PDA

View Full Version : Gamer Humor Goblins: Dos and Don'ts



ThinkMinty
2015-10-19, 06:53 PM
I have a soft spot for Goblins. Maybe it's because they're underdogs, maybe it's because they make excellent Spider-Man villains, maybe it's because their women tend to be impishly hot (they look so cute...).

When it comes to Goblins, what makes them Goblins, and what doesn't work?

Hawkstar
2015-10-19, 09:02 PM
Do: Give them the worst traits of children.

Don't: make them actual 'people'.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-19, 09:04 PM
Do: make them people.
Do: separate them from tinker gnomes.

Don't: make them Always Chaotic Evil.
Don't: forget hobgoblin means friendly goblin.

AceOfFools
2015-10-20, 09:12 AM
DO: make it possible to differentiate groups of goblins or goblins within a group.

DO: have them understandible reasons for their behaviors. Have them act in a manner consistent with those reasons and the information they have availible.

DON'T: give them flavor text that clashes with their mechanical description, e.g. describe them as agressively stupid with no intelegece penalty.

YossarianLives
2015-10-20, 09:40 AM
Don't: make them mindless brutes.

Do: make them clever, independent, and potentially relevant at all levels. I think Redcloak from OoTS is a great example.

Hawkstar
2015-10-20, 09:53 AM
DON'T: give them flavor text that clashes with their mechanical description, e.g. describe them as agressively stupid with no intelegece penalty.
DON'T: assume that simply because they don't have low INT scores, they aren't aggressively stupid. DO: Remember capacity for idiocy increases with intelligence. It takes a lot of intelligence to go out like a Kerbal.

JeenLeen
2015-10-20, 09:54 AM
I think I like goblins that are not necessarily dumber than most sentient races but have a somewhat alien mentality. How it is done could vary setting to setting, but maybe they see courage as foolishness and value cowardice as preservation. Or they don't understand the difference between fear and loyalty (hence why goblins often end up minions for orcs or other stronger beings). Perhaps theft is not understood because, if they can take something by force (attacking wagons, stealing from homes, etc), it's theirs, just like a fellow goblin might take something by beating another goblin up. Perhaps due to high reproduction rates, goblins don't see an individual life as important (although they do see their own life as important), so caring for others for non-selfish reasons is an odd thing to them; the tribe matters because the selfish goblin knows it is weak and needs a tribe to survive.
Or, if you want to get dark, they don't see why eating human young is bad since goblins cannibalize when food is scarce. The humans who weren't eaten should just be glad they weren't eaten, not upset that a fellow member of their tribe died. A goblin can't really comprehend why a human would care, since that human wasn't hurt.
NOTE: I'm not saying all the above is standard for all goblins, but just some ideas of alien mentality.

The worse traits of children also sounds like a good method -- that's how even the elders can be, and it comes across as odd if you try diplomacy and gives a reason why goblins often wind up being uncivilized tribes. The 'bullies' are the ones who rule. BUT this does allow diplomacy if you can figure out how to talk to them and show proper respect.

Also, short life span and quick reproduction rate, to help explain why they haven't been wiped out near civilization.

goto124
2015-10-20, 09:57 AM
DON'T: assume that simply because they don't have low INT scores, they aren't aggressively stupid.

There's the Low Wis option.

Joe the Rat
2015-10-20, 10:43 AM
DO: tweak their style to fit your setting. They can be comedic relief, sociopathic comedic relief, or horrific faerie murder ninjas. It depends on what you need.

DO: Play to their strengths, whatever they may be. Stand and fight is rarely in their favor, so adjust accordingly.

DO: Play up the cunning. Stealth, ambushes, basic traps, dirty fighting. It can go horrifically, hilariously wrong, but they had a plan, dammit!

DO: Let them get real jobs. A Goblin hireling can be an invaluable source of information in a dungeon, and an invaluable source of complications outside of the dungeon.

DON'T: Make them Diet Orc. A distinct culture, a distinct way of doing things.

DON'T: Forget the Hobgoblins (as applicable). What's the relationship here? Parent and Child, Human and Halfling, Citizen and Plebeian, Cannon and Fodder? Are they allies or enemies? Can you leverage one against the other?

Thisguy_
2015-10-20, 10:50 AM
DO: Give them sense.

DON'T: Give them common sense.

DO: Give them intelligence.

DON'T: Give them the ability to speak meaningful phrases in common.

DO: Give them tools.

DON'T: Give them masters.

Your players will either love you or fear your goblins, or both. Probably both.

Draconium
2015-10-20, 11:16 AM
DO: tweak their style to fit your setting. They can be comedic relief, sociopathic comedic relief, or horrific faerie murder ninjas. It depends on what you need.

DO: Stick with the style once you've decided it. Don't play them up as vicious little killers for the first half of your game, then abruptly switch them to comedic relief for the rest of it. If you're going to change the style, you need to do so smoothly, over time.

DON'T: Think of them as just cannon fodder at the early levels. This is how many DM's use them (I, sadly, am guilty of this), but with the right descriptions and planning, you can turn them into a force to be reckoned with, one your players won't soon forget.

DO: Remember that in several games, goblins are a playable race. If one of your players wants to play one, and the system allows it, you should let them. They came here to have fun. Just remember, goblin characters may have prejudice against them.

Tiri
2015-10-20, 11:06 PM
Don't: Make all goblins follow a certain 'style', like

comedic relief, sociopathic comedic relief, or horrific faerie murder ninjas.
Goblins, at least the ones the players interact with regularly, should be substantially different from one another.

Cluedrew
2015-10-21, 06:52 AM
To Tiri: While I agree that there should be some variety at the same time there has to be some constraints for there to be consistency. Think about humans in the real world. They are very different sorts of humans especially if you jump across cultures. But if you found a town anywhere in the world that was half made of 'comic relief' types and the other half of violent ninjas... something would be off.

AceOfFools
2015-10-21, 08:34 AM
To Tiri: While I agree that there should be some variety at the same time there has to be some constraints for there to be consistency. Think about humans in the real world. They are very different sorts of humans especially if you jump across cultures. But if you found a town anywhere in the world that was half made of 'comic relief' types and the other half of violent ninjas... something would be off.
The solution to this problem doesn't have to be "make all goblins in group Y the same."

You could give them a variety of outlooks, experience and aptitudes that closer aproximates a realistically varied culture.

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 08:39 AM
The solution to this problem doesn't have to be "make all goblins in group Y the same."

You could give them a variety of outlooks, experience and aptitudes that closer aproximates a realistically varied culture.

Or you can accept that goblins are just monsters out to cause problems for real people, and focus your effort on making the actual people and cultures in your campaigns realistically varied.

Segev
2015-10-21, 08:55 AM
In a setting I ran where orcs and goblins cohabitated in the same civilization, but were distinct races, I had the orcs be Proud Warrior Race Guys (for the most part) who were nominally in charge. They ran the top level positions of their societies, their drives and desires shaped the overall course of policy, and their culture of warriorism was predominant and what most people saw, externally.

Goblins were relegated to servant roles, acting as janitors, labor assistants, clerks, and advisors. They didn't defy their orcish masters, but they were often respected in their place...and the really ran society in the background. They chose which policies were ACTUALLY implemented and how. Their advice colored every leadership meeting. They kept the records, and determined what was provided to the Orc warleaders to operate from. While few goblins were in a position to give orders, many orcs wound up following goblin orders when delivered, supposedly, from an orc superior. They were just careful never to give orders that couldn't be construed as being correctly transmitted but incorrectly received. And if things went right, no orc is going to question it.


What always gives me trouble is having orcs, hobgoblins, and gnolls in the same setting. I have never been able to satisfactorily make them distinct, rather than just re-skinnings of the same general behavior patterns.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-21, 09:45 AM
Or you can accept that goblins are just monsters out to cause problems for real people, and focus your effort on making the actual people and cultures in your campaigns realistically varied.

Or you can except that goblins are an intelligent and civilised species, if a bit primitive, and not worthy of genocide. Let me see what your statement says if I change two words.

"Or you can accept that goblinsblacks are just monstersbarbarians out to cause problems for real people, and focus your effort on making the actual people and cultures in your campaigns realistically varied."

To be fair though, my world has goblins as the labourers to the hobgoblin soldiers and the bugbear chieftains, usually. Many goblin nations actually kicked the bugbears out ages ago, to the point where their armies are hobgoblin soldiers supported by goblin skirmishers, and every other role has roughly as many of each subrace, just with hobbos as 'technicians' and hobbos as 'performers' (the only exception is 90% of mages are hobgoblin and 90% of priests are goblin).

Oh, humans are also the descendants of goblins and the now extinct plains elves.

Svata
2015-10-21, 09:57 AM
Or you can accept that goblins are just monsters out to cause problems for real people, and focus your effort on making the actual people and cultures in your campaigns realistically varied.

Ohboy. Here we go.


Or you can except that goblins are an intelligent and civilised species, if a bit primitive, and not worthy of genocide. Let me see what your statement says if I change two words.

"Or you can accept that goblinsblacks are just monstersbarbarians out to cause problems for real people, and focus your effort on making the actual people and cultures in your campaigns realistically varied."

To be fair though, my world has goblins as the labourers to the hobgoblin soldiers and the bugbear chieftains, usually. Many goblin nations actually kicked the bugbears out ages ago, to the point where their armies are hobgoblin soldiers supported by goblin skirmishers, and every other role has roughly as many of each subrace, just with hobbos as 'technicians' and hobbos as 'performers' (the only exception is 90% of mages are hobgoblin and 90% of priests are goblin).

Oh, humans are also the descendants of goblins and the now extinct plains elves.

And there it is. Let's not get the thread locked, please? Also, like your ideas.

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 10:09 AM
Or you can except that goblins are an intelligent and civilised species, if a bit primitive, and not worthy of genocide. Let me see what your statement says if I change two words.

"Or you can accept that goblinsblacks are just monstersbarbarians out to cause problems for real people, and focus your effort on making the actual people and cultures in your campaigns realistically varied."Changing words changes the statement from being mine to being yours. I do not believe that 'blacks' are a separate entity from 'human', though your statement and belief that it's a relevant word swap strongly implies that you do.

I do not dehumanize humans, but I don't humanize nonhumans, either. Words have meaning.

What always gives me trouble is having orcs, hobgoblins, and gnolls in the same setting. I have never been able to satisfactorily make them distinct, rather than just re-skinnings of the same general behavior patterns.

I find that ironic, given how different they are. Gnolls want to see the world burn, and cannot organize effectively beyond immediate families. Orcs want to conquer the world for the glory of their God. Hobgoblins are the worst interpretation of Hobbe's Social Contract.

Tiri
2015-10-21, 10:16 AM
Or you can accept that goblins are just monsters out to cause problems for real people, and focus your effort on making the actual people and cultures in your campaigns realistically varied.

I don't think that's really relevant here. We were discussing how to portray goblins should we want to run a campaign where they are considered people. If you don't want to do so, fine, but that doesn't mean that your way of doing it is the only 'right' one. Remember, D&D is meant to be played for fun, and I know at least half of the people I regularly play with wouldn't enjoy having goblins not be people.


I do not dehumanize humans, but I don't humanize nonhumans, either.

Well, in a fantasy setting that includes multiple humanlike species, not considering these other species to be as roughly equal to humans would be as bad as dehumanizing any real-world group of people based on appearance or culture.

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 10:21 AM
I don't think that's really relevant here. We were discussing how to portray goblins should we want to run a campaign where they are considered people.

Where is this said? It's tagged Gamer Humor, but seems open to all sorts of interpretations of goblins. You can make them people if you want to... or you can make them malevolent monsters, creatures of nightmare that kidnap and transform children into more of themselves, serving as a personification of the cruelty and pettiness of children in a form that can actually snatch and kill people, and in turn be killed (Without having to jump through a bunch of arbitrary immunities and be granted bizzare special attacks).

Even if you take away the 'snatching children' aspect, they can still be swordable manifestations of the unknown darkness.

I know I personally don't have fun playing in settings where nonevil people are supposed to kill 3-8 small groups of people per day.

"Long ago, people used to venture into the darkness to fight the monsters. Then we turned on the lights, saw there was no darkness, and we were the monsters"(Paraphrased from somewhere else). And a new addendum: "So then we all got together, carved some dice, dimmed the lights again, and made up monsters for us all to have fun killing together! With no real people being hurt" :smallbiggrin:

Tiri
2015-10-21, 10:24 AM
Where is this said? It's tagged Gamer Humor, but seems open to all sorts of interpretations of goblins. You can make them people if you want to... or you can make them malevolent monsters, creatures of nightmare that kidnap and transform children into more of themselves, serving as a personification of the cruelty and pettiness of children in a form that can actually snatch and kill people, and in turn be killed (Without having to jump through a bunch of arbitrary immunities and be granted bizzare special attacks).

I meant that there was a discussion going on about the subject of goblins as people within the thread. Which you were not part of, seeing as you do not share that view.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-21, 10:41 AM
Changing words changes the statement from being mine to being yours. I do not believe that 'blacks' are a separate entity from 'human', though your statement and belief that it's a relevant word swap strongly implies that you do.

First off, I love how you decided you had to edit my editing of your statement before you felt ready to reply to it.

Second, I was trying to point out that what you said is scarily close to what people do say. Maybe I should have used 'muslim' instead of 'black', but I didn't want to type stuff that I've essentially literally heard.

Third, please don't point fingers. Despite being Caucasian I'm friends with pretty much anybody I've met, including many Chinese people, several Muslims, and several black people, including a black Muslim. I was not trying to say you see blacks as nonhuman, simply that similar arguments get used a lot in real life.


I do not dehumanize humans, but I don't humanize nonhumans, either. Words have meaning.

What's the difference between a goblin and an elf. Oh, I forget, only attractive nonhumans are worthy of not suffering genocide.

It is the superior view, I just know which nonhuman races are worthy of life.

Tiri
2015-10-21, 10:41 AM
I know I personally don't have fun playing in settings where nonevil people are supposed to kill 3-8 small groups of people per day.

Well, as I said, if you run D&D just for the pleasure of killing, go ahead and don't make your sword-fodder race into people. I wouldn't enjoy killing 3-8 small groups of people per day either, but I would be fine with it as long as they had tried to commit some evil act like killing or rape or something like that. Which is the rationale for most goblin-killing done in D&D.


First off, I love how you decided you had to edit my editing of your statement before you felt ready to reply to it.

Second, I was trying to point out that what you said is scarily close to what people do say. Maybe I should have used 'muslim' instead of 'black', but I didn't want to type stuff that I've essentially literally heard.

I don't think that's entirely fair, since he seems to aware that your point would be valid if he considered goblins to be more than vaguely human-shaped bags of meat and XP. However, judging from his posts so far, that doesn't seem to be the case. If he wants to play that way, he's perfectly entitled to.

YossarianLives
2015-10-21, 10:57 AM
The thing is, in my campaign worlds there are no irredeemable evil sapient creatures. That doesn't mean that my parties don't kill people. They kill their enemies because of their actions not because of their race. For example, the party might encounter a friendly village of kobolds that asks the party to kill an obviously evil human necromancer who has been wantonly slaughtering the locals. Or maybe the kobolds would ask the party to kill the evil elf bandits in the nearby woods. A human noble might also hire the adventurers to stop a band of rampaging orc barbarians.

