The description of the playable Kobold race from 5e Volo's guide does say that kobolds being cowardly and weak is a misconception. And their 2 main race feats do show their cunning by having pack tactics and being able to use "cower, grovel and beg" to distract enemies so that others have an easier time to attack them
You're right in a sense, pg. 63, "Kobolds are often dismissed as cowardly, foolish, and weak, but these little reptilian creatures actually have a strong social structure that stresses devotion to the tribe, are clever with their hands, and viciously work together in order to overcome their physical limitations." That statement and following statements in the same section do maintain the coward stereotype. "... constantly fearful of invasion and oppression." "... individually they are timid and shy away from conflict," It doesn't appear the author was trying to dismiss the coward stereotype from kobolds in this text. I will concede that the section seems to have some competing ideas and starts confusing, the first statement particularly. How does having a strong social structure and teamwork disqualify cowardice? I probably should have covered this text in the video. So I'm going to pin this as a sort of correction!
"Weak" comes from their stat blocks (in every edition). "Cowardly" is no different from how most humans would react to ogres or giants, though in that sense they could be seen as braver as they will fight human sized enemies if needs be. The clever use of tactics in and of itself makes them intelligent more then cowardly, though the moral score they were given in editions that use moral does make them mechanically less brave than most other humanoids (or monsters in general) in those editions and guides how many have seen them.
It's weird that they'd be considered cowardly, given their beliefs. Goblins are cowardly because death means a one-way trip to Maglubiyet's army and an eternity of torment and suffering. Kobolds, on the other hand, believe in a very direct form of reincarnation; you die, you pop back out of the next egg in the nest. So long as the nest is safe, a Kobold with strong faith will see themselves as functionally immortal. So, in reality, kobolds should be comically fearless.
For some reason I remember a GM who had us run through a joke campaign. The idea was that we were stuck having to deal with the Kobold wars... Were the different versions of Kobolds were at war at one another from the rat, dog, and lizard varieties all fighting one another to see which version got to claim the true title of Kobold.
The problem with kobolds is that goblins, elves, fairies, sprites, some minor gods, and kobolds are essentially the same creatures sharing the same origins, but diverging over time. It’s the opposite problem of the current dnd halflings and gnomes where they have evolved to the point where a lot of people can’t really distinguish them from one another and their differences have started to feel superficial.
Kobolds , goblins and orcs are literally the same creature . Both kobold and goblin are regional christianised adaptions from a greek trickster spirits that served Dionisos , and the orc is an invention of Tolkien but more like a synonimous term rather than a different creature or variant. The association with sprites and fey was a english thing that happened post christianity, it was basically a spiritual/traditional carryover.
@@gerihuginn2143 True, although Tolkien stole the name for orcs from the latin/Italian term for ogre, orco, which in antiquity was the name of the Latin god of the underworld. I think there is a dwarf planet or planetoid named after him, Orcus.
Kobolds are one of my favorite monsters for low level interactions, and I frequently set them up as a community to be interacted with, rather than a specified antagonist. The one characteristic I've kind of rationalized for them is enthusiasm combined with a short attention span. They live underground, tunneling, which is exceedingly hard work. But they done build grand cities, like dwarves. So i figured a sort of spontaneous enthusiasm must account for their willingness to do hard work. The short attention span means they're always changing focus, instead of remaining on a single task. This accounts for the fact that they dont accomplish much. I include the normal array of other attributes, excepting that i never build them as physically strong. In roleplay, all of their responses are more extreme than warranted. When they're suspicious, they'll accuse you of insane conspiracies. Then they're angry, they're sadistic and vicious. But... When they're happy it's time for a festival. When they're curious... it's time for an adventure.
Posting this before fully watching. To further muddy the waters of what a kobold is… I did some research into this topic myself, and some olde english texts suggested that the kobold was a kind of house sprite that resembled a candle.
Kobold is just German for Goblin, coming from the same Greek root, but like a lot of realworld mythical creatures they were forever changed in pop culture by the popularity of dungeons and dragons. It's like how movies changed the common view of vampires, who don't disintegrate in sunlight in any old myths, and werewolves, who have nothing to do with the full moon in folklore.
I also suspect the reason for the split in the depiction of kobolds is that during the 1980s D&D was actually two different games: Advanced (1st then 2nd editions that eventually continued on which is what your video focused on) and Basic (B/X then BECMI). I think in the default setting for Basic (Mystara/The Known World) kobolds, goblins, and orc all had a common ancestry of a race beast men created by an Entropic immortal to serve her: so pig men orcs, dog like kobolds, degenerate hodge-podge genetic grab bag goblins. Maybe I'm half remembering.
No you’re pretty much right (thanks Mr. Welch for all the Mystara videos!) since Mystara had a lot of weird origins for the races thanks to it’s reasonably original setting background when compared to other settings.
Kobolds in Mystara definitely had a doggie theme to them, not reptilian. If only because Bruce Heard couldn't resist stuffing every dog pun he could think of into their depiction in "The Orcs Of Thar".
can't remember where i read this may have of been pathfinder but I like how they were also described and being extremely industrious to the point in their ancient history they were close to becoming a superior civilization over gnomes and Garl Glittergold destroyed their civilization and sending them back into the stone age which lead them to hate gnomes with a fiery passion because after that they were called and treated as vermin but despite that they regularly trade with dwarves but under the effect of disguise self of course otherwise if they are well taken care of and paid well they are some the hardest workers you can ask for
That's pretty neat! There's something similar on pg. 9 of Grand History of the Realms by James and Greenwood, though not quite the same as what you're describing.
@@Wiz_and_Pippy that is one thing I loved about pathfinder the have books that expand the personality and thoughts of various races in books like goblins of golarian and kobolds of golarian basically a series of enter race name of golarian very fun reads
That's from 3.5. Pathfinders Kobold are more like a union of proud workers, they seek bosses and make rebelions if those said bosses are not on their interest, they are very proud of their draconic ancestry (or were, since with the OGL stuff PF Kobolds can now be related to any other big boss monster), they do have a knack for alchemy and other crafts but prefer creating snares. In the world of Golarion many places are industrial like Alkenstar and Numeria, and in those places is not abnnormal to find Kobolds wielding firearms, creating constructs and etc but that's something those society achieve, not specificaly the Kobolds.
Being born and raised in central Europe I had a very firm concept of what Kobold is from our folklore as they appear children's fairytales and myths a lot so I was very confused when I discovered US-American kobolds in D&D being dragon worshipping lizard people. In 5e terms they'd be not too different from forest Gnomes.
I have to admit that the first time I ever heard of “kobolds” was when I played Dungeons & Dragons as a tweenager in the early 90’s with my buddy Max Keller in my room in suburban Clear Lake, Texas, USA. Max was the DM and he described them as small lizard-like dog men. What a weird concept I thought to myself. We had no idea they came from German folklore and are more like evil gnomes or like the Slavic/Russian Domovoi. It’s like Gary Gygax just took some random word “kobold” he had heard somewhere and applied it to a totally different critter in his mind when he penned the original D&D Monster Manual!
I tend to run Kobolds like a group of human fighters against giants. Clerics, Alchemist assistance, kobold gear should be lovingly crafted, these brave members of the tribe are the first line of defence for a race that knows they need every advantage. Make the front line fighters, they should be soldiers trained for this precise sacrifice. That idea should inform your decision to retreat and how they deal with defeat. Tend to run goblins as anything from evil children to despotic barbarians depending on culture and player level. Goblins tend to run more to the Evil Wizard arcatype, even when they do have clerics, they rarely dish heals or competently buff the group. Even the standard fighters of the group act like rogues. Militarily Goblins should feel like a group of street toughs trying to get while the getting is good. each is in it for themselves, sure they support, but if leaving another member of the group to die improves their chances even a little they will let him die. I honestly have a harder time with Orcs, are Orcs just another barbarian race? Making one in four a barbarian rager would significantly impact their feel I think, but could your table survive? Personally, I blame WarCraft, I played so much of the orc campaign, before I ever read The Lord of the Rings.
Part of the problem is that Hobgoblins in recent editions aped the Orc’s armies. Tolkien Uruk-Hai were a mobilized military force and a big basis for the Orc as depicted in D&D alongside the normal orcs of the setting, but they were based on the Mongolian nomadic horde that swept through Asia and threatened Europe so there’s your outlander basis. So Orcs should come in two flavors, horseback (or Wargback) riding raiders, and a veritable army when under a evil overlord! Though if you put orcs vs goblins then having both orcs and hobgoblins use the raiding army aesthetic works for when they inevitably clash. Perhaps to differentiate the two have their army structure reflect on their character. Lean in to the Mongolian Steppe riders for Orcs with lots of cavalry while the Hobs focus on infantry and shock troops using their various goblinoid kin! As for Kobolds, I’d have them as more isolationist unless a dragon is getting uppity (and even then part of me either wants to just bring back Dragonlance’s Draconians or make Dragonborn actually proper dragonkin that can be aligned more closely with the dragons. That way kobolds are the defensive line and home front that work on weapons, armor, shipping, etc. while Dragonborn/Draconiana are the front lines and military officers under the dragon! Also to further dichotomize goblins, focus on their cowardice and ruthlessness. Goblins LOVE to backstab goblins due to a superiority complex, while Orcs only do so when a faction feels it’s necessary for furthering their goals or if they feel the weakness of their leader. Bugbears feel generally different enough as large, lazy, and oddly sneaky. Also I’d think that coming across lone bands of Hobgoblins trying to raise their own army would be a fun but of worldbuilding. It would also cement the general mistrust that goblins hold for one-another, while orcs and kobolds are generally far more cooperative. Orcs disagree between clans and new ones splinter from differences of leadership and/or banishment after a lost (but survived) duel. Part of me does want to make Hobs WAY more civilized, though that’s thanks to their Japanese looking armor in the books. Perhaps that sort of thing is regional like most of my suggestions could be! It is hard to differentiate these guys, lord knows how many paragraphs I threw out writing this lololol
in my campaign i did a general union of all of the myths surrounding kobolds, they’re dog like creatures akin to gnolls, stray dogs infected by magic and gaining humanoid shape; these kobolds form packs that search for the smell of meat, often taking them to live in alleys on towns and cities, most of them end up as harmless creatures or even guard dogs if offered leftovers of meat, they even dress and try to mimic the creatures that feed them, and people often prefers to let the kobolds live near them in change of their leftovers unless they make too much trouble. Some kobolds end up attracted to the smell of meat in Dragon lairs and imitate their appearance by shaving and decorating themselves with bones and teeths to look like dragons. the thing is, a pack of kobolds only get smarter by not depending on leftovers, so only on abandoned places with rotten meat and on the roads are the most intelligent kobolds
I have to admit that the first time I ever heard of “kobolds” was when I played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition as a tweenager in the early 90’s with my buddy Max Keller in my room in suburban Clear Lake, Texas, USA. Max was the DM and he described them as small lizard-like dog men. What a weird concept I thought to myself. We had no idea they came from German folklore and are more like evil gnomes or like the Slavic/Russian Domovoi. It’s like Gary Gygax just took some random word “kobold” he had heard somewhere and applied it to a totally different critter in his mind when he penned the original D&D Monster Manual!
