. Without any proof that it was you. I was called an Incel for not liking the movie. Not for anything else beyond that.

If you want to ignore this I can't stop you from doing so. Stop calling me an Incel, sexist or misogynistic without even knowing me. This is no longer questions more like ad homein personal attacks.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
The bigots seem to think they're SO AMAZINGLY CLEVER with their obfuscations
My favorite is when the bigots use phrases like "the bigots" to nebulously deflect away from their own cruel and hateful behavior. They always think it's a really clever way to make themselves look innocent, but it doesn't work as often as they think.

And here comes the "Oh you're calling out bigots for their bigoted behavior so YOU must be a bigot, of bigots!!" Defense.

Also old and amazingly transparent.


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


WHY ELSE WOULD YOU BE CALLED AN INCEL????

So no one has ever accused you of something falsely. Called you a liar to your face when instead you you told the truth. Accused you of stealing something when someone else did. Without any proof that it was you. I was called an Incel for not liking the movie. Not for anything else beyond that.

If you want to ignore this I can't stop you from doing so. Stop calling me an Incel, sexist or misogynistic without even knowing me. This is no longer questions more like ad homein personal attacks.

No. I've never been called an Incel for any reason.

Because I don't commit behavior attributed to them.
I've never been accused of stealing something. Because I don't steal things and don't put myself in the position to be accused of such.

As for your claim of "I was called an Incel for not liking the movie. Not for anything else beyond that" I don't believe you.

Your posts here have been pointed and inflammatory and hold trademarks of one that DOES incite others. So I don't think you simply said "I don't like Captain Marvel" and someone jumped from "I don't like Captain marvel" to "You are an Incel if you don't like Captain marvel" with absolutely nothing else said.

There was more to the statement than that. Then the reply was to what ever else you had along with the statement of why you didn't like Captain Marvel. As I posted up thread, it's not always what you say that tips people off. It's how it's said.

And noone called you an incel here but YOU. You started the thread with the claim and you keep bringing it back up. It's a brag. Not an accusation by anyone here. As for the rest, you're getting responses off what you've posted.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the concept of Goblins and unusual humanoids as playable races...in fact, I gravitate towards playing characters like that. I am also fine with the idea of races which are generally viewed as evil having outcasts, or even whole clans which break off and become 'good'. I've been playing RPGs for decades, the standard 'core' races are generally pretty boring for me, so I love coming up with unusual characters and backstories. In fact, my -2001 PFS2 character is a Goblin, which is also the character I was playing in the game that got ruined by the guy playing the Goblin Bard. I specifically wrote my character to break the stereotype Paizo has been pushing on the Goblins though.

The problem is, Paizo has written Goblins as comical from the start, and that encourages people to play them comically. Even the outcast/good Goblins are written that way in the official source materials. This does nothing to dissuade people from playing Goblin PCs that way, and IMHO actively encourages it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
And here comes the "Oh you're calling out bigots for their bigoted behavior so YOU must be a bigot, of bigots!!" Defense

It's not a defense of anything. Just a general observation about the way conversations tend to frame themselves. This thread is four pages of spewing hate at someone because they like playing sketchy characters in a game.

If you feel rhetorical weaponization of hatred and intolerance is morally justifiable, more power to you.

It just feels like it wasn't that long ago the whole "violent video games normalize real violence" style of argument was the punchline of a joke.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I've never been accused of stealing something. Because I don't steal things

So things never happen to someone unless they deserve it?


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

Of course. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

'Because they like playing sketchy characters' is not the reason for any of the criticism. Many people like to play sketchy characters.

swoosh wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
And here comes the "Oh you're calling out bigots for their bigoted behavior so YOU must be a bigot, of bigots!!" Defense

It's not a defense of anything. Just a general observation about the way conversations tend to frame themselves. This thread is four pages of spewing hate at someone because they like playing sketchy characters in a game.

If you feel rhetorical weaponization of hatred and intolerance is morally justifiable, more power to you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:

I like the concept of Goblins and unusual humanoids as playable races...in fact, I gravitate towards playing characters like that. I am also fine with the idea of races which are generally viewed as evil having outcasts, or even whole clans which break off and become 'good'. I've been playing RPGs for decades, the standard 'core' races are generally pretty boring for me, so I love coming up with unusual characters and backstories. In fact, my -2001 PFS2 character is a Goblin, which is also the character I was playing in the game that got ruined by the guy playing the Goblin Bard. I specifically wrote my character to break the stereotype Paizo has been pushing on the Goblins though.

The problem is, Paizo has written Goblins as comical from the start, and that encourages people to play them comically. Even the outcast/good Goblins are written that way in the official source materials. This does nothing to dissuade people from playing Goblin PCs that way, and IMHO actively encourages it.

You're not wrong. It's hard to find one represented as 'normal' (if that's such a thing) in the fluff.

Again this seems to be something for the group of players. And yes goblin PC's --are-- prone to this sort of thing. So it's good to nip it in the bud at the start.

I've had GM's that are like "Wait you wanna play a goblin? We don't want stupid PC's or Ace Ventura running around man"

And I assure them "no no. I play them like any other PC, just with a quirk or two" (__ALL__ My char's have quirks of some kind)

Some GM's will let you try and sort of watch to make sure you don't get dumb.

Some flat out refuse, because in their eyes, the possibility for stupid, out weighs the possibility of fun.

Both are valid depending on time and place. I've played games with some people, my friends, whom, if I'm honest, I'd not WANT to see them play a goblin, because i KNOW they'd play it annoyingly. lol

201 to 250 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