@ThacoBell - I didn't say evil, I said malicious. Important distinction.
Deekin is a very good example. Why is Deekin a kobold? He has no connection to ore, no connection to houses, no connection to ships. He's only a kobold from the shallow standpoint of "some dude arbitrarily decided thing was a kobold".
Malicious IS evil. And D&D kobolds have never been based on any of the things you've mentioned. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
@ThacoBell - I didn't say evil, I said malicious. Important distinction.
Deekin is a very good example. Why is Deekin a kobold? He has no connection to ore, no connection to houses, no connection to ships. He's only a kobold from the shallow standpoint of "some dude arbitrarily decided thing was a kobold".
Eh? Ore, houses, and ships? I recall none of these things from kobolds in the 2e monster manual. Is this based on the real life mythology they are inspired by perhaps?
Indeed, as far as I know DnD kobolds aren't based on Germanic mythological kobolds at all...
That is what I'm saying. What makes the kobolds? There's nothing koboldy about them. They're not kobolds.
Kobolds in particular always come along with a lot of interpretations. Kobolds could be lizard-like, almost blinded puny creatures, always evil like in D&D, of any alignment draconic creatures with a breath attack with no problem to join non-kobold parties as to the ones in pathfinder; big wolf-like creatures like in wow, goblinoid creatures that live in volcanic lands like the ones in warhammer, etc.
That's what I'm saying. It's shallow and arbitrary. They're "kobolds" because some dude wrote "kobold" in the page header. They have no connection to the essence of the kobold, that what makes a kobold a kobold. The dude might as well have put "wheel" in the title: their being is just as relevant to wheels as it is to kobolds.
Caved in and bought the EA. No regrets! The game is good, very good. Yes, there are DOS elements to it (it's the same engine after all), yes, it's a turn based combat (I learn to live with it) - but this is a really-really good RPG, and a true DnD RPG too.
Love everything I saw so far. Do not know if I can call it BG3 (personally, would leave "BG" part, just instead of the number would add some description, like "Baldur's Gates - New Beginning" or something), but I can wholeheartedly call it a "great entertainment".
That's what I'm saying. It's shallow and arbitrary. They're "kobolds" because some dude wrote "kobold" in the page header. They have no connection to the essence of the kobold, that what makes a kobold a kobold. The dude might as well have put "wheel" in the title: their being is just as relevant to wheels as it is to kobolds.
I'm sorry, I still don't see what you're getting at. Are you criticizing DnD-FR kobolds (the only ones that should matter in a discussion about BG) because they have little to no basis in real-world mythology? Not every creature has to, nor do they have to conform to classic fantasy tropes, as long as they're reasonably consistent within the setting itself.
If memory serves I don't think Kobolds changed much between DnD editions, in the Forgotten Realms at least.
@scriver "Malicious is not evil. Goblins are malicious, they have to be respected appeased or they will cause you harm."
Malicious
adj. Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful.
This is intentional cruelty for its own sake. No purpose, just hurting others for the sake of fun. This cannot apply to good or even neutral characters.
"So why are they kobolds?"
This might surprise you, but there are more than one mythology in the world, and they can even exist independent of each other.
@scriver "Yeah sure mate DnD came up with kobolds completely independent of German folklore. Just covergent invention."
Never claimed they did. D&D is still a separate mythology from German folklore. If you want, I can complain about all the concepts in German folklore that are contemporary or are even predated by other cultures.
Why isn't hell literally the Christian Hell with Satan and everything and why isn't Mount Celestia literally Heaven? Because it's a fantasy world that borrows, and alters, real life concepts.
If memory serves I don't think Kobolds changed much between DnD editions, in the Forgotten Realms at least.
That's a joke right? No race inside (A)D&D saw as many revisions as kobolds. They started out as goblinoids with an appearance very close to actual goblins in original D&D. Then were later given rat-like tails and hound-like snouts in AD&D second edition. (That's the version which was picked up by Japanese tabletop games and other media... ultimately turning them into dogfolks due to a translation error.) And then became miniature lizardfolk in 3rd edition. Which in turn later were tied to dragons for no particular reason other than "it's kewl" once 3.5th edition hit the stage. Now they are basically miniature draconians from good ol' Dragonlance inside both D&D and Pathfinder.
