Bulmahn on Pathfinder 2's Goblin Ancestry

Some folks have been less than happy about the inclusion of the Goblin in Pathfinder's 2nd Edition core ancestry lineup. Designer Jason Bulmahn offered some comment, while Vic Wertz comments on the physical size and weight of the playtest products due in August.

Some folks have been less than happy about the inclusion of the Goblin in Pathfinder's 2nd Edition core ancestry lineup. Designer Jason Bulmahn offered some comment, while Vic Wertz comments on the physical size and weight of the playtest products due in August.

PZO9500-10-Chuffy.jpg




Concerning goblins and how they fit in Golarion: Times change and so do people's opinions. Goblins as PCs have been a part of our world since the first "We Be Goblins" adventure. Many of the comments here echo those from back during the launch of 3.0 when Half-Orcs returned to the game as a player choice. There was a lot of conflict at first, but the tone of them shifted over time.

We always knew this would be a bit controversial and that there were some who would loudly proclaim "not at my table" and I get that. It's your table and your game after all. We are moving forward, trying to allow players to explore these characters, their culture, and their viewpoint. We are hoping to give you plenty of reasons, both mechanically and story-driven, to allow goblins in your game.


Bulmahn also addressed some of the complaints being made:

I want to add a few notes to the discussion.


1. NO decision in this game is final. We have ordered art, its true, but that does not mean that anything is set in stone. We playtest because we want your feedback, we want your ideas, and yes, we want your criticism. Anyone who played through the Alpha and Beta of the first version knows that the comments made significant changes to the game... the fighter got reworked from the ground up, the skill system got replaced. We take playtesting very seriously and we will be incorporating the feedback the surveys and these boards when making our final decisions. This includes feedback on the goblin.

2. That said, these previews are just that. Previews. We are still in the process of finalizing the book right now (he says with the ancestry chapter open right now). We do not collecting data at this point to help inform our decisions. There will be a time for that once the playtest begins. This is not me trying to squash comments, I just want to manage expectations.

3. There is more to the shift in goblins that I can honestly talk about here. Some of it would be a spoiler for things that are still in the planning phases, making them way to premature to talk about. Even if I could, I would not want to ruin the reveals.

4. Finally, there have been a lot of comments here about more appropriate ancestries to add to the game, and from the perspective of what would make an easier player character addition, you are absolutely right. Goblins are a bit of a challenge, but of all the creatures in the game, there is none that is more iconic to our world, our game, than they are. This is not a marketing ploy (I know, because I made the argument for their inclusion), this is us looking at the world that we have made and picking the thing that most exemplifies us. Giving it a lift in prominence is going to require some work, and some changes, but it is another step in making this game, this world, this amazing thing that all of you have helped us make, truly ours.

I get that not everyone will agree, but I hope that you can give us the chance to show you what we've got in store.


He went on to comment:

We have never said that there would be some magical event that changed everyone's opinions of goblins overnight. In fact, we expect that some areas might not be too welcoming of them, even after any events that might occur to change some perspective on them.

And here is the thing...

I think a slower shift is good. I think that playing a character trying to find redemption in a world that doesn't trust them is a story worth telling. That is part of the reason we are doing this. We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not, but we do want to make them more than what they are. Giving them room for mischief, while still allowing them the space to be a hero.

That change is not going to happen overnight. Its not going to happen by decree. The best we can do with this story, is give you the tools to make it part of your game, your world. As with everything else we make, whether or not you decide to use it, is up to you.


Vic Wertz confirms that goblins are definitely in:

Goblins will be an ancestry in the Playtest Rulebook; that much we are committed to.

We are going to ask for your feedback after playing with them during the playtest, and that feedback will contribute to how, when, and where they are presented in the Second Edition rule system.




  • Vic Wertz talks about the physical playtest products:
    • Book size -- "Page size for the adventure and all 3 editions of the Playtest Rulebook are our standard size (approximately 8.5"x11")."
    • Flip-mat scale -- "The product image is a mockup using existing art, since the all-new maps are not ready yet. And I can guarantee you that we're not going to change the game in a way that makes you buy all new maps and minis. Flip-Mats will continue to be 1":5' scale."
    • ​Rulebook page count -- "The Playtest Rulebook is 416 pages."
[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S

Sunseeker

Guest
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.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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

Limit Break Dancing
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

Adventurer
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

Legend
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."

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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

Legend
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.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
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

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top