Why are goblins a playable race now?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

My question (which I have never gotten a real response to yet) to people who want all of a race to be evil is what does it add to your game?

Like, it clearly reduces the depth of any narrative you could possibly be telling. It clearly reinforces a mentality that's lead to God knows how many actual IRL people being killed, enslaved etc. I've never had somebody tell me what's actually good about it.

I saw one person say that races should be different and not like humans. Okay, but why in terms of alignments? Orcs can see in the dark, have tusks, and developed specific cultures. That is different than a human. How does adding on "also they're barbaric and tribal and literally all evil" add anything of value to anyone other than people who want to dogwhistle their problematic beliefs?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
exoicho123 wrote:

My question (which I have never gotten a real response to yet) to people who want all of a race to be evil is what does it add to your game?

Simplicity.

It short cuts moral discussions people would rather not have. RPGs are a beer and pretzels game for a lot of people. Clear labels can be very liberating and simplifying.

Not every game session should have a moral lesson at heart. Actually it quite nauseating the extent some authors go to. Not just adventure writers, but all kinds of artistic production these days.

exoicho123 wrote:


Like, it clearly reduces the depth of any narrative you could possibly be telling. It clearly reinforces a mentality that's lead to God knows how many actual IRL people being killed, enslaved etc. I've never had somebody tell me what's actually good about it.

No one is defending the morality of any particular character. But dealing with "Evil" entities is part of the game. Its a part of real life too, though hopefully not to that extent.

exoicho123 wrote:


I saw one person say that races should be different and not like humans. Okay, but why in terms of alignments? Orcs can see in the dark, have tusks, and developed specific cultures. That is different than a human. How does adding on "also they're barbaric and tribal and literally all evil" add anything of value to anyone other than people who want to dogwhistle their problematic beliefs?

Why are you insisting everyone and every society has to be like humans? With self awareness and not just a human sense of morality but a post modern human sense of morality?

Adding more elements can make it more complex not less. Its up to you to build the tapestry and the story you want. Most people are going to be happy with the very simple us and them which has dominated human history. A simple morality helps with that. They can then focus on other parts of the story, or just enjoy the game. But if you see it as a deeper and richer experience then go for it.

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
exoicho123 wrote:

My question (which I have never gotten a real response to yet) to people who want all of a race to be evil is what does it add to your game?

Simplicity.

It short cuts moral discussions people would rather not have. RPGs are a beer and pretzels game for a lot of people. Clear labels can be very liberating and simplifying.

Not every game session should have a moral lesson at heart. Actually it quite nauseating the extent some authors go to. Not just adventure writers, but all kinds of artistic production these days.

exoicho123 wrote:


Like, it clearly reduces the depth of any narrative you could possibly be telling. It clearly reinforces a mentality that's lead to God knows how many actual IRL people being killed, enslaved etc. I've never had somebody tell me what's actually good about it.

No one is defending the morality of any particular character. But dealing with "Evil" entities is part of the game. Its a part of real life too, though hopefully not to that extent.

exoicho123 wrote:


I saw one person say that races should be different and not like humans. Okay, but why in terms of alignments? Orcs can see in the dark, have tusks, and developed specific cultures. That is different than a human. How does adding on "also they're barbaric and tribal and literally all evil" add anything of value to anyone other than people who want to dogwhistle their problematic beliefs?

Why are you insisting everyone and every society has to be like humans? With self awareness and not just a human sense of morality but a post modern human sense of morality?

Adding more elements can make it more complex not less. Its up to you to build the tapestry and the story you want. Most people are going to be happy with the very simple us and them which has dominated human history. A simple morality helps with that. They can then focus on other parts of the story, or just enjoy the game. But if you see it as a deeper and richer experience then go for it.

Then don't ask about alignment and run around murdering. How do goblins as an ancestry mess that up?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
exoicho123 wrote:

My question (which I have never gotten a real response to yet) to people who want all of a race to be evil is what does it add to your game?

Simplicity.

It short cuts moral discussions people would rather not have. RPGs are a beer and pretzels game for a lot of people. Clear labels can be very liberating and simplifying.

