Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Feb 2020
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
I felt mixed emotions during the latest livestream. The game itself is shaping up amazingly, generally I love it, but there are some things I do find strange...

One of the things that stuck me the most was the way goblins were designed and written into the world. Maybe it is me, maybe I am too used to seeing them as generic monstruous enemies and smacking them down without a second thought, but they seemed very... Humanized. Everything from the way they behaved and spoke common most casually 'sure thing, boss' and the kid complaining about being an 'orphan'. I did not ever think for a moment that primal, savage goblin even had 'orphan' as a thing inside their society.
Female goblins were even particularly... Cute. The very first goblin that threatened Swen's character by the game was positively adorable. It felt to me as if they removed a lot of their monstruosity, and added more humanity.

I know of course exceptions to any rule exist, and that individual goblins can be different to whatever their tribal society dictates. But there seemed to be more things out of place besides that. There was a mention of Umberlee in the Underdark, a drow was praying to the bitch queen in there, and I do wonder... Why? Why there? It felt... Out of place.
Then there was a book, a journal it seemed, about a High elf revering Lloth. A high elf. And speaking about high elves, the one we saw looked very much human. He had squeareish features instead of fine features, broad shoulders and shared the same height and body complexion of Gale. It was a very poor design.

This was meant to be about goblins only, but then I started to rant on and on! Ha! Matters not, I wonder what you think about little things like that.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
It's 2020. I don't think a company could away these days with representing goblins as mindless monsters, and by all means they shouldn't try. I am glad to see BG3 it treating goblin culture with respect!

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Goblins are people too! Don't be fooled by the fake-news-race-hate! Save a goblin now!

You are right that it is not that normal a depiction for Goblins. Often they are shown as dirty and primitive, with limited speech, which I think used to be their canon description. I have no idea what 5e goblins are supposed to be like but the game sort-of matches this link

https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/goblin

Beyond the physical depiction, I suppose they want to use speech that makes sense to the majority of the modern audience, just as humans no longer speak as Shakespear would have. It would be interesting to have each race with a distinguishable linguisitic culture, but it may not be canon, and would require a lot of thought.

I don't know about the other anomalies. They may have plot/story links that you can uncover, or may be accidental and will be fixed. It is still pre-alpha, after all.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
I noticed that the goblin child had human-like teeth, whereas other goblins had pointy teeth, but it might just be that goblins file their teeth into points in adulthood.

Joined: Feb 2020
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
I noticed that the goblin child had human-like teeth, whereas other goblins had pointy teeth, but it might just be that goblins file their teeth into points in adulthood.


Most of them had exceptionally white teeth. I envy their dental hygiene! laugh


Originally Posted by etonbears
Goblins are people too! Don't be fooled by the fake-news-race-hate! Save a goblin now!

You are right that it is not that normal a depiction for Goblins. Often they are shown as dirty and primitive, with limited speech, which I think used to be their canon description. I have no idea what 5e goblins are supposed to be like but the game sort-of matches this link

https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/goblin

Beyond the physical depiction, I suppose they want to use speech that makes sense to the majority of the modern audience, just as humans no longer speak as Shakespear would have. It would be interesting to have each race with a distinguishable linguisitic culture, but it may not be canon, and would require a lot of thought.

I don't know about the other anomalies. They may have plot/story links that you can uncover, or may be accidental and will be fixed. It is still pre-alpha, after all.


I guess it might be a 5e thing! I'm not... Entirely against it, I just find it a little bit difficult to stomach. Either way we'll see when the game is out! It could also be that it was that particular tribe. Who knows?




Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
I think you´re referring to how goblins are depicted in past editions. That is not the case anymore. You find goblin villages and a goblin merchant in several adventure sets of the FR setting or even in Chult. And yeah, all goblins speak goblin and common.
I do not expect them to speak with the diction of a news anchor either, but they speak with a very informal heavy ¿cockney? accent. No stranger than dwarves speaking Scottish.


