2E Hobgoblins - What do they look like?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 136 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey folks, please take a moment to chill. There's no reason to get bogged down in a back and forth over semantics. Also, I removed a post earlier, we really don't need to add a debate about gendered monsters into this and we certainly don't need to treat people's desire to include each other in entertainment and art flippantly.


Sorry.

Will do.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh

That was an actual error. The look we have for ogres is one we've been happy with since Hook Mountain Massacure, but wee got the art for ogres in way too late to make changes and had to go with off-model illustrations. It's pretty much my biggest frustration with Bestiary 1. We have on-model ogres for the pawns and stuff and will be swapping in the correct art when we reprint.

Aww I liked the new beefy ogres.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh

That was an actual error. The look we have for ogres is one we've been happy with since Hook Mountain Massacure, but wee got the art for ogres in way too late to make changes and had to go with off-model illustrations. It's pretty much my biggest frustration with Bestiary 1. We have on-model ogres for the pawns and stuff and will be swapping in the correct art when we reprint.
Aww I liked the new beefy ogres.

Mmmmm. Beef...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

For what it's worth, I hated the design of the 1E Hobgoblins, and prefer the more obviously goblinoid PF2E goblins. But I admit some of my views on the new artistic interpretations of monsters is more mixed.


James Jacobs wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh

That was an actual error. The look we have for ogres is one we've been happy with since Hook Mountain Massacure, but wee got the art for ogres in way too late to make changes and had to go with off-model illustrations. It's pretty much my biggest frustration with Bestiary 1. We have on-model ogres for the pawns and stuff and will be swapping in the correct art when we reprint.

I'm glad to hear that. When I first saw the ogre arts in Second Edition Bestiary, I was very disappointed, because I really liked the First Edition ogre arts, especially those in Monster Codex. By the way, James, do you think the art in this article is in line with the look you have for ogres?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh

That was an actual error. The look we have for ogres is one we've been happy with since Hook Mountain Massacure, but wee got the art for ogres in way too late to make changes and had to go with off-model illustrations. It's pretty much my biggest frustration with Bestiary 1. We have on-model ogres for the pawns and stuff and will be swapping in the correct art when we reprint.
I'm glad to hear that. When I first saw the ogre arts in Second Edition Bestiary, I was very disappointed, because I really liked the First Edition ogre arts, especially those in Monster Codex. By the way, James, do you think the art in this article is in line with the look you have for ogres?

Yes, and in fact that's art we ordered for the Bestiary pawns to use rather than use the art we printed in the Bestiary, and might be using in reprints of the Bestiary going forward. It's CERTAINLY control art we'll be using going forward for more ogre illustrations, along with Wayne's original design for them from the cover of Hook Mountain Massacre.


Will the Monster Codex style ogres return? They looked slightly(or not-so-slightly?) different from the ogres in Hook Mountain Massacre or First Edition Bestiary, and I really liked the ogre arts in Monster Codex!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Aenigma wrote:
Will the Monster Codex style ogres return? They looked slightly(or not-so-slightly?) different from the ogres in Hook Mountain Massacre or First Edition Bestiary, and I really liked the ogre arts in Monster Codex!

Every artist has different styles. The look will be the Wayne ogre, but they won't always look like Wayne painted them, because we use more artists than that. (For the record, I feel like the Monster Codex ogres are a bit off model and don't look as good.)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
Will the Monster Codex style ogres return? They looked slightly(or not-so-slightly?) different from the ogres in Hook Mountain Massacre or First Edition Bestiary, and I really liked the ogre arts in Monster Codex!
Every artist has different styles. The look will be the Wayne ogre, but they won't always look like Wayne painted them, because we use more artists than that. (For the record, I feel like the Monster Codex ogres are a bit off model and don't look as good.)

I agree, they look more like generic giants to me, like hill giants, or even thick stone giants or buff duegar maybe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sigh. I liked the Monster Codex ogres because they looked not as ugly as the Bestiary ogre. The Hook Mountain Massacre ogres or the Bestiary ogre was too ugly and horrible to look at, while the Monster Codex ogres were quite cool. Though I'm not sure whether ogres are supposed to look cool or not. :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
Sigh. I liked the Monster Codex ogres because they looked not as ugly as the Bestiary ogre. The Hook Mountain Massacre ogres or the Bestiary ogre was too ugly and horrible to look at, while the Monster Codex ogres were quite cool. Though I'm not sure whether ogres are supposed to look cool or not. :)

That's the point. Ogres SHOULD be too ugly and horrible to look at. They're SUPPOSED to be that way.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
That's the point. Ogres SHOULD be too ugly and horrible to look at. They're SUPPOSED to be that way.