Kobolds , goblins and orcs being the same in the original version makes sense since original dnd is based on Tolkien. He invented the term orc which was a sinonim for goblin . And goblin and kobold are the english and german version of the same creature , originally descended from a pre christian greek mythology/legend/folk tales.
D&D have a big influence in the appearance of the Kobolds, it's not rare to find then as dog people, something i don't love, because its not really their appearance both in folklore and D&D, and there are a dog headed race in mytologi the cynocephalus.
No, that's the gnoll. The original gnolls from 1e and 2e were plantigrade rather than digitigrade, so they weren't upright hyenas, but hyena-like humanoids instead. The gnoll illustration in the 1e monster manual is reminiscent of the cynocephalic humanoids of medieval folklore. So, too, is DiTerlizzi's illustration in the 2e Monstrous Manual. The first time I eve saw a digitigrade gnoll was in Baldur's Gate 1.
@bananabanana484 Monster Musume for me cuz of polt she really loves the run & stay in shape she's very Athletic#absolutely ❤ her I think there should be more hentai aka anime porn of her every one and his buddy's say the want more of the others including the 3 main characters girl monsters# I'm like what u got against Kobold's like my Polt???????????????????#I blame the stats of them in rpg's
@@bananabanana484Monster Musume for me cuz of polt she really loves too run very Athletic and I think she should have more hentai aka anime porn of her every one and buddy's what the other girls including the three main characters the lamia Centar & harppy I'm like what u got against Kobold's like my Polt eny way!#there not weak!
D&D player since 1984 here. They are indistinguishable because Gary Gygax and his buddies were just winging it and making up random stuff with no cohesion, so there's too many low-level mooks in the books. In my campaigns I just... don't use them, as goblins already fill the role.
The example you gave from 2e was a poor one. That piece of art from the AD&D second edition monsters compendium, drawn by Tony Di’Terlizzi, Suffers from him, taking too much artistic license with it. I think he was going for something that had a face like a Chihuahua with horns. Very few other depictions of Kobolds in 2e look like that. Most of them have faces more like pugs or bulldogs. One example of this would be in the complete book of humanoids, the first place in 2e at least that kobolds Our present us playable characters. One other thing, I’m surprised you’ve lost over in the history of kobolds Is there association with cobalt mining and the illness the cobalt minor suffered from exposure to that element. Those poisonings were blamed on the spirits of the mines, the kobolds.
Since the adventure Dragon Mountain heavily focused on a large community of kobolds in multiple clans... I tend to defer to the advice in those books for their society and tactics.
When I designed the Alshizz kobold tribe, I took as the key facts that they are (1) reptiles, (2) small, and (3) omnivorous, although this last is not specified in the lore. The reptile metabolism, low body weight, and ability to eat nearly anything organic allows them to survive in regions of the White Wastes so desolate that goblins, or any other mammalian humanoid, would starve to death. This is key to their battle tactics; they use their environment as a weapon. They draw humans, hobgoblins, orcs, and other big mammalian enemies into pursuing them into the high desert, wait for them to get hungry, thirsty and overheated (preferably at least two levels of Exhaustion), then attack. Their human neighbors bitterly call the Alshizz kobolds “wingless buzzards” for their habit of shadowing their enemies until they are too weak to resist. When on the offensive, they strike hard and fast into border regions, usually at night (they use black basalt slingstones, which are hard to see and dodge in the dark), then retreat quickly to their desert and safety. You *don’t* want them to capture you; even if they figure you’re worth a ransom and pack you on a camel instead of killing you outright, they simply won’t feed you at all. The Alshizz figure that if your family wants you, they’ll pay ransom before you starve to death. Also because they are reptiles, I discarded the lore that made kobolds elevate the group above the individual. They have no mammalian nurturing or social instincts. Kobold tribes are held together by fear and self-interest alone. The Alshizz have no word for “love” in their language; “hunger” is the closest equivalent. They lay so many eggs that, even with 80% child mortality, their numbers stay steady or even grow; the fertilized eggs are jumbled together in a communal depository, so parents don’t know their own children. An immature Alshizz kobold names itself when it grows old enough to speak; no parent or other adult cares what it is called. Kobolds really should be more alien to us than goblins, or almost any mammalian humanoid. A whole lot changes when you come out of an egg and can’t drink mommy’s milk.
In my game setting, I generally consider Kobolds to be a mix of their different inspirations. A small but clever and tenacious dragonkin that, while distantly related dragons and have draconic features, also have more beast-like traits that have developed over the years. Usually those of that resemble canines, rodents, mustelids, or civets. They are scavenging tricksters by nature, but also develop a strong sense of loyalty to their comrades. And their small frames pack a bizarrely strong punch. Now imagine a group of the little shits...
As proud as a dragon at the height of a hobbit with the ingenuity of a gnome, twice the strategist of a goblin, because in most worldbuilds, they are durable as wet one-ply toilet paper
I seem to remember kobolds in 2nd edition’s “book of huminoids” as a playable race. I grew up with 2nd editions and Baldur’s gate 1 and 2, so I’m much more familiar with the rat dog kobolds. Kobolds as draconic has always been extremely weird to me. All this means that when I hear kobold, I think of the rat-dog men, cruel, clever, cooperative. Jealous and backstabby internally, but presenting a united front to outsiders which is uncommonly strong among the villainous races.
I like to write Kobolds as adaptive creatures. Changing look and some attributes based on the biome they live in. Common Kobolds can be found almost anywhere, but in a forest they may appear more furred, and like canines or cats. In marshlands they may look more like a salamander. And in cities they may look more like rats, raccoons, or possums. They are hearty creatures. survivors. So why wouldn't they adapt?
For Kobolds in specific I suggest you leave D&D for background and focus in a still unfinished computer game named Ravager (assuming we are among adults). The best thing D&D did to make the race interesting, and distinct, was to marry it with dragons. Anytime you step on the head of a kobold you should have reason to ask yourself if that kobold and his band are an independent enterprise, or part of a larger structure. If they have the choice to work for a dragon they will do that. And any kind of dragon can take insult if you step on the heads of those little cousins who are working for him. Specially if you do that by no good reason. Don't you take as an insult when someone step on the heads of your weak cousins? Of course you do. Specially when your cousins are indeed working for you by the time when they are stepped on.
The Kobold’s origin in German folklore reminds me of the Domovoi from Slavic/Russian folklore. The Domovoi is also depicted as a “house spirit” and Russians/Ukrainians leave out food on the table to appease the Domovoi so it doesn’t get angry.
Okay so it first needs to be stated that you did a decent amount of research on this topic, However it's also clear that you had a conclusion in mind and were working toward it instead of taking an unbias stance. This is made crystal clear by this line 02:16 And the reason we can tell from this is because D&D's kobolds aren't based on mythological kobolds at all, they're based on Goblins from The Hobbit, as stated by Gary Gygax. So the premise of this video already doesn't make much sense, and that wasn't even niche knowledge, it's literally in the first paragraph in wikipedia's D&D Kobold Depiction history section: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons) Suddenly the fact that Kobolds are small, dim-witted creatures who live underground and in servitude to unfathomably ancient, fire-related undoubtably evil creatures from an era before time began makes a whole lot more sense whenever you remember that's the backstory for J.R.R. Tolkien's forces of Morgoth which includes Goblins and Orcs. As for why Kobolds are demonic in appearance it was most likely a reference to the Balrog. Because the original depiction of the D&D Kobold is essentially just Micro-rog, this is also notable because early depictions of the Balrog depicted it with a curved blade in its right hand... just like the Kobold. qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2abc79bd6220faf164ebc9b33ca3b667-lq And parallels were drawn to demons and dragons in the original book as the Balrog's description is similar to that of Smaug, and yet includes lines like: "It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape" So if you're going to base something on this it's going to look like a demon, that's just a natural progression, especially since J.R.R. Tolkiens works are largely based on Nordic themes through a Christian lens. So That leads me to believe that you probably knew about D&D first, then realized that the word Kobold appears in Mythology and then assumed there was a connection. Well the reality is early D&D did this thing constantly where they took words and names from mythology and created new characters for them, usually these characters were ancient beings as ancient names made people just accept that they were ancient. you can see this all across D&D and in early depiction they never have anything to do with the actual mythological beings or creatures. Two other famous examples are (1)Tiamat who is not a dragon, and not even a reptile. In fact she's most commonly depicted as a chimera, you will find a lot of references of Tiamat being a dragon but it's important to know these are because of the popularity of D&D, not the other way around. In reality she's from myths dating nearly 4000 years ago, and is a classification of mythological being called "Dragon-like creature" which refers to creatures that are a chimera of different animal traits, and also includes Chimeras, Hydras, Kraken, and Wendigos. (2) The Terrasque is specifically stated to be half fish, and is often depicted as being half pig, half fish. However importantly it is stated to be half dragon too. But it needs to be said that the original terasque was also stated to be a demon, being brought to heel by a threat of holy water. It was killed by having stones and spears thrown at it, and it was stated to be slightly bigger than an Ox, so you can instantly tell what D&D has with that name is not in any way inspired by the mythological version. You can also make arguments for many of the demons and devils in D&D that they're just using popular names for reasons of being popular, and that's supported by the fact that D&D actively used the satanic panic to spread further by leaning into the satanic claims, including making books with demons on the front and naming demons after biblical characters. Mephistopheles and Asmodeus in particular. Now with it established that D&D isn't basing these characters on their mythological counter parts at all, Let's talk about something that's also important to note. It is clear that you only researched Kobolds in this, and whenever you're talking about other creatures and other folklore you don't know much about what you're saying. Kobolds are from the 13th century, Pixies are from the 18th century but Fairies go back far long than both Kobolds and Pixies. So whenever you assert that it would be more correct to use "Kobold" instead of Fairy you're just wrong, How long Fairies existed in Irish folklore we don't know, the oldest Named fairy being worshipped in Ireland (That I can remember right now) is Epona, who the Romans adopted from Ireland in 100 AD, 1200 years before the invention of Kobolds.