They are usually evil and raiders or scavengers, yes, but they are not mindless babbling creatures without social ties. In fact, the goblins have strong social ties with his tribe and a particular social structure.


Goblin society was tribal by nature. Goblin leaders were generally the strongest, and sometimes the smartest, around. Goblins had little concept of privacy, living and sleeping in large common areas; only the leaders lived separately in their own private chambers. As such, goblin lairs were often stinking or soiled, though easily defended when under assault.[9] Many such lairs were layered with simple traps for such purposes.[17]

Young goblins were taught from an early age to rely only on themselves and that to survive, they needed to be aggressive and ruthless. To a goblin, it didn't seem logical to treat others as well or better than you would treat yourselves; rather, they believed in preemptively removing potential rivals before they could become a threat.[9] Because of the violent nature of goblin culture, it was not uncommon for goblins to come under the domination of individuals from a larger, more physically powerful culture, most typically larger goblinoids such as hobgoblins or bugbears.[8]

Goblin settlements were typically very densely populated and filled with young goblin children. This was in part because goblin females were expected to birth as many children as possible to sustain a population constantly driven down by violence. However, young goblins did not outnumber adults as their lives often were at least as dangerous as those of the adults.[9] The innermost chambers of goblin lairs were usually the most densely-populated and well-defended.[15]

Male goblins, who were dominant in goblin society, sustained the community by raiding and stealing, sneaking into lairs, villages, and even towns by night to take what they could. If supplies got short enough, goblins would even resort to eating members of other races, including other goblinoids.[9] Some goblin tribes were not above waylaying travelers on the road or in forests and stripping them of their possessions.[18] Goblins sometimes captured slaves to perform hard labor in the tribe's lair or camp.[19]

Religion
Following the Spellplague and prior to the Second Sundering, however, the power of the Black Lord Bane grew and extended his power over Maglubiyet, making the goblin god one of his exarchs.[20] Following the Second Sundering, goblins again worshiped deities such as Maglubiyet and Khurgorbaeyag.[21]


There are examples of drows worshipping Elistraee, like Solaufeinn or Drizzt that worships Mielikki, There are lots of exceptions of characters worshipping gods you do not expect.

I think that was the typical "Journal of a dead person telling a story" you find everywhere in rpg games and a colourful way of indicate the player that the underdark is up ahead and a reason to have spiderweb boots in the corpse. I do not know why a high elf captured by drow could not lost his mind and develop Stockholm syndrome and started worshipping Lolth instead.

So no, no out of place in the way FR is in 5e, at least no more than usual.










Last edited by _Vic_; 21/06/20 12:54 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I think you´re referring to how goblins are depicted in past editions. That is not the case anymore. You find goblin villages and a goblin merchant in several adventure sets of the FR setting or even in Chult. And yeah, all goblins speak goblin and common.


That seems to be the case, I'm too used to the older editions. I guess it's time to stop being a troglodyte and adapting :'D







Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
I was generally fine with the depiction of goblins having a proper society and not just being evil little monsters. Didn’t mind that some are quite cute, either.

The orphan child seemed a bit odd though. That implies they have family units and perhaps monogamous relationships. There are real life human societies (not so many now) where children are raised by the tribe as a whole, and I would properly have based a Goblin tribe more on that model if I was writing it.