The sort of face only a necromancer ogre mama could love. Amirite?

As to the main topic, I get the logic behind the new Hobber art but the result--to my eyes--is not that they're goblinoids but that they're aberrant and stretched out goblins. I don't see "hobgoblin" at all. This is honestly Paizo's fault (in part at least) for having already made distinguishing hobgoblin and bugbear art in Ironfang that conveys their respective racial traits/cultures better than the new stuff.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I just wanted to say the Hellknight Hill bugbear design is TERRIFYING. It feels like a boogeyman out of a nightmare, which seems pretty fitting for Pathfinder serial killer bugbears.

Couldn't disagree more. It's not even the slightest bit terrifying! If that's a bugbear, it must've been the litter's runt! It's basically a furry, skimpy goblin doing its best to look menacing and only manages to look mostly cute and silly instead. From the art, it's hard to tell that it's supposed to be medium-sized (or even an actual bugbear). Bregga Dreamstalker is a more terrifying example. Literally nightmarish! The imposing tear-your-limbs-off menace of Scarvinious is also far more alarming than the runty joke of Yoletcha.

Also, for so many reasons, this (also from Ironfang) says "Hobgoblin soldier" better than the new hob-soldier art, which as I've said elsewhere, looks more like a hobgoblin got his head stuffed inside his armor and had a goblin shoved down to fill the space instead. Again, I get the logic but the end result still manages to come across as bizarre and unfitting to the race.

Disclaimer: All IMHO, 2019.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh

That was an actual error. The look we have for ogres is one we've been happy with since Hook Mountain Massacure, but wee got the art for ogres in way too late to make changes and had to go with off-model illustrations. It's pretty much my biggest frustration with Bestiary 1. We have on-model ogres for the pawns and stuff and will be swapping in the correct art when we reprint.
I'm glad to hear that. When I first saw the ogre arts in Second Edition Bestiary, I was very disappointed, because I really liked the First Edition ogre arts, especially those in Monster Codex. By the way, James, do you think the art in this article is in line with the look you have for ogres?
Yes, and in fact that's art we ordered for the Bestiary pawns to use rather than use the art we printed in the Bestiary, and might be using in reprints of the...

How about for the battle cards?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I truly dislike the new art for Hobgoblins in PF 2E. In fact beyond Goblins I prefer the art for Bugbears and Hobgoblins from PF 1E. The first in the Bestiary just seemed to be exude an "you better kill me or I will not stop until I'm dead. The second also seemed threatening a more subtle and subdued way. It's not enough to make me never want to purchase or buy anything for PF 2E.

In any case it is no one business here or elsewhere if someone wants to stop purchasing a product for whatever reason. If consumer XYZ wants to no longer purchase PF 2E or another rpg for the art, rules etc. They are free to do so and should not be judged for their choices. I used to be a huge fan of Palladium books and I stoped buying their books as the core system to myself at least became annoying the more time I played and ran it. So I voted with my wallet and gave my hard earned cash to companies like Paizo.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Also, for so many reasons, this (also from Ironfang) says "Hobgoblin soldier" better than the new hob-soldier art, which as I've said elsewhere, looks more like a hobgoblin got his head stuffed inside his armor and had a goblin shoved down to fill the space instead. Again, I get the logic but the end result still manages to come across as bizarre and unfitting to the race.

Your "hobgoblin soldier" looks indistinguishable from an orc to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Also, for so many reasons, this (also from Ironfang) says "Hobgoblin soldier" better than the new hob-soldier art, which as I've said elsewhere, looks more like a hobgoblin got his head stuffed inside his armor and had a goblin shoved down to fill the space instead. Again, I get the logic but the end result still manages to come across as bizarre and unfitting to the race.
Your "hobgoblin soldier" looks indistinguishable from an orc to me.

Was mostly staying out of the subjective art discussion, but was going to add this too, tbh. I don't especially like Yoletcha's art, I agree it's a bit raggedy and un-frightening, but I have to say I find Scarvinious and the aforementioned Ironfang soldier don't say hobgoblin to me. They say standard fantasy evil warrior. Which is a thematic and classic look for sure, but not especially distinctive.

Whatever the flaws of the new hobgoblin direction, it's very distinctive. And I like that about it. Less convinced by bugbear art I've seen so far, expect maybe the sketch Wayne Reynolds did during the playtest, and I'm not sure that's even where they are going with it.

I think the Bruthazmus art by Eric Belisle is perfect as hulking goblinoid though. So I hope they ere towards that style, even if it's older art.