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and then write such a passionate and thought-out comment! In return, I'll address a few of your points! The statement at 02:16 showing my bias. Kobolds did originally appear as largely subterranean creatures in D&D and would continue to be developed as such. They certainly did not appear as house-spirits, so if the inspiration came from anywhere, it was the mine-dwelling version of the mythological kobold. Kobolds being based on goblins from the hobbit as evidenced by wikipedia's entry on Kobolds (Dungeons & Dragons). The statement in that article you're referring to is talking about the system Chainmail being inspired by The Hobbit, it's not mentioning kobolds' inspiration. The line following it does say kobolds were depicted as creatures similar to goblins, which was a part of my point. Further, my pointing out of the original kobold's appearance as demon-like is not a crux of the thesis, nor do I feel the kobold holding a sword in its right hand creates a connection to the balrog. The point in that section was to give historical context to my thesis that kobold's niche and identity largely overlapping with goblins and not being distinct. Your assertation that creatures in D&D have no mythological inspiration. I so strongly believe the contrary, but I’ll only so much as refute your two examples. (1) Tiamat. Yes, Tiamat did seem to originally appear as a chimera with many heads - but would go on to be depicted as a serpent or dragon* before D&D. This is a logical extension as Tiamat was a personification of the sea and myths of the sea often contained draconic sea serpents. In myth, Tiamat even gave birth to dragons and serpents. I don't think it's hard to see the progression from what we see in myth to what is put to page as a multiheaded dragon mom. (2) Tarrasque. You are correct, the depictions of the tarrasque do include fish, pigs, and fish-pigs. However, that is not the only depiction! Look at the city seal of Tarascon, France! Look at many historical depictions of the tarrasque! They match quite perfectly the depiction of D&D’s tarrasque, that cannot be a coincidence. Kobold being more correct to use. I think the statement you're referring to I was trying to relate a concept to an English-speaking-western audience, who are likely to be more familiar with the term fairy or pixie, than kobold. I was not trying to assert one being more correct than another. Again, thank you for watching and commenting! I hope I was able to sufficiently address your concerns! Even if you disagree with my points I still appreciate the time you have taken. I hope to foster a community where we can disagree with each other in a respectful manner, fully recognizing that civility is often lost over the internet.
@@Wiz_and_Pippy In response to your points: 1.(Your initial Point & The Inspirations of Kobolds.) The issue with your first point is you're cherry picking. yes the page states that the book is inspired by the hobbit not Kobolds. However given that kobolds are from the book stated to be inspired by the hobbit that's an unimportant detail. if the information inside the book is stated to be inspired by the hobbit, and kobolds are a part of the information inside of the book then kobolds are stated to be inspired by the hobbit, Claiming that kobolds aren't inspired by the hobbit, the book that kobolds are from is... is just trying to trip people up, the difference is entirely meaningless and you're essentially arguing the word of the law against the spirit of the law. For further point here your entire video is based on opinions, it's clear that you did a decent amount of research here and yet your best is opinions, you couldn't find any direct links between kobolds and mythological kobolds. Meanwhile we are specifically told that D&D Kobolds were inspired by the hobbit, and that information comes from Gary Gygax himself, and you're essentially disagreeing with the man who invented the game you're talking about, on the subject of the contents and inspirations of the game. I don't see the logic in that personally. 2.(Kobold's Appearances) You missed the point with the Kobold's appearance entirely. Yes the Kobold holding the sword in the same hand means nothing whenever you phrase it in the way you did. However whenever you include that the entire species backstory is taken directly from Tolkien's work, that the appearance of the Kobold as a species seems to take inspiration from the written descriptions of Tolkien's work, and that the original goblinoid nature of the kobolds is literally a mirror of Tolkiens work where there are three Goblin-like races (Goblins, Orcs, Uruk-Hai) and Gygax couldn't use Uruk-Hai so Kobolds were stand-ins for Goblins, Goblins for Orcs and Orcs for Uruk-Hai, this is to the point where even today you can take a picture of an Uruk-Hai and a picture of a generic D&D Orc and put them next to each other and they'll look nearly exactly the same with exception of proportion and sometimes skin colour. That kind of similarity doesn't come from accidents. Additionally it cannot be overlooked that the sword the Kobold is holding is also the sword the Balrog is depicted as holding prior to the release of the lord of the rings movies, There are 702 different types of swords and somehow the race from the book inspired by Tolkien, whose backstory is a backstory inspried by tolkien, who's role is a mirror of a race in Tolkien's work and whose appearance is based on Tolkien's work also just so happens to have the weapon of one of the most famous characters in Tolkien's work, and you're trying to say all of that is a coincidence, and boiling down all of these similarities to "nor do I feel the kobold holding a sword in its right hand creates a connection to the balrog" Yeah, whenever you reduce a paragraph's worth of information to a sentence it rarely looks as impressive as it initially did. 3.(Tiamat) You strongly believe the contrary but your own comment proves you wrong. For instance you claim that Tiamat was originally depicted with multiple heads... let's look into that... www.britannica.com/topic/Tiamat Nope, that's one head and once more she has parts of eagles, lions and jackals but no reptilian traits at all. Later interpretations of Tiamat's story would be depicted as serpents but never dragons and one detail you're leaving out is that they also weren't called "Tiamat" at that point, they were called "Leviathan" Which interestingly enough this wasn't largely available public knowledge at the time Tiamat entered D&D(1975) but rather was highly niche information that only became somewhat common in the 1990s, and also if D&D's version was based on this information the creature would be called "Leviathan", not Tiamat. Your logic doesn't make much sense on this point and it loses the consistency it did have whenever you realize that no interpretation of Tiamat has ever been depicted as having multiple heads. You just invented that to try and gain more ground in your point here. That was specifically added by D&D. What I believe you're referencing is either the Old Serpent, which is based on Ancient Greece's Hydra not Tiamat. Or the Great Dragon which is from a time whenever the use of the word "Dragon" meant "Greatest sin" and specifically states it's not a literal dragon but rather a baneful reference to the snake in the garden of eden in the passage: "And the great dragon was cast out - that serpent of old called the Devil and Satan" More information can be found on the wikipedia article for Tiamat: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat 4.(Terrasque) You're right, that's not the only depiction. what you're not mentioning is that I addressed both depictions in the original comment and neither look literally anything like the Terrasque in D&D. This is what the Terasque looks like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque Yet D&D depicts it as Godzilla Meets T-rex meets Stag Beetle. These are not even remotely similar interpretations of the appearance, and the powers and abilities do not match, neither does the size, living location or anything else about the two. 5. (Linguistics) I acknowledge and accept the clarification on the linguistics point, However it also needs to be said that the viewer doesn't know what you're thinking and whenever you're talking about peoples' cultures it's extremely important to be thorough with that information, or else you risk miscommunications causing negative responses. 6.(the most important part) The most important part of this is you're trying to establish yourself as a person of authority on this subject, otherwise why should people listen to you. You're trying to jokingly assert that "Everyone" is wrong about this but you. However your video doesn't including anything that could be seen as evidence to the claims you make. It's all opinions, I'm willing to bet that while you were researching you couldn't actually find any evidence that they were connected at all but assumed the common usage of the name was enough, likely not consciously aware of the theme of D&D just using names from mythology for unrelated characters. If you're willing to make this claim I'd advise looking for actual evidence, Right now this point is essentially your word vs Gary Gygax's, without a decent amount of evidence the outcome of that is extremely clear. And with that being lacking in your video your response to my comment despite the kind words does not come across as if being made in good faith. you're willing to ignore facts stated by Gary Gygax, and themes found throughout D&D even to the point where other distinctly Tolkien characters appear regularly from Rangers being inspired by the Rangers from Lord of the Rings as before Tolkien the term was not used in the context of bowmen at all, to the Balrog later appearing as its own encounter in D&D: www.dndbeyond.com/avatars/thumbnails/30781/600/1000/1000/638061930825811285.png The willingness to ignore this often extremely basic information even whenever provided with overwhelming evidence in order to reach a strange and unusual conclusion is concerning given you're attempt to assert yourself as a voice on the correct interpretation of aspects of D&D. What happens whenever you jump to conclusions like this on something more relevant to people and get called out for it on a much larger scales? 7. To be clear I have no ill will toward you as an individual, However my passion on this subject is threefold. First I'm passionate about Mythology of all kinds, second you asserted something that contradicts my culture's history in this video, it's unimportant what. and third and most important If you're trying to assert yourself as a voice on this subject accuracy and cultural understanding is important above all else. If you accidentally insult a culture you'll never hear the end of it, and D&D does have creatures where you can absolutely accidentally insult a culture if you slip up slightly, Like how Djinn tie into multiple religions and cultures but primarily represent the presence of pagan gods within early islamic culture, but at the same time Djinn are not evil or good, and are representative of a different race equivalent to humans in many ways which leads to a lot of cultural misunderstanding from the west because the west is used to demons are evil, angels are good, etc. What you're doing is genuinely good, but if you do it wrong that could genuinely blow up in your face. Which is why accuracy is so important here and thus why I'm prioritizing it.
Thank you again for the reply! It's clear we are way too far apart on our interpretations of the facts and it's in no one's best interest to continue this conversation in this manner. However, I would appreciate if you would make clear what was included that contradicts your culture so that I may became a more enlightened person on the subject and avoid repeating it.