I don't know why this is so hard for most people. Alignment can be completely separated from race!

Tiri
2015-10-21, 11:08 AM
The thing is, in my campaign worlds there are no irredeemable evil sapient creatures. That doesn't mean that my parties don't kill people. They kill their enemies because of their actions not because of their race. For example, the party might encounter a friendly village of kobolds that asks the party to kill an obviously evil human necromancer who has been wantonly slaughtering the locals. Or maybe the kobolds would ask the party to kill the evil elf bandits in the nearby woods. A human noble might also hire the adventurers to stop a band of rampaging orc barbarians.

I don't know why this is so hard for most people. Alignment can be completely separated from race!

I don't think it's hard exactly. It's just that most find it easier not to. It's why real-world racism happened. Things are the same in the campaign I play in too, though, so it's not as rare as you think. We actually did encounter a friendly (after some diplomacy) kobold settlement, who had had one of their baby dragons kidnapped by some goblins (which was actually partly the party fighter's fault).

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 11:15 AM
First off, I love how you decided you had to edit my editing of your statement before you felt ready to reply to it.

Second, I was trying to point out that what you said is scarily close to what people do say. Maybe I should have used 'muslim' instead of 'black', but I didn't want to type stuff that I've essentially literally heard.

Third, please don't point fingers. Despite being Caucasian I'm friends with pretty much anybody I've met, including many Chinese people, several Muslims, and several black people, including a black Muslim. I was not trying to say you see blacks as nonhuman, simply that similar arguments get used a lot in real life.You started the 'bringing real world racism into the conversation" deal.


What's the difference between a goblin and an elf. Oh, I forget, only attractive nonhumans are worthy of not suffering genocide.

It is the superior view, I just know which nonhuman races are worthy of life.Elves are a manifestation of stewardship over the world. Goblins are a manifestation of childish cruelty and malevolence in cities, and the terror of the night in the wilderness. So, the difference is "Their natures", which is everything. Elves and Dwarves aren't 'people' either, though they tend to be more beneficial for the world than the corruption of goblins. However, there are times you really do need to genocide elves or dwarves or any other nonhuman for various reasons. Then again, as I implied over in the elf thread, Elves aren't above culling human populations, either. Not all nonhumans are the same.


I don't know why this is so hard for most people. Alignment can be completely separated from race!
Can be. Doesn't have to be. It's not about alignment, though, but about the natures of monsters. You can take away the alignment system entirely and still have Goblins be inherently vile and treacherous creatures(It actually even helps in differentiating them from Orcs, who are anthropomorphic conquest, and Gnolls, who are savagery and ruin). In my settings, Kobolds are inherently servants of dragons, and are only as evil as their draconic overlords, though they tend to have cultures that resemble "Lawful Evil" human cultures due to their slavish devotion to the dragon that serves as their master.

Svata
2015-10-21, 11:49 AM
I do not dehumanize humans, but I don't humanize nonhumans, either. Words have meaning.

Just because a creature isn't human does not mean they aren't people. They are still sentient, sapient beings. The reason we draw parallels with real-world races of humans is because we don't have sapient non-humans to use as a comparison, so we use the closest approximation that we do have.

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 12:03 PM
Just because a creature isn't human does not mean they aren't people. They are still sentient, sapient beings. The reason we draw parallels with real-world races of humans is because we don't have sapient non-humans to use as a comparison, so we use the closest approximation that we do have.Just because a creature's human-shaped and smart enough to communicate doesn't mean they are people, either. Sometimes, you need an anthropomorphic personification of a concept more than you need another 'person'.

DoomHat
2015-10-21, 12:10 PM
Hey everybody, devil's advocate here, how ya doin'? Here's my card.

I suspect part of the appeal of goblins is precisely the fact that, while at least partially sapient, they aren't really "people". They are supernatural beings with motives and concerns alien to a realistic, biologically evolved entity. One really popular and fun interpretation of goblins being Magic the Gathering goblins, who are simultaneously comedic and lethally dangerous. They know they're cannon fodder, and exploit that to their advantage.

I've wanted for a while to run a game in a setting where there are actually only a couple thousand goblins in existence. However, what no one knows is that every-time a goblin dies, it instantly "respawns" somewhere else in the world. Climbing out of a rotten stump, tumbling out of an unused kitchen cabinet, crawling out of swamp muck, and so on. As a result, everyone is under the impression that there is a nearly infinite swarms of goblins with a catastrophic breeding rate.

The goblin's immortality and repeated exposure to horrible death makes them completely lunatic and always on the look out for some novelty to distract them. This total lack of self preservation and need to do mischief to stave off boredom is what makes them dangerous and inclined to inflict that danger on others.

Cluedrew
2015-10-21, 01:25 PM
It is the superior view, I just know which nonhuman races are worthy of life.Personally, I always felt detect evil probably had some roots in a "something to kill in a combat encounter and move on" detector. In other words a way to separate the characters from the enemies. Judging from the colour I guess you probably where not speaking about that but in a combat based role-playing game such as D&D or Pathfinder you pretty much have to have the two. One to speak with and the other to fight.

And I've seen goblins used both ways, as monsters and as people, in both role-playing games and in literature. Neither is wrong or right by itself, although mixing them can lead to problems. It depends on how they are constructed in the story/setting by the author. Which is different from racism, in fact if you look at the Goblin Comic (its a web comic) goblins are constructed as people but are often treated as monsters in the setting.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-21, 02:12 PM
You started the 'bringing real world racism into the conversation" deal.

And you're the one who wrote the post implying that goblins cannot be people and you should focus on the cultures of the 'real' in-game people. If you had said 'if goblins are just monsters' or 'in my world goblins are just monsters and not actual people' I wouldn't have cared.


Elves are a manifestation of stewardship over the world. Goblins are a manifestation of childish cruelty and malevolence in cities, and the terror of the night in the wilderness. So, the difference is "Their natures", which is everything. Elves and Dwarves aren't 'people' either, though they tend to be more beneficial for the world than the corruption of goblins. However, there are times you really do need to genocide elves or dwarves or any other nonhuman for various reasons. Then again, as I implied over in the elf thread, Elves aren't above culling human populations, either. Not all nonhumans are the same.

Where does it say this? In most RPGs I've come across the default assumption is that elves and goblins are natural races of sentient humanoids (thankfully we've moved past 'demihumans'). But if the above was explained to me before I sat down to play D&D I'd be really interested, because it sounds like a great world.


Just because a creature isn't human does not mean they aren't people. They are still sentient, sapient beings. The reason we draw parallels with real-world races of humans is because we don't have sapient non-humans to use as a comparison, so we use the closest approximation that we do have.

I agree completely with this. The fact we use 'race' instead of 'species' (which really would be accurate) implies that in D&D is because it's the closest real world approximation we have. Also, in some games like Shadowrun they are literally human subspecies.

Also, thanks for liking the ideas, I was on my phone when I read your post and wanted to avoid typing as much as possible. I will try to avoid getting the thread locked.


Hey everybody, devil's advocate here, how ya doin'? Here's my card.

I suspect part of the appeal of goblins is precisely the fact that, while at least partially sapient, they aren't really "people". They are supernatural beings with motives and concerns alien to a realistic, biologically evolved entity. One really popular and fun interpretation of goblins being Magic the Gathering goblins, who are simultaneously comedic and lethally dangerous. They know they're cannon fodder, and exploit that to their advantage.

I've wanted for a while to run a game in a setting where there are actually only a couple thousand goblins in existence. However, what no one knows is that every-time a goblin dies, it instantly "respawns" somewhere else in the world. Climbing out of a rotten stump, tumbling out of an unused kitchen cabinet, crawling out of swamp muck, and so on. As a result, everyone is under the impression that there is a nearly infinite swarms of goblins with a catastrophic breeding rate.

The goblin's immortality and repeated exposure to horrible death makes them completely lunatic and always on the look out for some novelty to distract them. This total lack of self preservation and need to do mischief to stave off boredom is what makes them dangerous and inclined to inflict that danger on others.

Sounds like a great version of goblins, I'd love to see it used.

P.S. goblins are people too! (Unless in your world they literally aren't, but they generally seem to be)

@Cluedrew: I agree, I'm just trying to argue from a world-building perspective.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-21, 02:14 PM
So far, the thread's reminded me that speciesism is real, and even though Goblins are people, some people are gonna think of them as green rats with hands.

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 02:20 PM
So far, the thread's reminded me that speciesism is real, and even though Goblins are people, some people are gonna think of them as green rats with hands.

Goblins are not real, and thus not people. Whether they are people in any game world or not depends on that world - there is no objectively 'correct' answer. I'm advocating that Goblins don't have to be people... and you can actually get a lot more mileage out of them by making them anthropomorphic agents of fears or concepts instead of funny-looking people.

hamishspence
2015-10-21, 02:29 PM
A fictional sapient, is still a sapient. "People" can be just a shorthand for "smarter than an animal".

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 02:39 PM
A fictional sapient, is still a sapient. "People" can be just a shorthand for "smarter than an animal".

No it isn't. If it's fictional, it has no self to be aware of, nor an independent mind to make any judgements, nor any senses to perceive the world. And we're not talking about virtual individuals - just a concept.
So far, the thread's reminded me that speciesism is real, and even though Goblins are people, some people are gonna think of them as green rats with hands.

And yes, Speciesism is real, and it's also right.

hamishspence
2015-10-21, 02:45 PM
No it isn't. If it's fictional, it has no self to be aware of, nor an independent mind to make any judgements, nor any senses to perceive the world.

I look at it this way - Superman is not real - but he's still "people" in the context of the comic universe. Same with the X-men, same with many other fictional beings.

So - in the context of a D&D universe - being "not real" is irrelevant to the question "are they people".

Hawkstar
2015-10-21, 02:48 PM
I look at it this way - Superman is not real - but he's still "people" in the context of the comic universe. Same with the X-men, same with many other fictional beings.

So - in the context of a D&D universe - being "not real" is irrelevant to the question "are they people".
But "are they people in the context of the universe" is relevant, and that varies from D&D universe to D&D universe. Some settings have them as people (Such as Eberron). Others have them as Monsters. Some have most of them as monsters, with a few of them being special people. But that individual capacity for personhood in specific individuals doesn't make those that aren't people into people.

hamishspence
2015-10-21, 03:09 PM
As V said, "We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html)

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-21, 03:25 PM
No it isn't. If it's fictional, it has no self to be aware of, nor an independent mind to make any judgements, nor any senses to perceive the world. And we're not talking about virtual individuals - just a concept.

And yes, Speciesism is real, and it's also right.

I think a lot of people are taking more offense with your 'I'm right and your wrong, pfffft' attitude than what you're saying, because I know I am. You also seem to love misinterpreting what people are saying, like calling me racist when I pointed out your statement was close to racist rhetoric (FYI I am perfectly capable of sincerely saying stuff I don't mean, it comes from loving acting, so typing such stuff to make a point is as easy as pie). You also do the mistake I have made a couple of times by stating an opinion as fact (for an example of me doing this, I once said on this very forum that characters without mechanical flaws aren't interesting, when I meant that player's I've met don't roleplay flaws without a mechanical reminder). You are saying you are always in the right, and am implying that we are all stupid because we prefer goblins as sapients rather than incarnate fears. So, long story short, stop with the high and mighty insisting other people are wrong, because especially in the 'if it's fictional then it doesn't matter if it's treated as nonsapient' argument.

Because I write fiction, and I can tell you, that doesn't hold water. It matters far more that characters are as identifiable as the story needs. Occasionally that means you have a race of fun sized eldritch abominations. Most of the time it means non-humans are people.

For the 'some have most of them as monsters, with a few of them being special people' thing, I would call that making them people. If one person in a race is capable of 'personhood' then they all are, and then those that aren't worthy of your value of personhood are still people, just horrible people. Because people can be monsters.

hamishspence
2015-10-21, 03:30 PM
Terry Pratchett's Discworld setting had plenty of "Anthropomorphic personifications" that nevertheless ended up being showcased as being people. Death being the most obvious, but far from the only one.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-21, 03:51 PM
This thread went horribly wrong at some point.


And yes, Speciesism is real, and it's also right.

Wow, it's almost like you sound like a stubborn, myopic racist or something.

hamishspence
2015-10-21, 03:55 PM
This was the last "Don't" recommendation:


Don't: Make all goblins follow a certain 'style', like

Goblins, at least the ones the players interact with regularly, should be substantially different from one another.


Anyone got a "Do" counterpart for it?

Draconium
2015-10-21, 04:00 PM
This was the last "Don't" recommendation:




Anyone got a "Do" counterpart for it?

It wasn't presented as such, but these two posts were in response to that.


To Tiri: While I agree that there should be some variety at the same time there has to be some constraints for there to be consistency. Think about humans in the real world. They are very different sorts of humans especially if you jump across cultures. But if you found a town anywhere in the world that was half made of 'comic relief' types and the other half of violent ninjas... something would be off.


The solution to this problem doesn't have to be "make all goblins in group Y the same."

You could give them a variety of outlooks, experience and aptitudes that closer aproximates a realistically varied culture.

So basically:

DO: Have different goblin cultures exist, with different outlooks.

Fiery Diamond
2015-10-21, 05:12 PM
A fictional sapient, is still a sapient. "People" can be just a shorthand for "smarter than an animal".

Oh boy. You realize how that last sentence could be turned around, right? The fact that there are human specimens less intelligent than certain animal specimens? Reeeeallly not a good way of putting things... it has some really bad conclusions - namely, that someone who espoused that "a person" was "smarter than an animal" by definition would be implying that humans with certain amounts of brain damage or mental retardation didn't qualify. So... yeah, that's a dangerous definition of "people."

Additionally, it's also inaccurate since there are certain animals that humans in the real world have argued should be considered "people." Gorillas, for example. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a reason NOT to call Koko the Gorilla a person other than "she's not human."

Sredni Vashtar
2015-10-21, 05:13 PM
But guys, without fantastic racism all those blasted muties won't have a reason to join the X-Men!

Personally, I prefer keeping the typical "savage" humanoids savage. It's not that humane, intelligent orcs and goblins don't exist, but they won't be common. (It's worth noting that I do enjoy springing evil elves, dwarves, and halflings on my players as well.)

On Topic:

DO: Remember that goblins can have class levels.
DON'T: Forget that they are (predominately) evil.

hamishspence
2015-10-21, 05:30 PM
there are certain animals that humans in the real world have argued should be considered "people." Gorillas, for example. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a reason NOT to call Koko the Gorilla a person other than "she's not human."

True - and after all, all humans are also "animals".

"Person" is a much more subjective term than "animal" is - hence the argument over whether a gorilla can be a "non-human person" with different people taking different approaches.

Koko in D&D could be a "unique INT 3+ gorilla".


that's a dangerous definition of "people."
In H. Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy novel the "talk and build a fire rule" is not designed to exclude those who can't do it from personhood, but to include those who can, in the category of "sapient".

"Every being that can talk and build a fire is sapient"
However this doesn't mean:
"Everything that can't do either, is not sapient.

So - the definition should be inclusive rather than exclusive.


"Any being this smart is a person. And possibly some beings less smart than this are people too - for various reasons."

Cluedrew
2015-10-21, 05:49 PM
You know one thing that you could say this for most fantasy constructs but considering the direction the conversation has gone it seems extra appropriate here.