I wasn't trying to pile on (just thought it was interesting how completely differently I felt about hobgobliness). Hope it didn't feel like I was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Agreed, while the old Hobgoblin art looks good, they look too much like how orcs look in other media- the new Hobgoblin is very clearly a member of the overarching Goblinoid category. The new design isn't as appealing, but its also far less generic, which I think is more important, it's like upthread, who wants pretty ogres, its very much missing the point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding Bugbears, I definitely sort of like the bulky ones over the spindly one linked earlier in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Regarding Bugbears, I definitely sort of like the bulky ones over the spindly one linked earlier in this thread.

Yes, one of the classic traits of Bugbears is that they look like brutes (and are) so you might underestimate their tactics even though they're exceptionally cunning & stealthy.

They should be the apex savage humanoid, having both brutal strength and cruel intelligence, as well as a knack for deception.
Can't see them being spindly and thriving in their culture.

I sort of imagine all goblins having the same bulbous head, just on different sized bodies. So on a Bugbear's body, it fit snugly between huge shoulders, while Goblins are like bobbleheads.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sidenote, does anyone else remember 3.5 RotR Bruthazmus? :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Also, for so many reasons, this (also from Ironfang) says "Hobgoblin soldier" better than the new hob-soldier art, which as I've said elsewhere, looks more like a hobgoblin got his head stuffed inside his armor and had a goblin shoved down to fill the space instead. Again, I get the logic but the end result still manages to come across as bizarre and unfitting to the race.
Your "hobgoblin soldier" looks indistinguishable from an orc to me.

Well if you look up the orcs you'll see they now look like Mangalores from Fifth Element.

I'm very happy to hear that about the ogres btw.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Fumarole wrote:
asked about battle cards

Those too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
vagrant-poet wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Also, for so many reasons, this (also from Ironfang) says "Hobgoblin soldier" better than the new hob-soldier art, which as I've said elsewhere, looks more like a hobgoblin got his head stuffed inside his armor and had a goblin shoved down to fill the space instead. Again, I get the logic but the end result still manages to come across as bizarre and unfitting to the race.
Your "hobgoblin soldier" looks indistinguishable from an orc to me.

Was mostly staying out of the subjective art discussion, but was going to add this too, tbh. I don't especially like Yoletcha's art, I agree it's a bit raggedy and un-frightening, but I have to say I find Scarvinious and the aforementioned Ironfang soldier don't say hobgoblin to me. They say standard fantasy evil warrior. Which is a thematic and classic look for sure, but not especially distinctive.

Whatever the flaws of the new hobgoblin direction, it's very distinctive. And I like that about it. Less convinced by bugbear art I've seen so far, expect maybe the sketch Wayne Reynolds did during the playtest, and I'm not sure that's even where they are going with it.

I think the Bruthazmus art by Eric Belisle is perfect as hulking goblinoid though. So I hope they ere towards that style, even if it's older art.

I wasn't trying to pile on (just thought it was interesting how completely differently I felt about hobgobliness). Hope it didn't feel like I was.

I feel like “distinctive” isn’t good enough. It should match the theme of the creature, which is a highly disciplined militant race of humanoids. Goblins are the opposite of that, so making hobgoblins indistinguishable (other than size) is a problem, in my view, unless we are also revising what hobgoblins are as a whole. If they’re intended to just be Medium goblins, both in appearance and behavior, then the new design is fine.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
spectrevk wrote:
I feel like “distinctive” isn’t good enough. It should match the theme of the creature, which is a highly disciplined militant race of humanoids. Goblins are the opposite of that, so making hobgoblins indistinguishable (other than size) is a problem, in my view, unless we are also revising what hobgoblins are as a whole. If they’re intended to just be Medium goblins, both in appearance and behavior, then the new design is fine.

All you'd need to visually represent them as highly disciplined military would be some polished uniforms and equipment (and maybe some peons/enemy soldiers being routed before them). Everything you've described is cultural, not biological.

Having them look like Medium goblins and having them look like highly disciplined militants isn't something that is mutually exclusive.


I dig the new look personally. Especially the new armor/clothing design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
I feel like “distinctive” isn’t good enough. It should match the theme of the creature, which is a highly disciplined militant race of humanoids. Goblins are the opposite of that, so making hobgoblins indistinguishable (other than size) is a problem, in my view, unless we are also revising what hobgoblins are as a whole. If they’re intended to just be Medium goblins, both in appearance and behavior, then the new design is fine.

All you'd need to visually represent them as highly disciplined military would be some polished uniforms and equipment (and maybe some peons/enemy soldiers being routed before them). Everything you've described is cultural, not biological.

Having them look like Medium goblins and having them look like highly disciplined militants isn't something that is mutually exclusive.

Theoretically sure, but in practice, thus far, they are mutually exclusive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

All you'd need to visually represent them as highly disciplined military would be some polished uniforms and equipment (and maybe some peons/enemy soldiers being routed before them). Everything you've described is cultural, not biological.

