I Hate Pathfinder Goblins

[thoroughlyS]

More appropriately, I hate what Pathfinder has done to Goblins.

I got into playing Dungeons & Dragons roughly 8 years ago, during the days of v3.5. I was quite fond of the wide array of creatures described in the Monster Manual, as I'm sure many are. Most particularly, I was fascinated by the goblinoids, and chief among them the goblin proper. I loved everything about the goblin, from the evocative description to the sublime artwork.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/d/d1/TypicalGoblin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20051122214636
(Fun Fact: That's a chick.)

Over time, my love for them has only grown. I've played quite a few memorable goblin characters, seeking to play up the best aspects of the race: their scheming, their thievery, their stealth, even their maliciousness on occasion. I've sought out every piece of information I could find on them (sadly most of it was lost when WotC purged their archive). And while it's not official, I strongly stand by their portrayal in The Slayer's Guide to Goblins (https://rpg.rem.uz/Dungeons%20%26%20Dragons/D%26D%203.5/Slayer%27s%20Guide%20to/The%20Slayer%27s%20Guide%20To%20Goblins.pdf) by Mongoose Publishing. I'm really disappointed that Goblins didn't receive the love that other monstrous races got. And I'm not just talking about the kobold in Races of the Dragon. The goblin didn't even get so much as an Ecology article in Dragon Magazine (probably muscled out of a spot by the hobgoblin).

Enter Paizo.

http://vidshomepage.weebly.com/uploads/8/7/9/8/8798003/1530780_orig.jpg
Their "portrayal" is so far removed from everything that goblins were, in my eyes. These abhorrent little atrocities make a mockery of my favorite race. Everything, from their horrible artwork, to the 180 they took in the description leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and a dull ache behind my eyes. I swear, the art team began and ended their work on goblins with this sketch:
http://i.imgur.com/IKDnNLc.png
and called it a night. Instead of being crafty and sly, goblins are made dim-witted and careless. And those are made the main aspects of the goblin! Why are they stupid?! It doesn't make any sense! They don't even have an INT penalty, they just seem to act that way on purpose!

AND PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH THIS!

I don't understand it. Paizo made an entire race into the comic relief, and people eat it up! They spared no expense to make these cretins into a laughingstock. *goblins are afraid of writing* *goblins hate and fear horses* *goblins love to sing badly* You know what other races were made to be the comic relief? Kender, Gully Dwarves, and Tinker Gnomes. And people hate them. Rightfully so, because they take a race, and strip it of everything that makes them cool, and replace it with garbage. Don't get me wrong, some of that characterization is interesting and unique. But they chose to make everything about the goblin into a punchline for a joke that isn't funny. Goblins were already able to be funny on their own, without being crammed full of buffoonery.

I loathe these abominations so intensely that I refuse to play Pathfinder, entirely because of what Paizo has done to my favorite race. I understand that this is an overreaction. I willingly admit that Pathfinder is an overall improvement to v3.5, and made so many changes for the better. But I feel that to accept this would be to betray that which I hold so dear.

/rant

[Honest Tiefling]

(Fun Fact: That's a chick.)

Source on this?


AND PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH THIS!

Yeah, they're kinda cute. Also what edition have YOU been playing? Goblins don't have an intelligence penalty in 3rd either, but what you are describing is usually reserved for the kobold. Did I just miss the video game or the module where the goblins were cunning or something?

[Draconium]

Personally, I feel the exact opposite way - I find goblins in 3.5 rather bland and uninteresting, but I absolutely love the chaotic balls of destruction they are in Pathfinder. However, I feel that your feelings on the matter overlook one thing:

Fluff is mutable.

Seriously, if you don't like how goblins act in PF, don't have them act like that. No one's forcing you to run them the same way as their basic portrayal.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I got into playing Dungeons & Dragons roughly 8 years ago, during the days of v3.5.


Uh no, that would be during the days of 4e. 3.5 had been discarded by the time '07 come around when 4e was released.


Nitpick aside, I also do not like the portrayal of Goblins in PF but you really are over-reacting. Play it differently if that makes you happy.

[Psyren]

The problem with noble/crafty/deep goblins is that they still need to be slaughtered en masse by low-level adventurers. In both editions, goblins were mechanically designed to be a quick and easy go-to foe for APs and modules (or just new GMs in general) as a starting threat.

Golarion has a lot in common with the OotS setting, and goblins were devised along those lines - designed or at least designated (by the gods, or whichever in-setting source you prefer) to be a pestilent fodder race. The big difference is that, unlike in OotS, Golarion goblins actually are a genuine menace whose aggregate numbers do need to be kept in check. Sticking with the 3.5 portrayal while using them that way would have raised exactly the kind of unfortunate implications that OotS has spent hundreds of strips exploring to date. PF chose instead to sidestep this by making them true savages who are cunning, yet unreasoning (or at least, unreasonable.) Smart enough to be dangerous in a fight, but not so intelligent that paladins get tied into ethical knots about using lethal force. Their outlook as consummate ravagers and ruiners of everything they come across is just another facet of that.

[RolkFlameraven]

Not really a big fan of Golarion Goblins myself, but I normally am playing in the Realms or home brew anyway so it doesn't bother me all that much.

Now playing them in something like 'we be goblins' is fun I will admit.

[ZeroiaSD]

I can't say I see that much goblin-related material in general.

I can see why they did it- The 'plentiful humanoid' niche is pretty full, with Orcs, Hobgoblin, Kobolds, and Goblin. Making one of them comic relief is a way to expand their niches.


And while they're silly, I don't think they're Kender bad- like, Kender are always Kender, we're told their inherently kleptos, Goblins are more culturally careless. You can have the Goblin who is frustrated with how backwards his tribe acts and strikes out on their own and such.

[Starbuck_II]

AND PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH THIS!

I don't understand it. Paizo made an entire race into the comic relief, and people eat it up! They spared no expense to make these cretins into a laughingstock. *goblins are afraid of writing* *goblins hate and fear horses* *goblins love to sing badly* You know what other races were made to be the comic relief? Kender, Gully Dwarves, and Tinker Gnomes. And people hate them. Rightfully so, because they take a race, and strip it of everything that makes them cool, and replace it with garbage. Don't get me wrong, some of that characterization is interesting and unique. But they chose to make everything about the goblin into a punchline for a joke that isn't funny. Goblins were already able to be funny on their own, without being crammed full of buffoonery.

I loathe these abominations so intensely that I refuse to play Pathfinder, entirely because of what Paizo has done to my favorite race. I understand that this is an overreaction. I willingly admit that Pathfinder is an overall improvement to v3.5, and made so many changes for the better. But I feel that to accept this would be to betray that which I hold so dear.

/rant


I think the authors of their first 3.5 module/pathfinder they made (Rise of Runelords), they watched the molvie Gremlins and wanted a main enemy that mimicked them.
Everything you described is basically Gremlins (a great movie BTW). But rather than invent a new monster, they just changed the Goblin.

To be fair, there are agreements between Slayer's Guide and Pathfiner:
1) Don't make, just take. Most equipment is acquired/found.
2) Breed fast
3) Sneaky

3.5 says, "The concept of a fair fight is meaningless in their society. They favor ambushes, overwhelming odds, dirty tricks, and any other edge they can devise.”"

[tadkins]

I'm a big fan of Warcraft goblins myself. Conniving, greedy and mad, but fiercely intelligent tinkers and consummate businessmen.

[DrMotives]

I'm a big fan of Warcraft goblins myself. Conniving and greedy mad tinkers and consummate businessmen.

That's a great fluff, but it doesn't work with crunch they have going in 3.5. D&D goblins have a CHA penalty, which I always interpret as the much like the kobold fluff in RotD. Less sense of self because they see themselves as more a part of the clan. See, the consummate businessman has a CHA bonus to work right. And greedy tinker is exactly gremlin. Gremlins are the evil little mechanics WWII pilots blamed equipment failures on. They're effective at sabotage because they know exactly how the engine works. So what you need are a gremlin race, much like goblins but with an INT bonus for the technical know-how, plus a CHA bonus to throw in the Warcraft-flavoured Ferengi-ness.

[Spore]

I play Pathfinder exclusively in homebrew settings but I prefer my Goblins ravenous, greedy and CE creatures overall. They consume unneccesarily large things, cannibalize, maim the innocent and kill for fun. Their main point is being a slave race: Used for simple labor where an orc is too inefficient for, and for subtle attacks a classical orc is not suited as well for. Orcs raid, Goblins ambush things. Orcs fight to the brink of collapse -and then some more. Goblins turn after being hit once or twice, because they KNOW their strength is not in frontal assault.

Yes, the Pathfinder Goblins are silly, they also serve as a comic relief race in Golarion. If you want to portray a more serious race you can skip the silly bits (which are large to be fair) and use their backstory as spawns of Rovagug the Devourer. This makes Goblins humanoid demon spawns, and with a background of cannibalism (eating babies isn't so comical anymore if the DM starts to describe it in detail), greed and a society compromised of backstabbing, or if they cooperate with Orc tribes: Pushing another goblin into the way of a raging orc.


That's a great fluff, but it doesn't work with crunch they have going in 3.5. D&D goblins have a CHA penalty, which I always interpret as the much like the kobold fluff in RotD. Less sense of self because they see themselves as more a part of the clan. See, the consummate businessman has a CHA bonus to work right. And greedy tinker is exactly gremlin. Gremlins are the evil little mechanics WWII pilots blamed equipment failures on. They're effective at sabotage because they know exactly how the engine works. So what you need are a gremlin race, much like goblins but with an INT bonus for the technical know-how, plus a CHA bonus to throw in the Warcraft-flavoured Ferengi-ness.

Most Warcraft Goblins would have an alchemical Int bonus due to Kajamite exposure (don't get me started on that but they deserve a racial stat boost in Int anyhow) and I don't think WC Goblins need or deserve a bonus to Charisma. They KNOW how to haggle (racial bonus to skill) but I haven't seen a single Warcraft lore bit describing them as convincing. They have the market cornered. They use vile methods to push the competition out.

[thoroughlyS]

Source on this?
I say "fact", but it's really just an inference at best. In Races of Eberron, you get a chapter detailing Changelings, which has the following as the opening art.
http://i.imgur.com/zhXPp43.png
I'm aware that Changelings can assume the form of either gender, but I noted that all the alternate forms (other than the lizardfolk and the goblin in question) were distinctly female. I took a logical leap and said that both the lizardfolk and goblin might be female as well. I also recognized the hair tuft, hat, and armor as belonging to the goblin of the Monster Manual.

Yeah, they're kinda cute. Also what edition have YOU been playing? Goblins don't have an intelligence penalty in 3rd either, but what you are describing is usually reserved for the kobold. Did I just miss the video game or the module where the goblins were cunning or something?

Being bullied by bigger, stronger creatures has taught goblins to exploit what few advantages they have: sheer numbers and malicious ingenuity. The concept of a fair fight is meaningless in their society. They favor ambushes, overwhelming odds, dirty tricks, and any other edge they can devise.
Goblins have a poor grasp of strategy and are cowardly by nature, tending to flee the field if a battle turns against them. With proper supervision, though, they can implement reasonably complex plans, and in such circumstances their numbers can be a deadly advantage.
Just the combat passage paints them as devious and conniving. While it does mention a "poor grasp of strategy", that does not mean stupid. In all likely hood, they could just rely too heavily on ambush. And I've seen many discussions online about goblins and kobolds filling the same roles, where people tend to side with the kobolds. In my opinion, kobolds are the more passive: sitting in lairs completely stuffed full of traps. In comparison, goblins are the more active, raiding nearby villages nightly. But that's just me.

Personally, I feel the exact opposite way - I find goblins in 3.5 rather bland and uninteresting, but I absolutely love the chaotic balls of destruction they are in Pathfinder.
Bland and uninteresting is a fair appraisal. After all, they do share a lot with the other vanilla monstrous races. But I feel that most of the core races are a little bland and uninteresting too. I see it as my job to make my character interesting, not the designers'.

However, I feel that your feelings on the matter overlook one thing:

Fluff is mutable.

Seriously, if you don't like how goblins act in PF, don't have them act like that. No one's forcing you to run them the same way as their basic portrayal.
I've heard this argument time and again, but I just can't swallow it. Aside from the fact that people usually play stuff similar to the basic portrayal anyway, Pathfinder's fluff informs how the goblins' racial (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin) options and traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/race-traits/bouncy) are made too. Everything on there is just over-the-top goofiness. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with goofy characters and campaigns, but if I want to play an epic goblin hero? I'm out of luck.

Uh no, that would be during the days of 4e. 3.5 had been discarded by the time '07 come around when 4e was released.
That's a rough estimate. I was introduced to D&D when it was still in v3.5 about halfway through 6th grade. That puts me at 12ish, and I'm 21ish now. I don't like being faced with aging, so I rounded down. But 4E came out when I was in 8th grade, so the timeline seems right.

