| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a problem with claiming any sort of destructive behavior is innate in a certain kind of person, when we can find that same destructive behavior in humans, but no one claims it's intrinsic to humanity.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want things that the players can kill without thinking about it, it's better to have them be like undead, outsiders, fae, abberations, carnivorous plants, etc. or people with some clear signposting that "these are bandits" or "these are demon cultists" than just having them be a sapient humanoid people that look different from other sapient humanoid people.
Like it's easy to tell the players that the devoted to the demon lord brand their faces with a red hand, then anybody with a red hand branded on their face is fair to just murk.
There's never a need to say "all [goblins,orcs,hobgoblins,whatever] are fair game" if we want a game world where those are free to make their own choices. Making the "free to kill" people just be sorted by their skin color is really a mine field.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What he said.
It's really easy to have the stories about the forest be "the Bloodfang clan of goblins worship the dark god and stain their fangs red, murdering anyone not like them". So you can clear antagonists but the Willowreed clan trades fish with the town and is amicable with the party.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why? All of those are equally sentient.
"I signed up to join the demon cult and got a big red hand branded on my face" is a fundamentally different thing than "I was born into this band of gobllins". The former involves a choice made by an individual, the latter does not. It's fair for PCs to hold NPCs accountable for the choices they've made (and vice versa) but not for things where they had no say in the matter.
Like no one says you can't make goblins the antagonists of a story. If you want to have "the leader of the nearby goblin group is a problem" that's fine, but it's not a fundamentally different story from "the leader of the nearby human group is a problem." We should just make it clear from context that the former is every bit as much a political dispute as the latter.
If the nearby Duke is raising an army of the dead to conquer, no one says that this reflects all humans or all dukedoms. So if the nearby Goblin boss is consorting with demons in order to conquer, we shouldn't say that reflects all goblins or all goblin bands.
If something is fundamentally alien to the experience of being a person, like outsiders who are made of the elemental essence of evil, mindless undead, fae bound to a specific narrative pattern, a plant hostile to all non-plant life, an aberration from the dark tapestry, etc. the fact that they are generally okay to just start fighting on sight is part and parcel to their alien nature.
To the extent that we want to see a type of being as a person, we should allow them to make choices like any kind of person would. The difference between "the leader of the goblin band is consorting with demons" and "there's a demon cult about" is that in the latter involves solely people who signed up for this while in the former case the goblin boss absolutely might have strongarmed some folks into his demon worship of choice, there are absolutely going to be other goblins in the band who object to this (who might even aid the PCs in order to get rid of their boss so they can put things back how they were.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can also justify killing almost anything in a game like this when it's based on self defense. The players do not always have to be the one winning initiative or the one creating the ambush.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If something can just make choices to do whatever, then when they're evil or chaotic or whatever is based on culture not on what species they are.
But any member of a culture can choose to make choices that go against their culture, and for a given species if they're spread over an entire continent or multiple continents they're not going to have the same culture all over.
Like "Goblins in Varisia are illiterate pyromaniacs" is one thing and it's better to insist that this isn't true of all goblins everywhere, because "Isgeri goblins are different from Varisian goblins" makes your game world more interesting. Putting social behavior on the level of species rather than culture makes your game world flatter and more boring.
You can absolutely have cultures that are incredibly destructive and bad, but every culture has iconoclasts and/or people they push out, and no species should be a monoculture unless it's very geographically limited.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how much of this has already been said but:
1.) Goblin PC were in Pathfinder 1st Edition before the Pathfinder 1st Edition Core Rulebook was even printed. They used the same statistics* in Bestiary 1 as was used in the d20 OGL, during a time when "backward compatibility" was a primary focus of the game. "Pathfinder Player Companion: Goblins of Golarion" was an entire book focused exclusively on Goblin PCs. It even includes a section on "good-aligned goblins".
2.) What do you get out of having humanoid species that are "always evil"? If you want a bad guy the PCs can murder without a second thought you can always use cults and factions. There is no need to bring pseudo-eugenics into your game and make the biology of a creature dictate its moral leanings. Isolating any intelligent species into a monoculture is boring and nonsensical.
