In Defense of the Bad Guy: Goblinoids

"There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world."


Anyone who's played even a single PNP game with me knows that I really don't like playing "normal" people. Even when the character is a basic human or demihuman I tend to do SOMETHING with the concept. There's this thing I call "Some Guy Syndrome" where TV shows or movies remove all of the interesting or quirky parts of a character to make them more like a regular person from the real world. Usually this is in the name of making the show a more palatable drama to "normal people". I'm looking at you, Smallville. I hate it. It takes a deep character with a compelling look or story and turns them into (title drop!) just some guy.  Anyway, basic, no-frills character concepts of straight humans or demihumans always feel like that to me, so I always have this drive to shake them up, even if it's just in the character's appearance or mannerisms.

So as you guessed it, I like playing weird monstrous races in things. I love the Horde in WoW(though I play both factions, fuck buying into manufactured team rivalry crap) and I've had a soft spot for goblins of all kind, from WoW's intelligent, sarcastic profiteers with New York accents to Pathfinder's little bigheaded idiots who chant and burn everything. Goblinoids are a category of races I always loved, but there's always some level of resistance. I've had GMs who were as harsh as saying an orc would be killed on sight by any human civilization that so much as catches a glimpse of one, but even laid-back GMs are gonna be cautioning you to be careful. It doesn't matter if your goblin is a LG Paladin of Humility and Grace...he should probably still wait outside of that gnome encampment.

So since I don't talk about character building nearly often enough, we're starting up a thing where I discuss little-played or monstrous races in a frank manner. This is going to be geared toward Pathfinder, but obviously a lot of this advice applies to 3.X as well. Races didn't change THAT much. We're also including some "Goblinoid adjacent" races here since they're always discussed as being part of that group anyway. You also want to brush up a bit on how you play a monstrous PC, but in general, you count their CR as "levels" and take their HD. Meaning, a CR 3 monster with 5 hit dice takes those hit dice like levels, then counts as a level 3 character. If he takes fighter next level, he'll have 5 HD, 1 Fighter, and count as a level 4 character. Don't worry, I'm going to discuss character theming too.

Before we get into the individual races, let's more officially address the elephant in the room. Even if your GM is laid-back about this sort of thing and portrays races reasonably or even liberally, people are in conflict with goblinoids a lot. Goblinoids form shitty, brutal societies and are very often evil in alignment. A universal drawback of these character options is that you're going to run into discrimination at some point, even if your world has plenty of cities where a goblin or an orc can hang out and buy a kebab. There will be that one city that rolls out its guards when it sees you or that one shop you straight up can't go into. It's the disadvantage, and while I don't recommend you play the kind of person who's penitent about the rest of their race(It's too cliche, more on that later) I do suggest you roll with it. It can be fun to do stuff like go back and forth with a guard and talk yourself out of trouble if the GM is willing.


Bugbear. CR 2, HD 3. Hooray for alphabetical order, huh? Our first candidate is one of the most misunderstood monsters in D&D history. They just always felt like they didn't have much of a place, thematically. Hell, ask a D&D fanboy you know to explain them without looking them up and they may not even be able. Regardless, these guys are NOT a bad character option, and okay as far as "cheap" monster PCs go. In general, people playing monstrous PCs are trading off class levels for statistical boosts or useful monster abilities. Sometimes they're tougher due to having monster HD, but often it's...really not that great. These guys are pretty good because they're only trading off two levels and they get some decent stuff for it. +6 STR, +2 DEX, and +2CON make them decent at basically any melee fighter role, but if that's all you wanted you'd obviously be playing an ogre or something. No, these dudes shine because they have darkvision, AND scent, AND they always have perception and stealth as class skills. They're good for making a kind of off-stealther without even taking any levels in a utility class. All while still crushing heads in. Overall bugbears aren't bad, but they're niche-y and outshined by some other races. Definitely one of your bigger pieces of evidence if you're trying to prove that monster characters aren't automatically better.

Bugbears are also the least likely out of any race I'm about to discuss to be a decent guy. Where other goblinoids are shitty because they're lazy or opportunistic, Bugbears are sadists. They enjoy causing pain, suffering and destruction, and they enjoy making it personal. To fit in with a party of good or neutral PCs, you'd have to adopt concepts such as being standoffish and private, like a sadist who knows it's wrong but can't resist enjoying it.