Not every game session should have a moral lesson at heart. Actually it quite nauseating the extent some authors go to. Not just adventure writers, but all kinds of artistic production these days.

exoicho123 wrote:


Like, it clearly reduces the depth of any narrative you could possibly be telling. It clearly reinforces a mentality that's lead to God knows how many actual IRL people being killed, enslaved etc. I've never had somebody tell me what's actually good about it.

No one is defending the morality of any particular character. But dealing with "Evil" entities is part of the game. Its a part of real life too, though hopefully not to that extent.

exoicho123 wrote:


I saw one person say that races should be different and not like humans. Okay, but why in terms of alignments? Orcs can see in the dark, have tusks, and developed specific cultures. That is different than a human. How does adding on "also they're barbaric and tribal and literally all evil" add anything of value to anyone other than people who want to dogwhistle their problematic beliefs?

Why are you insisting everyone and every society has to be like humans? With self awareness and not just a human sense of morality but a post modern human sense of morality?

Adding more elements can make it more complex not less. Its up to you to build the tapestry and the story you want. Most people are going to be happy with the very simple us and them which has dominated human history. A simple morality helps with that. They can then focus on other parts of the story, or just enjoy the game. But if you see it as a deeper and richer experience then go for it.

If you need a simple reason to be able to kill things, I'm not sure making an entire race evil is necessary. You could just make their society or organization evil. It accomplishes the same thing and this has been said multiple times.

Also, if races are capable of any level of thought and intelligence, of course they will be capable of self reflection and morality, what kind of answer is that? And how is that the only thing that makes them different than humans?

It seems that the obvious answer is to make these differences physiological and cultural, which Paizo has been doing.

But considering your point is that art shouldn't have a message about morality so often (what? Lmao) and somehow thinking this is postmodern thinking, I have a pretty good feeling about where you're coming from


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Biology OBVIOUSLY has an effect on species wise character traits (like all things forming sets of deviations that create averages.) Brain structure would have the largest effect but so would everything else.

Like if all else stayed the same, but our reproductive cycle was so intense and delivered large litters that survival required the devouring of the male mate, our modern societies would be extremely different.

This doesn't excuse murdering any sapient being on sight (heck even killing non sapient organisms for no reason is abhorrent) but the idea that species should not have a profound effect on common cultural tropes strains a fantasy setting past belief.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there's at least a slight difference between a species being totally different from humans and that species being inherently evil


3 people marked this as a favorite.

are there any spiders that you're aware of that have humanoid forms and the ability to think about abstract concepts? because I think that might have some impact on things


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean most of the sapient spider species in Golarion aren't described as being culturally pleasant for other sapient ts to be around for various reasons. Still not kill on sight (my group just encountered a web lurker which they walked away from after a few minutes roleplay) so Anadi being an exception isn't that odd.

I would love a non mechanical book that essentially went through the evolution and anthropology of different Golarion species wholly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I just want to be clear, I am not a race realist. We are however talking about different species here not different sub groups within a species. Even if a dwarf and a human had identical brain structures, the rest if their physiology WOULD have an effect on recurring cultural tropes. Just being shorter and having enhanced vision would change things massively.

AND I am in no way saying that any of these changes necessitates an always evil tag.

It's like the cut short debate about whether having Lizardfolk being a -2 Int ancestry had accusations of racism thrown around (which I've noticed has NOT been brought up after Paizo printed it.)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I just want to be clear, I am not a race realist. We are however talking about different species here not different sub groups within a species. Even if a dwarf and a human had identical brain structures, the rest if their physiology WOULD have an effect on recurring cultural tropes. Just being shorter and having enhanced vision would change things massively.

But once you introduce the idea that because of their culture, they should be killed on sight, insinuating that they can't make conscious moral decisions because of their physiology.

It's easy to scoff at this when the topic is dwarves. But goblins - they have sharp canines for cutting flesh, have been known to eat children, and have a fasciation with fire that's quite unhealthy. Why shouldn't they be killed?

This is exactly the thought process that disregards that goblins make moral decisions just like any other ancestry. That's why people are balking a bit when people say, "Green skin, mow 'em down." It has some very unhealthy parallels and neglects the lore of Golarion along with (the start of this necro-derail) the context of the story in which the goblins were in distress and needed to be saved and were instead killed because 'ew, greenskins.'