2.b.) "But they are not human!" begs the question: "Then why do we have humanoid species?" Humanoid doesn't just mean body type, otherwise, there'd be a host of outsiders who should be humanoid. Humanoid creatures are reflections of parts of what it means to be a human being, written by and for humans as a means to help humans play out specific character archetypes that are not innately intertwined with morality. A humanoid is generally defined as a creature born on the material plane of biological function (as opposed to aberrations and oozes) with the ability to completely make its own decisions due to its potential for a high intelligence score. There is some cross-over with magical beasts and dragons, sure, but they are more defined by what sets them apart from being "merely human", in that they can stand their own in combat without classes.
3.) Why are there advocates for "always evil" humanoid species but there are no "always good" humanoid species? Oh, right. Because admitting that you want evil and good species only highlights the problematic truth behind "always evil" humanoid species.
Note that we all make mistakes when it comes to the delicate balancing act between ancestries and cultures. I almost wish the "B" in "Background" was expanded out to reflect this and perhaps level, similiar to the amazing sub-system we got in Kindled Magic.
*d20 OGL Goblins only got +2 Dex. Pathfinder Goblins get +4 Dex.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PC's are, occasionally, the exception. If they have a sufficiently intriguing story idea as to why they're effectively defective (from the PoV of their brethren). I think I've only had one that wanted to try even before I gave them a rundown of my setting.
I disagree that having them be significantly different based on geography is inherently more interesting. Minor differences sure, major differences and we're just getting back into little green human territory.
Why are there advocates for "always evil" humanoid species but there are no "always good" humanoid species?I have those too. "Good" gods are just as capable of creating life that mimics them as evil gods are.
The humanoid species are just archetypical reflections of what it means to be human. They are tools to help us, the humans playing the game, reflect on different themes that we experience in our own lives. "PCs are different, but monsters never are" threatens to create an unrealistic world of hats that lacks the depth and verisimilitude of one where humanoids are defined as creatures possessing enough of a will to make their own decisions. Even humans were born of the Aboleth, but, like the azarketi, they have a number of cultures that have long since branched out. Because even on small island communities in the real world, that's what cultures tend to do given just a couple hundred years.*
So, to answer the question posed at the start of this long thread: Goblins being in the core rulebook help promote the Pathfinder brand while making a clear cut and open statement that Pathfinder is a game that let's you play a multitude of fantastic species beyond the standard "taller humans" and "shorter humans".
*Yes, even if there is a powerful evil outsider who created the species and enslaves them by abusing and indoctrinating them into a specific code.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a home brew setting where species is determined by a singular god, often representing a group so small that it is essentially a single culture or social group, x species = x alignment can have a place, but in a world as vast and expansive as goliarion, it gets boringly reductive as well as problematic for writing many different stories about. In a home game, you are only trying to tell 1 story. Paizo is telling hundreds of stories that can be told in infinite ways.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Yes, even if there is a powerful evil outsider who created the species and enslaves them by abusing and indoctrinating them into a specific code.Hard to say, since we don't have real world examples of species created by powerful evil outsiders. Theoretically they wouldn't need to be "abused and indoctrinated into a specific code". They could just be created to be that way.
That's not the case with anything in Golarion I can think of - at least in the more mundane categories.
Every time a greater power on Golarion creates a subservient humanoid species the species has inevitably "woken up" and either splintered or outright rebelled. One of the defining characteristics of intelligent humanoid species in the setting is the ability to think for yourself and choose your own destiny.
Examples include the Nagaji, Wyrwood, Androids, Humans, Azarketi, and Merfolk.
Being able to 'choose your own destiny' is almost a test of being a humanoid, hence why so many of them have had PC options for decades. Heck, the first Goblin PCs were printed in 1989!
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If something can just make choices to do whatever, then when they're evil or chaotic or whatever is based on culture not on what species they are.
But any member of a culture can choose to make choices that go against their culture, and for a given species if they're spread over an entire continent or multiple continents they're not going to have the same culture all over.