Goblin. Basic Racial Option. These guys are the fucking ringers of Dungeons and Dragons. No other race this powerful is overlooked this hard. The basic version is pretty simple, with -2 STR, +4 DEX, -2 CHA, +4 to ride and stealth, and a bonus to their move speed that mitigates the Size Small penalty. First off, without taking any of their racial ability trade-offs, their stealth score is going to be immense. In addition to their dex bonus, we're talking a +8 bonus before we even get to ranks, just due to racial bonuses and size. Being size small stinks for damage, but they're great candidates for a dip into Unchained Rogue to get Finesse Training and mitigate their damage penalties. +4 DEX is a big bonus for you to leverage. They've also got some pretty neat options available like a bite attack or a climb speed(without getting into their racial variant Monkey Goblins). Their favored class options are pretty good, with sorcerers being able to add bonus spells known so long as they have the fire descriptor, rogue getting flat bonus damage during surprise rounds or before their target has acted, or alchemist getting fire resistance. Finally, they have access to a feat I'm shocked hasn't gotten more visibility: Goblin Gunslinger. They can mitigate the penalty for wielding medium firearms. Their other feats like Fire Tamer or Flame Heart are okay too, and good enough to take for some small amount of characterization.

While this is yet another race that's characterized as being dumb and superstitious but without being given an INT or WIS penalty, I can't help but love these guys. They're weirdly adorable, what with their love of fire and explosions but also music and singing. They keep infants in communal cages where they can be ignored...but they have no concept of misogyny. They're savage and cruel, but poor planners, and usually portrayed as honestly kind of derpy. Playing these guys straight is a blast, but they're still fun even if you tone it down a bit based on having a neutral alignment or annoyed co-gamers. For some more serious notes, it can be very interesting to play someone from a brutal and selfish society who has to try and fit in with other people now. Vicious cruelty isn't genetic, and with their natural curiosity, I imagine many of them become adventurers. Probably die like stinkbugs too, but hey. They breed quick.


Hobgoblin. Basic Racial Option.  Never been a big fan, but hobgoblin is okay. They're one of very few races with two bonuses and no penalty, in this case +2 DEX and +2 CON. Other than that, they've got +4 to Stealth, Darkvision 60ft and...that's it. Pretty mediocre. Not bad, but not very interesting. Some neat stuff comes up in their options, like being able to trade their darkvision for +1 to AC, this being one of the only times D20 overvaluing darkvision was to the benefit of the player. They can also take some enticing alt traits like one that gives whip proficiency or a flat +1 to their CMD. They've got a nichey little feat that extends the length of intimidate when they strike with a whip or other flail category weapon. In a Shatter Defenses build, this can be kinda nice, since it puts off having to "waste" another turn on Dazzling Display.

What Hobgoblins lack in mechanical style, they make up for with their racial themes. Militant and cruel slavers, hobgoblins are a true parallel to Star Trek's Cardassians. They're cunning and detached, and coming from such a society(whether you play your character straight to the themes or not) is a wealth of opportunity. They enforce detachment(even forcibly weaning children early) and youth is filled with nothing but military training for their future. They see other races as tools and fodder to be enslaved. You can really see where a character like Gul Dukat could come from this society. If you want to play a classically lawful evil character, this is a great race for one. If you want to play someone struggling with morality or railing against a brutal system he wants no part of...this is also an excellent race to consider.


Kobold. Basic Racial Option. Kobolds are not technically goblinoids, but you can scarcely talk about goblinoids without including them. Outwardly they seem lackluster, with shitty stat adjusts(-4 STR, +2 DEX, -2 CON), but they get normal base speed(like goblins) and +1 natural armor. They also get some stealthy/utility stuff like stealth always being a class skill and darkvision. They also have light sensitivity at base, which can be a pain. It's a -1 to attack rolls and vision based perception checks in areas of bright sunlight or a daylight spell. This just isn't going to come up as often as you think. I mean, it says BRIGHT sunlight. Ask yourself how often it's "bright" out. Even when it does come up, it's only a -1 to attack rolls which can be mitigated with gear or feats depending on your setting and GM. Not trivial, but also not a huge deal. They get a feat similar to the rogue talent Fast Stealth and also one that gives a bonus to sniping, They can also take some "Draconic Transformation" feats that are okay at best, but kinda neat. The first one is worthwhile just for an easy resistance 5 in an energy type. Overall this cements their position as being a caster type that can sneak, but you've got some wiggle room...and there are worse niches.