One of the dialogue options was to ask what he meant by Mum and Dad. Maybe that’s because Lae'zel doesn’t understand goblin society and we can get some insight on how it works? Maybe her culture doesn’t have the concept of parents and she learns about it from this goblin child. If it’s just the later, it might be a bit weird. It could also be a bit of both, but that makes me think of possibilities I dare not hope for.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
I think that these Goblins have been 'domesticated' by the Cult of the Absolute to be useful. This is clearly an orderly, well run and far-reaching organization that utilizes the strengths of all involved. Goblins are numerous but disorderly. Enforce discipline via Hobgoblins and you can build up a decently sized and useful force of expendable foot soldiers with very little cost. We know that the higher-ups in the cult are called True Souls, True Souls have a mind flayer tadpole in their head, the Hobgoblin in charge of the goblinoids of the fort has a tadpole, like us the party. The Hobgoblin is a 'True Soul' and is using his new powers to rally all the goblins, wargs, bugbears, and whatever else nearby into an army. They also have some dealings with the Drow, as seen with Swen when he played a Drow, the goblin toying with the Deep Gnome showed him deference and another goblin drunkenly mentioned the 'look on the face of the duke when we handed him to the drow'. The deep gnomes friend who disappeared found his friend's amulet on a thug in Baldur's Gate. The goblins were ordered to bring the gnome back (after teaching him to fly) and weren't just being sadistic for fun. The goblins are being organized and influenced by a more 'civilized' race to be useful. Cheaper and less obvious than summoning fiends or raising armies of the dead.


Evil always finds a way.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Dagless


One of the dialogue options was to ask what he meant by Mum and Dad. Maybe that’s because Lae'zel doesn’t understand goblin society and we can get some insight on how it works? Maybe her culture doesn’t have the concept of parents and she learns about it from this goblin child. If it’s just the later, it might be a bit weird. It could also be a bit of both, but that makes me think of possibilities I dare not hope for.


Well, Githyanki reproduced by laying eggs and does not acknowledge families as such, so maybe Lae`zel does not have much experience with creatures outside the Astral plane and does not understand the concept.

"Githyanki society had a martial and meritocratic structure, with no regard for blood ties, and with both males and females training heavily in magic and combat. Although they were loyal to each other, they were also fiercely individualistic. Githyanki becomes an adult killing a Mindflayer or raiding one of their bulwarks"

Originally Posted by Dagless


The orphan child seemed a bit odd though. That implies they have family units and perhaps monogamous relationships. There are real life human societies (not so many now) where children are raised by the tribe as a whole, and I would properly have based a Goblin tribe more on that model if I was writing it.




As I said before it´s canon that goblins fiercely protect his children and fertile females with lots of children have higher status because goblins give great importance to having high numbers in their tribes so It would not be strange that they have the concepts of "Mum" and "Dad".
If having lots of children gives you status, you want the others of the tribe to know that you have a lot of children so it´s important that your kids know you´re his mother and tell that to the others.










Last edited by _Vic_; 21/06/20 01:55 PM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
personalyl the goblisn irked me a bit.
i dont mind goblins havin some personality. But i guss id have i magined a bit less... fluent english. I know they speak common, but i somehow expected them to be more gremlin like.

i guess it fits with recent developments at WOTC, might be a command from them

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Dagless
I was generally fine with the depiction of goblins having a proper society and not just being evil little monsters. Didn’t mind that some are quite cute, either.

The orphan child seemed a bit odd though. That implies they have family units and perhaps monogamous relationships. There are real life human societies (not so many now) where children are raised by the tribe as a whole, and I would properly have based a Goblin tribe more on that model if I was writing it.

One of the dialogue options was to ask what he meant by Mum and Dad. Maybe that’s because Lae'zel doesn’t understand goblin society and we can get some insight on how it works? Maybe her culture doesn’t have the concept of parents and she learns about it from this goblin child. If it’s just the later, it might be a bit weird. It could also be a bit of both, but that makes me think of possibilities I dare not hope for.


Agree with you completely here. This is one part of what I've seen so far of this game that I really liked. For me, the FR lore in this (or any) game is what matters more than anything. And it has long irked me as well that many RPGs have this nice clear line of division between good/civilized and bad/uncivilized. Goblins, orcs, and even stone giants, for example, have a long history in the written FR lore of being nuanced and grey. And of course dragons are the best example of all. I'm so tired of these games telling me, or even forcing me, to just mindlessly kill everything. If would be a HUGE plus for me if this game were to be better than that.

Joined: Feb 2020
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
[quote=Dagless]
Agree with you completely here. This is one part of what I've seen so far of this game that I really liked. For me, the FR lore in this (or any) game is what matters more than anything. And it has long irked me as well that many RPGs have this nice clear line of division between good/civilized and bad/uncivilized. Goblins, orcs, and even stone giants, for example, have a long history in the written FR lore of being nuanced and grey. And of course dragons are the best example of all. I'm so tired of these games telling me, or even forcing me, to just mindlessly kill everything. If would be a HUGE plus for me if this game were to be better than that.


I haven't thought about that. I'm always one for complaining that I would like to have choices. I guess making a run killing as less creatures as possible could be fun.

On the other hand, MOI XP! :'D



Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Sure. But I'm not saying here to not go kill some creatures. Let's say there are 100 goblins out there, and 90 of them duly deserve a good slaughterin'. But maybe the other 10 are different, and are worth talking to and coming to a 'live and let live' understanding with them. That kind of nuance is a well-written game. A game that tells me: "Goblin there. Go kill" is a stupidly-written game.

Joined: Sep 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2019
Yeah, I think it appears to be generally acceptable by most people. And 5e is moving to change them from monstrous to more complex social constructs. For me, I'm a Tolkien fan (and what much of DnD was inspired of, so much so they had to change names from some original content, such as halflings were actually hobbits etc. until they had to change due to legal challenges from the Tolkien estate).

I prefer the fantasy play on orcs, goblins, trolls etc. in the Tolkien like. Monsters either created by magic or through some evil deity. In my mind, goblins will always be Tolkien like and what we saw is pretty much something else.

Not complaining, I think the game is shaping up very nice, but I do agree with the OP

Joined: Sep 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2019
I was reading about the changing of all races due to some concern that monsters (which don't exist) are somehow being viewed as representation of races. I think this can go way too far to the point of losing what fantasy is. For example, there are demons, should we now have good demons? Would that not make them angels? Same with Devils? Ogres? they could be mistaken for something else other than some creature made of the earth by magic or evil gods etc.?

Going back to my last comment, I think we need to keep monsters, well monsters. Sure there can be complex social structures, but they eat humans and generally are "monstrous". I'm old school Tolkien style monsters all the way.

Joined: Jun 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by WizardPus
Should we now have good demons? Would that not make them angels? Same with Devils? Ogres? they could be mistaken for something else other than some creature made of the earth by magic or evil gods etc..


I mean, I've always found the idea of good/neutral hells and bad/neutral heavens more interesting than everything being contained in their little boxes so...why not. But maybe that's just me.

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Originally Posted by WizardPus
I was reading about the changing of all races due to some concern that monsters (which don't exist) are somehow being viewed as representation of races. I think this can go way too far to the point of losing what fantasy is. For example, there are demons, should we now have good demons? Would that not make them angels? Same with Devils? Ogres? they could be mistaken for something else other than some creature made of the earth by magic or evil gods etc.?

Going back to my last comment, I think we need to keep monsters, well monsters. Sure there can be complex social structures, but they eat humans and generally are "monstrous". I'm old school Tolkien style monsters all the way.


I think the problem WoTC are addressing isn't directly about races being portrayed as monstrous or evil.

If you look at a map of the FR world, it is an obvious pastiche of our own world. The main land mass apes Europe-Asia-Africa, with a second landmass that apes the Americas. And the human societies in these land masses ape the equivalent in our world.

To some degree or other, many other fantasy worlds also use this notion ( For example, the Warhammer, and DragonAge nations strongly resemble aspects of European history ). The reasons for this fairly common practice are twofold; first, familiarity helps the "consumer" relate to the fantasy, and second, the "producer" has the rich tapestry of our own histories to draw upon.