Having them look like Medium goblins and having them look like highly disciplined militants isn't something that is mutually exclusive.

I think that might be part of the issue some people are having.

Goblins are gaunt and spindly, with very thin limbs and exaggerated extremities that kind of suggest malnutrition, or at least quickness and frailty. Their clothes tend to look like scraps, with dirty cloths wrapped around their hands and feet and outfits that generally look kind of ragged or cobbled together.

This makes some sense, because the traditional depiction of Golarion goblins place them as disorganized scavengers living on the fringes of society (obviously that's not all goblins, but it's definitely a big part of how they've been portrayed at large). Plus goblins in both PF1, SF and PF2 have naturally high dexterity, which makes a small, light, quick looking build make sense

Some of the new art of hobgoblins and bugbears seems to draw on those aesthetic notes though in a way that I think muddies the cultural and biological distinctions between them all.


James, you said that the arts for ogres in Bestiary were not satisfying and they will be gone in reprints of Bestiary. Will the art for the bugbear be changed in reprints as well? At first I liked the bugbear art, but since you said it isn't the final look you are aiming at, I began to hate it and now I anticipate what kind of new look would be given to bugbears. By the way, I like the new hobgoblins very much. Now they finally look like proper goblinoids.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Some of the new art of hobgoblins and bugbears seems to draw on those aesthetic notes though in a way that I think muddies the cultural and biological distinctions between them all.

Yes, and that's unfortunate. Hopefully Paizo will take note and make a course correction.


Wait a minute. Is General Azaersi portrayed just like the First Edition hobgoblins in Lost Omens World Guide? If that's the case, then I would be very sad. I really anticipated to see her new look. :(


I am so, so very glad that pathfinder goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears & ogres don't resemble the painfully generic versions in other games - I tend to be more likely to use creatures that have a bit of a paizo twist on them, both aesthetically and in their design/writing.

(Goblins are a particular good example of this - I have read a fair few articles online saying that using goblins in a d&d game is almost inexcusable because everyone is bored of fighting them, but have never seen that accusation leveled at pathfinder goblins with their pyromania and songs and giant bitey mouths)


Aenigma wrote:
Wait a minute. Is General Azaersi portrayed just like the First Edition hobgoblins in Lost Omens World Guide? If that's the case, then I would be very sad. I really anticipated to see her new look. :(

Oprak - which you would presume features her on the throne - is done in the new hob art.

Her head shot looks like her image from Iron Fang 6.


I really think the better option would be "hobgoblins can look like hobgoblins in either edition of Pathfinder or any edition of D&D or WarHammer or so on all depending on what region they are coming from"

We are told that every other humanoid has wild variations in appearance depending on their region. I really don't see why one can't say that hobgoblins can be gray or red or yellow or green or purple with no noses or big noses or hairy or scaly or so on-- because they are a race fairly influenced by chaos that breeds and adapts quickly to various terrains. And the various tribes/clans utterly disdain each other far too much for much interbreeding to go on to even out these adaptation.

It would really be the best solution that would make the most people happy.


Tzakkesh wrote:
We are told that every other humanoid has wild variations in appearance depending on their region. I really don't see why one can't say that hobgoblins can be gray or red or yellow or green or purple with no noses or big noses or hairy or scaly or so on-- because they are a race fairly influenced by chaos that breeds and adapts quickly to various terrains. And the various tribes/clans utterly disdain each other far too much for much interbreeding to go on to even out these adaptation.

They are lawful, actually, the least influenced by chaos of most of the standard monsters. And they usually focus on warring with other races to take slaves. What you are describing sounds more like orcs (which gets at the point that Paizo is trying to make the monstrous races distinct and interesting).


BellyBeard wrote:
Tzakkesh wrote:
We are told that every other humanoid has wild variations in appearance depending on their region. I really don't see why one can't say that hobgoblins can be gray or red or yellow or green or purple with no noses or big noses or hairy or scaly or so on-- because they are a race fairly influenced by chaos that breeds and adapts quickly to various terrains. And the various tribes/clans utterly disdain each other far too much for much interbreeding to go on to even out these adaptation.
They are lawful, actually, the least influenced by chaos of most of the standard monsters. And they usually focus on warring with other races to take slaves. What you are describing sounds more like orcs (which gets at the point that Paizo is trying to make the monstrous races distinct and interesting).

Well, to be fair, being influenced by chaos and being chaotics are two different things. Hobgoblins were scuplted for war after all. But yeah, otherwise that sounds a lot more like orcs.

101 to 136 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / 2E Hobgoblins - What do they look like? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.