Thematically these little guys got turned into dragonlings at some point, but I'm okay with that. They're still sneaky little passive aggressive bastards who live in warrens so cramped that it's uncommon for a single Kobold to have any concept of privacy. They're cowardly but practical so often turn to less direct solutions to problems. If you wanted a concept similar to a goblin but more serious in tone, Kobold is a great place to turn. They're less outwardly cruel or boisterous, but instead quiet and sinister.


Ogre. CR 3, HD 4. This is our second race that isn't actually a goblinoid, but just like kobolds they're married to the category. Even moreso, since they're often used as "the heavy" in an encounter of orcs or hobgoblins. While there is a much less powerful "player friendly" version of the Ogre in the Advanced Race Guide, in general you're looking at some pretty hefty bonuses. They've got a staggering +10 to STR, but also -2 DEX, +4 CON, -4 INT, and -4 CHA. They also have the reach and extra damage of being size Large, Darkvision(sensing a theme here?) and a +5 natural armor bonus to AC. Pretty hefty shit for the equivalent of 3 levels. Conventional wisdom points toward playing something like fighter or barbarian, but with no wisdom penalty, you can easily get pretty fucking wacky with an ogre and do something like cleric or monk. If you lean on your immense STR bonus and hefty AC, you can make up for a lot in terms of concept and make your character into a "switch hitter" who's got utility of some kind but can still smash people with a tree trunk if he needs to. You could even willingly take slightly less treasure, spreading some gold around your allies and trusting your STR bonus to keep you competitive. That all said, your size IS going to be an issue and there's going to be places you can't go, or worse, you'll have to buy an item that shrinks you at some point. It'd be pretty mean for a GM to create a whole adventure you can't go on, but it just can't never come up. If you think I'm exaggerating, I want you to go outside with a tape measure. I'm serious. Go outside to the side of your house and measure out how tall ten feet is. That's the average ogre.

Thematically the books have always trumped up ogres as being the worst. the PF bestiary implies they're not just brutal savages, but also brings up rape, necrophilia, cannibalism, and incest. They've got sick senses of humor and are boundlessly cruel. The book really hams it up, I'm gonna be honest. They come off like an plus sized copy of the Sawyer family from Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  This makes it seem like they're in the same category as bugbear, which very few options to playing a neutral or good character, but Ogre has a few tricks to make it easier. First is that you can always lean on your intelligence score being pretty low and play a dope. It can be fun sometimes, and it's a theme that can get you out of having to explain why your character isn't as preposterously cruel as other ogres. The second is that the one thing Ogres respect is family. It's very important to them, and the only reason Ogre societies can even work. Obviously, you can take this to mean the players are metaphorically his family, and a neutral(or even evil) Ogre might resist his natural inclinations if asked, or even grow protective of the party.