@@Wiz_and_Pippy This isn't about interpretation, this isn't a debate. You are arguing against the words of Gary Gygax, creator of Dungeons and Dragons, and more specifically the creator of Kobolds in the context of Dungeons and Dragons about where the inspirations for kobolds in the context Dungeons and Dragons comes from. Your interpretation is specifically stated to be wrong by the creator of the content you're talking about. Therefore it is not a difference of opinion, your interpretation is just factually wrong. and the repeated insistence that you somehow know better than Gary Gygax inherently requires a certain level of arrogance. I've already stated why it's important to be accurate on subjects like this, but if you believe that actively, and now knowingly spreading misinformation is more your calling card I will of course remember that. As for my culture I have no faith in you, from how you've reacted to everything else you want to know what you did to contradict my cultural history so that you can do it more. You've already shown yourself to have no interests in arguing in good faith and to prefer attempts to manipulate and lie about facts over making actual points. Examples of you misrepresenting information: 1. "if the inspiration came from anywhere, it was the mine-dwelling version of the mythological kobold." - Gary Gygax specifically stated Kobolds are based on the Hobbit. 2. "The statement in that article you're referring to is talking about the system Chainmail being inspired by The Hobbit, it's not mentioning kobolds' inspiration." - This is a strawman argument, You phrased it in a way that implies the end result is different but in reality whether the article states that Kobolds are inspired by the Hobbit, or the contents of the book that Kobolds are from is inspired by the hobbit is totally, 100% irrelevant. In both scenarios Kobolds are inspired by the hobbit. 3. "nor do I feel the kobold holding a sword in its right hand creates a connection to the balrog" - This is a strawman argument, you make no reference of that not being my point, and attempt to phrase as if I believe something so simple denote inspiration. 4. "The point in that section was to give historical context to my thesis" - This is circular logic 'Thesis' is a good use of words here, this is you admitting you have absolutely no proof to any of this, however you're phrasing it as if the sentence itself is support for the thesis, whenever in reality a "Thesis" Is a premise that needs to be proved, you provide no proof here at all so you're just using the word to try and sound smart. 5. "Your assertation that creatures in D&D have no mythological inspiration. I so strongly believe the contrary, but I’ll only so much as refute your two examples. " - You attempt to portray this as you only being willing to refute these examples but the reality of the situation is that you don't even know enough to refute these examples. your refutations are terrible, and at times directly contradict our knowledge of the origins of literature in our species, A subject you didn't even know you were talking about. 6. "Yes, Tiamat did seem to originally appear as a chimera with many heads" Tiamat's original appearance is lost to history, our records don't go far enough back to show that. So it's interesting that your statement regards her first appearance, which there is absolutely no way that you could know literally anything about, yet you claim that it is similar to D&D which is directly contradictory to everything we know about Tiamat across all cultures she's relevant to. Once more you provide zero evidence. 7. "would go on to be depicted as a serpent or dragon* before D&D" - D&D is the first time she was represented as a dragon, there is no prior depiction of her as one because Dragons were not a big thing in any of the Abrahamic cultures which is the path that most adopted Tiamat. Dragons are referenced usually as examples of sin, or occasionally demons, or evil creatures but those references didn't take place until the medieval period, which is also after Tiamat stopped being used, and long after Tiamat became Leviathan which spiralled into its own thing. 8. "In myth, Tiamat even gave birth to dragons and serpents" - Tiamat is never stated to have given birth to dragons or serpents Once more that's D&D, and you are blatantly lying. Tiamat is the mother of the Gods, and is stated to "Bring forth" Monsters, that yes include some serpents and only in a totally different version of the myth where she's not even called Tiamat a small dragon. The implication is that at this point these creatures were alive in the world, Tiamat didn't create them alone nor were they her flesh and blood like you're claiming. 9. "I don't think it's hard to see the progression from what we see in myth to what is put to page as a multiheaded dragon mom" - Whenever you're doing nothing but misrepresenting the reality and trying to push your bias as facts that's an easy leap to make but whenever you care about reality it makes absolutely no sense. 10. "Look at many historical depictions of the tarrasque! They match quite perfectly the depiction of D&D’s tarrasque, that cannot be a coincidence. " - Historically Accurate: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/TarasqueStatue.jpg/1280px-TarasqueStatue.jpg D&D: www.dndbeyond.com/avatars/thumbnails/30836/117/1000/1000/638063929008461547.png Yes, I can really see the similarities look at those Gorgeous locks! 11. "It's clear we are way too far apart on our interpretations" - You're essentially talking about 'alternative facts' here, because I haven't voiced an opinion at all, I've been citing factual information... you know, that thing you should have been doing from the start and yet failed to do on even the most basic subject? 12. " it's in no one's best interest to continue this conversation" - I'd argue it's in the best interest of your current and future viewers to be aware that you spread misinformation, and when questioned start lying and misrepresenting facts, information and other peoples' points. This largely from just one comment, This is how little you care about good faith representation, facts and basic levels of research.
I don't think Kobolds were ever dim-witted in their original D&D incarnation. That's just Flanderization. For some reason, many players assume that the humanoid races in D&D are stupid, but when you look at their stats, most of them are listed as having average (8-10) Intelligence, including kobolds. In the 2e Book of Humanoids, Kobolds, Goblins, and Hobgoblins roll 3d6 for Intelligence as humans do, with no penalty to this ability score. So that means these races are just as intelligent as humans, with the same bell curve. So there are both genius kobolds and idiot kobolds. Likewise, while orcs are limited to 16 in Intelligence (rolling 2d6+1d4), they received no Intelligence penalty, though the average score was about 8 or 9, which is consistent with the 1e/2e monster manuals. Half-orcs had a maximum Intelligence of 17 (2d8+1), also with no penalty to this stat, nor would it have been justified. You want to play a brutish humanoid character who is fairly stupid on average and who sucks at everything except fighting? That's a 2e half-ogre. We haven't seen the original vision of what half-orcs were supposed to be since 2e. God, I hate what 3e did to half-orcs. But that's another story.
I'm running a Ravenloft campaign, and I created a domain which is populated largely by kobolds and other draconic creatures. Its Dark Lord is even a former kobold who is cursed to reincarnate as a random dragon monster every so often.
To me, the best way to go about doing a kobold encounter is to make them look weak and very coward. However only the weak part is true, and only applies when they have lower numbers. Their plan? clever and full of trickery, draw player into a overconfidence and get them to overstep, that is when Kobold start the shenanigans, with a mix of Viet Cong guerrilla tactics with (if player are smart enough to get around the traps) a well organize formation combat that appear chaotic, so opponents have a hard time readying it. Even better if said kobolds have resources to build stuff, some contraptions that just keep getting better and better in a quite trial and error style, but with a element of brilliance, that is learning from the pass success and failure and even using crude theories. now, What if a kobold is picked alone and does not have much on the way of ruining? well, like a angry cat you do not wanna get close, as they will bite slash and overall be very aggressive and fast, making picking one up a bad idea. overall, Kolbods are to dragons what a house cat is to a tiger, yet they worked together to improve their colony and use their intellect to build contraptions and machinery making up for they weakness and even automate stuff.
Despite what is in this video, in the latest games, kobolds and goblins end up filling the same niche, that of weak, small, nasty, subterranean humanoids with a disposition for ambushes and traps and an annoying photophobia. In my settings, I tend to either use only one of the two races, since having both is kinda redundant, or merge them in a single race with hobgoblins and bugbears. In the latter case, they are basically separate castes within the same social race, based on the basic typology of characters in any fantasy game: goblins are the roguish scout/scavenger kind, hobgoblins are the warriors, bugbears are the shamans, while kobolds are the sorcerers and enchanters. Since they have a somewhat nomadic clannish/tribal stone-age or bronze-age society, they can be used in a far greater number of ways. And they do not need light sensitivity either. They can be made more or less evil and mischievous as needed too, so to change the spectrum of possible interactions with the player characters. The castes can also explain whatever difference in appearance I would imagine, mainly due to interbreeding between a limited number of individuals or by selective reproduction.
While Wizardry came a bit earlier, the thing that sealed it was Record of Lodoss Wars. It started life as a d&d session transcript (though they used other systems later) published in a magazine, and would go on to be novels, manga, anime, games, etc. To put it mildly, it was hugely successful. It's sort of the tolkein of Japan in that it set the standard for western style high fantasy, and became a massive influence on the genre in Japan for decades.
🤔 . . . Now I’m thinking of Kobolds as some sort of elitist SWAT team or SpecOps unit, especially in a WW2 setting/scenario. As for what they look like, if I could think of some sort of paleontological origin, it’d be the ancestors of mammals, primarily by the arrangement of their teeth, but they’re still reptilian in every other way, thus making them similar yet different to a group of ‘dragons’ who also share that same/similar layout of teeth & such…
I really dislike 3e's interpretation of the Kobold as a tiny lizard man/dragonborn critter. A rat/dog/goblinoid makes far more sense given their niche. Something that's part dragon shouldn't be the weakest of low-level monsters. Also, Kobolds have been playable since the 2e Book of Humanoids.
It's strange being reminded that in our german fairy tales kobolds are not at all lizardly. My mother read me brother grimms fairy tales when i was younger but kobolds weren't the most famous among them. So as i've played dnd a lot more the notion of a kobold being more of a fairy got lost a lot.
I was certainly surprised to see how general the term was. Right now, I cannot stop imagining tiny little draconic kobolds running around the house causing mischief and poofing around like fairies. I found some folks around the web pointing to a myth that involved similar house spirits that were thought to enter through the chimney as sparks and embers and had etymological connections to the term dragon (drach or draak), which would be claimed as the inspiration for the draconic shift of kobolds in 3e. But I personally couldn't find anything concrete that linked the idea of a dragon to that of an idea of the kobold so it wasn't included. Yet still, it could have been!
@@Wiz_and_Pippy That is a popular theme among a LOT of fairy tales/folk lore since so many of these terms and creatures were just made up to explain things that they didnt understand and it almost always relied on some CREATURE causing MISCHIEF but they're very SNEAKY so you never find them doing it.
World of Warcraft has arguably the most iconic and distinct depiction of kobolds tbh. They're always found in mines, keep their candles close, they have actual lore relating to the old gods, their voices are iconic. The world doesn't need need more dragonkin and it certainly doesn't need more dog people (werewolves and gnolls and beastmen aren't sufficient??) but little vaguely naked-mole-rat-like miner people stand out.
My kobolds are still evil scaly humanoid chihuahuas -- they are also still chaotic, and often worship Loki as an inspiration for tricks and traps. Of course, this is because I still play editions where that (except for the religion) was the official description. If I were to include them in an original game of my own creation, however, I would probably turn them back into something closer to evil gnomes, at least for their physical appearance, though possibly making them cobalt blue in color.
Kobolds tend to change designs based on what RPG franchise they’re in 1. Dungeons and Dragons-Lizard 2. World of Warcraft-Rat 3. Sword Art Online-Dog 4. Delicious in Dungeons-Dog 5. Sacred 2-Goblin 6. Kingdoms of Amalur-Dog 7. Critical Role-Lizard
The description of the playable Kobold race from 5e Volo's guide does say that kobolds being cowardly and weak is a misconception. And their 2 main race feats do show their cunning by having pack tactics and being able to use "cower, grovel and beg" to distract enemies so that others have an easier time to attack them
You're right in a sense, pg. 63, "Kobolds are often dismissed as cowardly, foolish, and weak, but these little reptilian creatures actually have a strong social structure that stresses devotion to the tribe, are clever with their hands, and viciously work together in order to overcome their physical limitations."
That statement and following statements in the same section do maintain the coward stereotype.
"... constantly fearful of invasion and oppression."
"... individually they are timid and shy away from conflict,"
It doesn't appear the author was trying to dismiss the coward stereotype from kobolds in this text.
I will concede that the section seems to have some competing ideas and starts confusing, the first statement particularly. How does having a strong social structure and teamwork disqualify cowardice?
I probably should have covered this text in the video. So I'm going to pin this as a sort of correction!
"Weak" comes from their stat blocks (in every edition). "Cowardly" is no different from how most humans would react to ogres or giants, though in that sense they could be seen as braver as they will fight human sized enemies if needs be. The clever use of tactics in and of itself makes them intelligent more then cowardly, though the moral score they were given in editions that use moral does make them mechanically less brave than most other humanoids (or monsters in general) in those editions and guides how many have seen them.
wasnt volo revealed to be xanathar
It's weird that they'd be considered cowardly, given their beliefs.
Goblins are cowardly because death means a one-way trip to Maglubiyet's army and an eternity of torment and suffering.
Kobolds, on the other hand, believe in a very direct form of reincarnation; you die, you pop back out of the next egg in the nest.
