D&D 5E Starter Set Excerpt 5

[Ruin Explorer]

What I get from it is that Drizzt and Zaknefein were black sheep, and generally, drow evil nature is nurtured by Lolth. One could certainly argue the other way, for sure.

I'm okay with Drizzt being the lone misunderstood drow. I hate the idea that all of them are.

I have no idea why you'd see all Drow as "misunderstood". Just because someone isn't "Genetically Evil", but rather does evil because of their upbringing and worldview, doesn't make them "misunderstood". On the contrary, in a way it makes them more truly Evil, I'd say.

I don't think there's much mileage in Drow (or any intelligent, choice-making species) being "Genetically Evil" - inherently more paranoid or aggressive, and thus easier for them to become Evil? Sure. Even Drizzt is somewhat paranoid and aggressive (and Zaknafien definitely is!). But learning, choice-making, capable of change, and yet "born evil"? I think that's both boring, de-values Good and leads to incredibly dark places full of justified genocide and other stuff that starts getting into "Who is even the bad guys?" territory?

I suspect you've read the Sojourn trilogy, from what you're saying, and it's explicit there that in the FR the potential for compassion, decency, goodness and so on is carefully beaten and stripped from the Drow by an elaborate Lloth-managed system (almost micro-managed by Lloth, in fact). I'm not saying that, without that system, they'd be Good - they wouldn't, any more than humans without their gods. But they would be a different people, and not an inherently Evil one, nor inherently uncivilized. Again, to be clear, an adult Drow who has been successfully stripped of compassion, decency, and so on, who acts in an Evil way and so on is not "misunderstood" - they are Evil. So nothing about what I'm saying requires "misunderstood". It just requires "not basically a mandate for genocide". A best a pitiable thing.

Goblins have been yellow or red since 1e (with hobgoblins being orange and bugbears being yellow). The one thing they never were is green. Gray or gray-green is for orcs, in D&D.

I attached a compilation I did a while back of the looks of goblinoids from 1e to 4e. D&D goblins have always made their own weapons, or successfully adapted those of similar races (really, it's not like goblins couldn't just scavenge dwarven, gnomish or halfling armor/weapons). In 1e and 2e they were stockier, 3e went for a lankier look, and 4e found a middle ground.

They look pretty green in 4E. I mean, not sure what colour you'd call that...

I don't think you have any basis for "they have always made their own weapons" beyond your opinion. Scavenged weapons is precisely what I suggested. 2E Goblins are not stocky in any art I've seen of them, and I wouldn't use the term for 1E, either, myself, but that's all subjective.

I note that these current goblins are neither yellow nor red, either.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Your post-editing fu is weak! I know you called me dumb and now I hate you forever!

Seriously, though, basing the top end of a scale on our current civilization level is like saying our medical technology is as good as it is going to get. We might be the best we've seen, but that does not mean we are not a planet full of total goddamn eff-ups.

It's a relative scale, dude. He put Hill Giants at 1 (who are hunter-gatherers, or "cavemen" as it he puts it), Mind Flayers at 10, by that scale, we'd be at like, 20. So it doesn't matter that future civilizations may be more complex, because we can only rate on what has existed. I think he was being mentally lazy and assuming Lawfulness and civilized-ness are the same thing, which, hilariously, D&D strongly suggests that they are not.

Sorry about the dumb! I meant the idea was dumb then I realized it read like you were dumb, which you are not.

No it isn't. FR is the flagship setting, meaning only that it is the first. D&D5 is setting-polygnostic. This is unrelated to the rest of your post, but I'm trying to counter this soundbite every time I see it posted for the sake of accurate information.

For ART, I should have been clear. So the aesthetics will or theoretically should reflect FR aesthetics. Esp. as this is from an FR-specific adventure is it not?

 

[Tonguez]

So... kobolds?

Yes

 

[RichGreen]

View attachment 62266
Yes

Is that the 2e MC kobold? They really have evolved, haven't they?

Cheers


Rich

 

[Klaus]

They look pretty green in 4E. I mean, not sure what colour you'd call that...

That image is pretty green, but 4e sometimes suffered from a dissonance between art and text. The 4e MM described all goblinkind like this:

A member of the goblin species has skin of yellow, orange, or red, often shading to brown. Its eyes have the same color variance; its hair is always dark. Big, pointed ears stick out from the sides of the head, and prominent sharp teeth sometimes jut from the mouth. Males have coarse body hair and might grow facial hair.

When the art cleaved closer to the text, you'd find yellow-reddish goblins, such as in Keep on the Shadowfell:



Or in my own image from Dungeon magazine:

I don't think you have any basis for "they have always made their own weapons" beyond your opinion. Scavenged weapons is precisely what I suggested. 2E Goblins are not stocky in any art I've seen of them, and I wouldn't use the term for 1E, either, myself, but that's all subjective.

And the armor and weapons depicted could very well pass for scavenged (a slightly-too-large cleaver, elbow armor doubling as vambraces), but bear in mind that there *are* technologically advanced races of a similar size to goblins, so there's no reason they can't be found in decently-made metal armor. 1e calls them out as using short swords and military picks, while 2e mentions that they make their own garments and leather goods. Both editions describe them as good miners, as well as being slavers, so taking slaves to create metal items for them is hardly a stretch.

I note that these current goblins are neither yellow nor red, either.

They're a yellowish-brown, almost ochre, which is in the range given in the descriptive text of all editions since AD&D.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Or in my own image from Dungeon magazine:

View attachment 62269

That's a spectacular picture -- thanks for sharing! well done. (can't xp you, but you sure deserve it).

 

[I'm A Banana]

It'll be interesting to see the 5e take on kobolds. As much as goblins have been a bit vague and indistinct over the years (and thus subject to a lot of re-interpretation), kobolds of the 3e/4e era are almost straight up different critters from the kobolds of the previous eras. Are we gonna get lizards or rat-dog-things? OR BOTH?! I'm excited to find out.

 

[Klaus]

It'll be interesting to see the 5e take on kobolds. As much as goblins have been a bit vague and indistinct over the years (and thus subject to a lot of re-interpretation), kobolds of the 3e/4e era are almost straight up different critters from the kobolds of the previous eras. Are we gonna get lizards or rat-dog-things? OR BOTH?! I'm excited to find out.

When I did the research on goblinoids, I also did it on kobolds. Here's what I've found out:

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, a slightly more consistent look (monstrous compendium excepted), despite the big difference in reptile v. mammal. Or maybe not so big -- maybe they'll split the difference and take skeletal ques from therapsids or something?

 

[TwoSix]

When I did the research on goblinoids, I also did it on kobolds. Here's what I've found out:

Huh. Interesting how the DiTerlizzi kobold has a very similar shape to the 3e kobold, the 3e kobold has just had a reptilian re-skin.

And boy, do Warcraft kobolds look a lot like the DiTerlizzi kobold. Seriously, Blizzard, you no take picture!