I Hate Pathfinder Goblins

[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.

[Kantolin]

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

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

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.

[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.

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.

Spoiler: Kantolin

Show

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.

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 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 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 relief goblins. 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.

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 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

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 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. Let the Orcs and Lizardfolk and Kobolds and Duergar and Hobgoblins etc. carry that mantle; the Goblins are here to Fred Durst 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 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. 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 - 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 penalty

But Azeroth Goblins don't; their only ability score modifiers are -2 Str/+2 Dex
(There is the link to Goblin page in WoWWiki, check the b&w arts)

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")