Why are goblins a playable race now?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Just wondering. Also, is there any plan to make hobgoblins playable? Personally I like them a lot more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Just wondering. Also, is there any plan to make hobgoblins playable? Personally I like them a lot more.

Hobgoblins are playable.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Ancestries.aspx?ID=13


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because goblins are cute and really popular.

And Hobgoblin


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Just wondering. Also, is there any plan to make hobgoblins playable? Personally I like them a lot more.

1.) Because they're very popular/iconic creatures and are described in such a way that people who are into chaos/destruction/mischief find appealing.

2.) Already is.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

They've been popular with players, as evidenced by the We Be Goblins line of adventures.

Also gives Pathfinder some product identity distinct from D&D.

And they're cute and psychotic. They let us act out our inner child. (Did I just say something there?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Goblins were playable in first edition too.

What changed was "rules for playing goblins are in the core rulebook" rather than "rules for playing goblins are in the ARG."

Specifically, Paizo wanted to have one more class and one more r̶a̶c̶e̶ ancestry in the 2e CRB than the 1e one. Alchemist and Goblin were decided to be the best choices.


Also, I assume goblin PCs are usually non-evil? Why are at least some goblins now on peaceful terms with the other races? Did they just get nicer between editions somehow? And why are some still evil according to the bestiary?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Also, I assume goblin PCs are usually non-evil? Why are at least some goblins now on peaceful terms with the other races? Did they just get nicer between editions somehow? And why are some still evil according to the bestiary?

It's the same reason dark elves can be playable in any number of fantasy RPGs: You're playing a CHARACTER of a given ancestry, not the entire ancestry. There are plenty of eville humans, elves, and half- elves as well.

There will always be outliers. Just ask Drizzt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Yqatuba wrote:
Also, I assume goblin PCs are usually non-evil? Why are at least some goblins now on peaceful terms with the other races? Did they just get nicer between editions somehow? And why are some still evil according to the bestiary?

Throughout the entire decade of PF1 Paizo published more and more material showing goblins in a nicer light. Of course they couldn't go back and change the first bestiary so the changes to PF2 Core might seem bigger if just comparing early mechanics book to early mechanics book.


I love Goblins and play em as a more player friendly Kender. Hoarding things, theft of nicknacks and major things that catch their attention, scrappy flanker. Never against players but might irritate an essential NPC.

Best one so far was my Goblin Barb (Dragon Instinct)/Fighter Dedication using a Longsword and Dogslicer with Double Slice as his main thing. This was in the playtest and I would like to revisit that character sometime.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Also, I assume goblin PCs are usually non-evil? Why are at least some goblins now on peaceful terms with the other races? Did they just get nicer between editions somehow? And why are some still evil according to the bestiary?

Most are still Evil for the same reasons they always were (which are numerous, though mostly cultural). Some have always been non-Evil (and show up in various APs and other published stuff).

But the greater number of non-Evil goblins, per the LOWG, the new setting book, is mostly due to the previous generation of goblins around Isger being devastated in the Goblinblood Wars (an act of hobgoblin and goblin aggression that ended real badly for them), and the new generation having an attitude of 'Well, that didn't work out. Maybe we should try something else.'


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Because Kender are WotC IP. I kid, I kid.

"The war sucked and we don't feel like being evil anymore" is workable, but it feels like it is cheating the poor goblins out of a mythical moment. Everyone deserves a mythical moment, so:

My PC's heard from a drunk in a bar that it was because the 4th person to pass the StarStone test was a goblin who has been hiding out from Lamashtu ever since (and has been so successful that even Paizo hasn't heard about it).

Or....

Goblins love fire.
The Sun is made up of fire.
Sarenrae is the goddess of the Sun.
Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption.
Do the math.

Silver Crusade

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

2018 called, wants this discussion back and says the OP should finally learn to use the "Search" function on these boards. Or just generally use any search function, because they're rapidly approaching the point of asking non-ironically "What is love?" or "Why do we exist?" or "Did humanity fly to the moon at any point?".


24 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
"What is love?"

Baby don't hurt me ;)

Silver Crusade

22 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
uafbum wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
"What is love?"
Baby don't hurt me ;)

Internet, you didn't disappoint me.


Mechagamera wrote:

Goblins love fire.

The Sun is made up of fire.
Sarenrae is the goddess of the Sun.
Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption.
Do the math.

This very nicely sums up my first first PFS 2E character, a goblin redeemer champion. He's in the Radiant Oath faction for the same reason--and because its faction leader is my favorite NPC from PFS 1E (Valais knows plenty about redeemable monsters!).