So long as the nest is safe, a Kobold with strong faith will see themselves as functionally immortal.
So, in reality, kobolds should be comically fearless.
They probably would still have an aversion to pain.
For some reason I remember a GM who had us run through a joke campaign.
The idea was that we were stuck having to deal with the Kobold wars... Were the different versions of Kobolds were at war at one another from the rat, dog, and lizard varieties all fighting one another to see which version got to claim the true title of Kobold.
Being stuck in the middle of that crossfire and it quickly becomes Fantasy Vietnam/ Battle of Berlin
I would have supported dogo kobolds asap
The problem with kobolds is that goblins, elves, fairies, sprites, some minor gods, and kobolds are essentially the same creatures sharing the same origins, but diverging over time. It’s the opposite problem of the current dnd halflings and gnomes where they have evolved to the point where a lot of people can’t really distinguish them from one another and their differences have started to feel superficial.
Honestly thats why i dont like acturate kobolds because they are just more fey
Feed it through Google translate and you'll find that a goblin is a kobold and a kobold is a leprechaun.
Well, that's to be expected, since kobolds and goblins in folklore are basically the same creature.
Kobolds , goblins and orcs are literally the same creature . Both kobold and goblin are regional christianised adaptions from a greek trickster spirits that served Dionisos , and the orc is an invention of Tolkien but more like a synonimous term rather than a different creature or variant.
The association with sprites and fey was a english thing that happened post christianity, it was basically a spiritual/traditional carryover.
@@gerihuginn2143 True, although Tolkien stole the name for orcs from the latin/Italian term for ogre, orco, which in antiquity was the name of the Latin god of the underworld. I think there is a dwarf planet or planetoid named after him, Orcus.
Kobolds are one of my favorite monsters for low level interactions, and I frequently set them up as a community to be interacted with, rather than a specified antagonist.
The one characteristic I've kind of rationalized for them is enthusiasm combined with a short attention span. They live underground, tunneling, which is exceedingly hard work. But they done build grand cities, like dwarves. So i figured a sort of spontaneous enthusiasm must account for their willingness to do hard work. The short attention span means they're always changing focus, instead of remaining on a single task. This accounts for the fact that they dont accomplish much.
I include the normal array of other attributes, excepting that i never build them as physically strong.
In roleplay, all of their responses are more extreme than warranted.
When they're suspicious, they'll accuse you of insane conspiracies.
Then they're angry, they're sadistic and vicious.
But...
When they're happy it's time for a festival.
When they're curious... it's time for an adventure.
Posting this before fully watching.
To further muddy the waters of what a kobold is… I did some research into this topic myself, and some olde english texts suggested that the kobold was a kind of house sprite that resembled a candle.
Kobold is just German for Goblin, coming from the same Greek root, but like a lot of realworld mythical creatures they were forever changed in pop culture by the popularity of dungeons and dragons.
It's like how movies changed the common view of vampires, who don't disintegrate in sunlight in any old myths, and werewolves, who have nothing to do with the full moon in folklore.
Tucker's kobolds have left a rather big impression on me, so i always correlate kobolds with traps and fortifications
I also suspect the reason for the split in the depiction of kobolds is that during the 1980s D&D was actually two different games: Advanced (1st then 2nd editions that eventually continued on which is what your video focused on) and Basic (B/X then BECMI).
I think in the default setting for Basic (Mystara/The Known World) kobolds, goblins, and orc all had a common ancestry of a race beast men created by an Entropic immortal to serve her: so pig men orcs, dog like kobolds, degenerate hodge-podge genetic grab bag goblins.
Maybe I'm half remembering.
No you’re pretty much right (thanks Mr. Welch for all the Mystara videos!) since Mystara had a lot of weird origins for the races thanks to it’s reasonably original setting background when compared to other settings.
@@jemm113 Yes, the Mr. Welch videos is what I was trying to remember.
Kobolds in Mystara definitely had a doggie theme to them, not reptilian. If only because Bruce Heard couldn't resist stuffing every dog pun he could think of into their depiction in "The Orcs Of Thar".
@@sharondornhoff7563 That's the one with all the pig puns for the orcs?
@@Anyone00TZ It's Bruce Heard. There are puns and bad jokes about *everything*. 🙄
can't remember where i read this may have of been pathfinder but I like how they were also described and being extremely industrious to the point in their ancient history they were close to becoming a superior civilization over gnomes and Garl Glittergold destroyed their civilization and sending them back into the stone age which lead them to hate gnomes with a fiery passion because after that they were called and treated as vermin but despite that they regularly trade with dwarves but under the effect of disguise self of course otherwise if they are well taken care of and paid well they are some the hardest workers you can ask for
That's pretty neat! There's something similar on pg. 9 of Grand History of the Realms by James and Greenwood, though not quite the same as what you're describing.
@@Wiz_and_Pippy that is one thing I loved about pathfinder the have books that expand the personality and thoughts of various races in books like goblins of golarian and kobolds of golarian basically a series of enter race name of golarian very fun reads
That's from 3.5. Pathfinders Kobold are more like a union of proud workers, they seek bosses and make rebelions if those said bosses are not on their interest, they are very proud of their draconic ancestry (or were, since with the OGL stuff PF Kobolds can now be related to any other big boss monster), they do have a knack for alchemy and other crafts but prefer creating snares. In the world of Golarion many places are industrial like Alkenstar and Numeria, and in those places is not abnnormal to find Kobolds wielding firearms, creating constructs and etc but that's something those society achieve, not specificaly the Kobolds.
@@diegorodrigues9528 yes that does refresh my memory thank ya its been forever since I've last read those books still really fun reads
Being born and raised in central Europe I had a very firm concept of what Kobold is from our folklore as they appear children's fairytales and myths a lot so I was very confused when I discovered US-American kobolds in D&D being dragon worshipping lizard people. In 5e terms they'd be not too different from forest Gnomes.
not too different from underpants Gnomes
I have to admit that the first time I ever heard of “kobolds” was when I played Dungeons & Dragons as a tweenager in the early 90’s with my buddy Max Keller in my room in suburban Clear Lake, Texas, USA. Max was the DM and he described them as small lizard-like dog men. What a weird concept I thought to myself. We had no idea they came from German folklore and are more like evil gnomes or like the Slavic/Russian Domovoi. It’s like Gary Gygax just took some random word “kobold” he had heard somewhere and applied it to a totally different critter in his mind when he penned the original D&D Monster Manual!
"You, no take candle!"
I tend to run Kobolds like a group of human fighters against giants.
Clerics, Alchemist assistance, kobold gear should be lovingly crafted, these brave members of the tribe are the first line of defence for a race that knows they need every advantage. Make the front line fighters, they should be soldiers trained for this precise sacrifice. That idea should inform your decision to retreat and how they deal with defeat.
Tend to run goblins as anything from evil children to despotic barbarians depending on culture and player level.
Goblins tend to run more to the Evil Wizard arcatype, even when they do have clerics, they rarely dish heals or competently buff the group. Even the standard fighters of the group act like rogues. Militarily Goblins should feel like a group of street toughs trying to get while the getting is good. each is in it for themselves, sure they support, but if leaving another member of the group to die improves their chances even a little they will let him die.
I honestly have a harder time with Orcs, are Orcs just another barbarian race? Making one in four a barbarian rager would significantly impact their feel I think, but could your table survive? Personally, I blame WarCraft, I played so much of the orc campaign, before I ever read The Lord of the Rings.
Part of the problem is that Hobgoblins in recent editions aped the Orc’s armies. Tolkien Uruk-Hai were a mobilized military force and a big basis for the Orc as depicted in D&D alongside the normal orcs of the setting, but they were based on the Mongolian nomadic horde that swept through Asia and threatened Europe so there’s your outlander basis. So Orcs should come in two flavors, horseback (or Wargback) riding raiders, and a veritable army when under a evil overlord! Though if you put orcs vs goblins then having both orcs and hobgoblins use the raiding army aesthetic works for when they inevitably clash. Perhaps to differentiate the two have their army structure reflect on their character. Lean in to the Mongolian Steppe riders for Orcs with lots of cavalry while the Hobs focus on infantry and shock troops using their various goblinoid kin!
As for Kobolds, I’d have them as more isolationist unless a dragon is getting uppity (and even then part of me either wants to just bring back Dragonlance’s Draconians or make Dragonborn actually proper dragonkin that can be aligned more closely with the dragons. That way kobolds are the defensive line and home front that work on weapons, armor, shipping, etc. while Dragonborn/Draconiana are the front lines and military officers under the dragon!
Also to further dichotomize goblins, focus on their cowardice and ruthlessness. Goblins LOVE to backstab goblins due to a superiority complex, while Orcs only do so when a faction feels it’s necessary for furthering their goals or if they feel the weakness of their leader. Bugbears feel generally different enough as large, lazy, and oddly sneaky. Also I’d think that coming across lone bands of Hobgoblins trying to raise their own army would be a fun but of worldbuilding. It would also cement the general mistrust that goblins hold for one-another, while orcs and kobolds are generally far more cooperative. Orcs disagree between clans and new ones splinter from differences of leadership and/or banishment after a lost (but survived) duel.
Part of me does want to make Hobs WAY more civilized, though that’s thanks to their Japanese looking armor in the books. Perhaps that sort of thing is regional like most of my suggestions could be! It is hard to differentiate these guys, lord knows how many paragraphs I threw out writing this lololol
I like Palladium Fantasy description of Kobolds,
in my campaign i did a general union of all of the myths surrounding kobolds, they’re dog like creatures akin to gnolls, stray dogs infected by magic and gaining humanoid shape; these kobolds form packs that search for the smell of meat, often taking them to live in alleys on towns and cities, most of them end up as harmless creatures or even guard dogs if offered leftovers of meat, they even dress and try to mimic the creatures that feed them, and people often prefers to let the kobolds live near them in change of their leftovers unless they make too much trouble.
Some kobolds end up attracted to the smell of meat in Dragon lairs and imitate their appearance by shaving and decorating themselves with bones and teeths to look like dragons.
the thing is, a pack of kobolds only get smarter by not depending on leftovers, so only on abandoned places with rotten meat and on the roads are the most intelligent kobolds
I have to admit that the first time I ever heard of “kobolds” was when I played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition as a tweenager in the early 90’s with my buddy Max Keller in my room in suburban Clear Lake, Texas, USA. Max was the DM and he described them as small lizard-like dog men. What a weird concept I thought to myself. We had no idea they came from German folklore and are more like evil gnomes or like the Slavic/Russian Domovoi. It’s like Gary Gygax just took some random word “kobold” he had heard somewhere and applied it to a totally different critter in his mind when he penned the original D&D Monster Manual!
Kobolds , goblins and orcs being the same in the original version makes sense since original dnd is based on Tolkien.