DO: Decide what "goblin" means in your story or setting and stick with that.

If that means they are mindless killing machines, go with that.
If that means they are short green humans, go with that.
If that means they are just orcs that have not reached adulthood, go with that.
If that means they are a culture that has often been in slaved by the other races, often fleeing to places like swamps or un-farmable hills for there freedom all the while maintaining there traditional dances, music and there ritual scaring to mark rites of passage, go with that.
And so on.

Blackhawk748
2015-10-21, 05:50 PM
Do: remember that Goblins are natural ninjas, and ruthlessly exploit that.

Dont: Make them "just cannon fodder" They deserve more.

With that being said, feel free to use them as a minion race, but throw a few with levels in there to remind the PCs that Goblins are more than just fodder.


You know one thing that you could say this for most fantasy constructs but considering the direction the conversation has gone it seems extra appropriate here.

DO: Decide what "goblin" means in your story or setting and stick with that.

If that means they are mindless killing machines, go with that.
If that means they are short green humans, go with that.
If that means they are just orcs that have not reached adulthood, go with that.
If that means they are a culture that has often been in slaved by the other races, often fleeing to places like swamps or un-farmable hills for there freedom all the while maintaining there traditional dances, music and there ritual scaring to mark rites of passage, go with that.
And so on.


Stealing this!!

Cluedrew
2015-10-21, 06:08 PM
... Your welcome? Nice speed on that by the way.

If you're interested the original idea had the 'ritual scaring' focused on the ears (goblins had ears larger than elves in that setting). The story was from a human's perspective so the only one that was elaborated on was "goblin-friend" which was a small scar at the back of the ear given to non-goblins to show they were a friend of goblins. It probably would have been a shameful mark (in the original setting) if anyone but the goblins and the goblin friends knew what it meant as goblins were not generally liked.

The Fury
2015-10-21, 10:12 PM
DON'T assume that one setting's version of goblins is universally true. You don't want to be that one moron that decided they were going to clear all the goblins out of the sewer only to discover that goblins don't live down there. After you jumped down a manhole of course.

DON'T presume that because you, (or rather your character,) would eat it a goblin would too.

DON'T do what Donny Don't does.

YossarianLives
2015-10-21, 10:22 PM
DON'T do what Donny Don't does.
Brush your teeth with a knife?

The Fury
2015-10-21, 10:24 PM
Brush your teeth with a knife?

Yeah, it's generally just a bad idea.

daremetoidareyo
2015-10-22, 12:19 AM
Hey everybody, devil's advocate here, how ya doin'? Here's my card.

I suspect part of the appeal of goblins is precisely the fact that, while at least partially sapient, they aren't really "people". They are supernatural beings with motives and concerns alien to a realistic, biologically evolved entity. One really popular and fun interpretation of goblins being Magic the Gathering goblins, who are simultaneously comedic and lethally dangerous. They know they're cannon fodder, and exploit that to their advantage.

I've wanted for a while to run a game in a setting where there are actually only a couple thousand goblins in existence. However, what no one knows is that every-time a goblin dies, it instantly "respawns" somewhere else in the world. Climbing out of a rotten stump, tumbling out of an unused kitchen cabinet, crawling out of swamp muck, and so on. As a result, everyone is under the impression that there is a nearly infinite swarms of goblins with a catastrophic breeding rate.

The goblin's immortality and repeated exposure to horrible death makes them completely lunatic and always on the look out for some novelty to distract them. This total lack of self preservation and need to do mischief to stave off boredom is what makes them dangerous and inclined to inflict that danger on others.

I love this. Imagine what their belief system would be. I like to think that they have a creation myth that stresses that they are cosmic agents of change. You don't have to get into the sexual politics of how they have such a high fecundity.

Quick question: wouldn't they all have like a bjillion class levels?

Draconium
2015-10-22, 12:23 AM
I love this. Imagine what their belief system would be. I like to think that they have a creation myth that stresses that they are cosmic agents of change. You don't have to get into the sexual politics of how they have such a high fecundity.

Quick question: wouldn't they all have like a bjillion class levels?

Not if they always respawned with one HD. But I agree, that is a hilarious concept. :smalltongue:

NotaBeholder
2015-10-22, 01:42 AM
First post here, so apologies for length. Always want to make a good first impression. :smallsmile:

Think of the worst pre-bronze age human tribal society you can imagine. Populate it with capricious, greedy, homicidal individuals with no impulse control, no conscience or remorse and only the loosest sense of community. Rule it exclusively by force or threat of force.

Then take every negative societal trait of such a culture – constant internecine warfare, competition for resources, revenge cycles, xenophobia, massive overcrowding, disease, no sanitation – and then combine it with the notion that everything else in the world is bigger, tougher, stronger, better organised or smarter than you and wants to either exterminate, rule or eat you (or some combination of two out of three)

That's goblins in my mind (and fantasy settings)

I see goblins as:

Small and weak (duh) – So they're 3 to 3.5 ft tall, no more than 50-55 lb. Goblins are aware of this weakness. They're basically the favorite chew toy of everything, and they know it. So the compensate by congregating in large numbers or being sneaky little so-and-sos when alone. They going to use every ounce of basic cunning – laying traps, ambushes, strategic retreats and favourable terrain – to overcome the limitations of their small stature.

Actrually relatively intelligent – I see goblins are smarter than orcs or bugbears, less intelligent than hobgoblins. That's probably not that unusual. I think goblins are usually smart enough to have some basic pre-bronze age technologies. They probably practice some form of horticulture (AKA mushroom farming), maybe some kind of domesticate animal rearing and can probably make basic weapons from bone, horn, stone and even copper – mostly clubs, spears and daggers – and manufacture hide armour, maybe tan primitive leather.

Tribal and hierarchical – Goblins operate in primarily tribal groups up to about 600 strong. They're typically lead by a physically dominant male, in the sort of standard patriarchal ‘might makes right’ dominance society you see in some primates. Hierarchy is determined mostly by combat, with the best warriors/strongest progressing upwards, rather than say the best leaders/decision makers. Posturing and argument, particularly in the lower ranks, are also important (but a fist or a club always beats an argument in goblin society). Allegiances and power structures constantly shift, leading to short, sharp, typically fatal conflicts.

Prone to violence – Excessively so. At any time. For any possible reason. Goblins fight between themselves for everything: food, equipment, breeding opportunities, space, something shiny on the floor, a pretty rock, ect ect. Goblins of higher status deliberately fight/kill weaker goblins to assert their dominance. Fights leading to serious injuries and death are a day to day occurrence in goblin society. Goblins that have reached four or five years of age will probably have multiple heavy scars, maybe a lost nose, ear, finger or eye.

Vindictive – Goblins harbour fierce resentment against other races and any other goblin that has hurt/beaten them, or just has something they want. They’ll think nothing of sneaking in on another goblin and stabbing them in their sleep, or mutilating them in some fashion, and stealing their stuff.

Multitudinous – Goblins almost never do anything alone, finding solace and strength in numbers. Goblins breed really, really rapidly - one of the MMs had goblins fully mature at three years, I think – and goblins are full self sufficient in a couple of weeks. Even with the high mortality rate in their societies, they also have constant population growth and thus constant resource pressure. Goblins live stacked five deep in their caves and continually need more space and sources of food, bringing them into conflict with the ‘civilised’ races – particularly humans, who are similarly expansionist and also change the environment/landscape with agriculture.

Easily frightened – Aware of their physical limitations, goblins will flee when they don’t have a numerical advantage against a bigger/stronger opponent (including other goblins). They will also use their cowardly reputation to their advantage, setting up ambushes, leading opponents into traps, ect.

Sneaky and cunning – Goblins are smart enough to make up for their weakness by use of strategy and tactics. They will prepare traps – pits and deadfalls/falling rocks, swinging logs with spikes, tripwires, nets and snares – and will fight in areas where they have advantage. Goblins will use hit and run tactics, engaging and disengaging – disappearing into tunnels/caves, holes, dense foliage ect, ect when they don’t have an immediate advantage.

Paranoid and suspicious – Goblins are at the arse end of the D&D food chain, and they know it. They’re continually picked on by anything bigger or tougher than them – which is almost everything. As a result, they’re constantly alert for any signs of danger. If they do talk to other goblins or adventurers, they operate on the basic assumption that everyone is trying to do them over/trick them. Afterall, that’s what they’re trying to do to everyone else.

Gregarious and excitable – If goblins think they are safe or is in a large group, their behaviour switches from sneaky and looking over the shoulder paranoid to racous, verging on drug fueled exhibitionist. Think of a bunch of 6-7 year olds hopped up on Red Bull and sugar, but armed with weapons, a bad attitude and with hair trigger tempers. Left to their own devices, a large groups of goblins constantly shout, fight, run around, hit and bite each other, steal things, make boast and challenges and generally act like the self-indulgent little bastards they are.

Having very few elders – Given the violent inherent in goblin society, very few are going to make it to ‘old age’ and those are going to be the ones that generally don’t rely on physical prowess to maintain their position in the hierarchy. Maybe shamans, clerics or other types of magic users or some more technically gifted individuals - the builders and makers of things - get past 10-12 years of age, but even then they're prime targets for adventurers and other wandering menaces. You get old in goblin societies by being either useful or un-killable.

In it for themselves - I like to think of goblins as a seething mob of individuals out for noone but themselves. They know that they need the numbers to have a chance, but really the only thing other goblins want other goblins for is for mutual protection and making more goblins. Otherwise, its every goblin for themselves and the rest of them can go and hag.

Tiri
2015-10-22, 03:21 AM
There are some parts of this that I don't like. Not that they're wrong or anything like that, I just don't like them.



Tribal and hierarchical – Goblins operate in primarily tribal groups up to about 600 strong. They're typically lead by a physically dominant male, in the sort of standard patriarchal ‘might makes right’ dominance society you see in some primates. Hierarchy is determined mostly by combat, with the best warriors/strongest progressing upwards, rather than say the best leaders/decision makers. Posturing and argument, particularly in the lower ranks, are also important (but a fist or a club always beats an argument in goblin society). Allegiances and power structures constantly shift, leading to short, sharp, typically fatal conflicts.


I don't really think this form of leadership works with any kind of creature with approximately human intelligence. Not that it literally doesn't work, as many animals use it and are just fine, but a creature with around the same level of intelligence as a human (at least in D&D 3.5, which is what I play) should be able to recognise that there are better ways of determining leadership than combat prowess alone.




Prone to violence – Excessively so. At any time. For any possible reason. Goblins fight between themselves for everything: food, equipment, breeding opportunities, space, something shiny on the floor, a pretty rock, ect ect. Goblins of higher status deliberately fight/kill weaker goblins to assert their dominance. Fights leading to serious injuries and death are a day to day occurrence in goblin society. Goblins that have reached four or five years of age will probably have multiple heavy scars, maybe a lost nose, ear, finger or eye.

Vindictive – Goblins harbour fierce resentment against other races and any other goblin that has hurt/beaten them, or just has something they want. They’ll think nothing of sneaking in on another goblin and stabbing them in their sleep, or mutilating them in some fashion, and stealing their stuff.


This seems overly destructive. Even if they are anger-prone, the average goblin is about as smart and wise as the average human (again, in D&D 3.5), and slaughtering your own kind over slights is a very stupid thing to do. Of course, I'm not saying that you are wrong, and to be honest this seems to be the kind of view RPGs encourage about goblins, but it just doesn't seem to me like a race with traits like these is capable of survival.

Beleriphon
2015-10-22, 07:43 AM
I don't really think this form of leadership works with any kind of creature with approximately human intelligence. Not that it literally doesn't work, as many animals use it and are just fine, but a creature with around the same level of intelligence as a human (at least in D&D 3.5, which is what I play) should be able to recognize that there are better ways of determining leadership than combat prowess alone.

Human gangs work this way in many instances. It isn't a matter of whether it works well, but whether it works at all. It does work so long as there is a steady supply of new recruits. Goblins with high fecundity should have no issues with this. I think the whole setup is predicated on the fact that goblins don't think like humans, and that is a valid process to work from.

If you really think about the Roman Empire worked on the same principle, albeit over a somewhat longer time frame for the typical emperor. Really, most of them didn't die of natural causes, unless you consider knives in the back naturally causing death.


This seems overly destructive. Even if they are anger-prone, the average goblin is about as smart and wise as the average human (again, in D&D 3.5), and slaughtering your own kind over slights is a very stupid thing to do. Of course, I'm not saying that you are wrong, and to be honest this seems to be the kind of view RPGs encourage about goblins, but it just doesn't seem to me like a race with traits like these is capable of survival.

The only thing needed for survival is high birth rate, as long as the birth rate outstrips the death rate anything can survive. I think that's the point, the birth rate is so high a goblin had better be willing to clobber its way to the top because within three years there's going to be hundred of runts there to try and take its position.

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 07:56 AM
I think a lot of people are taking more offense with your 'I'm right and your wrong, pfffft' attitude than what you're saying, because I know I am. You also seem to love misinterpreting what people are saying, like calling me racist when I pointed out your statement was close to racist rhetoric (FYI I am perfectly capable of sincerely saying stuff I don't mean, it comes from loving acting, so typing such stuff to make a point is as easy as pie). You also do the mistake I have made a couple of times by stating an opinion as fact (for an example of me doing this, I once said on this very forum that characters without mechanical flaws aren't interesting, when I meant that player's I've met don't roleplay flaws without a mechanical reminder). You are saying you are always in the right, and am implying that we are all stupid because we prefer goblins as sapients rather than incarnate fears. So, long story short, stop with the high and mighty insisting other people are wrong, because especially in the 'if it's fictional then it doesn't matter if it's treated as nonsapient' argument.I've not been saying that, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. (Though I agree on me stating opinion as fact). But your statement that mine is close to racist rhetoric is one that strongly implied that I carried racist thoughts against humans. I'm too scientifically and speculatively minded for that, but I get really, really annoyed that the only choices in writing speculative fiction (Or playing a game in such fiction) is an all-too-common "All creatures with individual cognitive ability and agency must have the same range of beliefs and behaviors as humans or else the author shares the values of George Wallace and Adolf Hitler."


For the 'some have most of them as monsters, with a few of them being special people' thing, I would call that making them people. If one person in a race is capable of 'personhood' then they all are, and then those that aren't worthy of your value of personhood are still people, just horrible people. Because people can be monsters.Ehh... I refuse to dehumanize any person to the point of declaring them monsters, no matter what atrocities they may commit. Everyone is justified in their own minds. Also - Everyone's a little bit racist. I have fun displacing that racism onto fictional creatures. I do get bothered whenever someone takes a race like Orcs, declares them 'people', still expects the player characters to be morally justified in slaying them by the hundreds due to their culture, then says their culture is 'based on Native Americans/Mongols/Other Real-World culture, historical or otherwise - the actual culture, not a sensationalized "Hollywood" version of it', because although it does humanize Orcs, it also dehumanizes the people of that borrowed culture.


