D&D 5E Starter Set Excerpt 5

[Lalato]

As long as we're going to talk about Mr. Pozas work... I do like his hairless bear take on the bugbear...

This then informs his hobgoblin which you can also find amongst his concept art pieces. I don't see a goblin there, but I'm guessing hairless, feral bear cub creature. Anyway, it's an interesting take on the goblinoid. Perhaps a little too far out there for some... but it gets to the "ugly" nature that I was talking about up thread. Goblinoids shouldn't be symmetrical. They can be brawny, but they should have some essential ugliness to them. This doesn't mean that they should always be evil, but most other creatures will be at least slightly repulsed by them at first meeting them.

Think about something like the Ferengi in Star Trek. In your first meeting, you might be put a little off by their misshapen heads and untrustworthy mannerisms. Now imagine a short Ferengi in leather armor, with teeth that appear to be a little too sharp for eating civilized food. This feral Ferengi has 10 friends, and they're eyeing you like you might eye a krispy kreme donut.

 

[Lwaxy]

Which is why we called them Goblins in Space

 

[Lwaxy]

Kobold literally means goblin in German. YMMV.

This isn't true, and it isn't clear if the words are even related. For most Germans who know both words, kobolds are little beings doing mischief, but can either be friendly or unfiendly, while a goblin is a sort of ugly little evil thing, usually thought of as part of thd ghost world.

 

[Rykion]

I like the picture overall, and the new look for goblins is growing on me.

I see goblins as scavengers, especially near human settlement. There they will have plenty to scavenge and will likely face constant raids and warfare with their human neighbors. They will be constantly replacing equipment, and conflict will limit their numbers and societal development.

The area in the art looks pretty far from recent human settlement. A goblin tribe could grow pretty large and develop its own crude style of armor and weapons. The armor pieces in the picture are small and likely represents the goblins reworking previously scavenged materials.

The spikes are relatively well placed, and goblins do seem the type to adorn themselves with spikes. It makes them more intimidating and harder for a large monster to swallow whole.

 

[Tonguez]

I remember the whole Dog Kobold thing was a mistake or something in 2e. I seem to remember reading that in one of the Gygax interview threads. It wasn't until Baldur's Gate that I even thought of kobolds as doggy.

my recollection was that the lizard kobold was the mistake. Apparently the order came down for a picture of the kobold with 'scaley skin' which the artist intepreted as reptile when the intention was always ratty-dog goblinoid

 

[pemerton]

my recollection was that the lizard kobold was the mistake. Apparently the order came down for a picture of the kobold with 'scaley skin' which the artist intepreted as reptile when the intention was always ratty-dog goblinoid

AD&D kobolds laid eggs. So if reptilian kobolds were a mistake, they are a mistake with a long pedigree (ie at least back to 1977).

 

[steeldragons]

AD&D kobolds laid eggs.

Source? I've never heard/noticed/don't remember this from any manual in my life.

So if reptilian kobolds were a mistake, they are a mistake with a long pedigree (ie at least back to 1977).

They weren't a "mistake" (I mean, I think turning the into mini-dinosaur looking things related to dragons was. But that's just me, personally.) But they were certainly not "reptilian" in any game of AD&D I ever played.

They were, quite clearly from their descriptions, scaled/scaly-skinned dog-men...with iddy-bitty horns and thin "rat-like" tails. They were never explicitly called out as "reptilean" or "mammalian"...they were kobolds. A fantasy/fictional mish-mosh of animal parts and traits to make the players say "Oo! Weird! Super-/Unnatural critters we can kill without feeling guilty cuz they're not real!"...with a traditional folkloric name slapped on top. Renditions of them were decidedly not reptiles (I mean other than showing scales on their skin) until 3e...and its been downhill for kobolds ever since.

 

[Blackbrrd]

As long as we're going to talk about Mr. Pozas work... I do like his hairless bear take on the bugbear...

This then informs his hobgoblin which you can also find amongst his concept art pieces. I don't see a goblin there, but I'm guessing hairless, feral bear cub creature. Anyway, it's an interesting take on the goblinoid. Perhaps a little too far out there for some... but it gets to the "ugly" nature that I was talking about up thread. Goblinoids shouldn't be symmetrical. They can be brawny, but they should have some essential ugliness to them. This doesn't mean that they should always be evil, but most other creatures will be at least slightly repulsed by them at first meeting them.

Think about something like the Ferengi in Star Trek. In your first meeting, you might be put a little off by their misshapen heads and untrustworthy mannerisms. Now imagine a short Ferengi in leather armor, with teeth that appear to be a little too sharp for eating civilized food. This feral Ferengi has 10 friends, and they're eyeing you like you might eye a krispy kreme donut.

This looks like a Gnoll to me, not a goblinoid. Good drawing anyway.

 

[pemerton]

Source? I've never heard/noticed/don't remember this from any manual in my life.

AD&D MM (either edition). You can check the 2nd ed AD&D one here

 

[pemerton]

They were, quite clearly from their descriptions, scaled/scaly-skinned dog-men

I have read of them described as dog-like. I took that to be a reference to their visual appearance, but given that they lay eggs and have scaly skin I've always taken them to be reptilian. (I've never seen any reason to think they're armadillo-like monotremes.)