I also do not like the portrayal of Goblins in PF but you really are over-reacting.
I acknowledged that that was the case.

The problem with noble/crafty/deep goblins is that they still need to be slaughtered en masse by low-level adventurers. In both editions, goblins were mechanically designed to be a quick and easy go-to foe for APs and modules (or just new GMs in general) as a starting threat.

Golarion has a lot in common with the OotS setting, and goblins were devised along those lines - designed or at least designated (by the gods, or whichever in-setting source you prefer) to be a pestilent fodder race. The big difference is that, unlike in OotS, Golarion goblins actually are a genuine menace whose aggregate numbers do need to be kept in check. Sticking with the 3.5 portrayal while using them that way would have raised exactly the kind of unfortunate implications that OotS has spent hundreds of strips exploring to date. PF chose instead to sidestep this by making them true savages who are cunning, yet unreasoning (or at least, unreasonable.) Smart enough to be dangerous in a fight, but not so intelligent that paladins get tied into ethical knots about using lethal force. Their outlook as consummate ravagers and ruiners of everything they come across is just another facet of that.
I feel like this kind of issue doesn't come up all that often. In my experience, new players and DMs don't look into wanton slaughter all that hard, and seasoned DMs use more out-there monsters, or make the slaughter an ethical dilemma on purpose. My favorite part of the comic is when it delves deep into these implications. Big surprise, I know. I also really like Goblins:Life through Their Eyes for the same reasons.

Now playing them in something like 'we be goblins' is fun I will admit.
We Be Goblins looks fun, and I enjoy silly campaigns. But not every character I want to make is silly.

I can't say I see that much goblin-related material in general.
A greater tragedy I have yet to witness.:smallwink:

I can see why they did it- The 'plentiful humanoid' niche is pretty full, with Orcs, Hobgoblin, Kobolds, and Goblin. Making one of them comic relief is a way to expand their niches.
They could add without taking away, though. That's what happened to kobolds. They kept all of their original fluff, and had *MOAR DRAGONS* tacked on. Paizo started with nothing, threw a big pile of fireworks in a heap, then went "Looks good".

And while they're silly, I don't think they're Kender bad- like, Kender are always Kender, we're told their inherently kleptos, Goblins are more culturally careless. You can have the Goblin who is frustrated with how backwards his tribe acts and strikes out on their own and such.

Goblins are a race of childlike creatures with a destructive and voracious nature that makes them almost universally despised. Weak and cowardly, goblins are frequently manipulated or enslaved by stronger creatures that need destructive, disposable foot soldiers. Those goblins that rely on their own wits to survive live on the fringes of society and feed on refuse and the weaker members of more civilized races. Most other races view them as virulent parasites that have proved impossible to exterminate.

Goblins can eat nearly anything, but prefer a diet of meat and consider the flesh of humans and gnomes a rare and difficult-to-obtain delicacy. While they fear the bigger races, goblins' short memories and bottomless appetites mean they frequently go to war or execute raids against other races to sate their pernicious urges and fill their vast larders.
Adventurers: goblin adventurers are usually curious and inclined to explore the world, though they are often killed off by their own foolish misdeeds or hunted down for their random acts of destruction. Their pernicious nature makes interacting with civilized races almost impossible, so goblins tend to adventure on the fringes of civilization or in the wilds. Adventurous individuals who survive long enough often ride goblin dogs or other exotic mounts, and focus on archery to avoid close confrontation with larger enemies. goblin spellcasters prefer fire magic and bombs over almost all other methods of spreading mayhem. So they are like Kender, if everyone hated them. And MAN, are they hungry.

I think the authors of their first 3.5 module/pathfinder they made (Rise of Runelords), they watched the movie Gremlins and wanted a main enemy that mimicked them.
Everything you described is basically Gremlins (a great movie BTW). But rather than invent a new monster, they just changed the Goblin.
I've said before that I have the problem with Pathfinder goblins that a lot of people have with D&D 4E: I'd probably like them, if they weren't called goblins. If Pathfinder came out and these things were called Gremlins, I might've tried it.

To be fair, there are agreements between Slayer's Guide and Pathfiner:
1) Don't make, just take. Most equipment is acquired/found.
2) Breed fast
3) Sneaky
I admit that I was hyperbolizing when I said EVERYTHING about them makes me mad. Here and there, I can almost see my favorite race represented. Almost.

I'm a big fan of Warcraft goblins myself. Conniving, greedy and mad, but fiercely intelligent tinkers and consummate businessmen.
I am also a fan of this implementation of "goblins" into a game world. I like goblins in Magic: The Gathering too. I know how backwards that sounds when I hate Pathfinder goblins with a fiery passion, but that's how it is.

*snip*
Some of that sounded good, some great, and some not so much. But I started this thread to express my dissatisfaction with how Paizo handled goblins. I HATE PATHFINDER GOBLINS. All the re-fluffing in the world doesn't matter to me in this context. I'm not looking for a fix. I'm not trying to convert others. I just wanted to feel heard. And all of you helped me find some peace with these thoughts.

Thank you.

[Geddy2112]

I think you are missing a BIG part of the fluff of goblins, and why they can be very good, particularly as party members. If kender were just an annoying race the PC's sometimes met, that would be one thing, but it was having one of them in the party pulling their stereotypical crap that made them hated. Imagine kender as an enemy like Kobolds, but instead of traps they specialized in fearless reckless and kleptomania. Fine for an enemy, terrible for a party member.
Likewise, in the first days of pathfinder, goblins were a non playable, chaotic evil swarm race for low level adventures to go and quell.

When you have a goblin PC, you are specifically encouraged to tone down the monkeyshines and realize your race is seen as a bunch of feral savages.

Goblin Player Characters

Goblins don’t have to be evil maniacs—just because most of them are doesn’t mean your character is. In fact, playing a non-evil or even a good-aligned goblin can present some enjoyable and interesting roleplaying challenges. If you want to play a goblin because you’re eager to explore these challenges, or because you like playing strange characters against their stereotypes, or because you enjoy playing “monsters with hearts of gold,” then you’re on the right track for most campaigns.

In such a case, you should look at the majority of the flavor in this book in reverse—you can define your goblin character by playing a character with values opposite of many of the things most goblins define themselves. Perhaps your goblin is a patient scholar who specializes in languages and is attempting to catalog the “true” history of the goblin race in a series of books. Maybe you’re a cavalier who seeks to use dogs or horses as allies because you’re convinced that the goblin fear of these creatures is one of your kin’s greatest failings. Or maybe you were rescued as a child by a kindly adventurer who then turned your care over to a benevolent religion and you grew up with not only a deep respect for one of the gods of purity but a sense of shame that most of your kind worship barghests and demons.

None of this means you can’t still enjoy playing up some of the goblin race’s other quirks. Their ravenous hunger, their love of songs, their twisted senses of humor, and respect for nature are excellent traits that you can embrace as a goblin that don’t disrupt parties or derail adventures. You can still maintain these classic goblin personality traits without also being a distraction to the game itself.

Talk with your GM about this before you decide to play a goblin PC. If the GM is okay with goblin player characters, he will be open to methods by which your goblin character can interact with non-goblin societies in non-disruptive ways. He might require you to be accompanied by one or two non-goblin friends who can vouch for you, or he might ask you to make a DC 10 or DC 15 Diplomacy check in order to convince locals to allow you to shop or visit establishments without calling the guard. Certainly you’ll need to be on your best behavior in these situations. In time, if your character spends several weeks or months in a town without causing problems, the locals will grow used to you and may even start treating you like a friend or neighbor.

Playing a goblin also provides a character with the opportunity to be creative in the strangely charming and cleverly insane manners common to the race. Players of goblin bards (or fighters, or any other class for that matter) should consider this encouragement to spend some time composing their own goblin songs.

Goblin PC's are meant to be played against their otherwise zany low level cannon fodder trope. Just like any other monster race.

[squiggit]

I don't really see it. PF goblins are more or less how I've seen people always run goblins and how goblins have mostly been written in APs. The most different thing about them is really head size.

The only real quibble I can make here is that they're constantly portrayed as reckless and stupid despite having average intelligence and wisdom, which always felt wrong.


but what you are describing is usually reserved for the kobold.

Hasn't that always been a problem? Goblins and Kobolds share a lot of design space. I've run into that problem a lot when writing home settings and campaigns, at least.


See, the consummate businessman has a CHA bonus to work right.
Depends on the businessman, really. The successful business goblins are less charismatic salespeople and more conniving robber barons though.



I've heard this argument time and again, but I just can't swallow it. Aside from the fact that people usually play stuff similar to the basic portrayal anyway, Pathfinder's fluff informs how the goblins' racial (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin) options and traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/race-traits/bouncy) are made too. Everything on there is just over-the-top goofiness.

+4 stealth, -2 strength -2 cha, small size, bonus move speed, racial modifier to stealth.

That's over the top goofiness? I mean, yeah you have one trait that's a little bit silly, but all of the baseline stuff is pretty vanilla.

[Draconium]

I've heard this argument time and again, but I just can't swallow it. Aside from the fact that people usually play stuff similar to the basic portrayal anyway, Pathfinder's fluff informs how the goblins' racial (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin) options and traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/race-traits/bouncy) are made too. Everything on there is just over-the-top goofiness. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with goofy characters and campaigns, but if I want to play an epic goblin hero? I'm out of luck.

First off, playing an epic goblin hero isn't that hard - as pointed out, goblin PCs are encouraged to tone down there silliness, or even go against goblins as a whole. Their racial feats and traits may have a silly bent, but that shouldn't mean that you're required to use them at all.

Second, let's see how we can refluff a lot of their sillier characteristics:

Illiteracy/Refusal to Read

"Goblins have a strong history of oral traditions, and have never devised a written language of their own. They often look down on writing as a whole, in fact, as they believe it encourages their young to forget the lessons of their past."

Fear of Horses and Dogs

"Goblins hate the beasts of man, specifically horses and dogs, as they represent the so-called 'superiority' of humanity, a concept they loathe. In addition, humans often use dogs when goblin-hunting, and the size of the horses makes them especially dangerous to the small goblins underhoof. As such, when conducting raids, goblins often slaughter any of these animals they come across."

Pyromania

"Goblins often light fires during their raids to cause confusion and disarray, tools they can work with to cover their trails. The more chaos caused by this, the less people will oppose the horde and they loot and pillage."

Just for some real quick examples.

[Barbarian Horde]

Currently playing as goblin in pathfinder here is the token I'm using to represent my character.http://s33.postimg.org/md3kz89tb/Goblin_Token_Final.png

[thoroughlyS]

I think you are missing a BIG part of the fluff of goblins, and why they can be very good, particularly as party members. If kender were just an annoying race the PC's sometimes met, that would be one thing, but it was having one of them in the party pulling their stereotypical crap that made them hated. Imagine kender as an enemy like Kobolds, but instead of traps they specialized in fearless reckless and kleptomania. Fine for an enemy, terrible for a party member.
Likewise, in the first days of pathfinder, goblins were a non playable, chaotic evil swarm race for low level adventures to go and quell.

When you have a goblin PC, you are specifically encouraged to tone down the monkeyshines and realize your race is seen as a bunch of feral savages.

Goblin Player Characters

Goblins don’t have to be evil maniacs—just because most of them are doesn’t mean your character is. In fact, playing a non-evil or even a good-aligned goblin can present some enjoyable and interesting roleplaying challenges. If you want to play a goblin because you’re eager to explore these challenges, or because you like playing strange characters against their stereotypes, or because you enjoy playing “monsters with hearts of gold,” then you’re on the right track for most campaigns.

In such a case, you should look at the majority of the flavor in this book in reverse—you can define your goblin character by playing a character with values opposite of many of the things most goblins define themselves. Perhaps your goblin is a patient scholar who specializes in languages and is attempting to catalog the “true” history of the goblin race in a series of books. Maybe you’re a cavalier who seeks to use dogs or horses as allies because you’re convinced that the goblin fear of these creatures is one of your kin’s greatest failings. Or maybe you were rescued as a child by a kindly adventurer who then turned your care over to a benevolent religion and you grew up with not only a deep respect for one of the gods of purity but a sense of shame that most of your kind worship barghests and demons.

None of this means you can’t still enjoy playing up some of the goblin race’s other quirks. Their ravenous hunger, their love of songs, their twisted senses of humor, and respect for nature are excellent traits that you can embrace as a goblin that don’t disrupt parties or derail adventures. You can still maintain these classic goblin personality traits without also being a distraction to the game itself.

Talk with your GM about this before you decide to play a goblin PC. If the GM is okay with goblin player characters, he will be open to methods by which your goblin character can interact with non-goblin societies in non-disruptive ways. He might require you to be accompanied by one or two non-goblin friends who can vouch for you, or he might ask you to make a DC 10 or DC 15 Diplomacy check in order to convince locals to allow you to shop or visit establishments without calling the guard. Certainly you’ll need to be on your best behavior in these situations. In time, if your character spends several weeks or months in a town without causing problems, the locals will grow used to you and may even start treating you like a friend or neighbor.

Playing a goblin also provides a character with the opportunity to be creative in the strangely charming and cleverly insane manners common to the race. Players of goblin bards (or fighters, or any other class for that matter) should consider this encouragement to spend some time composing their own goblin songs.
This just seems like a big neon sign: You see this fluff right here? DON'T USE IT Otherwise, you'll end up like a Kender...
And paragraphs 3 & 4 are pretty par for the course for any evil race anyway.

Goblin PC's are meant to be played against their otherwise zany low level cannon fodder trope. Just like any other monster race.
I've always been more of a fan of making the "monster" races feel more like people. Evil people, sure, but exploring what makes them evil is part of the fun. If your character gets to be a person, why are the other members of their race "monsters"?

I don't really see it. PF goblins are more or less how I've seen people always run goblins and how goblins have mostly been written in APs.
I haven't seen enough Adventures detailing goblin exploits. Could you point me in the right direction?

The most different thing about them is really head size.
In all fairness, I said I hated how they look too.

The only real quibble I can make here is that they're constantly portrayed as reckless and stupid despite having average intelligence and wisdom, which always felt wrong.

Hasn't that always been a problem? Goblins and Kobolds share a lot of design space. I've run into that problem a lot when writing home settings and campaigns, at least.
I cannot agree with this more.

Depends on the businessman, really. The successful business goblins are less charismatic salespeople and more conniving robber barons though.
It could also just be a feat choice that most goblins happen to make. +2 Appraise +2 Diplomacy has got to exist somewhere, right?

+4 stealth, -2 strength -2 cha, small size, bonus move speed, racial modifier to stealth.

That's over the top goofiness? I mean, yeah you have one trait that's a little bit silly, but all of the baseline stuff is pretty vanilla.
Eat Anything: Raised with little or no proper food, many goblins have learned to survive by eating whatever they happen across and can digest nearly anything without getting sick. Goblins with this trait gain a +4 on Survival checks to forage for food and a +4 racial bonus on saves versus effects that cause the nauseated or sickened conditions. This racial trait replaces skilled.
Hard Head, Big Teeth: Goblins are known for their balloon-like heads and enormous maws, but some have even more exaggeratedly large heads filled with razor-sharp teeth. Goblins with this trait gain a bite attack as a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of damage. This racial trait replaces skilled.
Over-Sized Ears: While goblins' ears are never dainty, these goblins have freakishly large ears capable of picking up even the smallest sounds. Goblins with this racial trait gain a +4 bonus on Perception checks. This racial trait replaces skilled.
Bouncy: Your bones, flesh, and skin are a bit more elastic than those of most goblins—when you fall, you tend to bounce a little better as a result. Benefit: Whenever you take falling damage, the first 1d6 points of lethal damage suffered in the fall are automatically converted to nonlethal damage. You also gain a +2 trait bonus on all Reflex saves made to avoid unexpected falls.
Rude Songs (Goblin): The lyrics of your songs are incredibly personally insulting. Benefit: Providing an opponent can hear and understand you, you gain a +2 trait bonus on all Perform (song) checks. Perform is always a class skill for you.
Ugly Swine (Goblin): You are a repulsive little freak whose origins are unclear. Your head is small for a goblin and your mouth oddly narrow, allowing you to pass in urban environments as an unidentifiable mongrel, providing you keep a low profile. However, if examined closely, your goblin origins are revealed. Benefit: You gain a +2 trait bonus on Disguise checks, and Disguise is a class skill for you.
Goblin Foolhardiness (Goblin): You have a tendency toward gross overconfidence in combat. Benefit: When facing an enemy that’s larger than you are, if you have no allies in any adjacent squares, your posturing, bravado, and cussing grant you a +1 trait bonus on attack rolls with non-reach melee weapons.
Like I said before, their fluff informs these abilities. While some of these are more toned down, you must admit that these are pretty goofy. Sure the mechanical benefits aren't inherently weird, but the explanations for them are all punchlines. For more proof, look through the feats.

First off, playing an epic goblin hero isn't that hard - as pointed out, goblin PCs are encouraged to tone down there silliness, or even go against goblins as a whole. Their racial feats and traits may have a silly bent, but that shouldn't mean that you're required to use them at all.
In order to be an epic goblin hero, you must ignore some or all of what it means to be a goblin.

Second, let's see how we can refluff a lot of their sillier characteristics:
Again, I hate PATHFINDER goblins. The fluff provided by Paizo. Re-fluffing does not change the situation. I do not support Paizo, because they have made decisions I do not agree with. All told, your addendums would be cool to add to what is present in v3.5.

Currently playing as goblin in pathfinder here is the token I'm using to represent my character.http://s33.postimg.org/md3kz89tb/Goblin_Token_Final.png
This is a good goblin. Noticeably, this is not a Pathfinder goblin.

[Psyren]

I've heard this argument time and again, but I just can't swallow it. Aside from the fact that people usually play stuff similar to the basic portrayal anyway, Pathfinder's fluff informs how the goblins' racial (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin) options and traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/race-traits/bouncy) are made too. Everything on there is just over-the-top goofiness. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with goofy characters and campaigns, but if I want to play an epic goblin hero? I'm out of luck.

You don't have to take "Bouncy" (and I don't really see how that stops you from being an epic hero anyway.) There are a plethora of heroic traits outside of the race category. In fact, many PC races don't get race traits at all, and they can be heroes just fine.



I feel like this kind of issue doesn't come up all that often. In nmy experience, new players and DMs don't look into wanton slaughter all that hard, and seasoned DMs use more out-there monsters, or make the slaughter an ethical dilemma on purpose. My favorite part of the comic is when it delves deep into these implications. Big surprise, I know. I also really like Goblins:Life through Their Eyes for the same reasons.

I assure you, plenty of seasoned DMs use goblins as low-level fodder too. Moral dilemmas have their place, but sidestepping a long boring debate can be beneficial too.


They could add without taking away, though. That's what happened to kobolds. They kept all of their original fluff, and had *MOAR DRAGONS* tacked on.

And because of this interference, Kobolds ended up as perhaps the most divisive D&D race apart from Kender, and banned at many tables due to the kinds of dragony exploits people became able to pull off. This point isn't exactly helping your case.



We Be Goblins looks fun, and I enjoy silly campaigns. But not every character I want to make is silly.

So don't make a silly goblin. Pick serious traits and spells. Give your character a serious name. Be serious. Why is this so difficult? :smallconfused:

[Barbarian Horde]

I don't honestly care what goblin images pathfinder uses to represent their idea of a goblin is. I do not believe that any where is it written that the images submitted in the first post are what the goblins all look like. I'm sure it's implied that way. I just don't see how you could even begin to justify what an imaginary creature is supposed to look like.

-- Again it's the DM who is narrating the story. So if he says a square is a circle, then by god it's a circle.

So if the DM says all the handicapped looking goblins had a massive mutation and look different from their original forms then god has spoken.

[Florian]

Seriously, I´m not into D&D for any moral dilemma. I play other, better suited games for that.

So, yeah, I love me some of the revamped PF Goblins! Fun creatures to fight against, more than annoying when one has taken a liking to you and starts "helping" the party, overall good humor.

[weckar]

Having hardly ever come across them in any game, I cannot really give a great opinion on this. The only PF Goblin I ever played, however, wore a fedora and wielded a revolver just slightly smaller than himself. He'd bounce around the room with every attack AND off his own gun's recoil - cheering (and yodeling) all the way.

...

So yeah, I went with the zaniness.

[Grytorm]

Yeah, Pathfinder goblins are a bit over the top. There is not a lot you can do to change their depiction. And I understand why it leaves you in a foul mood. But you can either adapt Goblins more in line with your vision or compromise with Paizo's version. As noted toning down the different stupid bits. And maybe move their Charisma penalty to Wisdom to justify their poor judgement.

[Nibbens]

I have a love for the PF goblins. I'm not sure what/when i saw it, but in an AP somewhere, there is a half-eaten baby corpse that was rotting in a hole because a goblin had eaten part of it and stored the rest for later - presumably he or she forgot about it until the adventurers stumble across it.

Less horrifying, is in the Rise of the Runelords AP when a starving goblin ate a live human's face off. Literally. As in, gnawed the flesh off his face while he was still living. Take a moment to remind yourself that this is "Less horrifying" than my previous example.

Goblins are not funny or comic relief in PF. Goblins are horrifying uncanny monsters that remind all the races of Golarian that they are all one step away from savages - and almost all races do their best to distance themselves socially from them.

And yes, this even includes Goblins themselves - as PCs and the more socially acceptable tribes that ultimately make their way into games.

[Gallowglass]

I have a love for the PF goblins. I'm not sure what/when i saw it, but in an AP somewhere, there is a half-eaten baby corpse that was rotting in a hole because a goblin had eaten part of it and stored the rest for later - presumably he or she forgot about it until the adventurers stumble across it.


So THAT'S where that baby went. Man, I thought I lost it for sure. Can I have it back?

[Nibbens]

So THAT'S where that baby went. Man, I thought I lost it for sure. Can I have it back?

That depends. Do you want to argue with the goblin for it back?

Edit: I just realized/remembered that my avatar is a goblin. I promise you, I didn't take/eat your baby. lol.

[Spore]

We cannot really maintain a discussion on opinions alone, can we? There is really no reason for this thread to go on.

Yes, we agree the usual goblin is over the top silly and evil. But not every member of every race embraces every facette of said race. In addition you really REALLY downplay the fact that they are basically "demon puppies". Cannibalism is no small evil, too.


Goblins are not funny or comic relief in PF. Goblins are horrifying uncanny monsters that remind all the races of Golarian that they are all one step away from savages - and almost all races do their best to distance themselves socially from them.

This, so much this.There is much extended sillyness on Goblins but the barebones monster entry is the classical weak savage that will do ANYTHING to survive.

Also the fluff suggests that most Goblins don't try to start reading out of fear of being shunned by their brethren. This contradicts the fact that player characters start off with a spoken and written language written and spoken. And even if you just use Goblins as NPCs or Monsters (with templates) you can still choose to make an emotionally scarring story about Goblins.

Imagine the Fallen ones from Diablo 2. They are demons and described as "imps" but they are in an essence what I see when someone describes a Golarion Goblin. Heavily influenced by demonic energy, numerous, small and energetic. You might even ridicule them but if they swarm anyone they are gone for. (Remember that the hero in Diablo 2 has about the power over these critter like a fully organized party of 4 in Pathfinder).

[Barstro]

They could add without taking away, though. That's what happened to kobolds. They kept all of their original fluff, and had *MOAR DRAGONS* tacked on.

Except Kobolds started out as "dog-like humanoids with ratlike tails, horns and hairless scaly skin, and were not associated with dragons. They were called goblinoids..."

It's all just evolution.

[Kantolin]

As someone who's also a fan of goblins and also dislikes them being evil clowns, the biggest problem with 'ignore the fluff' is that most DMs I play under throw in comic-relief goblins all over the place. Sometimes because the adventure path / module / whatever has them, sometimes because them not being clowns isn't too critical to the DM, sometimes because the DM actively likes them being clowns.

I don't want to be the 'only sane man' every time I play a goblin, I don't really want to interact with comic-relief-goblins at all... but I'm kinda stuck dealing with it in 90% of circumstances. :smallfrown:

I mean sure, when I'm running I go out of my way to make it clear that goblins in my settings are nothing like pathfinder goblins, but that doesn't help me when I would like to play. Any character I make who involves goblins is almost certainly going to have to deal with comic-relief goblin stuff, especially if they are a goblin. Even if I play some other unit, we'll probably end up running into goblins for me to be annoyed at.

To Jsketchy - try being a Blue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/races/blue) instead of a goblin. Most people have little to no preconceptions of blues - it still leaves you stuck playing the 'Only sane man' all the time, but you can also play up the disassociation of blues vs goblins - treat them as two completely separate races that happen to look the same - and thus you at least won't have to deal with yet another, "Le gasp! Your character discovers the party wizard is reading!!!" plot (or if you do have it happen, you can just note, 'Eh that's goblins, I'm a blue').

That and being up front with the DM that you are a blue, not a goblin, is the closest you'll get to not having to deal with it without forcing the DM to readjust all their encounters - which itself is a problem, since again, there are people who rather like comic-relief-goblins (and would thus rather not erase them from the game) or who don't mind them and would like to not do the extra work when there's a lot of DMing stuff they already have to do.

Edit: Oh, one last note. I completely understand that some groups like having a group they can just smack around because they're evil - I completely understand the 'I was just working multiple 16 hour shifts, I just wanna smack drow around for a few hours without moral dilemmas'. This can be done easily by, well... just doing that. A lot of 3.5 games I've been in aren't interested in exploring deeper moral connections, 'You meet two goblins an orc and a drow in the woods, roll for initiative'. No amount of 'goblins aren't comic-relief' would change that unless you want it to be changed, and them being evil can be as 'curable/learned' or 'uncurable/intrinsic' as the story demands it.

[Coidzor]

Golarion goblins are kina dumb and have silly fluff from what I recall (Something about being one of Lamashtu's periods that got up and decided to be people-like?)

That's the point, though, they're crazy, inexplicably stupid football heads, because what white guy old enough to appreciate table top role playing humor without being precocious doesn't remember Hey, Arnold.

So it's really, really camp, but from what I recall, they still function as they should outside of the joke modules.

[Honest Tiefling]

I don't want to be the 'only sane man' every time I play a goblin, I don't really want to interact with comic-relief-goblins at all... but I'm kinda stuck dealing with it in 90% of circumstances. :smallfrown:

I mean sure, when I'm running I go out of my way to make it clear that goblins in my settings are nothing like pathfinder goblins, but that doesn't help me when I would like to play. Any character I make who involves goblins is almost certainly going to have to deal with comic-relief goblin stuff, especially if they are a goblin. Even if I play some other unit, we'll probably end up running into goblins for me to be annoyed at.

Out of curiosity, have you ever asked the DM not to do this? Or about their interpretation of the goblin race?

[Blackhawk748]

Im not totally against the comic relief goblins (after all i am a 40k Ork fan) but in general i agree with you. Pathfinder went a bit to far on the deep end of zany when they made their goblins. Also i am not a fan of the art either, which is weird cuz i generally like Paizo's art.

PF Goblin's fear of horse does make sense though, as a horse is, comparatively, the size of an elephant to them, so they have a good reason to be afraid of the buggers.

[Thurbane]

I personally prefer they was that Goblins are portrayed in their eponymous web comic: www.goblinscomic.org/

...but yes, the Pathfinder Goblin does not sit well with me. Too much comic relief for my taste.

If only Goblins (and other Goblinoids) got the love that Kobolds do in 3.5 splat books. :smallannoyed:

[Kantolin]

If only Goblins (and other Goblinoids) got the love that Kobolds do in 3.5 splat books. :smallannoyed:

In a way, technically... they did.

Unfortunately.

I mean, Pathfinder goblins have a lot of goblin-based feats and traits and the like... it's just for clowns. I didn't think I'd regret that same wish myself, but now I wish they'd just ignored goblins entirely in pathfinder except as cannon fodder...


Out of curiosity, have you ever asked the DM not to do this? Or about their interpretation of the goblin race?

I have indeed! But uh...

The main headache with that is that 'goblins are clowns' is a pretty common thing in pathfinder settings. Thus it defaults to existent, and demanding a DM change it means they have to adjust encounters with that (particularly since many pathfinder clown-goblin encounters start with 'goblins are being evil clowns')... which leads to the trio of (a) now the DM has to do more work when they already have work, or (b) there are a number of examples in this thread of people who are amused by clown-goblins and expect the default fluff to be in action.

I mean, most of my immediate friends know my opinion on pathfinder goblins, so it's not a concern there. It has come up in every other pathfinder game where goblins were involved.

It's really the problem that it's the default, mind you. Running /a/ plot where 'How weird, all the goblins in the world are insane and I feel myself going insane too, I have to figure out how to fix this' is neat! It's not so fun the second time, or the third time. I usually play blues, and make it clear that a blue is not a goblin, to try to sidestep doing that each time.

...which actually, now that I think about it, means I've more or less written off playing as one of my two favorite races. That makes me a little sad, now that I realize it :smallfrown:

Edit:

I personally prefer they was that Goblins are portrayed in their eponymous web comic

Thank you much for reminding me of that webcomic! I fell out of reading it amidst real life crazyness, and... yeah, I love that comic, haha. It reinforced my fondness for goblins.

[Bohandas]

and called it a night. Instead of being crafty and sly, goblins are made dim-witted and careless. And those are made the main aspects of the goblin! Why are they stupid?! It doesn't make any sense! They don't even have an INT penalty, they just seem to act that way on purpose!


Does Pathfinder use the same system for humanoids where an example character appears in place of a generic stat-block? Because I just noticed that the 3.5 SRD goblin entry misleadingly makes it look like they have a WIS penalty (it's actually just their sample character has a low WIS score). It's possibly they copied this over and then whoever they had write the other article didn't read it carefully.


Kender...people hate them.

I like the kender, at least as compared to the Halflings. At least the Kender have some backstory and personality as opposed to the Halflings which have a gaping hole where the backstory and personality used to be until TSR was rightfully called out on the fact that every last bit of it was plagairized

[Segev]

That's a great fluff, but it doesn't work with crunch they have going in 3.5. D&D goblins have a CHA penalty, which I always interpret as the much like the kobold fluff in RotD. Less sense of self because they see themselves as more a part of the clan. See, the consummate businessman has a CHA bonus to work right. And greedy tinker is exactly gremlin. Gremlins are the evil little mechanics WWII pilots blamed equipment failures on. They're effective at sabotage because they know exactly how the engine works. So what you need are a gremlin race, much like goblins but with an INT bonus for the technical know-how, plus a CHA bonus to throw in the Warcraft-flavoured Ferengi-ness.

In a campaign I ran where various races actually had "evolved" forms they could work their way up to, kobolds could become dragons (no surprise there), orcs could become ogres (not as dumb as traditional D&D ogres, either) and goblins could, indeed, become gremlins. Gremlins were smarter, and, while they could pass for regular goblins as long as they wore loose robes and deliberately maintained the posture, actually had very long limbs with extra joints, allowing them to tower to as tall as most ogres and reach out equally far. They were rather disturbing.

Orcs and goblins had a symbiotic society, where orcs were the rulers and shakers who fought and planned wars (and raids), and goblins were the underclass that did all the unpleasant grunt work. Except that the goblins realized that, without them, their joint society would crumble, as they maintained everything. They also used their position as "browbeaten" servitors to simply, quietly make decisions that governed the real functioning of their joint civilization. Orcs commonly wrote up anything they noticed as "wrong" to goblins being too stupid to get their orders right. Often, they didn't notice or care because the orc giving the orders was never going to inspect the results, so the goblins just inserted their own designs. Even giving orders to orcs under the guise of "passing along" orders from their orc bosses.

[Yora]

Their "portrayal" is so far removed from everything that goblins were, in my eyes. These abhorrent little atrocities make a mockery of my favorite race. Everything, from their horrible artwork, to the 180 they took in the description leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and a dull ache behind my eyes. [...]
I don't understand it. Paizo made an entire race into the comic relief, and people eat it up! They spared no expense to make these cretins into a laughingstock. *goblins are afraid of writing* *goblins hate and fear horses* *goblins love to sing badly* You know what other races were made to be the comic relief? Kender, Gully Dwarves, and Tinker Gnomes. And people hate them. Rightfully so, because they take a race, and strip it of everything that makes them cool, and replace it with garbage. Don't get me wrong, some of that characterization is interesting and unique. But they chose to make everything about the goblin into a punchline for a joke that isn't funny. Goblins were already able to be funny on their own, without being crammed full of buffoonery.

Welcome to the life of a gnome fan. :smallbiggrin:

[Faily]

Like the OP, I got into D&D during 3.5, so the early goblins weren't something I was ever familiar with.

As they were in 3.5, I thought goblins were rather bland and waaay overshadowed by their bigger cousins, the Hobgoblins, who were cooler and more interesting in every way. Goblins were just... there, to be cannon-fodder.

Pathfinder rolls around, and one of the first minis we acquire is a Goblin. I laugh at first over his oversized mouth, comparing it to the cheesy horror-flicks Critters (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090887/).

Then I kinda enjoy the art. They look memorable. Then Advanced Race Guide gets out, and I absolutely love the optional rules for Goblins; the optional racial traits, the Alchemist Archetype! And the feats!


I felt Pathfinder gave Goblins a distinct personality, rather than their cookie-cutter cannon-fodder existence from 3rd. I love their chaotic destruction contained in a tiny ball of energy with an oversized mouth.

[Segev]

PF goblins sound awfully heavily influenced by Warhammer Fantasy goblins.

[thoroughlyS]

The problem with noble/crafty/deep goblins is that they still need to be slaughtered en masse by low-level adventurers. In both editions, goblins were mechanically designed to be a quick and easy go-to foe for APs and modules (or just new GMs in general) as a starting threat.

...

PF chose instead to sidestep this by making them true savages who are cunning, yet unreasoning (or at least, unreasonable.) Smart enough to be dangerous in a fight, but not so intelligent that paladins get tied into ethical knots about using lethal force. Their outlook as consummate ravagers and ruiners of everything they come across is just another facet of that.
I feel like this kind of issue doesn't come up all that often. In my experience, new players and DMs don't look into wanton slaughter all that hard, and seasoned DMs use more out-there monsters, or make the slaughter an ethical dilemma on purpose. My favorite part of the comic is when it delves deep into these implications. Big surprise, I know. I also really like Goblins:Life through Their Eyes for the same reasons.
I assure you, plenty of seasoned DMs use goblins as low-level fodder too. Moral dilemmas have their place, but sidestepping a long boring debate can be beneficial too.
Okay, then from another angle: Kobolds, Orcs, and Drow were made to be low-level fodder too. Why only sidestep this problem with Goblins?


They could add without taking away, though. That's what happened to kobolds. They kept all of their original fluff, and had *MOAR DRAGONS* tacked on.
And because of this interference, Kobolds ended up as perhaps the most divisive D&D race apart from Kender, and banned at many tables due to the kinds of dragony exploits people became able to pull off. This point isn't exactly helping your case.
I feel that this argument is reaching. Firstly, kobolds became divisive because poorly written crunch led to exploits, whereas the fluff was not a problem. Secondly, that situation wouldn't have changed if their original fluff was overwritten as opposed to being added on to, which was what my complaint was about.

I don't honestly care what goblin images pathfinder uses to represent their idea of a goblin is.
I do. Whats-more, I disagree with the image Paizo has decided on.

I do not believe that any where is it written that the images submitted in the first post are what the goblins all look like. I'm sure it's implied that way.
Open the Pathfinder Bestiary to page 156 and you'll find them describing Goblins in a general sense, implying that most if not all goblins look that way. If you can find any source licensed by Paizo that describes goblins just as generally, but with a different description, I'd be surprised.

I just don't see how you could even begin to justify what an imaginary creature is supposed to look like.
I'm not trying to justify what a goblin looks like. I'm saying I don't like how Paizo decided to make them look. A little higher above, I mentioned liking Warcraft and Magic goblins.

Again it's the DM who is narrating the story. So if he says a square is a circle, then by god it's a circle.
So if the DM says all the handicapped looking goblins had a massive mutation and look different from their original forms then god has spoken.
What you're describing is called re-fluffing, and I've already stated my views on it above. But in this scenario, I'd probably find a DM who says a square is a square. That way we're all happy.

Yes, we agree the usual goblin is over the top silly and evil. But not every member of every race embraces every facette of said race. In addition you really REALLY downplay the fact that they are basically "demon puppies". Cannibalism is no small evil, too.
There is much extended sillyness on Goblins but the barebones monster entry is the classical weak savage that will do ANYTHING to survive.
Also the fluff suggests that most Goblins don't try to start reading out of fear of being shunned by their brethren. This contradicts the fact that player characters start off with a spoken and written language written and spoken. And even if you just use Goblins as NPCs or Monsters (with templates) you can still choose to make an emotionally scarring story about Goblins.
I'll admit, I only read the entry in the Pathfinder Beastiary for the first time today, so I did not realize that goblins got sillier over time. But now I just feel like they started with a decent chassis (with a horrible coat of paint) and threw pile after pile of nonsense on top, making it uglier and uglier. Like Pimp my Ride gone wrong.

Except Kobolds started out as "dog-like humanoids with ratlike tails, horns and hairless scaly skin, and were not associated with dragons. They were called goblinoids..."

It's all just evolution.
Like I said: and then they tacked on *MOAR DRAGONS*. But they got to keep being "dog-like humanoids with ratlike tails, horns and hairless scaly skin". And just because something evolves, doesn't make it better. I'd equate the appearance of Pathfinder goblins to the evolution of eyeless fish, they just got worse.

As someone who's also a fan of goblins and also dislikes them being evil clowns, the biggest problem with 'ignore the fluff' is that most DMs I play under throw in comic-relief goblins all over the place. Sometimes because the adventure path / module / whatever has them, sometimes because them not being clowns isn't too critical to the DM, sometimes because the DM actively likes them being clowns.

I don't want to be the 'only sane man' every time I play a goblin, I don't really want to interact with comic-relief-goblins at all... but I'm kinda stuck dealing with it in 90% of circumstances. :smallfrown:

I mean sure, when I'm running I go out of my way to make it clear that goblins in my settings are nothing like pathfinder goblins, but that doesn't help me when I would like to play. Any character I make who involves goblins is almost certainly going to have to deal with comic-relief goblin stuff, especially if they are a goblin. Even if I play some other unit, we'll probably end up running into goblins for me to be annoyed at.

To Jsketchy - try being a Blue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/races/blue) instead of a goblin. Most people have little to no preconceptions of blues - it still leaves you stuck playing the 'Only sane man' all the time, but you can also play up the disassociation of blues vs goblins - treat them as two completely separate races that happen to look the same - and thus you at least won't have to deal with yet another, "Le gasp! Your character discovers the party wizard is reading!!!" plot (or if you do have it happen, you can just note, 'Eh that's goblins, I'm a blue').

That and being up front with the DM that you are a blue, not a goblin, is the closest you'll get to not having to deal with it without forcing the DM to readjust all their encounters - which itself is a problem, since again, there are people who rather like comic-relief-goblins (and would thus rather not erase them from the game) or who don't mind them and would like to not do the extra work when there's a lot of DMing stuff they already have to do.

Edit: Oh, one last note. I completely understand that some groups like having a group they can just smack around because they're evil - I completely understand the 'I was just working multiple 16 hour shifts, I just wanna smack drow around for a few hours without moral dilemmas'. This can be done easily by, well... just doing that. A lot of 3.5 games I've been in aren't interested in exploring deeper moral connections, 'You meet two goblins an orc and a drow in the woods, roll for initiative'. No amount of 'goblins aren't comic-relief' would change that unless you want it to be changed, and them being evil can be as 'curable/learned' or 'uncurable/intrinsic' as the story demands it.
I feel that we are kindred spirits, Kantolin. I agree with everything you've said, and sympathize with your struggles. Side note: Blues (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/blue.htm) were actually a thing in D&D too, but they got screwed by an unnecessary LA even harder than Hobgoblins. It appears that in Pathfinder they picked up repletion from Elans.

Im not totally against the comic relief goblins (after all i am a 40k Ork fan) but in general i agree with you. Pathfinder went a bit to far on the deep end of zany when they made their goblins. Also i am not a fan of the art either, which is weird cuz i generally like Paizo's art.

PF Goblin's fear of horse does make sense though, as a horse is, comparatively, the size of an elephant to them, so they have a good reason to be afraid of the buggers.
Another person I agree with. I can also appreciate comic (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=393968) relief (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=393979) goblins (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=139445). Although I'm not sure I agree with the horse argument, after all, there are people who train elephants.

I personally prefer they was that Goblins are portrayed in their eponymous web comic: www.goblinscomic.org/

...but yes, the Pathfinder Goblin does not sit well with me. Too much comic relief for my taste.
I am also a fan of that comic (although I can understand the criticism THunt gets for his artwork). The characterization is great though. I used to think the problem was not that Pathfinder goblins are "too much" comic relief, it's that they're comic relief is the only thing they do. But Nibbens and Sporeegg have enlightened me to the fact that originally goblins were supposed to be vaguely scary. I think I would've been happy with the old Pathfinder goblin if they had made the art better.

If only Goblins (and other Goblinoids) got the love that Kobolds do in 3.5 splat books. :smallannoyed:

In a way, technically... they did.

Unfortunately.

I mean, Pathfinder goblins have a lot of goblin-based feats and traits and the like... it's just for clowns. I didn't think I'd regret that same wish myself, but now I wish they'd just ignored goblins entirely in pathfinder except as cannon fodder...
Once again I agree with Kantolin. I think the closest thing to what I want is the Slayer's Guide (https://rpg.rem.uz/Dungeons%20%26%20Dragons/D%26D%203.5/Slayer%27s%20Guide%20to/The%20Slayer%27s%20Guide%20To%20Goblins.pdf) I linked. WotC and Paizo could both take some cues from that book.



Out of curiosity, have you ever asked the DM not to do this? Or about their interpretation of the goblin race?
I have indeed! But uh...

The main headache with that is that 'goblins are clowns' is a pretty common thing in pathfinder settings. Thus it defaults to existent, and demanding a DM change it means they have to adjust encounters with that (particularly since many pathfinder clown-goblin encounters start with 'goblins are being evil clowns')... which leads to the trio of (a) now the DM has to do more work when they already have work, or (b) there are a number of examples in this thread of people who are amused by clown-goblins and expect the default fluff to be in action.

I mean, most of my immediate friends know my opinion on pathfinder goblins, so it's not a concern there. It has come up in every other pathfinder game where goblins were involved.

It's really the problem that it's the default, mind you. Running /a/ plot where 'How weird, all the goblins in the world are insane and I feel myself going insane too, I have to figure out how to fix this' is neat! It's not so fun the second time, or the third time. I usually play blues, and make it clear that a blue is not a goblin, to try to sidestep doing that each time.

...which actually, now that I think about it, means I've more or less written off playing as one of my two favorite races. That makes me a little sad, now that I realize it :smallfrown:
Man, that sucks. This is exactly the problem I feel I would have.

Does Pathfinder use the same system for humanoids where an example character appears in place of a generic stat-block? Because I just noticed that the 3.5 SRD goblin entry misleadingly makes it look like they have a WIS penalty (it's actually just their sample character has a low WIS score). It's possibly they copied this over and then whoever they had write the other article didn't read it carefully.
Pathfinder does use a goblin Warrior 1 in the beastiary, and it looks like they gave them the nonelite array for stats (13,12,11,10,9,8), which results in the given goblin having WIS 9 and CHA 6. However I don't think that was the problem, as Nibbens and Sporeegg showed that goblins got goofier overtime.

[Pugwampy]

Its just a picture and guideline play option of a possible goblin . As DM you can have your goblins any way you want that is your right .

I am a fan of goblins and PF goblins seem an interesting new idea although I guess I too prefer 3.5 gobs .


Picture wise I hate 3.5 ogres and I loathe PF trolls .

[Psyren]

Okay, then from another angle: Kobolds, Orcs, and Drow were made to be low-level fodder too. Why only sidestep this problem with Goblins?

What?? Drow aren't typical low-level fodder opponents at all. They're intelligent, sneaky, use tactics, have spell resistance and carry poison, and that's before we get to the wizards and priestesses.

Typical orcs are played as savagely as goblins, just in a different way. Less gremlin and more klingon.

I already addressed Kobolds.



I feel that this argument is reaching. Firstly, kobolds became divisive because poorly written crunch led to exploits, whereas the fluff was not a problem. Secondly, that situation wouldn't have changed if their original fluff was overwritten as opposed to being added on to, which was what my complaint was about.

I disagree, you can't divorce the two. "MOAR DRAGONS" directly led to that power creep, because when a designer thinks "add more dragon", power is the logical result. I certainly didn't see Lizardfolk or Troglodytes getting sorcery, breath weapons, or advancing by age categories.

[Milo v3]

I disagree, you can't divorce the two. "MOAR DRAGONS" directly led to that power creep, because when a designer thinks "add more dragon", power is the logical result. I certainly didn't see Lizardfolk or Troglodytes getting sorcery, breath weapons, or advancing by age categories.
Except outside of an unintended side-benefit of the epic feat thing that was completely accidental.... the "power creep" was actually "making slightly less awful" since they were literally the weakest race in the entire game, and even with Races of the Dragon they needed to put out the web enhancement which get's them maybe about the same level of power as a halfling. And it's not like they get sorcerery or wings for free, and the book that gave "kobolds" things like wings actually gave them to sorcerers/kobolds/dragonborn/spellscales, kobolds being the weakest of those options.... And that book actually gave breath weapons to Half-Dragons, not kobolds.

[Barbarian Horde]

I thought this post had died. It hit 25days and got a minor resurrection I guess.

[Kantolin]

I also am... a little up in the air about the suggestions that goblins need to have a particular backstory to be the 'You can just go around stabbing these it's alright' monster.

I mean... really, I've been in a number of games that were: 'I just worked 16 hour shifts on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and it is now Wednesday evening. The mayor tells you that the city is being attacked by bandits, you go to the barn where the bandits are holed up, I didn't even write down what race the bandits are, roll for initiative'. I've played in games where things that are listed as 'sometimes evil' are very, very black and white evil and it is totally okay to stab them.

Heck, it is a little unusual to be in a game where, say, hobgoblins are not automatically okay for stabbing.

Now, I then /have/ been in games where things were more grey. The overwhelming majority of those have the grey involve 'Races that the PCs are' (Evil humans! Evil elves!).

I feel that plots where monsters that are usually listed as evil that can be spoken to relevantly are the minority, and that's true regardless of whether they're troglodytes, demons, orcs, or in fact goblins. There needs to be no further encouragement besides

And none of that requires goblins to be clowns in order to make it function.


Side note: Blues (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/blue.htm) were actually a thing in D&D too, but they got screwed by an unnecessary LA even harder than Hobgoblins. It appears that in Pathfinder they picked up repletion from Elans.

Haha, I have totally played a 3.5 Blue, undeserved level adjustment and all. :) No level adjustment buyoff or anything either, I just ate the level loss (although the DM allowed me to play when the group was level 1, and I just didn't gain a level when everyone else hit 2). Game went up to level 15 (So I was 14 with LA+1 and chomping at the bit for 8th level powers, haha) and was a lot of fun. That was when I first discovered they existed.

I love goblins, I really do, haha - that's why it bugs me. Right now (as in, 'while I am posting this'), I am playing a half-orc who likes to talk to and befriend people, and we're interacting with goblins, and they're clowns, and I have to deal with that. Again.

[Segev]

Sorry to say it, guys, but if your complaint is that DMs will use the Paizo fluff for their goblins and you don't like it...don't play those games. You can talk to the DM about it and suggest how to alter it in his world, perhaps, but it's up to him how he runs it. If your DM is willing to work with you, you can write up goblins to be what you want them to be and talk to him about running them that way. Maybe he'll like your ideas and incorporate them instead of Paizo's. Maybe not. But you really don't have a right to say that it's wrong of a game company to present fluff of which you disapprove because DMs will use it by default.

You're welcome to hate Paizo's goblins. Everybody has things in official fluff they dislike. Certainly, I do. I try to talk my DMs into changing it where I can. You should, too. Or run your own game, with goblins that fit your vision for them.

Any "refluffing is bad" argument will fall on deaf ears, because frankly, I've yet to see a game which doesn't refluff SOMETHING.

[Kantolin]

Sorry to say it, guys, but if your complaint is that DMs will use the Paizo fluff for their goblins and you don't like it...don't play those games.

That is indeed the sum of it. The reason this is so vexing is because it feels like one of my favorite races was ripped out from under me. The race went from a race I liked to... well, an over the top goofy race of clowns.


Any "refluffing is bad" argument will fall on deaf ears, because frankly, I've yet to see a game which doesn't refluff SOMETHING.

Oh, the statement isn't 'refluffing is bad'. If, for example, this was an isolated case it'd actually be kind of neat. If I sat down at a table and this was how goblins were, that'd also be kind of neat.

...the first couple times.

The 'bad' part of this is that, well... it is now a constant, looming annoyance. So I suppose this ties into your first point - if I want anything to do with goblins, I'm stuck checking with every group (and often 'most PCs within each group') about if I can not have to do with over the top goofy clowns.

Or always GMing, which is usually the case anyway, I suppose.

Or I can just 'not play as one of the two races that was my favorite race to play, and make sure I never have anything to do with them'. The weary 'holds up a sign - can you read this?' goblin who has discovered he's the only sane man is... actually okay! But I've done that a half dozen times now and would like to be done with it.

[Psyren]

Except outside of an unintended side-benefit of the epic feat thing that was completely accidental.... the "power creep" was actually "making slightly less awful" since they were literally the weakest race in the entire game, and even with Races of the Dragon they needed to put out the web enhancement which get's them maybe about the same level of power as a halfling. And it's not like they get sorcerery or wings for free, and the book that gave "kobolds" things like wings actually gave them to sorcerers/kobolds/dragonborn/spellscales, kobolds being the weakest of those options.... And that book actually gave breath weapons to Half-Dragons, not kobolds.

I have no doubt it was unintended, but that doesn't mean it was unlikely. If you drive on an icy road, sliding off becomes probable whether you intend to do so or not.


I thought this post had died. It hit 25days and got a minor resurrection I guess.

So did I, but the necromancy rule is 6 weeks so here we are.


That is indeed the sum of it. The reason this is so vexing is because it feels like one of my favorite races was ripped out from under me. The race went from a race I liked to... well, an over the top goofy race of clowns.

I can understand how this might be upsetting to some, but that doesn't make it the wrong decision even so. This rambunctious and goofy portrayal of goblins have clearly proven popular enough that they became capable of becoming the face of Pathfinder for practical and commercial purposes. Just by changing it they were bound to tick some folks off, but it seems the gamble succeeded, as these goblins are both well-liked and instantly recognizable not just as fantasy, but as Pathfinder.

And quite honestly, I like that they aren't just another generic savage yet noble set of Proud Warrior Race Guys. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProudWarriorRaceGuy) Let the Orcs and Lizardfolk and Kobolds and Duergar and Hobgoblins etc. carry that mantle; the Goblins are here to Fred Durst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpUYjpKg9KY) everything.

[Bohandas]

I feel that we are kindred spirits, Kantolin. I agree with everything you've said, and sympathize with your struggles. Side note: Blues (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/blue.htm) were actually a thing in D&D too, but they got screwed by an unnecessary LA even harder than Hobgoblins. It appears that in Pathfinder they picked up repletion from Elans.


I heard that most of the level adjustments in 3.x were deliberately calculated incorrectly in order to get people to play core races.

[Florian]

I heard that most of the level adjustments in 3.x were deliberately calculated incorrectly in order to get people to play core races.

I don´t think that´s true. It´s more likely that the design team always worked with the assumption of random attribute rolls (or very low PB values) and judged LA based on that.

[Milo v3]

I have no doubt it was unintended, but that doesn't mean it was unlikely. If you drive on an icy road, sliding off becomes probable whether you intend to do so or not.
Except it wasn't an icy road. The epic feat thing is the only actual issue, (I don't know how the true dragon interpretation ever happened since races of the dragon has a list of all the true dragons). Dragon fluff does not increase the risk of imbalance or issues.... Friggin generic "magic" fluff is more likely to cause issues than dragon is, nearly all the dragon content for players in the whole game is low in the power scale.

Your taking an anomaly, and then acting as though it was the likely outcome.

[Psyren]

Except it wasn't an icy road. The epic feat thing is the only actual issue, (I don't know how the true dragon interpretation ever happened since races of the dragon has a list of all the true dragons). Dragon fluff does not increase the risk of imbalance or issues.... Friggin generic "magic" fluff is more likely to cause issues than dragon is, nearly all the dragon content for players in the whole game is low in the power scale.

I have seen nothing, and I mean nothing, on par with the "True Dragons" debate for any other player race. And as bad as the epic feats are, they aren't even the only point of contention with Kobolds (see also things like Loredrake and Draconic Rite of Passage.) So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[The Insanity]

I like goblins done my way.

[Willie the Duck]

I do. Whats-more, I disagree with the image Paizo has decided on.

Well that's fine. If you have an opinion, are expressing it, and aren't asking for anything to change, and just want to be heard, then good for you.

The basic problem is that it doesn't seem like that's the case. It seems like you have a genuine problem with the PF version of goblins existing at all. That's not so good.

Because, frankly, there are dozens to hundreds of interpretations* of goblins, none of which are capital 'R' 'Right'. So... Piazo chose one that you wouldn't choose. Okay, now what? Make your opinions known? You've done that. People have said, 'well then, don't play them that way.' and you seem to have a problem with that, like it isn't a good enough solution. What next? Get them to change it? Other than unlikely, their interpretation is just as valid as yours. So, what exactly are you looking for? Validation? We've validated your right to your opinion, that it is a reasonable one, and that some people agree. Where do we go from here?



I don´t think that´s true. It´s more likely that the design team always worked with the assumption of random attribute rolls (or very low PB values) and judged LA based on that.

I think the most reasonable interpretation is that they just always always hedged their bets to the cautious side when it came to non-PHB races.


* - I can think of at least six distinct versions of goblins in A/D&D, pathfinder goblins, WoW goblins, Harry Potter Goblins, OotS goblins, Goblins:life through their eyes goblins, YAFGC goblins, Flaky Pastry goblins, and then there's fairy tale/folklore goblins, which have as much variation as trolls and elves do.

[Wonton]

I agree with your images, I like that D&D look way more. The football-head giant-teeth goblins just look waaaaaay too cartoony to me.

Personality seems fine to me, though. There's some silly stuff in there (afraid of horses and dogs?), but also some fun stuff (afraid of writing, can eat nearly anything, love fire). Goblin PCs totally work, just like the (in)famous Drow PCs. I have a Goblin Rogue in my group right now, aside from his insane +23 Stealth (at level 3), there's nothing wrong with his character. :smalltongue: He overcame his fear of reading and learned some languages, and if his character has to read something, he even roleplays being afraid of it and muttering the words, which is great.

[Psyren]

*snip*

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter good sir.

[Spore]

Personally I dislike having "alternate races" like Drow or Blue or Water Orcs. At least when they are a lazy copy that only changes the color or any other miniscule detail of a race.

"I play a Goblin but it's blue."
"I play an Orc but he is from watery areas."
And Drow don't make any sense. They should be nearly blind and almost white in their skin color - I feel Skyrim's Falmer, a race of blind pale elves were a cool concept. Not to say that I don't see the appeal in them being cursed to have black skin. It's just a tad random I feel.

[Honest Tiefling]

And Drow don't make any sense. They should be nearly blind and almost white in their skin color - I feel Skyrim's Falmer, a race of blind pale elves were a cool concept. Not to say that I don't see the appeal in them being cursed to have black skin. It's just a tad random I feel.

I think half of their appeal is in their coloration. Red, black, and red make for one hell of a snazzy character. UGH earthtones.

This thread has given me inspiration to combine Pathfinder Goblins with Shadowmoor/Lorwyn goblins, somehow, but I don't know how to make the reincarnation work...

[Psyren]

Drow, being Elves, are just that awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter) - being deep underground for thousands of years just means they have to squint a little when they come topside.

Blues meanwhile actually serve a valuable function - they provide a plausible reason why a disadvantaged, small-statured race who should have every reason to band together (like halflings and even kobolds do) can end up xenophobic and in-fighting.

[razorback]

PF goblins sound awfully heavily influenced by Warhammer Fantasy goblins.

Huh, I always thought someone watched too much Gremlins as a kid and thought "Goblins? Treat'em like Gremlins, like Mogwai when you feed them after midnight. Big, toothy mouths, kind of funny in a homicidal way... yeah, now do up some artwork."

Personally, I think the Golorian model if they are spawns of Rovagug the Devourer.
Like others have said, ignore the fluff and play them as you wish. Or, have them two separate branches of goblindom.

[ShurikVch]

That's a great fluff, but it doesn't work with crunch they have going in 3.5. D&D goblins have a CHA penaltyBut Azeroth Goblins don't; their only ability score modifiers are -2 Str/+2 Dex
(There is the link (http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Goblin) to Goblin page in WoWWiki, check the b&w a (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/7/7a/GoblinShop.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20071001184235)r (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/4/42/Epictinker.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20061210190809)t (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/2/27/Goblintinker.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20061224095210)s (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/b/b5/Steamwarrior.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070514034329))

And Drow don't make any sense. They should be nearly blind and almost white in their skin color - I feel Skyrim's Falmer, a race of blind pale elves were a cool concept. Not to say that I don't see the appeal in them being cursed to have black skin. It's just a tad random I feel.Firstly, I'm pretty sure their black skin have nothing to do with curse - they were like that from the get-go
And their Darkvision, if standard "evolutionary" explanation don't satisfy you, may be explained by their frequent mating with demons (i. e. Drow are "elven Tieflings")

[Willie the Duck]

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter good sir.

:smallbiggrin:

It's not a newsletter. Just a perspective: Be calm. Be rational. Don't begrudge anyone else having different opinions. Don't assume you're right. Don't assume that you are a genius (you certainly haven't proven yourself so to anyone here). Don't fall into any of the pitfalls of online foruming. Validate opinions. Look for solutions. When I actually stick to it, I do well.

[Psyren]

Firstly, I'm pretty sure their black skin have nothing to do with curse - they were like that from the get-go
And their Darkvision, if standard "evolutionary" explanation don't satisfy you, may be explained by their frequent mating with demons (i. e. Drow are "elven Tieflings")

Also, the Underdark isn't just short on sunlight. It is a gaping maw that's supernaturally linked to the Plane of Shadow, and none save perhaps Shar knows how deep it really goes. A few millennia down there can give your race a hell of a lot more than a tan, curse or no curse.


:smallbiggrin:

It's not a newsletter. Just a perspective: Be calm. Be rational. Don't begrudge anyone else having different opinions. Don't assume you're right. Don't assume that you are a genius (you certainly haven't proven yourself so to anyone here). Don't fall into any of the pitfalls of online foruming. Validate opinions. Look for solutions. When I actually stick to it, I do well.

Aye - and for the record, I don't begrudge anyone having an opinion. But starting a thread just to broadcast it, with no intention of changing one's mind or having a position that can be budged regardless of information/explanation, just strikes me as onanism.

[Segev]

That is indeed the sum of it. The reason this is so vexing is because it feels like one of my favorite races was ripped out from under me. The race went from a race I liked to... well, an over the top goofy race of clowns.

(...)

Or I can just 'not play as one of the two races that was my favorite race to play, and make sure I never have anything to do with them'. The weary 'holds up a sign - can you read this?' goblin who has discovered he's the only sane man is... actually okay! But I've done that a half dozen times now and would like to be done with it.Yeah, my condolences. I definitely can understand your disappointment.

I tend to rewrite things a lot in any game I run, even D&D. Goblins in one game were clever and sneaky jerks who were a second-class race in orcish society...except that they had finagled it so that the orcs left so many unpleasant, tedious tasks to the goblins that goblins were de-facto rulers of the society. Orcs thought they were in charge, but the orc chieftans' orders were only as effective as the goblins made them. If the goblins approved, they were expeditiously carried out, given to the right orcs to get them done, etc. If the goblins disapproved, they wound up not reaching the appropriate ears, and it just never quite got done. If the goblins wanted something done, it quietly was implemented as if it just randomly happened. If the orcs wanted something stopped but the goblins didn't, it just seemed to be a chronic problem with no solution nor end in sight.

[9mm]

Personally I like the Wicked Fantasy (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/116268/Wicked-Fantasy-Full-Book) version of Goblins: The gods gave their races gifts, Goblins got the gift of bad luck.

[Knaight]

I heard that most of the level adjustments in 3.x were deliberately calculated incorrectly in order to get people to play core races.
This sounds like the designers claiming that they deliberately made crappy feats so that system mastery would be rewarded. It's plausible, but it also works really neatly as a cover story for sloppy design, and I kind of suspect the latter.


Personality seems fine to me, though. There's some silly stuff in there (afraid of horses and dogs?), but also some fun stuff (afraid of writing, can eat nearly anything, love fire). Goblin PCs totally work, just like the (in)famous Drow PCs. I have a Goblin Rogue in my group right now, aside from his insane +23 Stealth (at level 3), there's nothing wrong with his character. :smalltongue: He overcame his fear of reading and learned some languages, and if his character has to read something, he even roleplays being afraid of it and muttering the words, which is great.

Have you dealt with big, vicious dogs? A mastiff that gets up in your face and starts barking angrily is dangerous, and that's without them being bigger than you. Even a medium sized dog that gets aggressive can be scary, and that's again without them being much bigger than you. As for horses, there's a reason shock cavalry is a thing, and they tend to be more than a little intimidating. Scale them up a bit, and they could easily be terrifying. On top of that, spooked horses can sometimes be prone to kicking, and when you've got a culture that is very fond of using fire as a tactic, there are going to be spooked horses. It makes a lot of sense.

[Morty]

D&D's treatment of "monster races" has always been some shade of terrible or other, with the sole exception of Eberron. Pathfinder's goblins are also awful, but at least they have some sort of character to them. Said character is "dimwitted pyromaniac comic relief", but it's a mild improvement over conveniently evil and weak little pests.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
What?? Drow aren't typical low-level fodder opponents at all.

I once killed a drow by falling on him. Just sayin'. :smalltongue:

We had been trapped in the depths of Undermountain for weeks on end, and had finally found our way up to Skullport, only to be ambushed by a gang of drow as soon as we stepped out of the door.

My druid wildshaped into osprey-form, winged up above the fray, and then shifted back to humanoid shape and dropped onto one of the drow. I'd only been intending to knock him to the ground, but the DM rolled a 6 for falling damage…and the drow had 5 hit points.

When my DM finally stopped laughing, he awarded me 150 XP for a "splat bonus." That was one of my favorite uses of wildshape ever.


Originally Posted by Sporeegg
And Drow don't make any sense. They should be nearly blind and almost white in their skin color - I feel Skyrim's Falmer, a race of blind pale elves were a cool concept.

As it happened, I worked up a race of blind, pallid elves (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12784341&postcount=21) a couple years ago, reimagining the drow to be more in line with other cave-dwelling species. Fairly basic, but it fit what I was looking for.

I don't know anything about the Falmer, so you'd have to tell me how much they have in common.


Originally Posted by ShurikVch
Firstly, I'm pretty sure their black skin have nothing to do with curse - they were like that from the get-go….