I don't really think this form of leadership works with any kind of creature with approximately human intelligence. Not that it literally doesn't work, as many animals use it and are just fine, but a creature with around the same level of intelligence as a human (at least in D&D 3.5, which is what I play) should be able to recognise that there are better ways of determining leadership than combat prowess alone.So... humans don't have human-level intelligence? Even if goblins are funny-looking people, combat prowess still has several reasonable things recommending it as a good trait for leadership, especially in the extreme survival conditions goblins usually live in:
1. Respect. People tend to value the opinions and commands from people they respect, and one of the best way to get respect is to get high-value jobs done. In a small, heavily threatened community, being able to destroy it's enemies and protect the community are extremely valuable jobs to get done.
2. Motivation. People are more likely to follow orders when they're backed by a can of whoopass. Do as he says, or he WILL kick your ass until you do!
3. Stability. Unless he disproportionately puts himself in harms way, the most combat-capable person is also most likely to survive predator-or-enemy-induced calamity (ex: Wolf pack attack or rival tribal raid), even when the tribe's numbers get significantly diminished in such an event. The best fighter is also most capable of defending their position of power - Dead people don't have opinions.


This seems overly destructive. Even if they are anger-prone, the average goblin is about as smart and wise as the average human (again, in D&D 3.5), and slaughtering your own kind over slights is a very stupid thing to do. Of course, I'm not saying that you are wrong, and to be honest this seems to be the kind of view RPGs encourage about goblins, but it just doesn't seem to me like a race with traits like these is capable of survival.Intelligence and wisdom do not affect values. Sometimes it's better to be dead and right than alive and wrong (Especially if being 'right' increases the chance of offspring surviving, even at the cost of parent/grandparent's lives..)

Tiri
2015-10-22, 08:07 AM
So... humans don't have human-level intelligence? Even if goblins are funny-looking people, combat prowess still has several reasonable things recommending it as a good trait for leadership, especially in the extreme survival conditions goblins usually live in:
1. Respect. People tend to value the opinions and commands from people they respect, and one of the best way to get respect is to get high-value jobs done. In a small, heavily threatened community, being able to destroy it's enemies and protect the community are extremely valuable jobs to get done.
2. Motivation. People are more likely to follow orders when they're backed by a can of whoopass. Do as he says, or he WILL kick your ass until you do!
3. Stability. Unless he disproportionately puts himself in harms way, the most combat-capable person is also most likely to survive predator-or-enemy-induced calamity (ex: Wolf pack attack or rival tribal raid), even when the tribe's numbers get significantly diminished in such an event. The best fighter is also most capable of defending their position of power - Dead people don't have opinions.


These are all true, but unless a leader is actually good at leading, his followers either all get killed or realize that he's not very good at keeping them alive, and get a new leader into power or leave to find someone else to follow.


Intelligence and wisdom do not affect values.

Intelligence and wisdom don't affect values, but they affect common sense. Why kill your friend over some trifling matter when he's the most likely (may vary depending on the goblin) to help you out when you get in trouble?


Human gangs work this way in many instances. It isn't a matter of whether it works well, but whether it works at all. It does work so long as there is a steady supply of new recruits. Goblins with high fecundity should have no issues with this. I think the whole setup is predicated on the fact that goblins don't think like humans, and that is a valid process to work from.

If you really think about the Roman Empire worked on the same principle, albeit over a somewhat longer time frame for the typical emperor. Really, most of them didn't die of natural causes, unless you consider knives in the back naturally causing death.

Just because it works doesn't mean something better can't be come up with, and goblins in most settings have had at least as much time as most other races to figure it out. At the very least one small group of them might, after centuries of leaders being individually powerful but poor at actually leading, put someone who actually knows how to manage them in charge. This group would have a significant advantage over the others because of better organization, and either through this group taking over others or other groups trying to emulate them, the trend would spread. Or an individually powerful leader who was also good at leading might rise to power, and the same thing would happen. Even human gangs aren't effective without good leadership, and having a number of competent emperors (or authority figures under any other of the leadership systems Rome adopted during its existence) is what made the Roman Empire as successful as it was.


The only thing needed for survival is high birth rate, as long as the birth rate outstrips the death rate anything can survive. I think that's the point, the birth rate is so high a goblin had better be willing to clobber its way to the top because within three years there's going to be hundred of runts there to try and take its position.

And without good leadership at some point, the other races will gang up on the troublesome goblins and wipe them out, taking advantage of the general poor leadership, organization and infighting of the goblins.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-22, 08:30 AM
The only thing needed for survival is high birth rate, as long as the birth rate outstrips the death rate anything can survive. I think that's the point, the birth rate is so high a goblin had better be willing to clobber its way to the top because within three years there's going to be hundred of runts there to try and take its position.

The average pregnancy would last less than a day, unless female goblins get pregnant every time. If it's the first case, I don't believe that there would be time for the child go develop, and for the latter I don't know of any other animal where that happens.

Beleriphon
2015-10-22, 08:31 AM
Intelligence and wisdom don't affect values, but they affect common sense. Why kill your neighbour over a some trifling matter when he's the most likely (may vary depending on the goblin) to help you out when you get in trouble?

Because he'll shank you in your sleep if you find something shiny obviously. Also, if you kill him you get his stuff. So why not kill him, he just had a litter of fifteen and hasn't even named them yet so they wont miss him, the oldest child was probably going to do it anyways in six months.

The fact that this is question at all means that goblins are just humans in funny hats rather than a completely separate creature with its own psychology. I think that is ultimately Hawkstar's point about goblins. We don't have another sapient species to interact with, at least as far as we're aware of so it is difficult to get out of our own headspace. Goblins aren't humans and shouldn't be assigned human motivations or thought processes by default. Giving them weird social quirks is a way to divorce them from human expectations of behaviour.


The average pregnancy would last less than a day, unless female goblins get pregnant every time. If it's the first case, I don't believe that there would be time for the child go develop, and for the latter I don't know of any other animal where that happens.

Litters, very large litters. Having multiple births would mitigate many of these issues. If you treat goblin infants more like say rabbits when born (close eyes, ears, etc) then things start to make more sense. A prodigious growth rate also isn't unreasonable if you take into account many dogs have the same body mass as goblins usually seem to have and a Saint Bernard goes from tiny to rather good sized within three years.

khadgar567
2015-10-22, 08:32 AM
DON'T: assume that simply because they don't have low INT scores, they aren't aggressively stupid. DO: Remember capacity for idiocy increases with intelligence. It takes a lot of intelligence to go out like a Kerbal.

do use them like their warcraft cousins

hamishspence
2015-10-22, 08:59 AM
Goblins aren't humans and shouldn't be assigned human motivations or thought processes by default. Giving them weird social quirks is a way to divorce them from human expectations of behaviour.

Giving them "all the worst traits of human children" though - is still a case of "assigning them human motivations and thought processes."

Beleriphon
2015-10-22, 09:35 AM
Giving them "all the worst traits of human children" though - is still a case of "assigning them human motivations and thought processes."

True, but its all of the worst ones, and short hand example to illustrate the point. Children have some pretty awful traits but are tempered by the fact they have positive ones and the fact they will eventually stop being that way because they are human and grow up. Goblins never stop acting like ill tempered human children in this example and might actually get worse as they age. My point isn't the outward behaviour should be recongizable but rather the inner motivation shouldn't be assumed to be open to change or human logic.

hamishspence
2015-10-22, 10:00 AM
Goblins aren't humans and shouldn't be assigned human motivations or thought processes by default.

Why not? And even if they "shouldn't" - that isn't necessarily the way D&D is played in practice.

The Giant said it best:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12719590&postcount=178

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

Tiri
2015-10-22, 10:06 AM
Because he'll shank you in your sleep if you find something shiny obviously. Also, if you kill him you get his stuff. So why not kill him, he just had a litter of fifteen and hasn't even named them yet so they wont miss him, the oldest child was probably going to do it anyways in six months.

The fact that this is question at all means that goblins are just humans in funny hats rather than a completely separate creature with its own psychology. I think that is ultimately Hawkstar's point about goblins. We don't have another sapient species to interact with, at least as far as we're aware of so it is difficult to get out of our own headspace. Goblins aren't humans and shouldn't be assigned human motivations or thought processes by default. Giving them weird social quirks is a way to divorce them from human expectations of behaviour.

The problem with this is that it completely removes the possibility of goblins being able to work together or form society at all. If they get killed every six months or so, there are no opportunities at all to form any meaningful relationships, foster trust, learn to work together etc. While you may argue that they should not have a human mindset, some things are required for them to be able to function as a coherent group. They would also have almost no chance to learn anything and even less to pass their knowledge on.

Beleriphon
2015-10-22, 10:40 AM
The problem with this is that it completely removes the possibility of goblins being able to work together or form society at all. If they get killed every six months or so, there are no opportunities at all to form any meaningful relationships, foster trust, learn to work together etc. While you may argue that they should not have a human mindset, some things are required for them to be able to function as a coherent group. They would also have almost no chance to learn anything and even less to pass their knowledge on.

The coherent group is look out for number one, combined with an overwhelming need to keep large numbers of your fellows around to scare away thing you're too small to scare alone. If you think about goblins are driven by fear of everything, fear of dying, fear of not having stuff, fear of The Boss, fear that world really is out to get them.

Think of it this way The Boss leads. The Boss is the biggest, meanest toughest goblin. He leads because he can keep Us safe. I don't like the boss because he takes some of my stuff, but I let him because if I don't he'll gank me. I don't like being ganked, but I want more stuff so I take stuff from goblins weaker than me. Goblins co-operate because they have to at least at some level, but that doesn't mean they have to like doing it or do so in a way that seems the most sensible to us modern humans. It also doesn't mean that every argument leads to a death, it could just be a fist fight. Maybe goblins solve problems with fists not words.

You're also assuming that goblins have a large society at all rather than small tribal groups. I'm not arguing this is the only way to do goblins, but rather it is a valid way to present them and that they do make sense within this type of context. Obviously Eberron goblins don't work like this at all, but then they're part of a large hierarchy involving hobgoblins and bugbears.

Tiri
2015-10-22, 10:51 AM
The coherent group is look out for number one, combined with an overwhelming need to keep large numbers of your fellows around to scare away thing you're too small to scare alone. If you think about goblins are driven by fear of everything, fear of dying, fear of not having stuff, fear of The Boss, fear that world really is out to get them.

Think of it this way The Boss leads. The Boss is the biggest, meanest toughest goblin. He leads because he can keep Us safe. I don't like the boss because he takes some of my stuff, but I let him because if I don't he'll gank me. I don't like being ganked, but I want more stuff so I take stuff from goblins weaker than me. Goblins co-operate because they have to at least at some level, but that doesn't mean they have to like doing it or do so in a way that seems the most sensible to us modern humans. It also doesn't mean that every argument leads to a death, it could just be a fist fight. Maybe goblins solve problems with fists not words.

You're also assuming that goblins have a society at all rather than small tribal groups. I'm not arguing this is the only way to do goblins, but rather it is a valid way to present them and that they do make sense within this type of context. Obviously Eberron goblins don't work like this at all, but then they're part of a large hierarchy involving hobgoblins and bugbears.

That still doesn't really work because the rapid replacement of the dominant generation would ensure that neither the Boss or any of his followers survive long enough to either lead or follow, before a bunch of new goblins come in with little concept of anything, other than how to kill each other. Even if a new Boss somehow managed to assert himself, he wouldn't know how to look out for anyone but himself. The constant atmosphere of murder and rage for the pettiest reasons would prevent any kind of consideration of other goblins as 'fellows' from forming, which prevents any generation of goblins being able to organize itself into any meaningful structure before the cycle begins again.

Beleriphon
2015-10-22, 11:27 AM
That still doesn't really work because the rapid replacement of the dominant generation would ensure that neither the Boss or any of his followers survive long enough to either lead or follow, before a bunch of new goblins come in with little concept of anything, other than how to kill each other. Even if a new Boss somehow managed to assert himself, he wouldn't know how to look out for anyone but himself. The constant atmosphere of murder and rage for the pettiest reasons would prevent any kind of consideration of other goblins as 'fellows' from forming, which prevents any generation of goblins being able to organize itself into any meaningful structure before the cycle begins again. Also, tribal groups are a kind of society.

I clarified, large society of creatures. A single tribe is functional, and it does work. Again your assuming violence equates directly to death. It doesn't have to do so. You can have goblins fighting for petty reasons, humans already do it but we don't tend to devolve to physical violence as our first recourse. A fist fight doesn't necessarily mean death, it just means if two goblins disagree they punch each other until agreement is reached, or one gives up and the winner is the on in the right. The Boss is just the one that is always right.

Think about it this way then. Instead of us using a message board if we were both goblins and we didn't agree about how to portray human creatures in Cattle & Cities we'd punch each other until one of conceded the other was right. If I were The Boss you might concede the point to avoid a beating, or never even bring it up if you didn't want to risk my wrath at all.

It doesn't make sense to have us do that, but then we're not goblins.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-22, 11:56 AM
I've not been saying that, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. (Though I agree on me stating opinion as fact). But your statement that mine is close to racist rhetoric is one that strongly implied that I carried racist thoughts against humans.

I did not imply it, you inferred it. The difference is one of intent, and due to unfortunate wording, I was just trying to say 'some people might get offended by these paralells'.


I'm too scientifically and speculatively minded for that,

Wow, me too, but being speculative also means you should be able to imagine another reason, like someone typing something they don't actually believe in order to try and make a point.


but I get really, really annoyed that the only choices in writing speculative fiction (Or playing a game in such fiction) is an all-too-common "All creatures with individual cognitive ability and agency must have the same range of beliefs and behaviors as humans or else the author shares the values of George Wallace and Adolf Hitler."

Oh, I agree, it's the 'if you don't have the same range of beliefs and behaviours as humans as humans you are automatically not a person' I have trouble with.


Ehh... I refuse to dehumanize any person to the point of declaring them monsters, no matter what atrocities they may commit. Everyone is justified in their own minds. Also - Everyone's a little bit racist. I have fun displacing that racism onto fictional creatures. I do get bothered whenever someone takes a race like Orcs, declares them 'people', still expects the player characters to be morally justified in slaying them by the hundreds due to their culture, then says their culture is 'based on Native Americans/Mongols/Other Real-World culture, historical or otherwise - the actual culture, not a sensationalized "Hollywood" version of it', because although it does humanize Orcs, it also dehumanizes the people of that borrowed culture.

A, I see what the problem is. I don't have any problems with monsters being human, and don't consider being a monster to be dehumanising, because in my view a monster is something that chooses to be evil/horrible/insert correct word here. In my view you have to have sentience and free will to be a monster, and so something killing people because that's what they were programmed to do is not a monster. Certainly something to stop, and maybe another word like abomination would fit under the circumstances, but not monster.

I agree on the other part though, I just try to limit my inherent racism to minor and harmless things. Also, that would certainly dehumanise a culture, and it is why my fictional cultures generally only resemble real world ones accidentally (I have a few that don't, but antagonism against them is a lot more 'two kingdoms at war' than 'you can kill these people no problem').

