Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Goblins as a playable race

Is there a way to kill the Drow and not Sazza?

Well in Faerun we have drows, thieflings, orcs, that have started to live without killing themselves so I think from a narrative point of view would be quite interesting to see part of the Goblin start the same road, this game itself has shown that there are some of the fellas who are more than wild raiders obsessed with food and sex.


In Faerun there are a lot of situations, populations, factions that can be used as leverage to introduce Goblins as a playable race (and as I sai they could offer an even bigger way to narrate prejudice and emargination than the Thieflings).

Alas I have to agree about the possible complainers who could tear down a game because Goblins could be hard to play.

The racism analogue they have going between the druids and the Tieflings really falls flat on its face when they go "death to all goblins? I'll drink to that!" huh.

Inhabitants of Baldur's Gate, this is Goblin Slayer
In case you people have forgotten, this city operates under the same rules as the rest of the sword coast. Goblins are not the law... I am the law.
Goblins are common criminals; guilty of murder, guilty of rape, and as of now under sentence of death. Any who obstruct me in carrying out my duty will be treated as an accessory to their crimes...

You have been warned.

And as for you, goblins....

slaying time.

So when you all meet some kobolds I guess you'll want to play those too?

Hobgoblins or (half)orcs yeahh allright, but anyone ever heard of lvl20 goblin?

I guess it all hinges on one's personal definition of "sentient".

I"m reading Harry Potter fanfic lately and there are a ton of discussions of what is the difference between a "dangerous" entity and a "dark" (evil) one. Both can cause harm, be dangerous, murder and so on.

But it's intent. If one has intent to cause pain/inflict suffering, then that's truly dark, and for someone who is truly sentient and can chose a response and have personal motivation that has to be a choice. Yes, I can absolutely see that a particular race or species (Or culture but that's a whole other discussion) might have a tendency to do this or that. But a sentient individual always has the potential to choose compassion.

YMMV

Change the phrase to "level 20 goblin mage" then yes. Because it's not "level 20 human" it's "level 20 human [class]"

You'd be surprised, but their fanbase on the board is huge.


Level 20? Do you understand what you are talking about huge levels?
Level 20 is the limit for a character in the fifth edition. Even Mordenkainen is only level 18, and he is a very powerful magician. And personally, I can't remember a single tiefling, aasimar, or a githyanki with level 20 in the fifth edition or any other edition.
Also, didn't Larian say that the level cap in the full game is 10?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Throne of Bhaal go even above level 30?

I think I've read cap would be 10 but they might raise it because they've already have so much content prepared, still quite a lot for goblin

Whoops bad on me, I missed this comment first time around, got distracted, I guess:



Way back in the days of the Monster Manual being the only bound book ... the drawing of kobolds looked like if you crossed a puppy and a human. They were "evil" but adorable .... so sure, I'd play one. Probably go for high charisma and fleece the upper classes.

You're right. Characters could have reached level 40, if my memory serves me. In any case, this level is even higher than that of Elminster. But the original series was based on the second edition.


Yeah, I would like the level cap to reach at least level 12.



Well, in my memory, two adventures in the fifth edition provide a background for many 5ed race, including the goblins. And each of them is designed for levels 5-10.

I wonder why noone has mentioned M'Khiin. She is a true neutral goblin shaman and left her tribe, because she was more mature than her kinsmen. She likely wanted to make more of herself. So this is your precedence in the Baldur's Gate lore. That was a rare thing 100 years ago, just like a good Drow. Drow seem accepted now for the most part, as are Tieflings. A goblin as a companion is not far-fetched and would therefore also work as an Origin character. I do not know about the custom PC. I do wonder why they haven't added a goblin companion yet. I'd wager there are more engine reasons behind it. You would have to remodel armours for this one little fellow, as they have a different posture than dwarfes, halflings and gnomes.

In any case you can be sure that noone in the world, at the current state, would bat an eyelid over a goblin, When neither even Githyanki or Drow are a problem. The culture seems extremely liberal in all other regards, too and the reasoning behind it boils down to 100 years having passed.

So, yeah, engine reasons. Hence no Lizardmen either or whatever other exotic shape races there are. In the current game not having an upright posture is what keeps you from getting added I would say.

They have a religion, they decide to switch to that of the Absolute, they have a quasi structured society with gerarchies, they are able to speak and make speeches, they now about pasions and vices.

They've shown appreciation for art and curiosity for books.

To define them Goblin not sentient seems a bit excessive (in the game itself we see the difference with Gnolls, when the tadpole makes itself heard Goblins react with emotions, words and so on, while the only thing the tadpole can sense from gnolls is feral insticts and hunger).

Well I get that you have "talk with animals", but again their phrases are short and really tied to insticts.

Furthermore as other comments stated now we have Drow (elves that pursue an evil deity) and Thieflings (that are litterally the spawn of the devil) and one of the companions is a Vampire, so to use the Goblins aggressive background seems a bit too farfetched.

I would tentatively agree that ANY one "thing" can be misused and abused by snowflake (or for that matter powergamer) players.

I don't think that is useful as a basis for "should this be in a game system" although if you have snowflakes on board, it's certainly logical to use it for "is this going to exist in MY campaign".

I wouldn't have considered goblins one way or the other (I'm open to most ideas) but Sazza is just too awesome.

For me, she is the Drizzt of Goblins

I'd definitly take dragon born and Aasimar anyday before Goblin. And I'm not sure having a few people on the forum asking for a race is worth the work for Larian, tbh. I'd rather ask them to polish as much as possible the story and sidequest than add unnecessary gimmick like playing goblin.

For any more race added, that's as much manpower that won't be working on new quest/ new companions/ new dialogues options/ new map / whatever.

But the whole game is already "snowflaky", we are an oddity surrounded by even more odd people already. In a game with a possessed black human, a lost githyanki warrior, a pale elf vampire, a depressive priest and whatever Gale hides. Man they all have incredible issues. They are all pansexual as well, they just do not care who they bonk. And noone around it judges one bit or makes a remark about the funny company you keep. At the worst you get a comment like: "Oh yeah Drow, I fought a lot against Drow, formidable opponents." I have not seen anyone comment on any of my companions. A Gobbo with a serious condition would fit right in, regardless of it being NPC or PC. Sazza does seem quite a character compared to others to not have her as a companion is rather foolish in my book. She also has the snarky attitude that all the other companions also have, so yeah it just makes sense.

As conclusion, the fact that we have all these companions and PC options, makes having a goblin choice more logical and reasonable than not having one. The whole EA can be seen as a precedence.

My thoughts exactly. I honestly don't even care much whether or not they add any more playable races as I consider the current selection quite satisfying.

It's more complicated then that, for example Gobliniod races were playable in Zakhara, which is a subsetting of FR.

Plus WotC is moving away from innately evil humaniod races period, admittedly for the wrong reasons.

Oh okay, I maybe changed my mind after this screen. Let them be playable. Although, everyone forgot about this goblin leader at the victory goblin party, where is the guarantee that our main character will not be forgotten? Even the so-called "goblin leader" is treated like a minion. I'm glad of that, but if I'm a goblin myself, then ...?
We're talking about a playable hobogblin, right? Playing as a little goblin is still too much masochism (I will still play for the drow)

Hobgoblins are disgustingly implemented in the fifth edition. Due to the strange set of abilities, the only class they can handle well is the wizard. It was amusing to read Volo's Guide to Monsters, where hobgoblins were considered the dominant role in the goblinoid community when their subordinates had much better racial bonuses.
However, if Larian does the same with the hobgoblins as with the drow (well, removes the hideous penalties and abilities), the hobgoblins can become a good playable race.