Like "Goblins in Varisia are illiterate pyromaniacs" is one thing and it's better to insist that this isn't true of all goblins everywhere, because "Isgeri goblins are different from Varisian goblins" makes your game world more interesting. Putting social behavior on the level of species rather than culture makes your game world flatter and more boring.
You can absolutely have cultures that are incredibly destructive and bad, but every culture has iconoclasts and/or people they push out, and no species should be a monoculture unless it's very geographically limited.
Does it make it more interesting though?
One approach says "species are different, but many have the same kinds of culture everywhere". The other says "cultures are different everywhere, but all species are essentially the same."Is it really more interesting to have differences just between cultures but not between species? Should shape-changing spider people really behave just like humans or goblins, as long as they grow up in the same cultures? Does an elf's long life not change them at all?
Or to put it more philosophically, I don't believe people - human or otherwise - "can just make choices to do whatever". We are shaped by biology as well as culture. Nature as well as nurture. That's evident among humans and I think it would be even more evident comparing choices between different sapient species.
Making moral dispositions a product of nature is beyond problematic and shouldn't be encouraged, especially in print-product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From another perspective, an alignment system that does not take into account the choices made by a sapient individual is a poor alignment system.
So if you're insisting like goblin infants are evil because of genes or whatever, even if they will grow up to be like Paladins of Sarenrae, then that's a bad alignment system and I reject it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making moral dispositions a product of nature is beyond problematic and shouldn't be encouraged, especially in print-product.If something can just make choices to do whatever, then when they're evil or chaotic or whatever is based on culture not on what species they are.
But any member of a culture can choose to make choices that go against their culture, and for a given species if they're spread over an entire continent or multiple continents they're not going to have the same culture all over.
Like "Goblins in Varisia are illiterate pyromaniacs" is one thing and it's better to insist that this isn't true of all goblins everywhere, because "Isgeri goblins are different from Varisian goblins" makes your game world more interesting. Putting social behavior on the level of species rather than culture makes your game world flatter and more boring.
You can absolutely have cultures that are incredibly destructive and bad, but every culture has iconoclasts and/or people they push out, and no species should be a monoculture unless it's very geographically limited.
Does it make it more interesting though?
One approach says "species are different, but many have the same kinds of culture everywhere". The other says "cultures are different everywhere, but all species are essentially the same."Is it really more interesting to have differences just between cultures but not between species? Should shape-changing spider people really behave just like humans or goblins, as long as they grow up in the same cultures? Does an elf's long life not change them at all?
Or to put it more philosophically, I don't believe people - human or otherwise - "can just make choices to do whatever". We are shaped by biology as well as culture. Nature as well as nurture. That's evident among humans and I think it would be even more evident comparing choices between different sapient species.
But our moral dispositions are a product of nature. Its an undeniable fact unless of course you want to get into religious thought. Which may be relevant as divinity is real in most game settings.
Different worlds, different biology are going to give different results. 100% carnivorous spider folk are going to have a non human view on social cooperation and morality. The existence of other intelligent species is going to make a huge impact on morality and probably not a good one considering how well humanity has handled different races in the past.
Please stop trying to force a particular point of view about relative morality on everyone. It is not tolerant.
Yes for Golorian Paizo have made it clear which is good. The default world does have such a moral view. With which I am perfectly fine. I'm also fine if someone wants to go the other way in a custom setting. Just so long as they are clear about it up front.
I think the disconnect in lore between Golarion specifically and other settings will leave this an issue that is irresolvable for many. Golarion is a world with too much evolutionary biology and too little power in the hands of the gods for wide ranging material plane species to be tied too closely to an alignment. Golarion is too much like earth for that to fly without being problematic pretty quickly. Exceptions like serpent folk are the long lost survivors of a something that has nearly wiped them out and just left them too rare to be a wide ranging species. That is incredibly not the case with goblins. Other settings are possible, but not really relevant to the question of why goblins were chosen as a core ancestry: because paizo wants goblin PCs to feel like a welcome choice that fits uniquely into the world of Golarion. You can find them nearly anywhere you would find a human, elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling.