# Bulmahn on Pathfinder 2's Goblin Ancestry



## Rocky777 (Apr 5, 2018)

I never played pathfinder but their Artwork has always captivated me, I should give it or Starfinder a try soon


----------



## dm4hire (Apr 5, 2018)

> Book size -- "Page size for the adventure and all 3 editions of the Playtest Rulebook are our standard size (approximately 8.5"x11")."




I wonder if it wouldn't be better to do the playtest books in digest format?  Since it is a limited run series it would save paper for a product that will be used for a few months and then sit on a shelf from then on once the testing is done.  There would be just as much collectible value for a digest sized book as for full size.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Apr 5, 2018)

Starfinder is a lot of fun, with some wonderful worldbuilding. The art is pretty top-notch, too. For my part, I think it also made solid strides in doing away with some of the things in Pathfinder I found to be “un-fun.”

On the subject of Goblins as core, I’m perfectly happy with it. I’ve long wanted to play one, but since I only do Pathfinder as part of organized play, I never qualified for the cert to allow it. I do get people’s concerns, though. There’s only so much of a PC using “I’m just role-playing my character” as an excuse for being disruptive that people can tolerate.



Rocky777 said:


> I never played pathfinder but their Artwork has always captivated me, I should give it or Starfinder a try soon


----------



## GMMichael (Apr 5, 2018)

What's the pushback against goblins?  Are people afraid that all-goblin PC groups will be the new norm?  Or maybe, goblins will lose their minion status if the game endorses them as playable characters?  The horror...


----------



## Anthro78 (Apr 5, 2018)

Some of the pushback comes from PFS, where goblins have been only available via hard to get boons, usually charity ones that people spent a lot of money on.  There are complaints that this makes their spend invalid.  It's nonsense to me, since any money spent on a charity is good, even if the benefit proved to be less eternal than expected.


----------



## Aephix (Apr 5, 2018)

A fair amount of the pushback is just from folks who don't like "monsters" as playable characters, even if the creatures have variable ethics and morality that can allow them to be heroic.  It breaks verisimilitude for them to see goblins as PC's, but honestly, I think that part of the appeal of playing one would be trying to break other player's and NPC's preconceived notions while still playing with the goblin's cultural identity.


----------



## tigycho (Apr 5, 2018)

Aephix said:


> I think that part of the appeal of playing one would be trying to break other player's and NPC's preconceived notions while still playing with the goblin's cultural identity.




I play a goblin cleric in D&D 5e Adventurer's League, and that's exactly how I play Woody.  He was 'rescued' as an orphan baby after adventurers wiped out his clan in Cragmaw Hideout, and raised as a 'civilized' goblin.

He tries, VERY HARD, to present the appearance of cleanliness and civility he thinks is expected... but, under pressure, tends to revert to a much less predictable and civil behavior.  He's always very sorry for this, of course...

The worst is when he has to deal with 'wild' goblinkin.  They tend to hate him on sight, and he has yet to convince any of them that there is another, better way, to live.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 5, 2018)

Goblins are the future!


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Apr 5, 2018)

Hasbro D&D is a branch of D&D which became infused with a "Dragon race" (Dragonborn) and a "Dungeons Deep" race (Tieflings...Deeplings). Which is symbolic.
Paizo D&D is a branch of D&D which became infused with Pathfinder's iconic...Golarion Goblins. Which is symbolic of Paizo.

It's fitting.

I'd add a Golem PC, inspired by Paizo's logo. (What kind of golem is that?...Iron Golem?)


----------



## Jer (Apr 5, 2018)

DMMike said:


> What's the pushback against goblins?  Are people afraid that all-goblin PC groups will be the new norm?  Or maybe, goblins will lose their minion status if the game endorses them as playable characters?  The horror...




Many people also don't like Dragonborn or Tieflings being part of the core of D&D either.  

There are folks who play the game as "if its in the core rulebook, it's allowed" and they get irritated when new things are added between editions because their campaign has no room for those things.  To them these are fundamental changes to the game that are worse than mere mechanical rules changes because they are core setting changes they never asked for and now have to deal with one way or the other in their own games (either by disallowing them via a house rule to keep the setting consistent or stay with "anything core is allowed" and be forced to make setting changes).

I don't personally play the game that way - I'm a kitchen sink GM and most of the worlds I run are kitchen sink worlds - but I can understand the irritation at feeling like you're caught between three bad choices - house rule, change your setting, or stick with an old edition that might be feeling its age a bit.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 5, 2018)

Kender 2: Goblins!


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 5, 2018)

Nothing to see here.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Apr 5, 2018)

The irony of being opposed to goblins joining the ranks is that even in the more restrictive Pathfinder Society, I’ve come across far stranger. There are just so many options, I fail to see that the goblin is more than a drop in a bucket.



Aephix said:


> A fair amount of the pushback is just from folks who don't like "monsters" as playable characters, even if the creatures have variable ethics and morality that can allow them to be heroic.  It breaks verisimilitude for them to see goblins as PC's, but honestly, I think that part of the appeal of playing one would be trying to break other player's and NPC's preconceived notions while still playing with the goblin's cultural identity.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Apr 5, 2018)

One of my favorite homebrew PCs is a psionic blueskin goblin. I don't like goblins from Golarion but I don't mind because if I play Pathfinder, I don't play Golarion but my own homebrew worlds. 

And who would want to play a PC goblin? Somebody who wish to play the fantasy version of a "problematic chidl".


----------



## ZeshinX (Apr 5, 2018)

Not a fan of them (or any 'monster' race) as a core option, but as playtest material, sure.

'Drizzt Syndrome' has always been a sort of tangential thing...but including monster races as core will only up that.  I mean, the concept of the occasionally non-stereotypical member of the monster races that finds acceptance in society is cool...but when it's core and rampant...especially after all the work put in by Paizo to make goblins despicable, dangerous little verminous nuisances...kinda undermines the flavor of Golarion (to me).

Ultimately, won't impact me if they include it in core.  It will be ignored in my group anyway (we all got well and truly over the humanoid/monster PC races thing in D&D 2e after Humanoids Handbook).


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 5, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> Kender 2: Goblins!




In all honesty, this seems to be the big complaint, from what I've seen.

For those who aren't Pathfinder aficionados, Paizo has gone out of its way to give their goblins a very distinctive flair. The easiest way to summarize them is that they're a _lot_ like the signature creatures from the _Gremlins_ film, in terms of how they act. They come across as semi-intelligent, frenetic trickster/killers who hate dogs, fear fire, and _love_ rhyming. I suspect that's great in small doses, but imagine having one of those in your party game-in and game-out.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 5, 2018)

FWIW, I think Vic's comments are pretty carefully stated.  
Goblins will be in the playtest and they will ultimately be in PF2.  But clearly that statement allows for them being pushed out to a supplement not unlike their current existence in the Advanced Race Guide.  Which isn't to claim he is suggesting that they will be moved either.


----------



## snickersnax (Apr 5, 2018)

DMMike said:


> What's the pushback against goblins?  Are people afraid that all-goblin PC groups will be the new norm?  Or maybe, goblins will lose their minion status if the game endorses them as playable characters?  The horror...




I'll have to admit that my pushback stems from paizo goblins seeming like mis-behaved kick-me dogs that the owner thinks is cute and should be treated like a king and insists that you should too.  In fact they should be getting a gold medal for choir competition because, you know...they can sing.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 5, 2018)

I don't mind goblins in Core.  

I probably won't let people play them, but that's on me, not on Paizo.  (I mean, unless it says "Each player must play a Goblin once or we're going to burn your books!" then it's on them.)

I do object to a charisma bonus.  But I don't think highly enough of myself to believe anyone else cares what I think.


----------



## Mark Craddock (Apr 5, 2018)

I find it amusing that Jason say anything can change and Vic says goblins are in.

This will be an interesting playtest.


----------



## Fandabidozi (Apr 5, 2018)

I for one welcome our new goblin overlords.


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 5, 2018)

As someone mentioned, Pathfinder goblins are sort of obnoxious like kender were/are, except maybe more destructive.  

Part of this is really a player problem, people will play a goblin (like a kender) just to be annoying. But it's also giving those players some supposed justification to be annoying in character.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 5, 2018)

Frankly, I don’t think it’s the game developer’s job to fix “The Kender Problem.” That’s not a game design issue, that’s a social dynamic issue.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 6, 2018)

Mark Craddock said:


> I find it amusing that Jason say anything can change and Vic says goblins are in.




Jason is talking about PF2 and Vic is talking about the Playtest.

As in, Goblins are definitely in the playtest but anything can change before PF2.


----------



## Emerikol (Apr 6, 2018)

For me, I've never considered anything in the rulebooks as more than suggested ideas to include in a campaign.   I've created new races out of thin air and removed other races to give a campaign a particular flavor.  So the more the merrier.  What bothers me some as a player, are the DM's who feel that every single solitary thing in the book has to be in every campaign world.  It makes for generic undistinctive worlds.

Now I know that many Pathfinder people (probably most actually) are very bought into Golarion.  I love reading about it but I would likely never play in it.  I want world discovery to be a big part of my campaign and it's too easy for players to know too much about Golarion.


----------



## Emirikol Prime (Apr 6, 2018)

Seems like a giant betrayal of how they’ve been presented which is one of the iconic parts of PF.  

That said every table is their own boss.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 6, 2018)

I am not one of those anti-race guys.  I dont care about the people BSing about Goblins or Dragonborn or Drizzts or Kender or what have you.  Its up to Paizo to sell me on these guys though.

I am just glad that Paizo are including all the races and not trying to milk more money out of us by splitting some races into the first core book and the rest into the next core books.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 6, 2018)

The first RPG I played was *Talislanta*, where there were scores of races. The sort of 'default' setting to start a campaign in was the Seven Kingdoms, where the races were:

[*]*Cymrilians* Green people who use a lot of magic. (Basically humans.)
[*]*Muses* 5-ft.-tall butterfly-winged people that can read people's emotions.
[*]*Sindarans* 7-ft.-tall people with two brains that can let each half of the mind sleep independently, so they're always awake.
[*]*Thralls* Muscle-bound albinos once bred by wizards for war, who distinguish themselves with tattoos based on their accomplishments.
[*]*Gnomekin* 3-ft. tall subterranean people with big eyes who create magic through crystals.
[*]*Kasmirans* People who I realize now were probably just a nasty Jewish caricature. Damn. Wrinkly, mean, greedy people. Kinda boring from a world-building standpoint.
[*]*Aeriad* Bird people who are adept at plant magic, and whose vestigial wings mean they can only glide.






So those are all kinda 'normal'. But if you go only slightly farther afield you get vulture people, four-legged amphibious people, scorpion hivemind people, pangolin people who are great engineers, rat/cat pirate people, giants, even intelligent snails. Lots of 'basically humans but with different cultures.' All of them were given equal space in the rulebook, though.

So, um, sure, goblins are fine by me. If anything, the races in Golarion are too homogenous. Like, in Talislanta, if an Aamanian and a Danalek met, they'd consider themselves different races, even though they both look like real-world humans. They'd both see the other as just as foreign as an Ispasian, who look like this.






Maybe Pathfinder nations need to see each other as all equally foreign. Like, sure, I'm from a human from Taldor and you're an elf from Kyonin, but he's from Ustalav! We have nothing in common!


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Frankly, I don’t think it’s the game developer’s job to fix “The Kender Problem.” That’s not a game design issue, that’s a social dynamic issue.




Disagree.  The Kender as they are written are explicitly anti-party what with their inability to comprehend law and the fact that some towns arrest them on sight.  

If a game creates something playable, it doesn't need to be the _most_ group compatible, but understanding that we are playing a group game, it shouldn't be _anti_-group.  The Kender, as written were fairly anti-group, and their Dear Leader Tasselhoff was a poor example since he wasn't actually a Kender.

Sure, people who feel attracted to that sort of gameplay _are_ a social problem.  But if that wasn't available for them to play we could at least dispense with the excuse "I'm just playing to what the book says my people act like!"


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 6, 2018)

shidaku said:


> Disagree.  The Kender as they are written are explicitly anti-party what with their inability to comprehend law and the fact that some towns arrest them on sight.
> 
> If a game creates something playable, it doesn't need to be the _most_ group compatible, but understanding that we are playing a group game, it shouldn't be _anti_-group.  The Kender, as written were fairly anti-group, and their Dear Leader Tasselhoff was a poor example since he wasn't actually a Kender.
> 
> Sure, people who feel attracted to that sort of gameplay _are_ a social problem.  But if that wasn't available for them to play we could at least dispense with the excuse "I'm just playing to what the book says my people act like!"




That’s fair, though if that’s how you define the Kender problem then I’d say that’s a very different situation than we’ve got with Goblins. They’re not anti-party from what we’ve seen so far. The text we’ve seen doesn’t talk about them setting fire to their allies or anything. In fact, it talks about them flocking to the leadership of their party, and becoming attached to those who protect them. They seem closer to Gnomes than Kender to me - encouraged towards a comic relief role, but not towards actively anti-party antagonism.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s fair, though if that’s how you define the Kender problem then I’d say that’s a very different situation than we’ve got with Goblins. They’re not anti-party from what we’ve seen so far. The text we’ve seen doesn’t talk about them setting fire to their allies or anything. In fact, it talks about them flocking to the leadership of their party, and becoming attached to those who protect them. They seem closer to Gnomes than Kender to me - encouraged towards a comic relief role, but not towards actively anti-party antagonism.




As a general rule, I'm always touchy about flavoring playable statblocks, especially when they imply _behaviour_.

To say the _average_ elf or goblin or kender does XYZ I have little problem with.  It's good for setting expectations on how to interact with them.  It's not so good for players.  Players, as a rule, are the exception.  To quote Yoda: Flavor leads to features, features lead to rules and rules lead to the GM telling you how you have to behave as a member of XYZ race.

Especially when it's behaviour towards other party members.  This may seem odd given my comments about anti-party playable options, but the choice to stay with the group, or leave the group, or support the group, or work against the group, should be, 90% of the time, based on interactions with the group, and player desires.  When features start saying things like "When the paladin protects you, you start liking him more." crossed my "Red Line" of the game running your character for you.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 6, 2018)

shidaku said:


> As a general rule, I'm always touchy about flavoring playable statblocks, especially when they imply _behaviour_.
> 
> To say the _average_ elf or goblin or kender does XYZ I have little problem with.  It's good for setting expectations on how to interact with them.  It's not so good for players.  Players, as a rule, are the exception.  To quote Yoda: Flavor leads to features, features lead to rules and rules lead to the GM telling you how you have to behave as a member of XYZ race.
> 
> Especially when it's behaviour towards other party members.  This may seem odd given my comments about anti-party playable options, but the choice to stay with the group, or leave the group, or support the group, or work against the group, should be, 90% of the time, based on interactions with the group, and player desires.  When features start saying things like "When the paladin protects you, you start liking him more." crossed my "Red Line" of the game running your character for you.



Oh, ok. That’s a _very_ different objection than the Kender problem, and one I’m much more sympathetic to. Ultimately, I don’t really care what the fluff says about the NPC races or their PC counterparts because I’m going to run my NPCs the way that suits my game, and I’ll let my players play their characters however they want as long as it doesn’t harm the other players’ experience. But I see where you’re coming from, the fluff can create certain expectations, and “Though Shalt Play Goblin Characters In The One True Way” isn’t a good expectation to set.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 6, 2018)

Eh... there's probably nothing thematically "wrong" with having goblins in Core.  There's nothing thematically "right" about it either.  I'll probably ignore them as best I can, just as I ignore tieflings and dragonborn in 5e.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Apr 6, 2018)

I think that Paizo should include more than just Goblins as new core ancestry's. Goblins are a nice step, but they could add more. At least 3 or 4 more.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 6, 2018)

Emirikol Prime said:


> Seems like a giant betrayal of how they’ve been presented which is one of the iconic parts of PF.



Someone on the Paizo forums had done research intended to rebuke the inclusion of goblins as a core ancestry in PF2. But according to them, they discovered in their research that the negative portrayal of goblins greatly softened over time, with some of the worst stuff being in the 3.5 publications that were subsequently deemed "non-canonical." 



Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I think that Paizo should include more than just Goblins as new core ancestry's. Goblins are a nice step, but they could add more. At least 3 or 4 more.



I recall a few developers suggesting that they wanted to add more (e.g., tengu), but they decided against it for the sake of the total page count and focus. I personally would have loved if they added kobolds to the mix. That would have also thrown a nice bone to their fellows and supporters at Kobold Press.


----------



## amethal (Apr 6, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Someone on the Paizo forums had done research intended to rebuke the inclusion of goblins as a core ancestry in PF2. But according to them, they discovered in their research that the negative portrayal of goblins greatly softened over time, with some of the worst stuff being in the 3.5 publications that were subsequently deemed "non-canonical."



Jade Regent was a fairly early adventure path, but it is Pathfinder not 3.5.

Its initial plot hook is pretty much "head out and kill all the goblins you can find, and Sandpoint will pay you 10 gp for each goblin ear you bring back, no questions asked". That's one town in Golarion any PC goblins should stay away from, and their attitude to goblins was not called out as being unusual.

The adventure was written by James Jacobs. 

I'd much prefer a more nuanced take on goblins, and it seems like Paizo now feels the same. I'll be interested to see what the event is that changes some people's attitudes to Golarion's goblins.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 6, 2018)

amethal said:


> Jade Regent was a fairly early adventure path, but it is Pathfinder not 3.5.
> 
> The adventure was written by James Jacobs.



Again, the larger point of this particular person on the Paizo forums was that "the negative portrayal of goblins greatly softened over time" in the ~10 year history of Pathfinder. Jade Regent was also written in 2011, a few years after the release of Pathfinder, so it would be in the earlier years of that spectrum of change.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 6, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I recall a few developers suggesting that they wanted to add more (e.g., tengu), but they decided against it for the sake of the total page count and focus. I personally would have loved if they added kobolds to the mix. That would have also thrown a nice bone to their fellows and supporters at Kobold Press.




I'd really like to see Orcs get the PHB treatment.  It would be a nice way to finally lift the "this race is born evil and requires the blood of saviour humans to give them free will".


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 7, 2018)

shidaku said:


> I'd really like to see Orcs get the PHB treatment.  It would be a nice way to finally lift the "this race is born evil and requires the blood of saviour humans to give them free will".




Watch Orcs be a core race and Half-Orcs be humans with Orc Ancestry Feats or Orcs with Human Ancestry Feats.

Also Half-Elves. They'll work that way too, I bet.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 7, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Watch Orcs be a core race and Half-Orcs be humans with Orc Ancestry Feats or Orcs with Human Ancestry Feats.
> 
> Also Half-Elves. They'll work that way too, I bet.




I would be very happy if they did.


----------



## jedijon (Apr 8, 2018)

Monster players are disliked within the game world (offset by the fact that we KNOW it’s a game [vs our reality] and like “anti heroes”), cause the whole group to be faced with a more visceral morality i.e. ‘we just killed our buddy’s brother’ by placing monsters both IN and OUT of the party (partially offset by the fact that we rarely care to portray realistic social and moral consequence), and work to invalidate our tropes of what’s “heroic” when a CR 1/10th threat is fighting by our side at lvl20 (nothing to offset this - save for teh lullz).

Ya gotta pick one bad boy. See part 1. I take it that all the above justification underpins why that is goblins for them—never realized they were so iconic for the pathfinder design team. This particular one puts a heavy conflict between 1 & 3 for me—a goblin is not an epic friend/foe.

Stature predudice FTW?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 8, 2018)

All this talk about Goblins reminds me of a movie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eisKxhjBnZ0


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 8, 2018)

shidaku said:


> I would be very happy if they did.



I would have mixed feelings about it given the status of the Khoravar in Eberron as their own unique thing.


----------



## Starfox (Apr 12, 2018)

shidaku said:


> I don't mind goblins in Core.
> [...]
> I do object to a charisma bonus.  But I don't think highly enough of myself to believe anyone else cares what I think.



Every small race - and now their dog - has a Charisma bonus in Pathfinder.


----------



## D1Tremere (Apr 12, 2018)

I for one am excited to play a Pathfinder goblin. I feel they bring energy and exciting role playing opportunities.
You have to remember, goblins or kinder, there is nothing anti group to any race. They may have tendencies that cause difficulty in highly structured parties or campaigns, but that is a good thing. How far it gets taken is up to the players. 
A player who insists on taking those racial tendencies to their extreme, despite it disrupting the fun of the group, is more of a player problem than a race problem.
Anyone who wants to see how great goblins can be in a group, just read the King of the Goblins Pathfinder Worldscape comic book from dynamite.


----------



## DeaconBlues (Apr 12, 2018)

For a monster race that is pretty universally feared, hated and scorned by humanity, a bonus to Charisma seems to be counter-intuitive. I can just see it: 


DM: "As you pull back your hood, revealing your warty green skin and wide shark-like grin, the shopkeeper recoils in horror and disgust. "Aahhh!! A goblin! Get out of my shop!"
Goblin Player: "What? But I'm trying to get information!" 
DM: "The shopkeeper continues to shout at you and grabs a shovel from the corner. He seems to be getting ready to beat you with the shovel if you don't leave."
Goblin Player: "But I have a 20 Charisma! Shouldn't he be impressed by me?" 
DM: "You might be the most charming goblin he's ever met, but all he sees right now is a goblin. The same as those that burned the town to the ground just two years ago. Since you haven't left yet, roll for initiative."


I get that some people want to play monsters. Sometimes it's fun to play the underdog, the guy that tries to help the world that fears and spits on them. That's one reason the X-Men are so popular. But to me, high Charisma means charming, suave, sophisticated, and natural leaders. Goblins are none of these things, except perhaps to other goblins. I would have thought that the stereotypical goblin would have a Charisma _penalty_ instead of a bonus. 


Just my two cents....


----------



## Starfox (Apr 13, 2018)

This is a part of the whole "Ghouls have 14 Charisma" that was a thing when 3E first came out. Charisma in 3E is  force of personality, as illustrated by sorcerers and oracles. Sadly, it is ALSO charm. As the game stands now, it would actually make sense to move skills like Bluff and Diplomacy to Wisdom - it goes better with what classes represent commonly charming tropes. It would also make rogues less MAD.


----------



## D1Tremere (Apr 13, 2018)

I think it would make more sense to people if they read the Pathfinder comics. They aren't just monsters roaming the wild. They have a presence in major cities (all be it not a very positive one). They are potentially subjected to law (arrested by Hellknights in one issue), and not attacked as Vernon.
The Pathfinder world already allows for the possibility of goblins using force of personality to overcome their station. They need to be reevaluated in Pathfinder much like Half Orcs and Dragonborn in D&D.
Personally, my cultural anthropology background biases me to believe that any species with language and/or culture should be less one dimensional.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 13, 2018)

D1Tremere said:


> I think it would make more sense to people if they read the Pathfinder comics. They aren't just monsters roaming the wild. They have a presence in major cities (all be it not a very positive one). They are potentially subjected to law (arrested by Hellknights in one issue), and not attacked as Vernon.
> The Pathfinder world already allows for the possibility of goblins using force of personality to overcome their station. They need to be reevaluated in Pathfinder much like Half Orcs and Dragonborn in D&D.
> Personally, my cultural anthropology background biases me to believe that any species with language and/or culture should be less one dimensional.




I fully agree that multidimensionality is a good thing for all intelligent species in fantasy works! I would still prefer their Charisma be penalized than buffed though. But I’ll admit, my push for Wisdom being their Boosted mental ability and Charisma being their Flawed ability is a reflection of my own bias. I like my goblins to be vulgar little beasts who’s complete social ineptitude is often mistaken for stupidity but in fact disguises a secret cunning and wilyness. I like Froud goblins, is what I’m basically saying.


----------



## D1Tremere (Apr 13, 2018)

Even that kind of goblin can be endearing with sufficient charisma. I think of Pinky from Pinky and the Brain as a great goblin template in that vain. https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Worldscape:_King_of_the_Goblins_One-Shot is a good example of how goblins can function within a group, while Gribbet from https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Goblins!_1 is the perfect charismatic (though evil) city goblin.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 13, 2018)

D1Tremere said:


> Even that kind of goblin can be endearing with sufficient charisma.



Oh, they’re absolutely endearing! It’s just that that endearingness comes from their lack of charisma. Their antics are charming in a schadenfreudic way, but being in the shoes of someone who actually had to deal with such shenanigans would have the opposite effect.



D1Tremere said:


> I think of Pinky from Pinky and the Brain as a great goblin template in that vain.



Oh, yeah. That’s a pretty good example I wouldn’t have thought of. Probably because he’s a bit less actively mischievous and more naievely disruptive. But I see the connection.



D1Tremere said:


> https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Worldscape:_King_of_the_Goblins_One-Shot is a good example of how goblins can function within a group, while Gribbet from https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Goblins!_1 is the perfect charismatic (though evil) city goblin.



Cool, I’ll have to check it out when I get a chance.


----------



## David Argall2 (Apr 13, 2018)

Now Pathfinder could use some more PC races.  [We could use a whole supplement of additional races.] But the playtest core is 416 pages while PH1 Core is 575 pages.  Hopefully the Ph2 Core will be 600 pages, but right now we have to work on the assumption that anything added means something else has to be cut.  So what makes goblins superior to an existing race? not to mention the other alternate races?
     Evil ancestry?  We have the half-orc already  Possible class?  Of our 4 basic classes, the thief is the least popular and the goblin is likely to be heavily stuck in that class.  If we want another evil race, the drow or some devilkin with serious magic abilities seems much more useful.  
    Goblins just don't seem to rate a place in core.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 13, 2018)

David Argall2 said:


> Now Pathfinder could use some more PC races.  [We could use a whole supplement of additional races.] But the playtest core is 416 pages while PH1 Core is 575 pages.  Hopefully the Ph2 Core will be 600 pages, but right now we have to work on the assumption that anything added means something else has to be cut.  So what makes goblins superior to an existing race? not to mention the other alternate races?



I mean... They’re not cutting any of the traditional core races in favor of goblins. Sure, the page count dedicated to them could be used on something else, but not a lot. Races take up what, a page? Two on the high end? Maybe a bit more for PF2 since they need room for Ancestry Feats, but it’s not like we’re losing out on much by including them.



David Argall2 said:


> Evil ancestry?  We have the half-orc already  Possible class?  Of our 4 basic classes, the thief is the least popular



I don’t think that’s true...



David Argall2 said:


> and the goblin is likely to be heavily stuck in that class.



Actually, Alchemist seems to be the class they’re getting shoehorned into. Which makes sense, both are new additions to the core, and throwing bombs is a very goblin-y gimmick.



David Argall2 said:


> If we want another evil race, the drow or some devilkin with serious magic abilities seems much more useful. Goblins just don't seem to rate a place in core.



It’s not about wanting another evil race, it’s about wanting a race that feels distinctly Pathfinder. The goal of PF2 seems to be to shed some of the “3.75e” baggage and hone in on what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder. Golarion’s goblins are very much the mascot of Pathfinder, and Paizo in general. Not including them in the core of the new book would be a bit like if the second generation of Pokémon hadn’t included Pikachu.


----------



## D1Tremere (Apr 13, 2018)

Weird, it says those things were originally posted by me...I don't remember saying those last three.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 13, 2018)

D1Tremere said:


> Weird, it says those things were originally posted by me...I don't remember saying those last three.




Yeah, my bad. I copy and paste quote tags a lot, so every once in a while I make a mistake and put the wrong tag on something. I’ll fix it when I get the chance.


----------



## KeiyarlaDraga (Apr 17, 2018)

I am glad that there is a race that I could play that will fit with my cluckromancer (which is a home-brew sorcerer origin that deals with chickens.) when my group finishes our current campaign. Now I don't have to find a home-brew race that will fit with my class.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 17, 2018)

Cluckromancer?


----------



## KeiyarlaDraga (Apr 17, 2018)

Yep. You can actually find the page if you look up Cluckromancy in google that is.


----------