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 11:57 AM
The problem with this is that it completely removes the possibility of goblins being able to work together or form society at all. If they get killed every six months or so, there are no opportunities at all to form any meaningful relationships, foster trust, learn to work together etc. While you may argue that they should not have a human mindset, some things are required for them to be able to function as a coherent group. They would also have almost no chance to learn anything and even less to pass their knowledge on.Yes, and? This is exactly how Goblin society (doesn't) function. They don't form meaningful relationships, they don't foster trust between each other, they don't learn to work together, and they don't pass their knowledge on to their offspring deliberately. They just struggle to stay alive as long as possible and hope to get a few babies (Not for any rational reason. They just like making babies) or corrupt human children into goblins. They do learn through observation, though, and stick together because 1: It lets them make babies. and 2: It gives them more meatshields to toss at things that want to kill them (Though they have to be wary about their meatshields tossing THEM at the things that want to kill them)


Why not? And even if they "shouldn't" - that isn't necessarily the way D&D is played in practice.

The Giant said it best:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12719590&postcount=178But we're not looking to explore the human condition. We're re-creating the monsters we thought once existed (Before learning they were merely other "Us"es) in a safe place to give us the fun of going out into the darkness to fight those monsters without any real people getting hurt.

Though there is value in thinking of nonhuman intelligences, since we're surrounded by it. Some of it is artificial (Computers+Robots), some is natural (animals), and we don't like the idea any of it may be self aware, sentient, and sapient(Which merely means 'possesses sound judgement-making skills', according to the dictionary. So apparently my older brother isn't sapient?)

I did not imply it, you inferred it. The difference is one of intent, and due to unfortunate wording, I was just trying to say 'some people might get offended by these parallels'.



Wow, me too, but being speculative also means you should be able to imagine another reason, like someone typing something they don't actually believe in order to try and make a point.That makes two of us, sort of. My response is directed at those who do consider the situations parallel. When I wrote it, I was comparing the situation to treating Vampirism as an LGBT allegory (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14805765&postcount=377).


A, I see what the problem is. I don't have any problems with monsters being human, and don't consider being a monster to be dehumanising, because in my view a monster is something that chooses to be evil/horrible/insert correct word here. In my view you have to have sentience and free will to be a monster, and so something killing people because that's what they were programmed to do is not a monster. Certainly something to stop, and maybe another word like abomination would fit under the circumstances, but not monster.While from my perspective, every human has a reason for the things they do, just as we do. They may seem incomprehensible or horrific to us, but we're not the ones in their shoes, and we don't know what they know. But that's a worldview thing.
I did not imply it, you inferred it. The difference is one of intent, and due to unfortunate wording, I was just trying to say 'some people might get offended by these parallels'.



Wow, me too, but being speculative also means you should be able to imagine another reason, like someone typing something they don't actually believe in order to try and make a point.That makes two of us, sort of. My response is directed at those who do consider the situations parallel. When I wrote it, I was comparing the situation to treating Vampirism as an LGBT allegory (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14805765&postcount=377).


A, I see what the problem is. I don't have any problems with monsters being human, and don't consider being a monster to be dehumanising, because in my view a monster is something that chooses to be evil/horrible/insert correct word here. In my view you have to have sentience and free will to be a monster, and so something killing people because that's what they were programmed to do is not a monster. Certainly something to stop, and maybe another word like abomination would fit under the circumstances, but not monster.While from my perspective, every human has a reason for the things they do, just as we do. They may seem incomprehensible or horrific to us, but we're not the ones in their shoes, and we don't know what they know. But that's a worldview thing.

Cluedrew
2015-10-22, 12:21 PM
I think that we are falling into a trap of thinking that there is only ONE proper interpretation of goblins. I guess I made my opinion on that rather clear on that but I would like to back it up.

It is generally agreed on that goblins do not and did not ever exist in earth's history. So that means there isn't a historically accurate or politically correct view on goblins we have to adhere to. Hence they can be constructed in a variety of different ways without an issue (not all ways, but many).

They can be constructed according to historical depictions, I haven't read to many medieval tails with goblins in them so I'm not sure what that would also look like. You could construct them as human-like beings that can interact with humans easily, although may experience racism or some such depending on what the story is about. Mindless abominations is also an opinion especially if they exist to only fight the heroes. In you don't even have to worry about the details of goblin culture because no one is going to see it so you would be wasting your time.

So although we can talk about the types of goblins we like I think there is very little to say on which one is correct.

As for the details of the human/monster divide, that's beyond me to decide.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-22, 12:25 PM
makes two of us, sort of. My response is directed at those who do consider the situations parallel. When I wrote it, I was comparing the situation to treating Vampirism as an LGBT allegory (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14805765&postcount=377).

Ah, right. Sorry for misunderstanding you. I forgot that there were people who read too much into this stuff. (My rule of thumb is narrative versus a culture for no particular reason is bad, but characters can do whatever they need to for a good story).


While from my perspective, every human has a reason for the things they do, just as we do. They may seem incomprehensible or horrific to us, but we're not the ones in their shoes, and we don't know what they know. But that's a worldview thing.

Yeah, I sort of understand that, and I try to take people's reasons into account. While I won't deny that Hitler is a monster, I will agree that, in his shoes, a lot of his reasons wouldn't actually sound so bad, and so don't see him as completely evil (as it apparently is fashionable to do). I don't believe that having a reason makes it right from any perspective, but in many ways I prefer the understandable monster to the ineffable saint. That said, I can't think of many humans that I would classify immediately as a monster, and certainly no living ones, but that's more with me believing that only a saint* has the authority to declare deeds as completely horrible.

A decent comparison would be that if goblins scare people because they are fear incarnate, then they aren't monsters. However, if they steal every left boot in town and kill the local priest because one of them stubbed his toe and can no longer scare people, then they could very well be monsters.

* In the common usage of the term, not the religious one.

hamishspence
2015-10-22, 12:36 PM
We're re-creating the monsters we thought once existed (Before learning they were merely other "Us"es) in a safe place to give us the fun of going out into the darkness to fight those monsters without any real people getting hurt.

Should we, though?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12743161&postcount=506

The SRD is a bunch of words written by a bunch of people living in Renton, WA. It has no more authority to determine what is true in my work of fiction than the phone book does.

And my contention, with much of OOTS, is that it is specifically wrong on this issue. Not that it is inaccurate; that it is not as it should be. That the game is teaching the wrong lessons, especially since we place it in the hands of those who are "12 & Up." There is no actual truth about what alignment goblins are, because goblins are made-up. Monsters are made-up. What there is, is a bunch of game designers writing a document that says that some types of people are inherently morally inferior to other types of people. And I find that regrettable.

Segev
2015-10-22, 12:42 PM
Disagreement is violence - a goblin who disagrees with another goblin enough to "voice" it will do so with displays of dominance and threat of (or actual) violence. They will escalate to the fallacy of the club immediately, and the one who cries "uncle" first loses.

Respect is envy + fear - Goblins love showing off their prizes, their wealth, their abilities and prowess. They do this because it sparks envy in other goblins, who will then want what they have. The only reason it isn't stolen is due to fear of what the envied goblin will do in retaliation. So if they can't TAKE it, they'll glom on and hope to talk him into "sharing," or at least wait for a chance to take it without consequence.

"How" is easy; "why" is hard - Goblins learn FAST, putting things, objects, concepts, and technologies together with great speed. It is only their short life spans that keep them from being particularly successfully inventive. However, they lack an appreciation for consequences that extend beyond the immediate. They can plan, but their plans tend to be short-sighted and first-order. They know how to use and build and operate dangerous things, but lack the insight to appreciate why they should be cautious with them.

Others' pain is funny - they lack sympathy, and only have enough empathy to estimate how others will react if given the freedom to do so. They see no reason to feel badly if another is injured; it's hilarious. Only if it inconveniences them is it a problem. Their own pain, though, is horrifying and to be avoided unless it wins them some prize.

Death happens to other people - Only when they're directly threatened with it do they fear it. Death as a consequence of their own actions, absent a third party murdering them, doesn't seem like a possibility.

Mates and children are property - their sexual drives and their urges to procreate are at least as powerful as those of human teenagers, and their lack of sympathy means that they view followers, mates, and offspring as status symbols. They tend to object to their property and status symbols being mistreated by others; thus a powerful goblin will have more followers, mates, and offspring due to the protection offered by that goblin's threat of retaliation.

Creativity is temporary - as scavenging raiders, they often see mostly-broken tools and tech and magical artifice, which fascinate them. Their learning ability means they can master and repair them, but their short-sightedness (and short, self-centered lifespans) means they will not care about long-term fixes. Jury-rigging is good enough, and if it explodes later, it's hilarious as long as they're not the ones exploded.

hamishspence
2015-10-22, 12:52 PM
Most of these do sound moderately consistent with 4E's splatbook for playing goblins - the Dungeon Survival Handbook.

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 12:53 PM
A decent comparison would be that if goblins scare people because they are fear incarnate, then they aren't monsters. However, if they steal every left boot in town and kill the local priest because one of them stubbed his toe and can no longer scare people, then they could very well be monsters.And I hold the opposite opinion. I see monsters as anthropomorphized concepts. The morality of killing a Goblin is the same as the morality of killing, say, terror, or child abduction, or childish malevolence, or whatever the goblin stands for. The morality of killing an Elf (also a monster) is the same as killing stewardship, or beauty, or song, or life/etc, while killing a dwarf is the same as killing honor, work ethic, and duty.

Or I see them as destroying 'force of nature'-type threats - killing orcs and goblins is like putting out a forest fire. The nonperson agent status is what makes them monsters.

Should we, though?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12743161&postcount=506

Yes. The Giant is wrong there, because he's treating fantastic monsters as people. I'm not sure why he needs a bucketload of special immunities to switch his brain from "People" to "Blood-sucking monster that kills people to live" or "Manifestation of Cosmic Evil". Going out into the darkness to fight monsters is fun. It's better to put that fun into a safe space than literally tell people "Stop having fun, guys!"

The Giant sees a game where 'some people are inherently morally inferior to others". I see a game where 'Humans don't have any differences between their subraces".

hamishspence
2015-10-22, 01:08 PM
Why does "treating fantastic monsters as people" have to be wrong?

And what's so "fantastic" about a standard D&D goblin anyway?

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 01:14 PM
Why does "treating fantastic monsters as people" have to be wrong?It's not wrong, but it does limit options. You can have monsters be people, but you don't have to. However, there IS a problem when you get into "They're people, but have inherent cultural tendencies like [Group X]


And what's so "fantastic" about a standard D&D goblin anyway?
If you have to ask, you're probably too jaded.

Segev
2015-10-22, 01:15 PM
And what's so "fantastic" about a standard D&D goblin anyway?

Maybe Christopher Eccleston plays one?

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 01:18 PM
... and David Bowie makes an awesome Goblin King...

Cluedrew
2015-10-22, 01:26 PM
Hawkstar: I think you are missunderstanding the Giant (or maybe I am). I think what he is talking about is not "he's treating fantastic monsters as people" he is "he's turning fantastic monsters to people", or at least I think that is how it would apply here. Because he, in a story world of his creation, gets to say what everything in it actually is. So if he writes goblins as people in a story then (in that story) they are people and not fantastic monsters. It also has some other ideas mixed in there but I think that is a main relevant point.

Anyways a bunch of people slipped in while I was writing this but the point stands.

noob
2015-10-22, 01:35 PM
Do not have only level 50 wizard goblins combining all the TO tricks they can.

Segev
2015-10-22, 01:37 PM
Do not have only level 50 wizard goblins combining all the TO tricks they can.

Yeah, everybody knows those are all kobolds.

noob
2015-10-22, 01:42 PM
No I meant that you had also to put some level 50 goblin priests.
Kobolds never existed in TO world because the Sarruks never created them and did made omnipotence tricks by themselves(Since it is sarrucks which have the ability abused by pun pun for ascending to omnipotence and that sarrucks can do the same TO trick and existed before kobolds).

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 02:00 PM
Hawkstar: I think you are missunderstanding the Giant (or maybe I am). I think what he is talking about is not "he's treating fantastic monsters as people" he is "he's turning fantastic monsters to people", or at least I think that is how it would apply here. Because he, in a story world of his creation, gets to say what everything in it actually is. So if he writes goblins as people in a story then (in that story) they are people and not fantastic monsters. It also has some other ideas mixed in there but I think that is a main relevant point.

Anyways a bunch of people slipped in while I was writing this but the point stands.In the context of his story, that's fine. But he made it clear he wants to make his version of "how D&D goblins should be" be the norm, which I think defeats the purpose entirely.


No I meant that you had also to put some level 50 goblin priests.
Kobolds never existed in TO world because the Sarruks never created them and did made omnipotence tricks by themselves(Since it is sarrucks which have the ability abused by pun pun for ascending to omnipotence and that sarrucks can do the same TO trick and existed before kobolds).

Actually, Sarruhks cannot make use of that ability on themselves. They also aren't the right size.

noob
2015-10-22, 02:16 PM
Actually, Sarruhks cannot make use of that ability on themselves. They also aren't the right size.
No they can in a three step plan:
1: they give the mind slave power to someone else
mindslave:the owner of this power only obeys the sarruchk who gave this power
2: They give a variant of their power without the restrictions to the mind slave
3: They do the trick with that variant of their power.

hamishspence
2015-10-22, 02:54 PM
In the context of his story, that's fine. But he made it clear he wants to make his version of "how D&D goblins should be" be the norm, which I think defeats the purpose entirely.

I think here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16038595&postcount=290) was one of the better examples of the Giant explaining why he feels the whole concept of "Always Evil Orcs" (or goblins, or other D&D humanoids) is a bad thing in general.

Cluedrew
2015-10-22, 03:25 PM
But he made it clear he wants to make his version of "how D&D goblins should be" be the norm, which I think defeats the purpose entirely.The purpose he explicitly states in the linked post is to spread the idea that race/species shouldn't be used to say anything about one's morality. That seems to be helped by changing how D&D goblins are portrayed so I think that is not the purpose you are talking about.

So what purpose are you talking about? I don't mean to be ironic or sarcastic this is a serious question. I've seen you argue against several points but I'm not sure what point you are arguing for.

veti
2015-10-22, 05:44 PM
DO: Remember that goblins are people, and when the PCs kill them, they're killing people, with everything that implies. Imagine how you'd feel about a visually distinct race that habitually murdered yours on sight, and had directly killed several members of your family. And you're a cunning git with access to lethal weaponry and trained to use it, and a large community to back you up.

DON'T: Force the players to think about that. Don't confront them with helpless goblin infants or cripples, or automatic downward alignment shifts for killing. If you do, the game will start to fall apart under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

DO: Remember that in game terms, anything goblins can do, humans can do. What role are you using "goblins" to fill, and why?

DON'T: Rush the PCs with a horde of goblins, unless it's from ambush and the PCs are largely disabled/disadvantaged first. If you were facing a heavily armed enemy who was almost twice your size and was believed to have killed many people before you - would you "fight fair"?

"Race" in D&D is the equivalent of a military uniform, it's designed to tell you who can and can't be killed on sight. If you want the game to be morally nuanced and complex, you're better off not bothering with "races" and just running a game where either everyone is human, or no-one pays the slightest attention to your species. That removes a whole pile of needless distractions from the moral calculus.

Tiri
2015-10-22, 05:52 PM
I clarified, large society of creatures. A single tribe is functional, and it does work. Again your assuming violence equates directly to death. It doesn't have to do so. You can have goblins fighting for petty reasons, humans already do it but we don't tend to devolve to physical violence as our first recourse. A fist fight doesn't necessarily mean death, it just means if two goblins disagree they punch each other until agreement is reached, or one gives up and the winner is the on in the right. The Boss is just the one that is always right.