According to the 3.0 FRCS, it's a little of both. The first drow in Faerun were "descended from the original dark-skinned elven subrace called the Illythiiri," and later "cursed into their present appearance by the good elven deities for following the goddess Lolth" (p. 13). It's not specified exactly how much they were changed by the curse.

[AslanCross]

I feel for you, but I can't say I hate the PF goblins. They're adorable. But maybe that's what gets your goat, too.

I was always partial to Eberron's treatment of the goblinoids and the monstrous races in general. The goblinoids had an eleven-thousand year empire! Hobgoblins have a bardic tradition! Goblins are ninjas! The orcs saved the world!

I guess you just have to bring it up with the DM.

[Milo v3]

I dislike how dumb they are considering they are as smart as dwarves are....

[Blackhawk748]

I dislike how dumb they are considering they are as smart as dwarves are....

This is what always gets me. Goblins are as smart as any of the core races, so why are they always portrayed as dumber, sometimes even dumber than orcs. Im ok with them being cowardly, as they are a horde army, but dumb kinda goes against everything that they are.

[Segev]

This sounds like the designers claiming that they deliberately made crappy feats so that system mastery would be rewarded. It's plausible, but it also works really neatly as a cover story for sloppy design, and I kind of suspect the latter.

I suspect it's less sloppy, and more over-cautious. It wasn't that they deliberately mis-aligned LAs, but that they did not trust that they would get it right, so if there was even the slightest question, they erred on the side of the monster being too weak for its ECL. Their goal, I believe, was to make sure that nobody would say "this monster race is overpowered." And, mostly, they succeeded. Lots of underpowered ones. The number that are actually overpowered for their ECL can probably be counted on one hand with fingers to spare.

[Wonton]

Do people really think PF goblins are underpowered? :smallconfused:

I think Small size, 30 ft speed, +4 Dex, and an additional +4 Stealth (on top of the +4 they already get from being Small) is actually super good for a race. Okay, maybe it shoehorns them into Rogue a little too much, but what would you expect, given then way goblins are described. Of course they're gonna be cowardly little tricksters, not Paladins and Fighters.

I would argue it's one of the strongest Rogue races I've ever seen. Goblin Rogue in my party had +21 Stealth at level 1. Not to mention 22 Dex, which gives him the highest attack bonus in the group with Weapon Finesse, and AC higher than the tank (although that will change once the tank upgrades his Scale Mail).

P.S. Oh, and Darkvision, which is very underrated. Enemy cleric recently cast a Darkness spell, party was only saved from a wipe cause the Half-Orc and Goblin had darkvision.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm a big fan of Warcraft goblins myself. Conniving, greedy and mad, but fiercely intelligent tinkers and consummate businessmen.

Agreed. I personally would just take Goblin stats, get rid of the current ones and give em CHA and INT bonuses with a Con penalty. Best goblin I ever played was a Warcraft one. Mantakax Boomabillion: Inventor, savvy businessman, tactical captain, fire mage, shotgun-user, pulp hero, wannabe noir detective at times, and utterly awesome all the time, even when he was greedy. If it ain't worth a boom, it ain't worth a billion!

[squiggit]

I'm a fan of Warcraft goblins too. Though even in that universe they're still often played up humorously.


Said character is "dimwitted pyromaniac comic relief"

'dimwitted' with average intelligence and wisdom?

[ShurikVch]

I dislike how dumb they are considering they are as smart as dwarves are....
This is what always gets me. Goblins are as smart as any of the core races, so why are they always portrayed as dumber, sometimes even dumber than orcs. Im ok with them being cowardly, as they are a horde army, but dumb kinda goes against everything that they are.It's not a Pathfinder, but for everybody who like Goblins - check this article (http://www.candlekeep.com/library/articles/goblins.htm)
Points of interest:
Goblin Marches (Elminster's Ecologies: The Battle of Bones)
The Goblin Marches and High Moors were much wider and wetter than now. The Great Desert Anauroch's southernmost limits were 50 to 150 miles farther north than now, making the local weather cooler and moister. The Farsea Marsh was a freshwater lake ringed by forests and well-watered fields. The soil was rich, moist, and deep.
The goblins thrived in these lands, building mighty castles and citadels, particularly in the High Moors. Their numbers increased, and they built great armies and raiding parties, using dire wolves and other strange beasts as mounts. In the early centuries, they conquered the ancient kingdoms of Asram and Anauria, and fought with the city-state of Suzail, then only newly founded. Orcs and other so-called "evil" races were recruited as allied forces.
The goblins were wise enough never to attack Cormyr itself. By avoiding their strongest opponent, the goblins easily overcame the defenses of the villages, farms, and caravans bordering their expanding domain.Dhakaan (Eberron) - wiki articles [1] (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Dhakaani_Empire), [2] (http://eberronunlimited.wikidot.com/dhakaani)
Grodd (Into the Dragon's Lair)
The city of Grodd is a hollowed out portion in the center of a demiplane of solid stone. Its origins are unknown. Grodd is difficult to travel to and from with traditional dimensional-hopping magic. At some point over a thousand years ago, the plane became populated with goblins from the Goblin Marches area of Toril. Their first great ruler was a mysterious being known as the Iron One.

Since that time the goblins were taught and ruled by the elf/red dragon Nalavara who elevated their culture beyond the norm for their race. She gave them knowledge in many practices of more civilized folk as well as a pathological hatred for the kingdom of Cormyr.

Thousands of goblins inhabit the city and they maintain shops, mines, temples, and a well-trained military. They raise skunks, crows, and fungus as food. The goblins have lime-green skin and speak an ancient dialect of Elvish. Due to the demiplane’s close proximity to the Plane of Shadow, the goblins also have a strange affinity for shadow magic.

After a failed invasion on Cormyr, Nalavara was slain. The goblins are now engaged in a power struggle after the death of the dragon as well as their High Consul. But they have easy access to the area around the Storm Horns, so it’s likely that Toril has not seen the last of them.
Zakhara (Al Qadim, Land of Fate)
Unlike most settings, there is practically no racial disharmony in Zakhara: humans, elves, and orcs alike share the same culture, lifestyle, and social status, and races traditionally considered evil savages, such as goblins, are instead valued members of society.
Goblins in the Land of Fate have a great affinity for gadgets, especially explosives. They create and use odd devices such as flame-throwers, repeating crossbows, and balloons.Also, Wanderers Mamluk Society (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Wanderers_Mamluk_Society) - it's commander, Admiral Dus Abd al-Dawwar (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Dus_Abd_al-Dawwar), is Goblin

[Morty]

'dimwitted' with average intelligence and wisdom?

Their attributes don't play very well here with their presentations, in which they very much are dimwitted. Mind you, the same applies to their description in the 3.5 Monster Manual.

[thoroughlyS]

What?? Drow aren't typical low-level fodder opponents at all. They're intelligent, sneaky, use tactics, have spell resistance and carry poison, and that's before we get to the wizards and priestesses.
I admit "fodder" is wrong. I remembered reading somewhere that drow were designed to challenge low-level players by curtailing most of the advantages they will usually have in fights. While that was not said by WotC, I still believe it is a valid interpretation. More to the point, I still say that drow are supposed to be "slaughtered en masse by low-level adventurers".

The Drow are perhaps the most overused bunch of villains ever. Their entire ability set is one that is supposed to neutralize the advantages of player characters so that characters can have mirror matches against NPC parties without doubling their treasure. With magic items that turn off once they are brought out of Drow controlled regions, spell-resistance, and spell-like abilities designed to specifically negate common player-character tactical advantages, they can easily compete with Player Characters with massively more permanent magical equipment. And that means that they can be fought and killed several times without supercharging party treasure.








They could add without taking away, though. That's what happened to kobolds. They kept all of their original fluff, and had *MOAR DRAGONS* tacked on.
And because of this interference, Kobolds ended up as perhaps the most divisive D&D race apart from Kender, and banned at many tables due to the kinds of dragony exploits people became able to pull off. This point isn't exactly helping your case.
I feel that this argument is reaching. Firstly, kobolds became divisive because poorly written crunch led to exploits, whereas the fluff was not a problem. Secondly, that situation wouldn't have changed if their original fluff was overwritten as opposed to being added on to, which was what my complaint was about.
I disagree, you can't divorce the two. "MOAR DRAGONS" directly led to that power creep, because when a designer thinks "add more dragon", power is the logical result. I certainly didn't see Lizardfolk or Troglodytes getting sorcery, breath weapons, or advancing by age categories.
Except outside of an unintended side-benefit of the epic feat thing that was completely accidental.... the "power creep" was actually "making slightly less awful" since they were literally the weakest race in the entire game, and even with Races of the Dragon they needed to put out the web enhancement which get's them maybe about the same level of power as a halfling. And it's not like they get sorcerery or wings for free, and the book that gave "kobolds" things like wings actually gave them to sorcerers/kobolds/dragonborn/spellscales, kobolds being the weakest of those options.... And that book actually gave breath weapons to Half-Dragons, not kobolds.
I have no doubt it was unintended, but that doesn't mean it was unlikely. If you drive on an icy road, sliding off becomes probable whether you intend to do so or not.
Except it wasn't an icy road. The epic feat thing is the only actual issue, (I don't know how the true dragon interpretation ever happened since races of the dragon has a list of all the true dragons). Dragon fluff does not increase the risk of imbalance or issues.... Friggin generic "magic" fluff is more likely to cause issues than dragon is, nearly all the dragon content for players in the whole game is low in the power scale.

Your taking an anomaly, and then acting as though it was the likely outcome.
I have seen nothing, and I mean nothing, on par with the "True Dragons" debate for any other player race. And as bad as the epic feats are, they aren't even the only point of contention with Kobolds (see also things like Loredrake and Draconic Rite of Passage.) So we'll have to agree to disagree.
I reiterate: the problem with kobolds is not that they are heavily associated with dragons in the fluff, it is the "poorly written crunch" that allows players to argue that dragonwrought kobolds qualify as True Dragons. Giving kobolds 12 age categories (when that was the only RAW qualifier for True Dragons) was a mechanical boo-boo that could be exploited. Yes, it was unarguably the direct result of the dragon association, but that bit of crunch is where it became a problem.
All of this is irrelevant however, because my point was that you can add fluff without replacing what is already there. This can be seen in other cases, such as the aforementioned drow, and their book(s). Or even centaurs and gnolls in Races of the Wild.

I also am... a little up in the air about the suggestions that goblins need to have a particular backstory to be the 'You can just go around stabbing these it's alright' monster.

I mean... really, I've been in a number of games that were: 'I just worked 16 hour shifts on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and it is now Wednesday evening. The mayor tells you that the city is being attacked by bandits, you go to the barn where the bandits are holed up, I didn't even write down what race the bandits are, roll for initiative'. I've played in games where things that are listed as 'sometimes evil' are very, very black and white evil and it is totally okay to stab them.
This is the essence of a "Kick in the Door" game: kill stuff without sweating the details.


Sorry to say it, guys, but if your complaint is that DMs will use the Paizo fluff for their goblins and you don't like it...don't play those games.
That is indeed the sum of it. The reason this is so vexing is because it feels like one of my favorite races was ripped out from under me. The race went from a race I liked to... well, an over the top goofy race of clowns.
Actually, my problem is not with ANYONE using this kind of goblin. If you look back at my original post I only talk about the decisions Paizo made when redesigning goblins. I understand that everyone has their own opinions, and that a lot of people like the direction Paizo went with.
My problem equates to liking Dave Grohl in Nirvana but hating him in the Foo Fighters. My reaction is best summed up as not listening to Foo Fighters at all. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what, if any, differences there are between Dave Grohl's performances with either band. I don't listen to Nirvana or Foo Fighters, but this analogy fits. Assuming the music of Nirvana and Foo Fighters is different.)

You can talk to the DM about it and suggest how to alter it in his world, perhaps, but it's up to him how he runs it. If your DM is willing to work with you, you can write up goblins to be what you want them to be and talk to him about running them that way. Maybe he'll like your ideas and incorporate them instead of Paizo's. Maybe not. But you really don't have a right to say that it's wrong of a game company to present fluff of which you disapprove because DMs will use it by default.

...

Any "refluffing is bad" argument will fall on deaf ears, because frankly, I've yet to see a game which doesn't refluff SOMETHING.
The statement isn't "refluffing is bad". The statement is "re-fluffing is irrelevant".
I take issue specifically with Paizo's decisions and do not support Paizo as a business because of them.
I feel like a lot of people have skimmed over that part in my previous replies.

You're welcome to hate Paizo's goblins. Everybody has things in official fluff they dislike. Certainly, I do. I try to talk my DMs into changing it where I can. You should, too. Or run your own game, with goblins that fit your vision for them.
This is basically where I am, except that I've taken it a step further and do not play Pathfinder at all (nowadays I prefer D&D NEXT over v3.5 anyway). I realize this is an overreaction, and have admitted to it multiple times.