He invented the term orc which was a sinonim for goblin .
And goblin and kobold are the english and german version of the same creature , originally descended from a pre christian greek mythology/legend/folk tales.
D&D have a big influence in the appearance of the Kobolds, it's not rare to find then as dog people, something i don't love, because its not really their appearance both in folklore and D&D, and there are a dog headed race in mytologi the cynocephalus.
Yeah, but also Dungeon Meshi made me love this design
No, that's the gnoll. The original gnolls from 1e and 2e were plantigrade rather than digitigrade, so they weren't upright hyenas, but hyena-like humanoids instead. The gnoll illustration in the 1e monster manual is reminiscent of the cynocephalic humanoids of medieval folklore. So, too, is DiTerlizzi's illustration in the 2e Monstrous Manual. The first time I eve saw a digitigrade gnoll was in Baldur's Gate 1.
@bananabanana484 Monster Musume for me cuz of polt she really loves the run & stay in shape she's very Athletic#absolutely ❤ her I think there should be more hentai aka anime porn of her every one and his buddy's say the want more of the others including the 3 main characters girl monsters# I'm like what u got against Kobold's like my Polt???????????????????#I blame the stats of them in rpg's
@@bananabanana484Monster Musume for me cuz of polt she really loves too run very Athletic and I think she should have more hentai aka anime porn of her every one and buddy's what the other girls including the three main characters the lamia Centar & harppy I'm like what u got against Kobold's like my Polt eny way!#there not weak!
Even if you can't add Industrialize level of traps, you should consider the following: Goblin are War Bands, While Kobold is a Hoplite-like units.
D&D player since 1984 here. They are indistinguishable because Gary Gygax and his buddies were just winging it and making up random stuff with no cohesion, so there's too many low-level mooks in the books. In my campaigns I just... don't use them, as goblins already fill the role.
The example you gave from 2e was a poor one. That piece of art from the AD&D second edition monsters compendium, drawn by Tony Di’Terlizzi, Suffers from him, taking too much artistic license with it. I think he was going for something that had a face like a Chihuahua with horns. Very few other depictions of Kobolds in 2e look like that. Most of them have faces more like pugs or bulldogs. One example of this would be in the complete book of humanoids, the first place in 2e at least that kobolds Our present us playable characters.
One other thing, I’m surprised you’ve lost over in the history of kobolds Is there association with cobalt mining and the illness the cobalt minor suffered from exposure to that element. Those poisonings were blamed on the spirits of the mines, the kobolds.
Having said all that I do appreciate the effort you put into this video. Keep churning them out.
Since the adventure Dragon Mountain heavily focused on a large community of kobolds in multiple clans... I tend to defer to the advice in those books for their society and tactics.
When I designed the Alshizz kobold tribe, I took as the key facts that they are (1) reptiles, (2) small, and (3) omnivorous, although this last is not specified in the lore. The reptile metabolism, low body weight, and ability to eat nearly anything organic allows them to survive in regions of the White Wastes so desolate that goblins, or any other mammalian humanoid, would starve to death. This is key to their battle tactics; they use their environment as a weapon. They draw humans, hobgoblins, orcs, and other big mammalian enemies into pursuing them into the high desert, wait for them to get hungry, thirsty and overheated (preferably at least two levels of Exhaustion), then attack. Their human neighbors bitterly call the Alshizz kobolds “wingless buzzards” for their habit of shadowing their enemies until they are too weak to resist. When on the offensive, they strike hard and fast into border regions, usually at night (they use black basalt slingstones, which are hard to see and dodge in the dark), then retreat quickly to their desert and safety. You *don’t* want them to capture you; even if they figure you’re worth a ransom and pack you on a camel instead of killing you outright, they simply won’t feed you at all. The Alshizz figure that if your family wants you, they’ll pay ransom before you starve to death.
Also because they are reptiles, I discarded the lore that made kobolds elevate the group above the individual. They have no mammalian nurturing or social instincts. Kobold tribes are held together by fear and self-interest alone. The Alshizz have no word for “love” in their language; “hunger” is the closest equivalent. They lay so many eggs that, even with 80% child mortality, their numbers stay steady or even grow; the fertilized eggs are jumbled together in a communal depository, so parents don’t know their own children. An immature Alshizz kobold names itself when it grows old enough to speak; no parent or other adult cares what it is called.
Kobolds really should be more alien to us than goblins, or almost any mammalian humanoid. A whole lot changes when you come out of an egg and can’t drink mommy’s milk.
In my game setting, I generally consider Kobolds to be a mix of their different inspirations. A small but clever and tenacious dragonkin that, while distantly related dragons and have draconic features, also have more beast-like traits that have developed over the years. Usually those of that resemble canines, rodents, mustelids, or civets. They are scavenging tricksters by nature, but also develop a strong sense of loyalty to their comrades. And their small frames pack a bizarrely strong punch. Now imagine a group of the little shits...
Good use of the DunMeshi reference.
Thank you, I think Kuro is the ultimate 'kobolds as dogs'
As proud as a dragon at the height of a hobbit with the ingenuity of a gnome, twice the strategist of a goblin, because in most worldbuilds, they are durable as wet one-ply toilet paper
Kobolds aren't cowardly, they just understand the value of a strategic retreat.
I'm excited by kobolds because they are, above all, funny little guys
Huh I had a kobold identity crisis a few months ago. Not kidding also not explaining.
iykyk
I seem to remember kobolds in 2nd edition’s “book of huminoids” as a playable race. I grew up with 2nd editions and Baldur’s gate 1 and 2, so I’m much more familiar with the rat dog kobolds. Kobolds as draconic has always been extremely weird to me.
All this means that when I hear kobold, I think of the rat-dog men, cruel, clever, cooperative. Jealous and backstabby internally, but presenting a united front to outsiders which is uncommonly strong among the villainous races.
dragons mighty! kobold is dragon! kobold mighty!
kobold mighty!!
Especially if that kobold is Pun-Pun.
I like to write Kobolds as adaptive creatures. Changing look and some attributes based on the biome they live in.
Common Kobolds can be found almost anywhere, but in a forest they may appear more furred, and like canines or cats. In marshlands they may look more like a salamander. And in cities they may look more like rats, raccoons, or possums.
They are hearty creatures. survivors. So why wouldn't they adapt?
level one: like goblins but smart formations
level two: ...and they use traps too
level three: literally just cheesed and tpk'd
For Kobolds in specific I suggest you leave D&D for background and focus in a still unfinished computer game named Ravager (assuming we are among adults). The best thing D&D did to make the race interesting, and distinct, was to marry it with dragons.
Anytime you step on the head of a kobold you should have reason to ask yourself if that kobold and his band are an independent enterprise, or part of a larger structure. If they have the choice to work for a dragon they will do that. And any kind of dragon can take insult if you step on the heads of those little cousins who are working for him. Specially if you do that by no good reason.
Don't you take as an insult when someone step on the heads of your weak cousins? Of course you do. Specially when your cousins are indeed working for you by the time when they are stepped on.
The Kobold’s origin in German folklore reminds me of the Domovoi from Slavic/Russian folklore. The Domovoi is also depicted as a “house spirit” and Russians/Ukrainians leave out food on the table to appease the Domovoi so it doesn’t get angry.
Certainly! They have a lot of parallels!
Okay so it first needs to be stated that you did a decent amount of research on this topic, However it's also clear that you had a conclusion in mind and were working toward it instead of taking an unbias stance. This is made crystal clear by this line 02:16
And the reason we can tell from this is because D&D's kobolds aren't based on mythological kobolds at all, they're based on Goblins from The Hobbit, as stated by Gary Gygax. So the premise of this video already doesn't make much sense, and that wasn't even niche knowledge, it's literally in the first paragraph in wikipedia's D&D Kobold Depiction history section: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
Suddenly the fact that Kobolds are small, dim-witted creatures who live underground and in servitude to unfathomably ancient, fire-related undoubtably evil creatures from an era before time began makes a whole lot more sense whenever you remember that's the backstory for J.R.R. Tolkien's forces of Morgoth which includes Goblins and Orcs.
As for why Kobolds are demonic in appearance it was most likely a reference to the Balrog. Because the original depiction of the D&D Kobold is essentially just Micro-rog, this is also notable because early depictions of the Balrog depicted it with a curved blade in its right hand... just like the Kobold.
qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2abc79bd6220faf164ebc9b33ca3b667-lq
And parallels were drawn to demons and dragons in the original book as the Balrog's description is similar to that of Smaug, and yet includes lines like: "It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape" So if you're going to base something on this it's going to look like a demon, that's just a natural progression, especially since J.R.R. Tolkiens works are largely based on Nordic themes through a Christian lens.
So That leads me to believe that you probably knew about D&D first, then realized that the word Kobold appears in Mythology and then assumed there was a connection.
Well the reality is early D&D did this thing constantly where they took words and names from mythology and created new characters for them, usually these characters were ancient beings as ancient names made people just accept that they were ancient. you can see this all across D&D and in early depiction they never have anything to do with the actual mythological beings or creatures.
Two other famous examples are
(1)Tiamat who is not a dragon, and not even a reptile. In fact she's most commonly depicted as a chimera, you will find a lot of references of Tiamat being a dragon but it's important to know these are because of the popularity of D&D, not the other way around. In reality she's from myths dating nearly 4000 years ago, and is a classification of mythological being called "Dragon-like creature" which refers to creatures that are a chimera of different animal traits, and also includes Chimeras, Hydras, Kraken, and Wendigos.
(2) The Terrasque is specifically stated to be half fish, and is often depicted as being half pig, half fish. However importantly it is stated to be half dragon too. But it needs to be said that the original terasque was also stated to be a demon, being brought to heel by a threat of holy water. It was killed by having stones and spears thrown at it, and it was stated to be slightly bigger than an Ox, so you can instantly tell what D&D has with that name is not in any way inspired by the mythological version.
You can also make arguments for many of the demons and devils in D&D that they're just using popular names for reasons of being popular, and that's supported by the fact that D&D actively used the satanic panic to spread further by leaning into the satanic claims, including making books with demons on the front and naming demons after biblical characters. Mephistopheles and Asmodeus in particular.
Now with it established that D&D isn't basing these characters on their mythological counter parts at all, Let's talk about something that's also important to note. It is clear that you only researched Kobolds in this, and whenever you're talking about other creatures and other folklore you don't know much about what you're saying. Kobolds are from the 13th century, Pixies are from the 18th century but Fairies go back far long than both Kobolds and Pixies. So whenever you assert that it would be more correct to use "Kobold" instead of Fairy you're just wrong, How long Fairies existed in Irish folklore we don't know, the oldest Named fairy being worshipped in Ireland (That I can remember right now) is Epona, who the Romans adopted from Ireland in 100 AD, 1200 years before the invention of Kobolds.