Think about it this way then. Instead of us using a message board if we were both goblins and we didn't agree about how to portray human creatures in Cattle & Cities we'd punch each other until one of conceded the other was right. If I were The Boss you might concede the point to avoid a beating, or never even bring it up if you didn't want to risk my wrath at all.

It doesn't make sense to have us do that, but then we're not goblins.

I'm not assuming anything. The original post I disagreed with stated that 'Goblins of higher status deliberately fight/kill weaker goblins to assert their dominance. Fights leading to serious injuries and death are a day to day occurrence in goblin society'
and
'They’ll think nothing of sneaking in on another goblin and stabbing them in their sleep, or mutilating them in some fashion'

I'm not opposed to the idea them getting into small fights over relatively petty things (although not all goblins might be inclined to do so) but rather the idea that it would go as far as murder, which, as I said, would prevent any real organization from forming. So I don't disagree with what you are saying here, just the earlier post which listed the above traits. I also don't agree with the Boss simply being the one who can always bully others into doing what he wants. It might work for a while, but eventually, unless he really knows how to lead and protect, he's going to find himself deposed or deserted by his followers.

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 06:54 PM
The purpose he explicitly states in the linked post is to spread the idea that race/species shouldn't be used to say anything about one's morality. That seems to be helped by changing how D&D goblins are portrayed so I think that is not the purpose you are talking about.

So what purpose are you talking about? I don't mean to be ironic or sarcastic this is a serious question. I've seen you argue against several points but I'm not sure what point you are arguing for.

My point is Monsters should be allowed to be monsters who's deaths are treated as 'pest control' instead of monsters, and people who support letting fictional humanoid monsters be inherently monsters shouldn't be accused of harboring real-world prejudices against other people because they have displaced "Racist reasoning".

The Giant has a problem with people not seeing Goblins as People, and said he wants D&D to change to make goblins people instead of monsters, to not teach kids to think of goblins as not people. To which the only response is "Rakanishu!"

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-22, 07:45 PM
The only kind of nonhuman that should be subject to pest control is Kender. Seriously, I saw a Kender wizard once, no idea who he borrowed the magic from.

Hawkstar
2015-10-22, 07:50 PM
The only kind of nonhuman that should be subject to pest control is Kender. Seriously, I saw a Kender wizard once, no idea who he borrowed the magic from.

Goblins are just Kender without the redeeming qualities.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-22, 08:00 PM
GoblinsKender are just KenderGoblins without the redeeming qualities.

Fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

ThinkMinty
2015-10-22, 09:44 PM
My point is Monsters should be allowed to be monsters who's deaths are treated as 'pest control' instead of monsters, and people who support letting fictional humanoid monsters be inherently monsters shouldn't be accused of harboring real-world prejudices against other people because they have displaced "Racist reasoning".

The Giant has a problem with people not seeing Goblins as People, and said he wants D&D to change to make goblins people instead of monsters, to not teach kids to think of goblins as not people. To which the only response is "Rakanishu!"

Guilt-free xenocide isn't a part of everyone's fantasies, and we shouldn't all be obligated to play along. Your deprivation of "pest control" gameplay is tangibly and substantially less harmful to you and your fun than forcing people who affirmatively can't stand that outmoded tribal bull**** to play along is to the fun of people who generally don't like xenocide.

NPCs having motives beyond "Oh, they're just all like that.", even simple ones, make the game more interesting. The Water Elemental might be prejudiced against organic life because he's a ****, so he's trying to drown your asses with alien hugs just because. The Bugbear is a mercenary to support her sick little brother even though some of the jobs she takes kill her on the inside. The Red Dragon kidnapped the princess not because he has a thing for her, but because she was being forced into an arranged marriage, and he's Chaotic Good and wanted to help make things right by setting her free from her gilded cage.

Dragons can still be awful, but it'd be because that individual dragon is a ****, not because all dragons are *****. Maybe she's racist and assumes she's superior because she is a dragon, and she can just go around burning and plundering and devouring humanoids as she pleases because we're little more than lunch that lives in quaint little boxes to her. She might even get defensive about it when confronted by adventurers, stating that dragons are superior and the rest of us need to stop complaining about it. Judging a dragon's morality by the color of its scales rather than the content of its character sheet feels morally repugnant...to some of us.

The Giant is right to point this kind of thing out, because it can and does shape people's opinions about reality. In general, if you find yourself agreeing with Dolores Umbridge about the inherent inferiority of nonhumans, people might start imagining that you're the sort willing to work with evil wizards to exterminate the "impure", or whatever reality's analog to that may be.

NotaBeholder
2015-10-22, 10:35 PM
This seems overly destructive. Even if they are anger-prone, the average goblin is about as smart and wise as the average human (again, in D&D 3.5), and slaughtering your own kind over slights is a very stupid thing to do. Of course, I'm not saying that you are wrong, and to be honest this seems to be the kind of view RPGs encourage about goblins, but it just doesn't seem to me like a race with traits like these is capable of survival.

I’d like to explain my reasoning as to the violence inherent in goblin society, as I see it.
Bear with me, this is detailed but I think this needs to be spelled out.

I've been doing anthropology research - for a new homebrew - and one of the things that struck me most sharply was the high the rates of death from violence in the past. This was particularly so for hunter-gatherer horticulturalist tribal societies.

Development and wealth have a civilising influence. Homicide rates in highly developed modern western societies are really low. Think historical, all-time record low. Rates vary between about 1-2 per 100,000 of population in Western Europe to about 3-6 per 100,000 in North America.

It's a good time to be alive in these places.

In less developed African and Latin America states, the average homicide rate is about 14-18 per 100,000 – better than triple that of developed societies. In sub-Saharan Africa, the rate is above 20 per 100,000.

As we go back in human history and level of development, homicide rates increase dramatically.

In the New England and New Vermont colonies in the 1630s, homicide rates may have been above 100 per 100,000 population, possibly as high as 150 per 100,000 at certain times.

In the US in the early 1800 to 1850s, when there was still a frontier to be settled and little formal law enforcement around, homicide rates above 20 per 100,000 were common. As the frontiers settled and police forces were set up, rates plummeted to about 2-3 per 100,000 by the early 1900s.

Europe gives us a similar story.

In the 1300s and 1400s, Germany and Switzerland both had local areas where homicide rates exceeded 100 per 100,000 population. In the 1600s and 1700s in Italy, homicide rates averaged between 40 and 70 per 100,000, depending on the region. By the 1900s, Italian rate were down under 8 per 100,000 and the rest of Europe was down to about 4-5 per 100,000.

The past was a violent place.

Now, push back further along the human development time line, to pre-industrial populations. We don’t have any historical societies handy, but there have been studies done of within the last 50 years of hunter-gatherer horticulturalist groups in the Amazon basin, central Africa and Papua New Guinea, which make a very good analogue.

These studies show that between 20 and 60 percent of all deaths in these societies occurred due to warfare between local groups, with the average at about 30 percent.

That's a phenomenal figure. Nearly one in three deaths in your society occur because of conflicts with other groups.

When you add intra-group conflict - admittedly not too prevalent, due to exceptionally heavy-handed in-group punishments (read: death or exile) – then somewhere around 40 percent of all deaths in these societies – on average – were due to murders. In groups living in marginal areas, with higher resource competition, this rate only gets higher.

Now, extrapolate that out to goblins (or at least, my interpretation of goblins):

They’re naturally more violent than humans
They’re less intelligent than humans
They have less impulse control, almost no ability for empathy and very little conscience or planning capabilities beyond their immediate wants/needs
They’re more marginalised than humans and have to compete more fiercely for resources
They exist in a fantasy world that is more violent than our real own (even the distant past)

I’d argue then that the prevailing ‘natural’ cause of death for a goblin is finding itself at the wrong end of a pointy metallic thing.

As I see it goblins live in a state of almost continual conflict – with others in their own groups, with other tribes of goblins and with other races. Fights, stealing, revenge cycles, backstabbing, intimidation, ect are just a way of life to goblins.

It’s an insane mentality – from a human point of view. But for a goblin, it’s just business as usual.

The main thing that keeps goblins going as a species is their phenomenal birth rates and the fact they reach full maturity in less time than any other race. There are just too many of them to wipe out, and even if you do kill most of them, they’ll be back to overpopulation status in under a single human generation.

Tiri
2015-10-23, 12:25 AM
Well, I'm still not too convinced they would be able to cooperate effectively. At least you gave some good reasons for why they act that way, like being stupider and less controlled than humans. I don't really like those, but it's your homebrew, so you're free to make goblins any way you want. Thanks for taking the time to explain, though.

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 04:45 AM
Alternatively, the word "monster" in D&D could be treated, as is implied in most MMs, as synonymous with "creature".

goto124
2015-10-23, 04:54 AM
It's better to put that fun into a safe space than literally tell people "Stop having fun, guys!"

DO: Tell the players how your races work. Are they 'people' who derserve some level of humanlike respect? Are they monsters who can be killed with no remorse? Is there a combination, and if so which races are okay and not okay to kill?

Tiri
2015-10-23, 05:06 AM
Alternatively, the word "monster" in D&D could be treated, as is implied in most MMs, as synonymous with "creature".

That still leaves you having to decide how to treat certain creatures.

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 05:15 AM
For creatures that are naturally INT 2 or less - probably the same way we treat animals.

Just as we'd frown on somebody who slaughters a random animal "for kicks" but approve of someone who protects others from an aggressive, predatory animal that is clearly attacking or about to attack.

For average natural INT 3+, treating them the same way we'd treat a human in the same situation - so - you'd treat an orc shopkeeper in a city, for example, exactly the way you'd treat a human shopkeeper.

Tiri
2015-10-23, 06:34 AM
Well, that doesn't actually change much. Like people have been saying, either we treat creatures/monsters as people or we don't. You are saying that we should treat them as people, which I'm sure many people agree with, but the basic argument hasn't changed, just the word used to describe these entities.

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 06:40 AM
It gets around the argument about "the word "monster" is dehumanizing" though.

And it's not like humans haven't been in the "Monster Manual" in editions before and after 3e.

Renaming it "in your head" the "creature catalogue" solves the problem.

Tiri
2015-10-23, 06:50 AM
That's true, I suppose.

Cluedrew
2015-10-23, 07:01 AM
My point is Monsters should be allowed to be monstersOK. I mostly agree with you except for the fact that allowing for this disallows for more human portrayals of a monster. Maybe not in the same work but in disconnected works it should be fine.

Maybe this is just how I approach writing, making things up for writing and hence how I view other's writing; but I feel that anything in the story that doesn't exist in real life is just constructed by the author with as much or as little connection to real life as they want. So having contradictory representations with the same collection of letters used to identify them is fine with me.

I do agree that "monsters as monsters" do have some use, a very simple example is in a straight dungeon crawl where enemies are just stat blocks. If I want to roll dice against a stat block I don't want (nor do I believe that most people want) to equate that with hurting actual people. It may not be some lofty "higher entertainment" but... we as long as people understand the distinction, most people I know seem to, I don't think it is a problem.

goto124
2015-10-23, 07:17 AM
So having contradictory representations with the same collection of letters used to identify them is fine with me.

Yup, as long as you don't contradict yourself (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Consistency). Verisimilitude, not realism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief) (even though verisimilitude does have its basis in realism).

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 07:21 AM
I do agree that "monsters as monsters" do have some use, a very simple example is in a straight dungeon crawl where enemies are just stat blocks. If I want to roll dice against a stat block I don't want (nor do I believe that most people want) to equate that with hurting actual people. It may not be some lofty "higher entertainment" but... we as long as people understand the distinction, most people I know seem to, I don't think it is a problem.

That's what homebrewing is for. Nobody's objecting to people changing the system to create The Game of Guilt-Free Xenocide - just to the idea that it should be the default.

AceOfFools
2015-10-23, 07:31 AM
My point is Monsters should be allowed to be monsters who's deaths are treated as 'pest control'
If you want that, there are a ton of monsters in DnD and elsewhere that can do that just fine without being biological humanoids that require societies and human-like behaviors to function. Wolves, demons, undead, etc.

When you play with creature that are humans with different cosmetic features and thought process as automatically monsterous, you DO imply that people with cosmetic differences and differing thought process are likewise not people, regardless of your intent.

Subtext matters. Ignoring it will not make your game better.

In summary: DO make any monsters that are not people explictly not work like people. This should include a fantastic origin and obviously monsterous means of surviving or reproducing.

Hawkstar
2015-10-23, 07:45 AM
That's what homebrewing is for. Nobody's objecting to people changing the system to create The Game of Guilt-Free Xenocide - just to the idea that it should be the default.Well, it is and should be the default for D&D and any other system that's balanced around encounters/day.
If you want that, there are a ton of monsters in DnD and elsewhere that can do that just fine without being biological humanoids that require societies and human-like behaviors to function. Wolves, demons, undead, etc.

When you play with creature that are humans with different cosmetic features and thought process as automatically monsterous, you DO imply that people with cosmetic differences and differing thought process are likewise not people, regardless of your intent.

Subtext matters. Ignoring it will not make your game better.

In summary: DO make any monsters that are not people explictly not work like people. This should include a fantastic origin and obviously monsterous means of surviving or reproducing.The thing about wolves/demons/undead/etc is that they come with a whole lot of extra baggage - most don't/can't wear armor or use weapons and humanlike tactics, and the rest come with a whole slew of resistances and immunities that are not necessary. The role of goblins is to be enemies that fight like humans, to provide a challenge similar to fighting humans without needing to actually be killing/hurting humans. The differences have to be seemingly-cosmetic on first blush to achieve the needed symmetry in the challenge. You need goblin fortresses to storm, ranks of goblin pikemen to hack through without getting skewered, goblin swordsmen to cross blades with, while goblin archers rain death from afar, and goblin skulkers sneak around to stab you in the back. And the have useable weapons and armor to loot.


also: Goblins and orcs do have monstrous origins - They're created by evil gods to be soldiers to wage war on the world.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-23, 08:31 AM
also: Goblins and orcs do have monstrous origins - They're created by evil gods to be soldiers to wage war on the world.

Really? Because I was talking to Jeff the hobgoblin and he's pretty sure that he was created to be a chef. He has no aggressive tendencies whatsoever, and just wanted to create great food for all his customers and pals.

He also happens to be a hobgoblin made by Orkus, god of orks.

Please stop presenting one case as the way. I know that it might be a common origin, but it's not the only one.

EDIT: he was created with the Orcus Porcus spell, of course. 10th level spell that creates orcs and goblinoids. There is, of course, a higher level version that creates many of them, Hordus Porcus.

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 08:32 AM
also: Goblins and orcs do have monstrous origins - They're created by evil gods to be soldiers to wage war on the world.

That sounds to me more like "headcanon" than like something every MM has explicitly spelled out.

Hawkstar
2015-10-23, 08:45 AM
That sounds to me more like "headcanon" than like something every MM has explicitly spelled out.Gruumsh disagrees.

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 08:47 AM
For all we know, Orcs came first, Grummsh came second, and his "I created the orcs" claim is pure propaganda.

Hawkstar
2015-10-23, 08:55 AM
For all we know, Orcs came first, Grummsh came second, and his "I created the orcs" claim is pure propaganda.
Primary Source (Player's Handbook) disagrees.