The trouble with fantasy writers using this device is that it relies on the accuracy of their own knowledge of the world. But, most of us are extremely ignorant, even if we have a passion for knowledge and history. Fantasy writers use their acquired worldview as the basis for their creations; including applying to fantasy races the stereotyped traits from the writer's understanding of real societies of which they are aware.

I believe it is the depicting of fantasy races using a raft of negative stereotyped traits that are also applied to a portion of our own world population that is at issue.

Whether you, personally, care about this depends on your own place in society, and your attitudes and sensitivity to the people around you.

In the US ( WoTC core market ), even without the issue of the African slavery ( which was of an industrial-scale and brutality that makes it quite unlike most other historical slavery ), the degree of immigration that led to the current population has resulted in a significant number of minority groups that might be slighted by thoughtless or ignorant use of their societal history.

Joined: Sep 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2019
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by WizardPus
I was reading about the changing of all races due to some concern that monsters (which don't exist) are somehow being viewed as representation of races. I think this can go way too far to the point of losing what fantasy is. For example, there are demons, should we now have good demons? Would that not make them angels? Same with Devils? Ogres? they could be mistaken for something else other than some creature made of the earth by magic or evil gods etc.?

Going back to my last comment, I think we need to keep monsters, well monsters. Sure there can be complex social structures, but they eat humans and generally are "monstrous". I'm old school Tolkien style monsters all the way.


I think the problem WoTC are addressing isn't directly about races being portrayed as monstrous or evil.

If you look at a map of the FR world, it is an obvious pastiche of our own world. The main land mass apes Europe-Asia-Africa, with a second landmass that apes the Americas. And the human societies in these land masses ape the equivalent in our world.

To some degree or other, many other fantasy worlds also use this notion ( For example, the Warhammer, and DragonAge nations strongly resemble aspects of European history ). The reasons for this fairly common practice are twofold; first, familiarity helps the "consumer" relate to the fantasy, and second, the "producer" has the rich tapestry of our own histories to draw upon.

The trouble with fantasy writers using this device is that it relies on the accuracy of their own knowledge of the world. But, most of us are extremely ignorant, even if we have a passion for knowledge and history. Fantasy writers use their acquired worldview as the basis for their creations; including applying to fantasy races the stereotyped traits from the writer's understanding of real societies of which they are aware.

I believe it is the depicting of fantasy races using a raft of negative stereotyped traits that are also applied to a portion of our own world population that is at issue.

Whether you, personally, care about this depends on your own place in society, and your attitudes and sensitivity to the people around you.

In the US ( WoTC core market ), even without the issue of the African slavery ( which was of an industrial-scale and brutality that makes it quite unlike most other historical slavery ), the degree of immigration that led to the current population has resulted in a significant number of minority groups that might be slighted by thoughtless or ignorant use of their societal history.



This all sounds like "looking for problems". I get real-world stuff, but, I don't think I've ever met a single race of Orcs, or Goblins, Or Ogres, or dragon kind etc. These are made up. I think if we start to think too much about stuff that is NOT real and trying to paint into something that "resembles" real we will end up just neutering art altogether. We should just play a game where all characters are lifeless Blue Lego's, you know, so we don't somehow mistake it for real life.

Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Originally Posted by etonbears
...even without the issue of the African slavery ( which was of an industrial-scale and brutality that makes it quite unlike most other historical slavery )...


If I am understanding you correctly, that you think American slavery was worse than any other slavery and that that is what makes it "unlike most other historical slavery", you need to go and brush up on your history. American slaves were treated like royalty compared to the largest slave nations throughout history. Here's an example: "Spanish historian Fray Diego de Durán reported that 80,400 men, women and children were sacrificed for the inauguration of the Templo Mayor under a previous Aztec emperor" (source: https://www.history.com/news/aztec-human-sacrifice-religion). They cut the still-beating hearts out of the chests of men, women, AND children. I'm not saying slavery here in the US was a cake-walk; on the contrary, actually. But don't try and spout off that it stands alone as the most brutal slave nation in history.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5