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On top of the fact that the goblin evolution has taken place over the last decade, I would point to the fact that heroic goblins are still pretty rare in published material so far. The non-evil tribe in Hellknight Hill, for example, is more or less neutral and has a specific history with one small town. It's not like goblin paladins are ubiquitous now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, PCs of any kind are not very common. The odd one-off goblin PC isn't really weirder than the odd one-off shoony PC or the odd one-off bleachling PC or the odd one-off tiefling PC.

Silver Crusade

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

Or the 20-odd kitsune PCs you'd run into in any tavern.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite answer to the question "why are goblins a playable race now?" is this:

They've been a playable race in every version of D&D since 1988, if not earlier in some product I'm not personally familiar with, so of course Pathfinder would add them in too since it's basically a version of D&D too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

My favorite answer to the question "why are goblins a playable race now?" is this:

They've been a playable race in every version of D&D since 1988, if not earlier in some product I'm not personally familiar with, so of course Pathfinder would add them in too since it's basically a version of D&D too.

I think when someone asks this question in regards to PF2, the question is actually "Why are goblins are core race now?"

And you know, company mascot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The tavern full of 20 kitsune suggests people don't tend to care about what's "core" and what's not once other books are printed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The tavern full of 20 kitsune suggests people don't tend to care about what's "core" and what's not once other books are printed.

In all my years of experience, the only time I've ever seen someone care what is or isn't "core" is people that are slavishly adhering to the illogical idea that if their game is "core only" there won't possibly be any options that they need to adjust to fit their preferred play style, and people that think "core" and "boring" are synonymous.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

30 people marked this as a favorite.

The game's not just for one person. It's for everyone. There's no one right or wrong way to play the game.

So let's stop throwing insults, veiled or otherwise, back and forth at each other for not liking other folks' preferences on how to play. We've all got enough to be worried about right now. Thanks, all! Stay safe!

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mechagamera wrote:


Goblins love fire.
The Sun is made up of fire.
Sarenrae is the goddess of the Sun.
Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption.
Do the math.

Well, that was the justification for the tribe featured in We be Heroes? Their chieftain went blind from staring too much at Sarenrae's magnificent glory

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
3Doubloons wrote:
Well, that was the justification for the tribe featured in We be Heroes? Their chieftain went blind from staring too much at Sarenrae's magnificent glory

That tribe's actions guiding the folks from Lastwall also went a long way to making goblins more societally accepted anywhere that respects the remnants of Lastwall.

So this is canonically pretty relevant.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
2018 called, wants this discussion back and says the OP should finally learn to use the "Search" function on these boards. Or just generally use any search function, because they're rapidly approaching the point of asking non-ironically "What is love?" or "Why do we exist?" or "Did humanity fly to the moon at any point?".

This post really confuses me. These boards really arent particularly busy, so what's the harm in revisiting topics?

Silver Crusade

11 people marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
2018 called, wants this discussion back and says the OP should finally learn to use the "Search" function on these boards. Or just generally use any search function, because they're rapidly approaching the point of asking non-ironically "What is love?" or "Why do we exist?" or "Did humanity fly to the moon at any point?".
This post really confuses me. These boards really arent particularly busy, so what's the harm in revisiting topics?

Plenty, especially with this rather incendiary topic that has been repeatedly brought up, beaten, animated, and beaten again. Repeatedly.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ExOichoThrow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
2018 called, wants this discussion back and says the OP should finally learn to use the "Search" function on these boards. Or just generally use any search function, because they're rapidly approaching the point of asking non-ironically "What is love?" or "Why do we exist?" or "Did humanity fly to the moon at any point?".
This post really confuses me. These boards really arent particularly busy, so what's the harm in revisiting topics?

Really? What's the confusion?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ExOichoThrow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
2018 called, wants this discussion back and says the OP should finally learn to use the "Search" function on these boards. Or just generally use any search function, because they're rapidly approaching the point of asking non-ironically "What is love?" or "Why do we exist?" or "Did humanity fly to the moon at any point?".
This post really confuses me. These boards really arent particularly busy, so what's the harm in revisiting topics?

It is a topic that got a lot of people very heated and threads locked down, so some people are hesitant to see it come back up and lead to the same kind of fights that caused problems before, especially since it is not really a question for debate as much as for information. Nothing about the decision is going to change at this point, so either someone is looking for an understanding of the logic that has already shaped the game, or is wanting to start a fight about something that is not going to change.

Paizo likes its goblins and wants more interesting space for the species as a whole than just evil pyromanic psychopaths. Now it is much clearer in game that Goblins can be more than that if GMs and Players want them to be. There really is nothing more to say about why that decision was made.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The tone of those old threads is pretty much muted by the empirical evidence of "PF2 books are out, people have read them, and played games involving goblin PCs."

A lot of the tone in those threads was people trying to persuade Paizo to not let Goblins be a PC option in the core rulebook by projecting how bad things would be if Paizo did that.