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I would also like to point out that just because something is obviously evil, that doesn't always justify killing it for no other reason. Like a huge number of Nidalese humans are evil (like basically anybody who is involved with their government and/or church) but you don't see players killing NPCs purely because "well, they're clearly Nidalese."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ruzza wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I just want to be clear, I am not a race realist. We are however talking about different species here not different sub groups within a species. Even if a dwarf and a human had identical brain structures, the rest if their physiology WOULD have an effect on recurring cultural tropes. Just being shorter and having enhanced vision would change things massively.

But once you introduce the idea that because of their culture, they should be killed on sight, insinuating that they can't make conscious moral decisions because of their physiology.

It's easy to scoff at this when the topic is dwarves. But goblins - they have sharp canines for cutting flesh, have been known to eat children, and have a fasciation with fire that's quite unhealthy. Why shouldn't they be killed?

This is exactly the thought process that disregards that goblins make moral decisions just like any other ancestry. That's why people are balking a bit when people say, "Green skin, mow 'em down." It has some very unhealthy parallels and neglects the lore of Golarion along with (the start of this necro-derail) the context of the story in which the goblins were in distress and needed to be saved and were instead killed because 'ew, greenskins.'

Just because some people make the extra (bad) leap that physiology INFLUENCES (not defines) culture and that means you can kill people based on physiology, doesn't mean we should disregard the idea that physiology does influence culture. Any one can take pretty much any set of logical ideas and add extra illogical ideas to it and make it bad.

Goblins physiology probably leads to shorter term thinking (lower lifespans) a naturally carnivorous diet (teeth and presumably gut physiology and flora.) Their generally smaller stature probably also influences the types of prey the go for.

If I was developing such a species from scratch, I would probably come to the conclusion that they are more likely to form less agrarian groups (planting and reaping the rewards requires longer term planning and commitment.) I'd actually likely have them be more predisposed to nomadism at that point too (less ties to particular parts of the land, and a desire to follow prey migrations.)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
UtaUta99 wrote:
But considering your point is that art shouldn't have a message about morality so often

No. Just that it is tiresome when it gets forced into everything. I'm quite capable of baking my own message into a story if that is what I want.

Morality is a part of almost all art, but any medium that actually defines the terms Good and Evil as part of itself as D&D&Co. have done for a long time is inherently forcing a message about mortality.

It's just easy to frame the version of morality you're comfortable with as not morality, and everything that would require you to acknowledge the shape of that morality as different, separate.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a wide variety of moralities displayed in Golarion, Pathfinder 2, and the discussions in this thread - different answers on attempts to rehabilitate, on cannibalism, on the worship of divinities, of how to raise children, on how to deal with extremely long-lived groups, on acting now vs letting more powerful beings solve problems, on how one should combat evil when you find it, and almost countless other topics. There's a wide variety of moralities, and I think that's pretty clear on a cursory examination of the materials we have.

There are some topics where the morality of an act is set in stone and not questioned. The racism discussed in this thread is increasingly (and accurately; there certainly should be no complaints about this) becoming one of these topics in the world of tRPGs - as are many others that I don't think this thread would benefit from listing. These are topics that are incredibly serious, affect many people in the real world, and including them as if they were up for debate would alienate and hurt a wide swathe of the people reading these books. They shouldn't be viewed as anything but immoral, and presentations of them as otherwise are mistakes. Coyly arguing that there's one morality being presented and that it's set in stone is either wilfully ignoring the wide variety of morality that is shown, or it's frustration that one of these concretely-evil acts is being depicted as the horror that it is. I've been generous and assuming good faith for most of this thread since it being necroed, but this is one where I honestly don't think there's much of a grey area, and I think it may be time for me to bow out of this thread and mute it if we're getting into these discussions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblins should be playable, but not a core ancestry.

Because kobolds should be core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vagrant-poet wrote:
Killing Goblins because they are an "evil race" didn't magically appear in game books, it is based on real world ideology.

I'm not so sure about this. It appeared from the very beginnings of RPGs - though generally with even less thought put into it than "because they're an evil race". I suspect it did so as much because of the "scaled down fantasy war game" origins of the hobby than any ideology. Monsters existed to be the enemy team. They were there to fight and get treasure from.

It's only as the games got more complicated and players started wanting more motivation and coherence that these questions started becoming more relevant.

301 to 350 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