I can understand how this might be upsetting to some, but that doesn't make it the wrong decision even so. This rambunctious and goofy portrayal of goblins have clearly proven popular enough that they became capable of becoming the face of Pathfinder for practical and commercial purposes. Just by changing it they were bound to tick some folks off, but it seems the gamble succeeded, as these goblins are both well-liked and instantly recognizable not just as fantasy, but as Pathfinder.
I'm in the minority that got ticked off, and by a serious degree. I have no problem with other people enjoying this goblin either, I just don't get it.

And quite honestly, I like that they aren't just another generic savage yet noble set of Proud Warrior Race Guys. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProudWarriorRaceGuy) Let the Orcs and Lizardfolk and Kobolds and Duergar and Hobgoblins etc. carry that mantle; the Goblins are here to Fred Durst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpUYjpKg9KY) everything.
Goblins were never the Proud Warrior Race Guys, they were The Crafty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyAxisOfEvil) (Yes, I am well aware that this niche is similarly overcrowded). If anything, Pathfinder pushed them all the way to The Savage, forcing them to share design space with orcs (although that kind of makes sense, looking at their Tolkien roots).

Well that's fine. If you have an opinion, are expressing it, and aren't asking for anything to change, and just want to be heard, then good for you.

The basic problem is that it doesn't seem like that's the case.

I started this thread to express my dissatisfaction with how Paizo handled goblins. I HATE PATHFINDER GOBLINS. All the re-fluffing in the world doesn't matter to me in this context. I'm not looking for a fix. I'm not trying to convert others. I just wanted to feel heard. And all of you helped me find some peace with these thoughts.

It seems like you have a genuine problem with the PF version of goblins existing at all. That's not so good.

Because, frankly, there are dozens to hundreds of interpretations* of goblins, none of which are capital 'R' 'Right'. So... Piazo chose one that you wouldn't choose. Okay, now what? Make your opinions known? You've done that. People have said, 'well then, don't play them that way.' and you seem to have a problem with that, like it isn't a good enough solution. What next? Get them to change it? Other than unlikely, their interpretation is just as valid as yours. So, what exactly are you looking for? Validation? We've validated your right to your opinion, that it is a reasonable one, and that some people agree. Where do we go from here?
I understand that no interpretation is THE correct interpretation, but I should be allowed to rant and rave about hating the way Paizo did it. I honestly did not expect this thread to garner so much interest, but I've got to say I'm enjoying it quite a lot. I get to share my views on the subject with a lot of people, and hear their opinions too.
When it comes to not playing goblins that way, I am very clear that I don't, and I am also very clear that that was not the problem I addressed in my original post. It's not that the "solution" isn't good enough, it's that it's not a solution because they're not addressing my "problem". I don't really feel like there is a "problem", I just have a strong opinion.

* - I can think of at least six distinct versions of goblins in A/D&D, pathfinder goblins, WoW goblins, Harry Potter Goblins, OotS goblins, Goblins:life through their eyes goblins, YAFGC goblins, Flaky Pastry goblins, and then there's fairy tale/folklore goblins, which have as much variation as trolls and elves do.
Our Goblins Are Different (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurGoblinsAreDifferent)
And I like most of the interpretations cataloged here. I like goblins in general, not just for roleplaying games. So when the interpretation I HATE is the one most people like, I get worked up. Again, that's not a problem, I just want to vent.

Personally I dislike having "alternate races" like Drow or Blue or Water Orcs. At least when they are a lazy copy that only changes the color or any other miniscule detail of a race.
I'm on the opposite end of that argument. I like that you can have small mechanical benefits that reflect your character's origin. That's why I'm a fan of the Background idea of D&D NEXT.

This thread has given me inspiration to combine Pathfinder Goblins with Shadowmoor/Lorwyn goblins, somehow, but I don't know how to make the reincarnation work...
I actually like that idea, because I really like Boggarts. I know how weird that sounds.


Be calm. Be rational. Don't begrudge anyone else having different opinions. Don't assume you're right. Don't assume that you are a genius (you certainly haven't proven yourself so to anyone here). Don't fall into any of the pitfalls of online foruming. Validate opinions. Look for solutions. When I actually stick to it, I do well.
Aye - and for the record, I don't begrudge anyone having an opinion. But starting a thread just to broadcast it, with no intention of changing one's mind or having a position that can be budged regardless of information/explanation, just strikes me as onanism.
I mean, opinions aren't usually swayed by information/explanation, that's why they're opinions. And everyone likes to feel acknowledged. I also feel like I've validated my opinions where necessary.

Personally I like the Wicked Fantasy (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/116268/Wicked-Fantasy-Full-Book) version of Goblins: The gods gave their races gifts, Goblins got the gift of bad luck.
In D&D, goblins got the gift of hate.



D&D's treatment of "monster races" has always been some shade of terrible or other, with the sole exception of Eberron. Pathfinder's goblins are also awful, but at least they have some sort of character to them. Said character is "dimwitted pyromaniac comic relief", but it's a mild improvement over conveniently evil and weak little pests.
'dimwitted' with average intelligence and wisdom?
Their attributes don't play very well here with their presentations, in which they very much are dimwitted. Mind you, the same applies to their description in the 3.5 Monster Manual.


Being bullied by bigger, stronger creatures has taught goblins to exploit what few advantages they have: sheer numbers and malicious ingenuity. The concept of a fair fight is meaningless in their society. They favor ambushes, overwhelming odds, dirty tricks, and any other edge they can devise.
Goblins have a poor grasp of strategy and are cowardly by nature, tending to flee the field if a battle turns against them. With proper supervision, though, they can implement reasonably complex plans, and in such circumstances their numbers can be a deadly advantage.
Just the combat passage paints them as devious and conniving. While it does mention a "poor grasp of strategy", that does not mean stupid. In all likely hood, they could just rely too heavily on ambush. And I've seen many discussions online about goblins and kobolds filling the same roles, where people tend to side with the kobolds. In my opinion, kobolds are the more passive: sitting in lairs completely stuffed full of traps. In comparison, goblins are the more active, raiding nearby villages nightly. But that's just me.

Have you dealt with big, vicious dogs? A mastiff that gets up in your face and starts barking angrily is dangerous, and that's without them being bigger than you. Even a medium sized dog that gets aggressive can be scary, and that's again without them being much bigger than you. As for horses, there's a reason shock cavalry is a thing, and they tend to be more than a little intimidating. Scale them up a bit, and they could easily be terrifying. On top of that, spooked horses can sometimes be prone to kicking, and when you've got a culture that is very fond of using fire as a tactic, there are going to be spooked horses. It makes a lot of sense.
According to the reading I did yesterday, Pathfinder goblins hate dogs because they don't think they're as good as goblin dogs. The horses explanation makes sense though.

I feel for you, but I can't say I hate the PF goblins. They're adorable. But maybe that's what gets your goat, too.
I just think Pathfinder goblins are fugly. Like, really fugly. I don't enjoy any of the art I've seen for Pathfinder goblins. After leafing through the beastiary, I feel like a lot of Paizo's artwork doesn't really do it for me. So it goes.


I dislike how dumb they are considering they are as smart as dwarves are....
This is what always gets me. Goblins are as smart as any of the core races, so why are they always portrayed as dumber, sometimes even dumber than orcs. Im ok with them being cowardly, as they are a horde army, but dumb kinda goes against everything that they are.
I like the simple explanation found in the Slayer's Guide: "Other races just THINK goblins are dumb". Confirmation bias leads to people writing off crafty goblins as a fluke, and the instances of goblins screwing up are seen as the standard. Plus, the only people who would live to recount their interactions with goblins are the luckier of the bunch.

Do people really think PF goblins are underpowered? :smallconfused:
People think that v3.5 Blues (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/blue.htm) are underpowered.

[Psyren]

The statement isn't "refluffing is bad". The statement is "re-fluffing is irrelevant".
I take issue specifically with Paizo's decisions and do not support Paizo as a business because of them.
I feel like a lot of people have skimmed over that part in my previous replies.



I mean, opinions aren't usually swayed by information/explanation, that's why they're opinions. And everyone likes to feel acknowledged. I also feel like I've validated my opinions where necessary.

Then to this I can only say, if all you want is acknowledgement, then you've got it. "Cool story bro" is indeed an acknowledgement, and where our discussion has to end.

I may reply to others in the thread who wish to discuss further.

[Bohandas]

P.S. Oh, and Darkvision, which is very underrated. Enemy cleric recently cast a Darkness spell, party was only saved from a wipe cause the Half-Orc and Goblin had darkvision.

Darkvision doesn't work in magical darkness unless you're a baatezu


I also am... a little up in the air about the suggestions that goblins need to have a particular backstory to be the 'You can just go around stabbing these it's alright' monster.

I mean... really, I've been in a number of games that were: 'I just worked 16 hour shifts on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and it is now Wednesday evening. The mayor tells you that the city is being attacked by bandits, you go to the barn where the bandits are holed up, I didn't even write down what race the bandits are, roll for initiative'. I've played in games where things that are listed as 'sometimes evil' are very, very black and white evil and it is totally okay to stab them.

Heck, it is a little unusual to be in a game where, say, hobgoblins are not automatically okay for stabbing.


Have I already given my token suggestion to just set the campaign in the abyss, where by custom everything is ok for stabbing (as in, the custom there is to stab [,shoot, cut, maim, kill, butcher, beat, boil...] things/people/animals/etc, not [just] that the things there are ok to stab)

[Yahzi]

Goblins in one game were clever and sneaky jerks who were a second-class race in orcish society...except that they had finagled it so that the orcs left so many unpleasant, tedious tasks to the goblins that goblins were de-facto rulers of the society.
That describes my goblins. They are always "ruled" by some high-level monster, but they arrange things in the background for their own benefit. My goblins are smart, sophisticated, and cruel.

What I can't stand is an entire race dedicated to comic relief. Ugh.

[Kish]

*thread title*

They hate you, too.

[Starbuck_II]

The Goblins in the Huntsman: Winter's War movie were interesting. They had Regen (Gold), tough skin, Strong, cunning savages, loved gold (even though it was their weakness), etc.

.

[Honest Tiefling]

I actually like that idea, because I really like Boggarts. I know how weird that sounds.

Probably because Pathfinder Goblins come across as 'lolzrandom' (even if it can be well explained, I don't think that was what they were going for). Boggarts can be silly, but there's always that hint of a ravenous horde that can not only strip a cow in five minutes, but is going to keep coming back...

[Der_DWSage]

Honestly, I'll agree that they went a little too far in making Goblins the wacky, zany race of dangerous idiots. They chose a direction and ran with it, so I'll respect that much, but I agree with not really agreeing with it-mostly for the same reason that I dislike 'Always evil' races. It makes them one-dimensional, and not really worth exploring further.

Then again, if it was, for example, Bugbears that were the wacky, zany ones, as Bugbears are far less common...maybe it would've worked. When it's not the go-to low level opponent that everyone fights a thousand of, familiarity doesn't breed as much contempt, and the concept works much better. It becomes less 'I'm sick of this' and more 'So they're one-dimensional, but at least it's an amusing direction.'

I'll admit that I partially dislike Goblins being wacky for another, more meta reason-they encourage disruptive players to do things like eat the government official's papers to 'save him from the evil words,' set fire to the Inn you're staying in, and other things of that nature. Someone earlier hit the nail on the head-they're Kender, but at least they're honestly hated in-universe instead of being perfect little angels.

[Blackhawk748]

Someone earlier hit the nail on the head-they're Kender, but at least they're honestly hated in-universe instead of being perfect little angels.


they're Kender


Kender


Kender

AAAAAAAARGGGH!!! KILL IT WITH ALL THE FIRE!!!

https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-16-2015/mG_otV.gif

[Steven]

Darkvision doesn't work in magical darkness unless you're a baatezu

Welcome to Pathfinder where Darkness (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Darkness) doesn't stop darkvision.
"Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty."

[StreamOfTheSky]

I agree with you, OP, completely. I find the goblin art atrocious and their fluff is some of the dumbest trite I've ever read.

But....Paizo mechanically buffed them to the point they're on par w/ the core races (+4 Dex!!!) and gave them that sexy Roll With It feat. So I have enjoyed playing a goblin in PF and completely, mercilessly, coldly, with a vengeance ignoring every single bit of the fluff on how goblins are supposed to be. When I DM tries to get me to act like a goblin "is supposed to" or introduces NPC goblins like that, I shut that crap down as hard as crit fumble rules. Because it's just as bad. And crit fumbles are the Ebola of houserules.

[Khartoum]

It's been a long time since this was started but I can relate. I also have loved goblins from the old D&D days and MTG, it's a nightmare to have so much focus on the race you want in the opposite way. Pathfinder 2e now has them as PC races and I can't bare their awful looking red eyes at all.

So yeah, I feel ya. The only thing worst than their artwork is everything they are about in Pathfinder.

[Buufreak]

{scrubbed}

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Pathfinder Goblins don't react well to necromancy.