Tiri
2015-10-23, 09:00 AM
Just because the orcs were created by Gruumsh for the sole purpose of rampant murder and conquest doesn't make them have to do it. They have free will, and can choose not to follow him if they like. They can be evil, but it is also possible for them to be neutral or good. The Monster Manual itself says so. They are clearly not just monsters that deserve death by default because they are always evil, because they aren't. Same goes for goblins. In fact, the goblins don't even have the whole 'murder and conquest' purpose for their creation. Anyway, Gruumsh and the purpose he had for the orcs were just made up so players could feel good about killing sentient beings. Which should not be the case, at least by default.

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 09:03 AM
Primary Source (Player's Handbook) disagrees.

The specific lines?

Hawkstar
2015-10-23, 09:05 AM
Just because the orcs were created by Gruumsh for the sole purpose of rampant murder and conquest doesn't make them have to do it. They have free will, and can choose not to follow him if they like. They can be evil, but it is also possible for them to be neutral or good. The Monster Manual itself says so. They are clearly not just monsters that deserve death by default because they are always evil, because they aren't. Same goes for goblins. In fact, the goblins don't even have the whole 'murder and conquest' purpose for their creation. Anyway, Gruumsh and the purpose he had for the orcs were just made up so players could feel good about killing sentient beings. The monster manual says any orc that tries to turn from evil still has its inherent evil drawing it back down. Free Will is spelled out in the player's handbook as what separates the "Good" god's creations (Humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, etc) from the Evil God's creations (orcs, goblins, gnolls, etc.)


Which should not be the case, at least by default.So, you're saying that the RPG system is designed so that 90% of all character's class features and abilities are useless? Or is the purpose of fireball to start bonfires to keep people warm, and... what are we supposed to do with all these swords?

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 09:06 AM
Ah yes: 5e.

Not 4e, 3e, 2e, 1e, etc.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-23, 09:13 AM
Ah yes: 5e.

Not 4e, 3e, 2e, 1e, etc.

I believe a couple of earlier editions had the idea that evil gods tried to hamper free will, but never got as far as 'non-evil orcs have their evil habits pulling them back'.

A sort of 'enough orcs are evil that you can kill those that attack you, but it's evil to hunt them down and kill them all'.

Tiri
2015-10-23, 09:14 AM
So, you're saying that the RPG system is designed so that 90% of all character's class features and abilities are useless? Or is the purpose of fireball to start bonfires to keep people warm, and... what are we supposed to do with all these swords?

No, I'm saying that no creature should be a default target. Fireballs and swords are for dealing with those who have actually done something wrong, not small green people with fangs. They could be small green people with fangs who had done something wrong, but they could also be humans who had done something wrong. And starting bonfires isn't a bad use for a fireball, if you have nothing else you need to do with it.


'enough orcs are evil that you can kill those that attack you, but it's evil to hunt them down and kill them all'.

That's not really necessary. If someone attacks you with lethal force, you have the right to respond accordingly, be they human, orc, goblin or elf.

AceOfFools
2015-10-23, 09:29 AM
NPCs having motives beyond "Oh, they're just all like that.", even simple ones, make the game more interesting.

I just want to highlight this.

Making goblins with varied motives (and builds and tactics) improves the game, and that's why I'm advocating it.

I even advocate doing so if you are playing with over the top, unrealistic monster goblins.

E.g. the archer goblin is a coward first, and only fights if their targets can't meaningfully return fire. The beserker goblin loves bloodshed, and won't even consider survival or exit strategis until it is too late. The otherwise craven goblin enters melee in hopes of getting a magic bauble; if someone goes down he'll grab the ring from their finger and run.

goto124
2015-10-23, 09:32 AM
If the first 5 times the players meet <members of a fantasy race/species>, the <species members> are trying to kill them, guess what happens on the 6th time the players meet them, even if <species members> are sitting around a campfire eating?

I'm not sure what happens in the case of humans (which exist IRL - heck we're members of the human race/species). But humans hardly get to be the hack n' slash race. I think.

Tiri
2015-10-23, 09:48 AM
If the first 5 times the players meet <members of a fantasy race/species>, the <species members> are trying to kill them, guess what happens on the 6th time the players meet them, even if <species members> are sitting around a campfire eating?

I'm not sure what happens in the case of humans (which exist IRL - heck we're members of the human race/species). But humans hardly get to be the hack n' slash race. I think.

Well, if the characters are good-aligned, I don't think they would just kill the <species members> right away. Neutral or evil ones might, though. Of course, it also depends on the species. The typical player is used to goblins and orcs and similar creatures being default targets, so if the species was one of those, instantly attacking would be more likely. It might still happen if it were dwarves or gnomes or some other more humanlike race, but it's not so likely.

hamishspence
2015-10-23, 09:51 AM
"In the Wilderness" or "in the dungeon" may put characters on something of a hair trigger.

By contrast, if you're in a town, seeing a bunch of people in a shop queuing up, and about half-way along the line is a goblin - even the most "hack-and-slash" players may at least ask the question "Why is everyone else in the shop treating the goblin as a fellow customer?".

YossarianLives
2015-10-23, 12:00 PM
The only problem with most of Hawkstar's arguments is that they ate completely setting dependant. What if Gruumsh doesn't exist in my setting? One of the beauties of TTRPGs is that the fluff is mutable and anything can be changed. I don't care what the Player's Handbook says. When I'm the DM I decide what exists in my campaign world and it doesn't matter what the game's designers recommend.

Svata
2015-10-23, 12:10 PM
The only problem with most of Hawkstar's arguments is that they ate completely setting dependant. What if Gruumsh doesn't exist in my setting? One of the beauties of TTRPGs is that the fluff is mutable and anything can be changed. I don't care what the Player's Handbook says. When I'm the DM I decide what exists in my campaign world and it doesn't matter what the game's designers recommend.

Indeed. Fluff is beautiful, because it is mutable.

Cluedrew
2015-10-23, 12:57 PM
True and I have never actually played in one of the standard D&D settings. I have played games that never really contradicted the standard D&D interpretation of things but never one have I played a game in "the Forgotten Realms" or "a part of Eberron".

I understand why the "goblins as monsters" is useful (especially in a combat orientated game) but I still don't believe that should rule out other uses of goblins. I suppose there are some very basic features of a goblin that should stay the same, otherwise you might as well use a different name. But I wouldn't count evil as among those. Since it is very on topic for the thread some of the base features I would associate with goblins are:

Small: About half as tall as a human and with some altered proportions to go along with that.

Skin Tone: If not green goblins tend to have some colouration not found in humans. It is usually green though.

Unrefined: Not to say barbaric or without culture but the culture they have has a tendency to be rough around the edges and based around simple things.

Communal: When goblins don't stick together they usually are quite close with there non-goblin friends. In some of the darker portrayals this really just means 'swarm tactics' but it is there anyways.

Disrespected: I hate to say this one but even if individual goblins have earned respect as a whole the race is rarely on even footing with those around it.

There aren't all necessary, but they are the most common features I have observed.

Hawkstar
2015-10-23, 04:43 PM
I don't have a problem with people making goblins people in their campaigns. I have a problem with people saying that if you don't make goblins people, you're a racist, like AceOfFool's post did.

AceOfFools
2015-10-23, 11:38 PM
I don't have a problem with people making goblins people in their campaigns. I have a problem with people saying that if you don't make goblins people, you're a racist, like AceOfFool's post did.

I did not say that people who don't make goblins people are are racists.

In fact I said that what they are doing has racist subtext, even if they aren't themselves racist. That's what I meant by "regardless."

I then gave advice on how to reduce racist subtext if you want to make goblins monsters that are not people.

Subtext matters.
----
To put it in on-topic format:

DO: Pay attention to the subtext of your fictional creations. You don't want to imply something you don't actually believe.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-24, 03:49 AM
I don't have a problem with people making goblins people in their campaigns. I have a problem with people saying that if you don't make goblins people, you're a racist, like AceOfFool's post did.

I did not say that people who don't make goblins people are are racists.

In fact I said that what they are doing has racist subtext, even if they aren't themselves racist. That's what I meant by "regardless."

I then gave advice on how to reduce racist subtext if you want to make goblins monsters that are not people.

Subtext matters.

To put it in on-topic format:

DO: Pay attention to the subtext of your fictional creations. You don't want to imply something you don't actually believe.

This is one of the major reasons I ask this stuff. I wanna distinguish between what makes the creature the creature, and what comes from racist bull**** from the authors of forever ago. There was a nice Cracked article about how to revamp fantasy creatures on this subject, and it made me think about Goblins enough to include 'em again.

Tiri
2015-10-24, 09:21 AM
I think it's less racism and more the desire for players to have a default target that made the original designers of D&D put in all the bull**** that they did. The bull**** in question is them being described without any redeeming qualities and having gods that force them to always be evil. As for what makes goblins goblins, I'm afraid everyone is going to have their own ideas about it, so you'll just have to sift out what you like from their suggestions here.

Personally, goblins in my mind have these traits:

Cowardly: As a result of being smaller and weaker than many other creatures. Not to mention that many other races distrust and hate them by default, and some even have special training to kill them (dwarves and gnomes).

Xenophobic: They are generally fearful and distrustful of non-goblins, but do not attack unless they have a numerical or obvious physical advantage. A goblin caught alone in the midst of non-goblins will try to ingratiate itself with those around it as quickly as possible, or flee if this proves unsuccessful or unviable.

Trusting of each other: Since they see almost everything other than themselves that moves as a potential threat, they naturally band together to create a mutual sense of safety. This tends to make it easy for bonds of trust to be formed. The only exception to this rule are blues, who are feared for their ability to manipulate others and the innate powers they possess.

Unscrupulous fighters: They like to make use of their natural penchant for stealth to catch foes off guard and like to set traps in the areas they expect to fight in. They also attack in the dark whenever they can, using their darkvision.

goto124
2015-10-24, 09:33 AM
Something something Warhammer's Orks fungus people something something.

Grim Portent
2015-10-24, 10:25 AM
Something something Warhammer's Orks fungus people something something.

DO: Remember' a Grot ain't just for carryin' stuff yoo don' wan' ta, it's also fer cookin', cleanin', throwin' things at and eatin' when yoo's peckish.

DON'T: Let tha little runts start thinkin' dey's a proppa part o' da WAAAGH!!! Dey'll get ambiti... ambish... big 'eaded and start talkin' back.

DO: Giv' em some pointy sticks or sumfin', it's proppa funny when dey tries ta fight humies on horses or some o' dem spiky crazies an' get squished.

DON'T: Botha ta learn deir names, dey's just gonna get crumped in a few days anyway.

Hawkstar
2015-10-24, 03:12 PM
I did not say that people who don't make goblins people are are racists.

In fact I said that what they are doing has racist subtext, even if they aren't themselves racist. That's what I meant by "regardless."

I then gave advice on how to reduce racist subtext if you want to make goblins monsters that are not people.

Subtext matters.
----
To put it in on-topic format:

DO: Pay attention to the subtext of your fictional creations. You don't want to imply something you don't actually believe.
Eh... I find it to be a much better subtext than "People who perform certain activities or associate with groups I don't like are subhuman monsters that deserve to be killed."

Tiri
2015-10-24, 07:59 PM
Eh... I find it to be a much better subtext than "People who perform certain activities or associate with groups I don't like are subhuman monsters that deserve to be killed."

I don't think that's fair. Most of the time in roleplaying games, you kill people who have either done something sufficiently bad to merit it (like murder), or tried to kill you while you attempted to bring them to justice, which are both valid reasons to kill someone (either because you set out to do so or had to defend yourself with lethal force). Certain people deserve death. They don't have to be subhuman monsters (although they are monsters. Just not subhuman).

ThinkMinty
2015-10-25, 02:18 AM
It's the intrinsic alignment thing. I just don't like it, it implies free will is for Humans and everyone else is just born that way. In a weird way, it robs all the always-evil monsters of any agency, undermining the whole "they're bad" argument since they didn't choose it of their own volition.


Eh... I find it to be a much better subtext than "People who perform certain activities or associate with groups I don't like are subhuman monsters that deserve to be killed."

Your use of subhuman might be kinda digging you deeper in terms of the whole mistaken for racism thing.

Deserving a morally upright Disintegrate to the face and being a monster are two entirely different things. A Goblin giving orphans ice cream deserves commendation, an Aasimar stabbing puppies because they're bored needs a knee to the chops at the very least. An Orc spending an daddy-daughter afternoon with his half-Orc daughter at the county fair is being a good dad, an elf trading in slaves needs their head liberated from their shoulders. I could go on all day with this. Doesn't matter who your parents are, matters what you do.

Tiri
2015-10-25, 02:49 AM
Deserving a morally upright Disintegrate to the face and being a monster are two entirely different things.

Assuming by 'monster' you mean 'having a monstrous appearance', because I'm sure an elf slaver would be considered a monster.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-25, 02:58 AM
Assuming by 'monster' you mean 'having a monstrous appearance', because I'm sure an elf slaver would be considered a monster.

Ah. I'd use the term garbage to describe the elf slaver. Monsters have their uses, slavers are disposable.

Hawkstar
2015-10-25, 07:14 AM
It's the intrinsic alignment thing. I just don't like it, it implies free will is for Humans and everyone else is just born that way. In a weird way, it robs all the always-evil monsters of any agency, undermining the whole "they're bad" argument since they didn't choose it of their own volition.That's what makes them monsters instead of people. Termites, carpenter bees, rats, and other vermin don't willingly choose to be destructive pests either, but that doesn't stop us from calling an exterminator. Making them smart enough to understand calculus doesn't change that - There is no mental stat representing free will and agency.


Your use of subhuman might be kinda digging you deeper in terms of the whole mistaken for racism thing. People are not and cannot be monsters, no matter how horrific and vile their acts are. Every person is entitled to an inalienable right to life. Everyone has their own side of the story.. To deprive someone of that right is to treat them as less than human.


Deserving a morally upright Disintegrate to the face and being a monster are two entirely different things. A Goblin giving orphans ice cream deserves commendation, an Aasimar stabbing puppies because they're bored needs a knee to the chops at the very least. An Orc spending an daddy-daughter afternoon with his half-Orc daughter at the county fair is being a good dad, an elf trading in slaves needs their head liberated from their shoulders. I could go on all day with this. Doesn't matter who your parents are, matters what you do.Unless that goblin is using that ice cream to lure orphans away from safety and turn them into more goblins, or the orc is teaching his daughter how to pillage a village when it's most bountiful and vulnerable.:smalltongue: Or you're playing in a setting where orcs and goblins are people.

I don't think that's fair. Most of the time in roleplaying games, you kill people who have either done something sufficiently bad to merit it (like murder), or tried to kill you while you attempted to bring them to justice, which are both valid reasons to kill someone (either because you set out to do so or had to defend yourself with lethal force). Certain people deserve death. They don't have to be subhuman monsters (although they are monsters. Just not subhuman).So, your fantasies say not all people have an inalienable right to life. That's no less wrong than deciding not everything capable of fighting with human weapons are people.


... sometimes, you want to be able to tell a story about a group of people making their way and surviving in a strange new and somewhat hostile world without having the untold story of alien invaders conquering and subjugating the known world.