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and then write such a passionate and thought-out comment! In return, I'll address a few of your points!
The statement at 02:16 showing my bias.
Kobolds did originally appear as largely subterranean creatures in D&D and would continue to be developed as such. They certainly did not appear as house-spirits, so if the inspiration came from anywhere, it was the mine-dwelling version of the mythological kobold.
Kobolds being based on goblins from the hobbit as evidenced by wikipedia's entry on Kobolds (Dungeons & Dragons).
The statement in that article you're referring to is talking about the system Chainmail being inspired by The Hobbit, it's not mentioning kobolds' inspiration. The line following it does say kobolds were depicted as creatures similar to goblins, which was a part of my point. Further, my pointing out of the original kobold's appearance as demon-like is not a crux of the thesis, nor do I feel the kobold holding a sword in its right hand creates a connection to the balrog. The point in that section was to give historical context to my thesis that kobold's niche and identity largely overlapping with goblins and not being distinct.
Your assertation that creatures in D&D have no mythological inspiration.
I so strongly believe the contrary, but I’ll only so much as refute your two examples.
(1) Tiamat. Yes, Tiamat did seem to originally appear as a chimera with many heads - but would go on to be depicted as a serpent or dragon* before D&D. This is a logical extension as Tiamat was a personification of the sea and myths of the sea often contained draconic sea serpents. In myth, Tiamat even gave birth to dragons and serpents. I don't think it's hard to see the progression from what we see in myth to what is put to page as a multiheaded dragon mom.
(2) Tarrasque. You are correct, the depictions of the tarrasque do include fish, pigs, and fish-pigs. However, that is not the only depiction! Look at the city seal of Tarascon, France! Look at many historical depictions of the tarrasque! They match quite perfectly the depiction of D&D’s tarrasque, that cannot be a coincidence.
Kobold being more correct to use.
I think the statement you're referring to I was trying to relate a concept to an English-speaking-western audience, who are likely to be more familiar with the term fairy or pixie, than kobold. I was not trying to assert one being more correct than another.
Again, thank you for watching and commenting! I hope I was able to sufficiently address your concerns! Even if you disagree with my points I still appreciate the time you have taken. I hope to foster a community where we can disagree with each other in a respectful manner, fully recognizing that civility is often lost over the internet.
@@Wiz_and_Pippy In response to your points:
1.(Your initial Point & The Inspirations of Kobolds.) The issue with your first point is you're cherry picking. yes the page states that the book is inspired by the hobbit not Kobolds. However given that kobolds are from the book stated to be inspired by the hobbit that's an unimportant detail. if the information inside the book is stated to be inspired by the hobbit, and kobolds are a part of the information inside of the book then kobolds are stated to be inspired by the hobbit, Claiming that kobolds aren't inspired by the hobbit, the book that kobolds are from is... is just trying to trip people up, the difference is entirely meaningless and you're essentially arguing the word of the law against the spirit of the law.
For further point here your entire video is based on opinions, it's clear that you did a decent amount of research here and yet your best is opinions, you couldn't find any direct links between kobolds and mythological kobolds.
Meanwhile we are specifically told that D&D Kobolds were inspired by the hobbit, and that information comes from Gary Gygax himself, and you're essentially disagreeing with the man who invented the game you're talking about, on the subject of the contents and inspirations of the game. I don't see the logic in that personally.
2.(Kobold's Appearances) You missed the point with the Kobold's appearance entirely. Yes the Kobold holding the sword in the same hand means nothing whenever you phrase it in the way you did. However whenever you include that the entire species backstory is taken directly from Tolkien's work, that the appearance of the Kobold as a species seems to take inspiration from the written descriptions of Tolkien's work, and that the original goblinoid nature of the kobolds is literally a mirror of Tolkiens work where there are three Goblin-like races (Goblins, Orcs, Uruk-Hai) and Gygax couldn't use Uruk-Hai so Kobolds were stand-ins for Goblins, Goblins for Orcs and Orcs for Uruk-Hai, this is to the point where even today you can take a picture of an Uruk-Hai and a picture of a generic D&D Orc and put them next to each other and they'll look nearly exactly the same with exception of proportion and sometimes skin colour. That kind of similarity doesn't come from accidents.
Additionally it cannot be overlooked that the sword the Kobold is holding is also the sword the Balrog is depicted as holding prior to the release of the lord of the rings movies, There are 702 different types of swords and somehow the race from the book inspired by Tolkien, whose backstory is a backstory inspried by tolkien, who's role is a mirror of a race in Tolkien's work and whose appearance is based on Tolkien's work also just so happens to have the weapon of one of the most famous characters in Tolkien's work, and you're trying to say all of that is a coincidence, and boiling down all of these similarities to "nor do I feel the kobold holding a sword in its right hand creates a connection to the balrog" Yeah, whenever you reduce a paragraph's worth of information to a sentence it rarely looks as impressive as it initially did.
3.(Tiamat) You strongly believe the contrary but your own comment proves you wrong. For instance you claim that Tiamat was originally depicted with multiple heads... let's look into that... www.britannica.com/topic/Tiamat Nope, that's one head and once more she has parts of eagles, lions and jackals but no reptilian traits at all. Later interpretations of Tiamat's story would be depicted as serpents but never dragons and one detail you're leaving out is that they also weren't called "Tiamat" at that point, they were called "Leviathan" Which interestingly enough this wasn't largely available public knowledge at the time Tiamat entered D&D(1975) but rather was highly niche information that only became somewhat common in the 1990s, and also if D&D's version was based on this information the creature would be called "Leviathan", not Tiamat. Your logic doesn't make much sense on this point and it loses the consistency it did have whenever you realize that no interpretation of Tiamat has ever been depicted as having multiple heads. You just invented that to try and gain more ground in your point here. That was specifically added by D&D. What I believe you're referencing is either the Old Serpent, which is based on Ancient Greece's Hydra not Tiamat. Or the Great Dragon which is from a time whenever the use of the word "Dragon" meant "Greatest sin" and specifically states it's not a literal dragon but rather a baneful reference to the snake in the garden of eden in the passage:
"And the great dragon was cast out - that serpent of old called the Devil and Satan"
More information can be found on the wikipedia article for Tiamat: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat
4.(Terrasque) You're right, that's not the only depiction. what you're not mentioning is that I addressed both depictions in the original comment and neither look literally anything like the Terrasque in D&D.
This is what the Terasque looks like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque Yet D&D depicts it as Godzilla Meets T-rex meets Stag Beetle. These are not even remotely similar interpretations of the appearance, and the powers and abilities do not match, neither does the size, living location or anything else about the two.
5. (Linguistics) I acknowledge and accept the clarification on the linguistics point, However it also needs to be said that the viewer doesn't know what you're thinking and whenever you're talking about peoples' cultures it's extremely important to be thorough with that information, or else you risk miscommunications causing negative responses.
6.(the most important part) The most important part of this is you're trying to establish yourself as a person of authority on this subject, otherwise why should people listen to you. You're trying to jokingly assert that "Everyone" is wrong about this but you. However your video doesn't including anything that could be seen as evidence to the claims you make. It's all opinions, I'm willing to bet that while you were researching you couldn't actually find any evidence that they were connected at all but assumed the common usage of the name was enough, likely not consciously aware of the theme of D&D just using names from mythology for unrelated characters.
If you're willing to make this claim I'd advise looking for actual evidence, Right now this point is essentially your word vs Gary Gygax's, without a decent amount of evidence the outcome of that is extremely clear. And with that being lacking in your video your response to my comment despite the kind words does not come across as if being made in good faith. you're willing to ignore facts stated by Gary Gygax, and themes found throughout D&D even to the point where other distinctly Tolkien characters appear regularly from Rangers being inspired by the Rangers from Lord of the Rings as before Tolkien the term was not used in the context of bowmen at all, to the Balrog later appearing as its own encounter in D&D: www.dndbeyond.com/avatars/thumbnails/30781/600/1000/1000/638061930825811285.png
The willingness to ignore this often extremely basic information even whenever provided with overwhelming evidence in order to reach a strange and unusual conclusion is concerning given you're attempt to assert yourself as a voice on the correct interpretation of aspects of D&D. What happens whenever you jump to conclusions like this on something more relevant to people and get called out for it on a much larger scales?
7. To be clear I have no ill will toward you as an individual, However my passion on this subject is threefold. First I'm passionate about Mythology of all kinds, second you asserted something that contradicts my culture's history in this video, it's unimportant what. and third and most important If you're trying to assert yourself as a voice on this subject accuracy and cultural understanding is important above all else. If you accidentally insult a culture you'll never hear the end of it, and D&D does have creatures where you can absolutely accidentally insult a culture if you slip up slightly, Like how Djinn tie into multiple religions and cultures but primarily represent the presence of pagan gods within early islamic culture, but at the same time Djinn are not evil or good, and are representative of a different race equivalent to humans in many ways which leads to a lot of cultural misunderstanding from the west because the west is used to demons are evil, angels are good, etc. What you're doing is genuinely good, but if you do it wrong that could genuinely blow up in your face. Which is why accuracy is so important here and thus why I'm prioritizing it.
Thank you again for the reply! It's clear we are way too far apart on our interpretations of the facts and it's in no one's best interest to continue this conversation in this manner. However, I would appreciate if you would make clear what was included that contradicts your culture so that I may became a more enlightened person on the subject and avoid repeating it.
@@Wiz_and_Pippy This isn't about interpretation, this isn't a debate. You are arguing against the words of Gary Gygax, creator of Dungeons and Dragons, and more specifically the creator of Kobolds in the context of Dungeons and Dragons about where the inspirations for kobolds in the context Dungeons and Dragons comes from.
Your interpretation is specifically stated to be wrong by the creator of the content you're talking about. Therefore it is not a difference of opinion, your interpretation is just factually wrong. and the repeated insistence that you somehow know better than Gary Gygax inherently requires a certain level of arrogance.
I've already stated why it's important to be accurate on subjects like this, but if you believe that actively, and now knowingly spreading misinformation is more your calling card I will of course remember that.
As for my culture I have no faith in you, from how you've reacted to everything else you want to know what you did to contradict my cultural history so that you can do it more. You've already shown yourself to have no interests in arguing in good faith and to prefer attempts to manipulate and lie about facts over making actual points.
Examples of you misrepresenting information:
1. "if the inspiration came from anywhere, it was the mine-dwelling version of the mythological kobold." - Gary Gygax specifically stated Kobolds are based on the Hobbit.
2. "The statement in that article you're referring to is talking about the system Chainmail being inspired by The Hobbit, it's not mentioning kobolds' inspiration." - This is a strawman argument, You phrased it in a way that implies the end result is different but in reality whether the article states that Kobolds are inspired by the Hobbit, or the contents of the book that Kobolds are from is inspired by the hobbit is totally, 100% irrelevant. In both scenarios Kobolds are inspired by the hobbit.