Orc. Basic Racial Option. I seriously thought of including Sahaugin or something just so this list didn't end on the iconic Orc, but I can't change the alphabet. Anyway! The classic green-skinned badass is probably the most "supported" out of this list, with plenty of source, character options, bunches of feats, and stuff like that. They did arguably start this whole party, after all. In case you didn't understand what I was saying under Goblin, a basic, no CR race having a +4 in a stat is huge. Gigantic. When solely discussing effectiveness, you can count on everyone to have +2 to their class's most important stat, so really the guy with the +4 is, in a way, the only guy with a leg forward. This means the Orc's +4 STR, -2 INT, -2 WIS, -2 CHA is a pretty good spread despite it being a net -2. Other than that, ferocity is pretty nice, darkvision is always useful, and their free proficiencies in greataxe and falchion are often overlooked hidden gems. They've got light sensitivity, which as I said before, is less a huge penalty and more something you need to keep an eye on. They can even mitigate it with a racial trait. Their few other traits aren't that amazing, but they've got some pretty interesting feats: They can gain scent or a bite attack, or an easily stacked +1 attack/damage with grudge fighter. Orc Weapon Expertise is kind of fiddly, but it's pretty cool to be able to choose from a list of minor bonuses. Reverse Feint is also pretty interesting if you were going to eat attacks anyway and just want to get a bit more damage out there. Again conventional wisdom leads you to making a front-line melee attacker, but you do have more options available to you. You're only generally restricted to melee, and any caster classes should be taken with a grain of salt. If your group restricts racial archetypes strictly to the race mentioned, then you should consider the Scarred Witch Doctor archtype a huge benefit to the race. It moves the casting stat to CON, which mitigates your casting penalty entirely. Other than that, greataxe is a pretty nice weapon, and this is a race that can utilize it on classes like rogue.

Everyone knows what Orcs are like. They're famous, and probably the only race on this list to make it to the big screen with the Lord of the Rings movies. Orcs are classically lazy, but in a bizarrely direct way: It's not that they aren't willing to put in work, it's more that they don't see the value in creating something when they can just take it from someone else. Orcish society is basically mayhem and you can see why they're always going on raids. Still, if you're looking to play a decent guy, it's pretty easy to play the "Worf" to the Orc's "Klingon Society". You can play up positive traits like their directness or prizing strength, or twist more negative ones into another light. A love of brawling and mayhem can easily be twisted to a boisterous, fun-loving attitude, or respect only for power can be expanded to mean power of all forms: Even a strong will or love of another. Of course, playing an Orc straight can be pretty fun too.

---(O_O)-->

So that's it for the individuals, but we've still got a few things to talk about. Obviously I didn't really go into playing a goblinoid as a "good guy" or even as a super awesome good guy like cleric or paladin. It's certainly your prerogative to do this, but I've got to caution against it on some level. It would be easy to say that "Drizzt ruined it for you" but that's not totally accurate. When you play a race, on some level you should stay true to that race. Sometimes it can be fun to play someone who's not precisely like others of their kind, but it easily descends into tired cliches. I feel the sole person trying to atone for the sins of their whole race is very, very tired and too easily becomes maudlin. Often it can become the entire point of your character that they're not like the rest of their race, and that's not enough to build a rich character out of. I think it's best if you stay true on some level, and take something of the race with you. Maybe that Orc paladin thinks it's best to teach people to stand up for themselves, because he still prizes strength and power. Just a thought.

I hope this went over well and I got some people to think about playing my favorite type of race. I really want to do more of these, which is why I kept from adding Gnoll or Troglodyte to this list: I've got plenty more posts on races to go.

Moffating

"Okay, let me get my head 'round this. You're reading aloud from a transcript of a conversation you're still having?"

"Eeuh, wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey."


Steven William Moffat is a Scottish television writer and producer, known for his work as showrunner, writer, and executive producer of the British television series Doctor Who and Sherlock. I stole that whole-cloth from Wikipedia so we'd be on the same page. Moffat is quite a complicated subject for a lot of people, being an astonishingly good writer and an amazingly bad show-runner, all in one. He single handedly both wrote the episodes of Doctor Who that made me love the series and caused the changes to the series that made me hate it. Today is another discussion of bad habits and pitfalls(sorry) through the iris of the man's strengths and weaknesses.

I know he's a decent writer. He's put together some great episodes. Blink is a chilling suspenseful story that the Doctor is hardly even in, instead relying on other actors interpreting his influence from afar. It really hits home the time travel themes of the show in a way most episodes don't. The Empty Child is a two parter that sees the Doctor trying to stop a plague from ravaging WWII era London by turning people into gas-mask clad zombies. It sounds so stupid, but the two episodes just work so well. Moffat manages to make the phrase "Are You My Mummy?" creepy and ominous.

He also managed to blow the Doctor's character severely out of proportion after he moved up to Show Runner from being simply an episode writer. The show's tone as a fun, cheesy romp is entirely gone as more and more importance and significance is piled upon the Doctor and every event that happens. Every moment is filled with mystery, and every mystery's answer pays off into another mystery.