Dammit, now I want to see or read a version of War of the Worlds from the aliens' perspectives - what made them leave Mars, did they even know they were destroying intelligent life? Did they fire their first shots in fear of the unknown natives? How did they emotionally handle the horror of realizing they had contracted fatal diseases?

And what about Minecraft from the perspective of the critters and 'monsters'?

Tiri
2015-10-25, 08:50 AM
That's what makes them monsters instead of people. Termites, carpenter bees, rats, and other vermin don't willingly choose to be destructive pests either, but that doesn't stop us from calling an exterminator. Making them smart enough to understand calculus doesn't change that - There is no mental stat representing free will and agency.

Actually, I think Intelligence is that stat (in D&D 3.5). Only mindless creatures have no ability to rebel against the purpose they were created for.


People are not and cannot be monsters, no matter how horrific and vile their acts are. Every person is entitled to an inalienable right to life. Everyone has their own side of the story. To deprive someone of that right is to treat them as less than human.

People deprive themselves of their inalienable right to life when they commit horrific and vile acts.


Unless that goblin is using that ice cream to lure orphans away from safety and turn them into more goblins, or the orc is teaching his daughter how to pillage a village when it's most bountiful and vulnerable.:smalltongue:

If they were doing those things, that's true, but that's not what he said they were doing. Of course, these things can only happen in a setting where goblins and orcs are people.


So, your fantasies say not all people have an inalienable right to life. That's no less wrong than deciding not everything capable of fighting with human weapons are people.

It's not just my fantasy, it's what I believe. It just happens to extend to my fantasies. Also, I don't think the way you like to use your goblins is wrong. You are free to portray them in your own games however you wish. I just don't like the way you talk as if your way should be the way everyone does it.



And what about Minecraft from the perspective of the critters and 'monsters'?

They probably view players as immortal murderers.

hamishspence
2015-10-26, 02:13 AM
Every person is entitled to an inalienable right to life. Everyone has their own side of the story.. To deprive someone of that right is to treat them as less than human.

Or alternatively:


Murder of murderers, rapists, and others who go out of their way to ruin the lives of innocents (Such as kidnappers, and people who attach bombs to people to force them to do stuff, etc,) is 100% indisputably Good, even if the orderly Law of a Neutral state says they should go free. Lawful Good people are not beholden to unjust laws, such as those that protect murderers and rapists.

Wouldn't that mean murdering any murderer - even a human murderer - who is a person - is 100% Good?

noob
2015-10-26, 02:43 AM
Well it is weird to do ethics speeches in games where people nearly always kills.
I think that no matter what people do not deserve to dies even if they were made of pure evil and killed thousand of civilizations(those are called adventurers)

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-26, 04:02 AM
Wouldn't that mean murdering any murderer - even a human murderer - who is a person - is 100% Good?

I believe he meant killing them is good (I'd disagree, I say evil actions [murder] for a good cause [stopping bad people] is neutral, if you want brownie points take them alive and get evidence, then deliver to a just authority [okay, that's Lawful Good, other good types can dispense non-lethal justice]).

GloatingSwine
2015-10-26, 04:07 AM
Wouldn't that mean murdering any murderer - even a human murderer - who is a person - is 100% Good?


But then of course you'd be a murderer, and murdering you is 100% good...

Hawkstar
2015-10-26, 07:28 AM
Actually, I think Intelligence is that stat (in D&D 3.5). Only mindless creatures have no ability to rebel against the purpose they were created for.No, intelligence is not that stat. All intelligence means is that it has memory, the ability to engage in two-way communication, and problem-solving ability.

Of course, D&D allows for exceptions to everything, even "always", simply to increase design space for DMs. They don't have to make every goblin or devil ever completely evil. There might be some that possess an inherent sense of compassion.

... That might be an interesting character concept. A nonevil member of a monstrous race that seems to be arbitrarily ruthless toward their own kind, because it knows that most of them are soulless monsters, yet can also sense those that aren't.
Wouldn't that mean murdering any murderer - even a human murderer - who is a person - is 100% Good?

My opinions don't have to be consistent between threads and subforums!

hamishspence
2015-10-26, 07:48 AM
Mine do.


In the context of something generic like "killing, in D&D, in general" it would be nice to know what you really think.


Arguing that "humans have an inalienable right to life but goblins don't" doesn't seem consistent with the argument that "All Evil-aligned adversaries, human or otherwise, forfeit their "right to life".

Tiri
2015-10-26, 07:52 AM
No, intelligence is not that stat. All intelligence means is that it has memory, the ability to engage in two-way communication, and problem-solving ability.

Well, that seems to be what the D&D imply, if not say outright. Most mindless creatures are neutral, and the only good or evil ones are that way because of inherent 'goodness' or 'evilness' involved in their creation. None of them have the possibility of changing alignment, while all creatures with an Intelligence score can change their alignment, even if it's a demon changing to Lawful Good, or any other implausible alignment. There are numerous examples of such creatures everywhere. Just look.


Of course, D&D allows for exceptions to everything, even "always", simply to increase design space for DMs. They don't have to make every goblin or devil ever completely evil. There might be some that possess an inherent sense of compassion.

This is not something that an exception needs to be made for. The rules explicitly say not every goblin is evil, and even devils can become nonevil.


That might be an interesting character concept. A nonevil member of a monstrous race that seems to be arbitrarily ruthless toward their own kind, because it knows that most of them are soulless monsters, yet can also sense those that aren't.

Sounds like a badly played paladin.


My opinions don't have to be consistent between threads and subforums!

Why not?

Hawkstar
2015-10-26, 07:53 AM
Mine do.


In the context of something generic like "killing, in D&D, in general" it would be nice to know what you really think.


Arguing that "humans have an inalienable right to life but goblins don't" doesn't seem consistent with the argument that "All Evil-aligned adversaries, human or otherwise, forfeit their "right to life".

It's more of "Enough people believe that Real people have an inalienable right to life that I'm going to agree, but in fantasy games, it's okay to make killing facsimiles of people I vehemently disagree with morally justified. Or maybe Good is not good."

hamishspence
2015-10-26, 07:54 AM
The role of goblins is to be enemies that fight like humans, to provide a challenge similar to fighting humans without needing to actually be killing/hurting humans. The differences have to be seemingly-cosmetic on first blush to achieve the needed symmetry in the challenge. You need goblin fortresses to storm, ranks of goblin pikemen to hack through without getting skewered, goblin swordsmen to cross blades with, while goblin archers rain death from afar, and goblin skulkers sneak around to stab you in the back. And the have useable weapons and armor to loot.

You don't actually need goblins for this kind of challenge - all you need is humans + satisfactory justification (like a bandit camp with a long history of murdering travellers).

Tiri
2015-10-26, 07:59 AM
It's more of "Enough people believe that Real people have an inalienable right to life that I'm going to agree, but in fantasy games, it's okay to make killing facsimiles of people I vehemently disagree with morally justified. Or maybe Good is not good."

Sometimes it's necessary, and even acceptable, to kill people. For example, if they are murderers, tried to kill you for no good reason, or really any variation on murder or slave-taking or something similarly bad. This is true in both real life and fantasy games, but I don't want to bring up too many real-life examples here to make my point. Like hamishspence said, all you need is for it to be suitably justified.

Hawkstar
2015-10-26, 08:03 AM
Well, that seems to be what the D&D imply, if not say outright. Most mindless creatures are neutral, and the only good or evil ones are that way because of inherent 'goodness' or 'evilness' involved in their creation. None of them have the possibility of changing alignment, while all creatures with an Intelligence score can change their alignment, even if it's a demon changing to Lawful Good, or any other implausible alignment. There are numerous examples of such creatures everywhere. Just look.



This is not something that an exception needs to be made for. The rules explicitly say not every goblin is evil, and even devils can become nonevil.If the rules weren't made to allow for the exceptions, they wouldn't say not every goblin is evil and even devils can become nonevil. (Though 3rd edition states devils and other fiends will not stop being evil unless by special DM exemption or being hit by Sanctify the Wicked)



Sounds like a badly played paladin.Ehh... Paladins lack the 'inside perspective' that members of the race possess.
You don't actually need goblins for this kind of challenge - all you need is humans + satisfactory justification (like a bandit camp with a long history of murdering travellers).All your doing here is reducing and dehumanizing humans into a caricature. If you're going to paint humans like orcs, might as well use orcs. Real people, even 'bandits', have their own side of their lives' stories.


Sometimes it's necessary, and even acceptable, to kill people. For example, if they are murderers, tried to kill you for no good reason, or really any variation on murder or slave-taking or something similarly bad. This is true in both real life and fantasy games, but I don't want to bring up too many real-life examples here to make my point. Like hamishspence said, all you need is for it to be suitably justified. Eh... where I live, it's only acceptable to kill someone if they are actively assaulting you with a real risk of death or life-changing injury or trauma (and even then, only if there's no other way to stop them).

AceOfFools
2015-10-26, 08:26 AM
People are not and cannot be monsters, no matter how horrific and vile their acts are. Every person is entitled to an inalienable right to life.
See, this is the crux of the issue.

I (and many others) don't believe this is true, and I certainly don't think it's a solid moral framework to have for a campaign that regularly involves lethal fights.

Hawkstar clearly does (at least for the purposes of this thread).

We cannot achieve any agreement when arguing from different premises.

The rules if this forum specifically ban discussing real world politics and religion. I don't think we can meaningfully argue which creatures have what inalienable rights without breaking this rule. I certainly can't.

Tl,dr: Hawkstar and I will have to agree to disagree.

Tiri
2015-10-26, 08:26 AM
If the rules weren't made to allow for the exceptions, they wouldn't say not every goblin is evil and even devils can become nonevil. (Though 3rd edition states devils and other fiends will not stop being evil unless by special DM exemption or being hit by Sanctify the Wicked)

For devils, maybe, but all it really says that they can only become nonevil under special circumstances. Given the large amount of fiends present in most settings, isn't it almost a given at least a few would have changed alignment? As for goblins, it is made quite clear in the Monster Manual only over 50% of them are evil. That still leaves up to 49% who are neutral or good. Hardly exceptional.


Ehh... Paladins lack the 'inside perspective' that members of the race possess.All your doing here is reducing and dehumanizing humans into a caricature. If you're going to paint humans like orcs, might as well use orcs. Real people, even 'bandits', have their own side of their lives' stories.

Doesn't stop them from being murderers deserving of death. Also, how does it make them into caricatures? Bandits who murdered people were once a common thing.


Eh... where I live, it's only acceptable to kill someone if they are actively assaulting you with a real risk of death or life-changing injury or trauma (and even then, only if there's no other way to stop them).

Isn't that the reason for the majority of killings in games like D&D? Bandits came at me with swords, so I cut them down. Anyway, if we can't agree on certain aspects of a fantasy game on an internet forum, I doubt we can on our real-world moral codes, so maybe we should just lay that argument aside.

Hawkstar
2015-10-26, 08:52 AM
For devils, maybe, but all it really says that they can only become nonevil under special circumstances. Given the large amount of fiends present in most settings, isn't it almost a given at least a few would have changed alignment? As for goblins, it is made quite clear in the Monster Manual only over 50% of them are evil. That still leaves up to 49% who are neutral or good. Hardly exceptional. Over 50% of them are Neutral Evil alone. Leaving only 49% at most to be divided among Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral, and the Goods. But even then, instead of only having individuals be exceptions, this allows entire communities/groups to be exceptions. Not "30% of the Goblin Camp is Nonevil", but "This entire Goblin trie is the only nonevil one out of the four that dominate the region"


Doesn't stop them from being murderers deserving of death. Also, how does it make them into caricatures? Bandits who murdered people were once a common thing.They're also people, with their own stories and reasons for what they do.


Isn't that the reason for the majority of killings in games like D&D? Bandits came at me with swords, so I cut them down.Normally the player characters are more proactive.

Anyway, if we can't agree on certain aspects of a fantasy game on an internet forum, I doubt we can on our real-world moral codes, so maybe we should just lay that argument aside.Probably for the best, at this point. I think all the arguments have been laid out.

Tiri
2015-10-26, 09:01 AM
Over 50% of them are Neutral Evil alone. Leaving only 49% at most to be divided among Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral, and the Goods. But even then, instead of only having individuals be exceptions, this allows entire communities/groups to be exceptions. Not "30% of the Goblin Camp is Nonevil", but "This entire Goblin trie is the only nonevil one out of the four that dominate the region"

Well, that's up to whatever DM is running the game.


They're also people, with their own stories and reasons for what they do.

Doesn't mean they aren't murdering bandits who deserve death. Which makes them a perfectly viable target for PCs.


Normally the player characters are more proactive.

Maybe because they already know the bandits are dangerous murderers?

hamishspence
2015-10-26, 09:31 AM
They're also people, with their own stories and reasons for what they do.

And the point of Start of Darkness is that goblins are people, with their own stories and reasons for what they do.

It's not the only D&D-centric story that takes that kind of tack for various "monsters", either.

Tiri
2015-10-26, 09:56 AM
I think he was talking about his own setting. I didn't want to point out what you did because it would just start the old argument all over again.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-26, 10:03 AM
I think he was talking about his own setting. I didn't want to point out what you did because it would just start the old argument all over again.

Let's be honest, it's going to start again anyway. I'm not certain we can rescue this thread and make it be people sharing their interpretation of goblins again. I'm really ashamed that I kicked it off now.

8BitNinja
2015-10-26, 10:06 AM
How I see a goblin: 1 HP

How you guys seem to see goblins: fbeIKUMGBCOFLWCKMN;VGEBQM OANG imnwaeyvmw auvmvin ;m

Hawkstar
2015-10-26, 10:10 AM
Well, if you want to have one about Orcs, I've got some entertaining DOs for them (Make them ridiculous. Orcs-as-generic-badguys and Orcs-as-misunderstood-primitives have both been done to death. Nobody, however, has seen Tony Horc and his pro Skatorcs, nor the Orcvenger Helorcarrier with Tony Storc (Iron Orc), Captain Orcmerica, Black Widorc, Roceye, The Mighty Thorc, and The Incredible Hork!) and one moralizing don't (DON'T: Overtly base them on Native American culture. That **** ain't cool.)

hamishspence
2015-10-26, 10:11 AM
I'd go with

DO: treat D&D goblins as a lot like some Star Trek species in more recent works - they might have a Hat, but they're still people.

DO: make sure your players know ahead of time what the Hat is.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-26, 09:58 PM
I'd go with

DO: treat D&D goblins as a lot like some Star Trek species in more recent works - they might have a Hat, but they're still people.

DO: make sure your players know ahead of time what the Hat is.

This, pretty much. You can have a culture, but your culture intrinsically doesn't remove your individualism.

Tiri
2015-10-26, 11:21 PM
I don't like 'hats' because they force all of a certain species into a certain behaviour. I think culture is a better way to do it since it allows you to have separate groups of a certain race that behave differently from each other without the 'hat' forcing in some common behavioural characteristic. Of course, there may be some similarities in behaviour, but those would mostly be caused by physical similarities (like most goblins being fearful of the world around them because they are small and weak).

hamishspence
2015-10-27, 01:45 AM
It's certainly a trope that needs to be handled with a certain amount of caution:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats

Tvtyrant
2015-10-27, 01:52 AM
Do: Give them an easy to understand source of survival. Werewolves, attaching to bigger creatures as servants, tiny caves.

Don't: Make them cannon fodder for the evulz.