Now that PF2 goblins are out there, people have more or less realized that it's fine. So the real question is "why goblins and not [my personal favorite thing]?" for which the answer is somewhat obvious.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I just wish they had also included orcs. The tendency for D&D and D&D-likes to include half-orcs from launch but not include full blooded orcs has always annoyed me.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This topic depends a lot on tone, something difficult to determine in this format. How people react will depend on how they read the question. If you innocently ask “why are goblins a playable race?” because they haven’t been throughout the life of Golarion and you haven’t been following the messageboards since the launch of the Playtest, then it might be just that, an innocent question into the seemingly sudden change in representation.

However, I think more generally people are read the question with at least some level of vitriol more akin to something like “why the hell did Paizo make goblins a playable race? That’s just stupid!” So, don’t be surprised when the majority of the responses are equally emotional explanations why your position is wrong. I’m not saying that is right, just that it is what will happen every time this subject comes up.

Remember, in your own home games, EVERYTHING is an optional rule. If goblins do not fit your vision of a playable character, then don’t allow it. Really is that simple. As long as you don’t ban or change too many rules and focus on ones that are really important to your campaign, you’ll have little trouble finding players willing to join.

If you are referring to organized play, then you should already be familiar with the concept that it is actually Paizo’s campaign and we are all just participants in it. So, we have to accept the “house rules” they impose on us which includes rules that we might not agree with individually.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
Honestly, I just wish they had also included orcs. The tendency for D&D and D&D-likes to include half-orcs from launch but not include full blooded orcs has always annoyed me.

They're gonna be in the APG, and that's close enough for me.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:


If you are referring to organized play, then you should already be familiar with the concept that it is actually Paizo’s campaign and we are all just participants in it. So, we have to accept the “house rules” they impose on us which includes rules that we might not agree with individually.

That's kind of moot because PFS was shut down globally after it was overrun by people playing kender goblins as kleptomaniac pyromaniac loonies and thus stopping anybody wanting to play anything else. Of course, the wise people here on the boards warned Paizo that goblins will destroy PFS and soon afterward, Pathfinder as a whole, but nobody listens to the Estemmeed Experts anymore.

I was forced to end my home PF1 campaigns after some folks in combat uniforms with purple golem insignia burst through my door during a game and forced people to switch over to playing goblins at a gunpoint. We gave up shortly afterward as the first thing such a forcibly converted goblin player did was ask our resident LG dwarf Paladin of Iomedae "would you save a burning goblin orphanage?". I'm still visiting their graves, although both families give me the eye.

Honestly, the amount of anguish, destruction and death visited on this planet by printing goblins as a core race in PF2 is unbearable. We've warned WotC that printing tieflings as a core race in D&D 5E will flood the game with emo goth edgelords and of course that happened - who plays D&D these days? Some Mercer guy and that's it. Dead game, killed by the lack of basic understanding of the human psyche.

Paizo drew nothing from that lesson and brought about an apocalypse. Suits them. Excuse me, I'm off to play a windling in an Earthdawn game, at least that's a serious ancestry that fits into what people expect from a fantasy world.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to assume you are doing some sort of character schtick or making a joke of some kind though the lack emojis or any other marker indicating as such means casual readers may not parse your intent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it took me about a third of the post to realize they were joking.

It just isn’t far enough away from what people claim in all seriousness.


If the username is purple instead of blue, there's a good chance it's a gimmick alt.

Silver Crusade

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

And if it's my alt ... you know what's coming. If somebody took that post seriously, they need help.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

25 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
And if it's my alt ... you know what's coming. If somebody took that post seriously, they need help.

It's always worth keeping in mind that not everyone who reads a post here is a paizo.com veteran.

Treat every post you make like it's the first time someone reads it, and thus the first time you make an impression on that new reader, and you'll make the internet a nicer place. Assuming your goal is to make the internet a nicer place in the first place... if that's not your goal, you're part of the problem, perhaps.

AKA: Be good to each other.


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

I will say though, it feels like *every topic* of substance gets people heated and a thread either heavily moderated or locked. I think that the forum format just encourages long form debate, and since its mostly regulars, there are informal factions and longstanding rivalries.

Things often get 'personal' just because you start to know the people you're talking to pretty well (at least in the context of forum debates) and you start to understand how their personal views and personality are related to the arguments their making.

Arguments functionally become as much about the taster as much as they are about the taste. Which kind of makes sense, at a certain point once people have stated their positions "why you hold that position" and discussing the principles underlying the argument become the only real conversation to have. When everything is subjective, the subjective experience of the person making the statement, and the differing cause and effect that lead us to our conclusions becomes a topic of discussion.

Threads either die young or live long enough to get locked, its kind of depressing, and it doesn't help that we seem to view normative conflict with a paternalistic air of disappointment (Not on here in particular, I'm thinking in general.) I like to think that most of that conflict is between people who understand a certain friendship regardless of viewpoint on certain elements, like Goblins as PCs, or the strength of casters vs. martials.