3. "nor do I feel the kobold holding a sword in its right hand creates a connection to the balrog" - This is a strawman argument, you make no reference of that not being my point, and attempt to phrase as if I believe something so simple denote inspiration.
4. "The point in that section was to give historical context to my thesis" - This is circular logic 'Thesis' is a good use of words here, this is you admitting you have absolutely no proof to any of this, however you're phrasing it as if the sentence itself is support for the thesis, whenever in reality a "Thesis" Is a premise that needs to be proved, you provide no proof here at all so you're just using the word to try and sound smart.
5. "Your assertation that creatures in D&D have no mythological inspiration.
I so strongly believe the contrary, but I’ll only so much as refute your two examples. " - You attempt to portray this as you only being willing to refute these examples but the reality of the situation is that you don't even know enough to refute these examples. your refutations are terrible, and at times directly contradict our knowledge of the origins of literature in our species, A subject you didn't even know you were talking about.
6. "Yes, Tiamat did seem to originally appear as a chimera with many heads" Tiamat's original appearance is lost to history, our records don't go far enough back to show that. So it's interesting that your statement regards her first appearance, which there is absolutely no way that you could know literally anything about, yet you claim that it is similar to D&D which is directly contradictory to everything we know about Tiamat across all cultures she's relevant to. Once more you provide zero evidence.
7. "would go on to be depicted as a serpent or dragon* before D&D" - D&D is the first time she was represented as a dragon, there is no prior depiction of her as one because Dragons were not a big thing in any of the Abrahamic cultures which is the path that most adopted Tiamat. Dragons are referenced usually as examples of sin, or occasionally demons, or evil creatures but those references didn't take place until the medieval period, which is also after Tiamat stopped being used, and long after Tiamat became Leviathan which spiralled into its own thing.
8. "In myth, Tiamat even gave birth to dragons and serpents" - Tiamat is never stated to have given birth to dragons or serpents Once more that's D&D, and you are blatantly lying. Tiamat is the mother of the Gods, and is stated to "Bring forth" Monsters, that yes include some serpents and only in a totally different version of the myth where she's not even called Tiamat a small dragon. The implication is that at this point these creatures were alive in the world, Tiamat didn't create them alone nor were they her flesh and blood like you're claiming.
9. "I don't think it's hard to see the progression from what we see in myth to what is put to page as a multiheaded dragon mom" - Whenever you're doing nothing but misrepresenting the reality and trying to push your bias as facts that's an easy leap to make but whenever you care about reality it makes absolutely no sense.
10. "Look at many historical depictions of the tarrasque! They match quite perfectly the depiction of D&D’s tarrasque, that cannot be a coincidence. " -
Historically Accurate: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/TarasqueStatue.jpg/1280px-TarasqueStatue.jpg
D&D: www.dndbeyond.com/avatars/thumbnails/30836/117/1000/1000/638063929008461547.png
Yes, I can really see the similarities look at those Gorgeous locks!
11. "It's clear we are way too far apart on our interpretations" - You're essentially talking about 'alternative facts' here, because I haven't voiced an opinion at all, I've been citing factual information... you know, that thing you should have been doing from the start and yet failed to do on even the most basic subject?
12. " it's in no one's best interest to continue this conversation" - I'd argue it's in the best interest of your current and future viewers to be aware that you spread misinformation, and when questioned start lying and misrepresenting facts, information and other peoples' points.
This largely from just one comment, This is how little you care about good faith representation, facts and basic levels of research.
I don't think Kobolds were ever dim-witted in their original D&D incarnation. That's just Flanderization. For some reason, many players assume that the humanoid races in D&D are stupid, but when you look at their stats, most of them are listed as having average (8-10) Intelligence, including kobolds. In the 2e Book of Humanoids, Kobolds, Goblins, and Hobgoblins roll 3d6 for Intelligence as humans do, with no penalty to this ability score. So that means these races are just as intelligent as humans, with the same bell curve. So there are both genius kobolds and idiot kobolds.
Likewise, while orcs are limited to 16 in Intelligence (rolling 2d6+1d4), they received no Intelligence penalty, though the average score was about 8 or 9, which is consistent with the 1e/2e monster manuals. Half-orcs had a maximum Intelligence of 17 (2d8+1), also with no penalty to this stat, nor would it have been justified. You want to play a brutish humanoid character who is fairly stupid on average and who sucks at everything except fighting? That's a 2e half-ogre. We haven't seen the original vision of what half-orcs were supposed to be since 2e. God, I hate what 3e did to half-orcs. But that's another story.
Between being introduced to Kobolds in the 2e MM and codified by World of Warcraft, I always picture and play Kobolds as lil' rat guys.
if you like this video it is likely you will enjoy Kobolds in Pathfinder 2e
I see kobolds like the minions from the Overlord games.
I'm running a Ravenloft campaign, and I created a domain which is populated largely by kobolds and other draconic creatures.
Its Dark Lord is even a former kobold who is cursed to reincarnate as a random dragon monster every so often.
To me, the best way to go about doing a kobold encounter is to make them look weak and very coward.
However only the weak part is true, and only applies when they have lower numbers.
Their plan? clever and full of trickery, draw player into a overconfidence and get them to overstep, that is when Kobold start the shenanigans, with a mix of Viet Cong guerrilla tactics with (if player are smart enough to get around the traps) a well organize formation combat that appear chaotic, so opponents have a hard time readying it.
Even better if said kobolds have resources to build stuff, some contraptions that just keep getting better and better in a quite trial and error style, but with a element of brilliance, that is learning from the pass success and failure and even using crude theories.
now, What if a kobold is picked alone and does not have much on the way of ruining? well, like a angry cat you do not wanna get close, as they will bite slash and overall be very aggressive and fast, making picking one up a bad idea.
overall, Kolbods are to dragons what a house cat is to a tiger, yet they worked together to improve their colony and use their intellect to build contraptions and machinery making up for they weakness and even automate stuff.
Kobolds could teach the world the strategy of Defense in Depth, love kobolds and their scrappy nature not seen in their stat sheet
Despite what is in this video, in the latest games, kobolds and goblins end up filling the same niche, that of weak, small, nasty, subterranean humanoids with a disposition for ambushes and traps and an annoying photophobia.
In my settings, I tend to either use only one of the two races, since having both is kinda redundant, or merge them in a single race with hobgoblins and bugbears.
In the latter case, they are basically separate castes within the same social race, based on the basic typology of characters in any fantasy game: goblins are the roguish scout/scavenger kind, hobgoblins are the warriors, bugbears are the shamans, while kobolds are the sorcerers and enchanters.
Since they have a somewhat nomadic clannish/tribal stone-age or bronze-age society, they can be used in a far greater number of ways. And they do not need light sensitivity either. They can be made more or less evil and mischievous as needed too, so to change the spectrum of possible interactions with the player characters.
The castes can also explain whatever difference in appearance I would imagine, mainly due to interbreeding between a limited number of individuals or by selective reproduction.
Dogbolds are the real Kobolds
the japanese dog ones from a computer game mutating away from dnd
roman koboldi worth a look
Wizardy is the game you refer to. Its what inspired Ryoko Kui for Dungeon Meshi.
While Wizardry came a bit earlier, the thing that sealed it was Record of Lodoss Wars. It started life as a d&d session transcript (though they used other systems later) published in a magazine, and would go on to be novels, manga, anime, games, etc.
To put it mildly, it was hugely successful.
It's sort of the tolkein of Japan in that it set the standard for western style high fantasy, and became a massive influence on the genre in Japan for decades.
In this cases, Kobold is no longer an identity but rather a niche and affinity thats includes Goblin and Orc
I just straight up removed kobolds from my games. Instead my players have to contend with cannibal roachfolk and geomantic molerat-people.
I both love and hate that Dungeon Meshi's Kobolds are basically dogs.
1:30 good day *snort snort* i am pig
🤔 . . . Now I’m thinking of Kobolds as some sort of elitist SWAT team or SpecOps unit, especially in a WW2 setting/scenario.
As for what they look like, if I could think of some sort of paleontological origin, it’d be the ancestors of mammals, primarily by the arrangement of their teeth, but they’re still reptilian in every other way, thus making them similar yet different to a group of ‘dragons’ who also share that same/similar layout of teeth & such…
I really dislike 3e's interpretation of the Kobold as a tiny lizard man/dragonborn critter. A rat/dog/goblinoid makes far more sense given their niche. Something that's part dragon shouldn't be the weakest of low-level monsters.
Also, Kobolds have been playable since the 2e Book of Humanoids.
It's strange being reminded that in our german fairy tales kobolds are not at all lizardly. My mother read me brother grimms fairy tales when i was younger but kobolds weren't the most famous among them. So as i've played dnd a lot more the notion of a kobold being more of a fairy got lost a lot.
I was certainly surprised to see how general the term was. Right now, I cannot stop imagining tiny little draconic kobolds running around the house causing mischief and poofing around like fairies.
I found some folks around the web pointing to a myth that involved similar house spirits that were thought to enter through the chimney as sparks and embers and had etymological connections to the term dragon (drach or draak), which would be claimed as the inspiration for the draconic shift of kobolds in 3e. But I personally couldn't find anything concrete that linked the idea of a dragon to that of an idea of the kobold so it wasn't included. Yet still, it could have been!
@@Wiz_and_Pippy That is a popular theme among a LOT of fairy tales/folk lore since so many of these terms and creatures were just made up to explain things that they didnt understand and it almost always relied on some CREATURE causing MISCHIEF but they're very SNEAKY so you never find them doing it.
World of Warcraft has arguably the most iconic and distinct depiction of kobolds tbh. They're always found in mines, keep their candles close, they have actual lore relating to the old gods, their voices are iconic. The world doesn't need need more dragonkin and it certainly doesn't need more dog people (werewolves and gnolls and beastmen aren't sufficient??) but little vaguely naked-mole-rat-like miner people stand out.
You could say those kobolds are... miner annoyances.
Kuro is the ultimate kobold. lol
You say wrong, I say doggy
My kobolds are still evil scaly humanoid chihuahuas -- they are also still chaotic, and often worship Loki as an inspiration for tricks and traps. Of course, this is because I still play editions where that (except for the religion) was the official description.
If I were to include them in an original game of my own creation, however, I would probably turn them back into something closer to evil gnomes, at least for their physical appearance, though possibly making them cobalt blue in color.
Kobolds tend to change designs based on what RPG franchise they’re in
1. Dungeons and Dragons-Lizard
2. World of Warcraft-Rat
3. Sword Art Online-Dog
4. Delicious in Dungeons-Dog
5. Sacred 2-Goblin
6. Kingdoms of Amalur-Dog
7. Critical Role-Lizard
Why keep playing d&d when wotc and hasbro don’t care about employees nor customers, and seem to hate dms?