If you see an episode as a single adventure, and a show's overarching plot lines and tone as the overall plot of a pen and paper game, you can probably already see what I'm getting at.

First off, writing a decent adventure is important. An individual adventure should have some level of importance, and can sometimes tie into a larger story. In fact, tying them into a larger story is your primary way of moving the game's plot line along. Moffat is great at doing this, writing a single adventure. Most episodes he's done, taken individually, are pretty good. However, strung together and taken as a whole, the 'players' are never given a feeling of satisfaction. There's always a 'but'. What are the cracks in the walls? Well, they're from the TARDIS exploding. Immediately, you need to ask another question and satisfaction from "solving" the "adventure" is put off. Well, how did the TARDIS blow up? The Silence did it. Who are The Silence and WHY did they blow up the TARDIS? Because there's a prophecy. What the hell is the prophecy? More questions.

Obviously it's okay to do this sometimes. It can even create a lot of intrigue and a feeling of solving a mystery for your game. However, you need to temper your efforts. You need to throw the players an adventure or two that isn't related sometimes, or let them follow their on pursuits without tying it to your plot.

Here, please look at this animated gif for a few seconds. 

I hope that didn't make you as sick as it made me to watch it. That's a simple animation of a SINE wave, and you don't really need to know what that is other than the slow curvy shape of its timeline. Most people think a game simply gets more important in scope as it goes on...and that's mostly true. A great game gives the players 'hills' and 'valleys' like a SINE wave. Less important, less consequential or lower stakes adventures help out by giving your players a time to mentally relax. This does two major things: First, it refreshes them and gives them some time to 'goof off' and do whatever they want, within reason.

The second is that, like a palate cleanser in a meal, it makes the important bits feel that much more important. I promise you that, at some point, your players will get fatigued of constantly being battered with important events and decisions. To treat your "whammy" bits of story like the fillet mignon they are, you need to serve the players a bit of mint sherbet between courses. Or rather, in this case our "cleanser" courses are more like chocolate cake.

If you're about to tell me that too much chocolate cake ruins the impact and joy of dessert, you've nailed what I'm talking about. You can't make your game all one type of adventure. You need to mix and vary the tone of individual adventures most of the time for effective player feel. This is another thing Moffat doesn't seem to be very good at: Doctor Who's first season with him as show-runner consistently tries to give the show more and more gravitas with every episode and twist. The doctor goes from an incredibly clever and resourceful man(but just one man) to feeling like he's supposed to be the most important individual in the entire history of the universe. It's too much of one thing, to put it mildly.

He also seems to tie absolutely everything into something else. This is to keep the viewer continually coming back by keeping a question in their minds at all times as well as to create a feeling of a 'web' of story. As for keeping the viewers coming back? I sincerely hope you never have to fight to maintain your player's interest. If you find yourself in that situation, my only real advice is to quit while you're ahead. No, in a PNP game, you're better served making sure the players periodically feel satisfied. Try to limit the amount of times their victories have a "but" to them. You can even save that "but" for later a few times to save the feeling of victory in the moment. It's kind of a sad fact, but how the players feel at the end of an adventure is just as important as the game's plot. Sometimes even more.

As for creating a web of story where everything is tied to everything else? It helps a lot if the players understand what they're getting into when you do something like this. Expectations can mean a lot. You should also be sure to still hand the players some clear victories and 'unrelated' adventures. Of course you're going to end up with less of those, but it's important to throw them in every once in a while. Try to hand them a victory or two that goes unsullied: If the players save a woman from her murderous ex-husband, maybe don't have her show up dead in a later story, before the players can try and react. It'll sure add some tension and shock, but taking a success away is always going to feel shitty.

That's always the case with writers and directors, isn't it? It feels like everything's mixed. Every Moffat has his "Blink" or "The Girl in the Fireplace" as well as his "The Angels Take Manhattan". Michael Bay has "Transformers" as well as "Pain and Gain". Even Joss Whedon has his amazing "Cabin in the Woods" as well as his mediocre "Literally everything else he's ever done".

So mix it up.