I've been thinking about this ever since the thread on reddit over in the DND next subreddit about WOTC hiring Kate Welch, we got heavily brigaded by bigots (I have mass tagger and was checking post histories, plenty of accounts were posting their first messages, and were mainly otherwise posting in hate subs)- and in the comment trenches, all the people who had my back were many of the same people who'd had the most bitter disagreements with me.

Literally, people who had told me I represented "a cancer in roleplaying games" (I might be paraphrasing, but it was that strongly worded) because I see char op as a valid part of the game, were banded together with me and the other people they normally fight with to protect our space and keep it safe and inclusive. That really stuck with me, and it made me see even some of the nastier arguments in these communities in a new light-- vehemence can be compartmentalized, and these kinds of arguments over rules and decisions and such don't tend to represent real toxicity.

At least not usually, instead its just a willingness to be passionate and dramatic about something when there's very little real harm (e.g. no one is using slurs, or threatening others) in it. It's very different than other parts of my life, where people are abusive, or where every conversation is attempting to transmute a narrative of authenticity into a kind of moral authority to emotionally undermine the people they're speaking to.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
vehemence can be compartmentalized

Yep yep, I learnt awhile back to not even bother remembering arguments on here (unless something morally reprehensible was said) since someone arguing with you on rules on one thread may be back and back with ya in a different one.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Quote:
vehemence can be compartmentalized
Yep yep, I learnt awhile back to not even bother remembering arguments on here (unless something morally reprehensible was said) since someone arguing with you on rules on one thread may be back and back with ya in a different one.

its funny you mention it, because we're actually a good example- we've definitely had our disagreements over some rules point or another (in the witch subforum I think? over patron mechanics or maybe multi-traditon?) but I actually remember you as one of the nicest people on the site for welcoming me at first, and I always love seeing your posts around and strongly endorsed your posts on inclusiveness in some discussion about some of the more bigoted amazon reviews, you'd top my mental lists of the regulars I love to see and hang out with here.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Quote:
vehemence can be compartmentalized
Yep yep, I learnt awhile back to not even bother remembering arguments on here (unless something morally reprehensible was said) since someone arguing with you on rules on one thread may be back and back with ya in a different one.
its funny you mention it, because we're actually a good example- we've definitely had our disagreements over some rules point or another (in the witch subforum I think? over patron mechanics or maybe multi-traditon?) but I actually remember you as one of the nicest people on the site for welcoming me at first, and I always love seeing your posts around and strongly endorsed your posts on inclusiveness in some discussion about some of the more bigoted amazon reviews, you'd top my mental lists of the regulars I love to see and hang out with here.

Awwwwwww, Thankies *hugs* I try my best to see this place be welcoming and warm.

(And it was most definitely the Witch Playtest, shit got heated >_<)

I like seeing your posts on here a lot too ^w^


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wait...hold up...you mean to tell me that tieflings haven't overrun the game? That goblins aren't in the process of doing the same?

Since their release (goblins or tieflings) I, in all seriousness, have not been able to have a game without them in the party.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Threads either die young or live long enough to get locked, its kind of depressing, and it doesn't help that we seem to view normative conflict with a paternalistic air of disappointment (Not on here in particular, I'm thinking in general.)

This happens if discourse is used as a purity test rather than an exchange and exploration of views, if interactions operate through personal tribal alliances instead of discrete topical stances, if agreeing to disagree is anathema, especially if people very easily spin the volume dial of their rhetoric to maximum over more trivial concerns like how powerful wizards should be, leaving no tonal distinction within forum boundaries to express stronger positions e.g. if it is proposed that a sentient person's genetic heritage should impact their rights to life and liberty.

The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, in its Foreword on page 2, written 1978, states to the reader "D&D players, happily, come in all shapes and sizes, and even a fair number of women are counted among those who regularly play the game - making DUNGEONS & DRAGONS somewhat special in this regard". Even these outdated, perhaps clumsy words strive at heart to promote diversity. The structure of the game itself, above all else a class system, where a cosmopolitan alliance of different sorts is promoted as best practice, renders fundamental the value of diversity.

Today this structure is intentionally retained, and Pathfinder's publisher proudly champions diversity as a cornerstone of their values.

It's a strange thing to me, upon this tide of cherishing difference, to see such antagonism toward otherness. We seem to avoid arguing about the one correct class to play while shouting up a storm over the one correct way to play.

But you know, not everyone need think like myself, to be fair.


Ravingdork wrote:
Wait...hold up...you mean to tell me that tieflings haven't overrun the game? That goblins aren't in the process of doing the same?

I've only ever seen one tiefling in play, ever.

There is a goblin in my current group make up, but only one.

1 to 50 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Why are goblins a playable race now? All Messageboards