Oh, but they don't have to be the literal kobolds as they appear in German folklore. But they do, as I said above, have to carry the essence of what a kobold is. Otherwise there is no reason for them to be kobolds. You might as well call them wheels. They also completely lack the essence of what a wheel is, so it makes just as much sense as a name.
The hells carry the essence of both Hell and Hel. Mount Celestia carries the essence of Heaven. They are called what they are called because of the attributes of the concepts make them relevant to the concepts called such in the derived work. If the "kobolds" of the derived work has none of the attributes of a kobold, then they lack reason to be called kobolds. It's shallow and uninteresting writing.
Oh, but they don't have to be the literal kobolds as they appear in German folklore. But they do, as I said above, have to carry the essence of what a kobold is. Otherwise there is no reason for them to be kobolds. You might as well call them wheels. They also completely lack the essence of what a wheel is, so it makes just as much sense as a name.
The hells carry the essence of both Hell and Hel. Mount Celestia carries the essence of Heaven. They are called what they are called because of the attributes of the concepts make them relevant to the concepts called such in the derived work. If the "kobolds" of the derived work has none of the attributes of a kobold, then they lack reason to be called kobolds. It's shallow and uninteresting writing.
Fair enough. Kobolds are generally just a generic low-level fantasy creature that changed over the course of several editions. They aren't exactly the high point of DnD.
If memory serves I don't think Kobolds changed much between DnD editions, in the Forgotten Realms at least.
That's a joke right? No race inside (A)D&D saw as many revisions as kobolds. They started out as goblinoids with an appearance very close to actual goblins in original D&D. Then were later given rat-like tails and hound-like snouts in AD&D second edition. (That's the version which was picked up by Japanese tabletop games and other media... ultimately turning them into dogfolks due to a translation error.) And then became miniature lizardfolk in 3rd edition. Which in turn later were tied to dragons for no particular reason other than "it's kewl" once 3.5th edition hit the stage. Now they are basically miniature draconians from good ol' Dragonlance inside both D&D and Pathfinder.
Hmm you're right, for some reason they have been in my head as long-snouted cowardly lizards with faint draconic traits since 2nd edition, but they do look more like pugs in the art for that.
@scriver " But they do, as I said above, have to carry the essence of what a kobold is."
No, no they don't. They are kobolds in this mythology because kobolds are what they are called. They can call a rabbit a smeerp for all I care. A mythology follows its own rules.
Example:
German dragons aren't dragons at all. REAL dragons are giant snails like the Lou Carcolh of France. Breath fire? No shells? Might as well call them wheels since they have just as much in common with them as dragons.
@scriver " But they do, as I said above, have to carry the essence of what a kobold is."
No, no they don't. They are kobolds in this mythology because kobolds are what they are called. They can call a rabbit a smeerp for all I care. A mythology follows its own rules.
Example:
German dragons aren't dragons at all. REAL dragons are giant snails like the Lou Carcolh of France. Breath fire? No shells? Might as well call them wheels since they have just as much in common with them as dragons.
It's nice to see that you've finally agreed with what I've been saying all along. They are just called kobolds for arbitrary reasons. There is no reason to call them kobolds. There is nothing about them that is a reason to call them kobolds.
Like I said. It's shallow and uninteresting writing. If kobold is just a generic name you can put on anything, then you might as well call the "kobold" a smerp instead of the rabbit.
@scriver " But they do, as I said above, have to carry the essence of what a kobold is."
No, no they don't. They are kobolds in this mythology because kobolds are what they are called. They can call a rabbit a smeerp for all I care. A mythology follows its own rules.
Example:
German dragons aren't dragons at all. REAL dragons are giant snails like the Lou Carcolh of France. Breath fire? No shells? Might as well call them wheels since they have just as much in common with them as dragons.
It's nice to see that you've finally agreed with what I've been saying all along. They are just called kobolds for arbitrary reasons. There is no reason to call them kobolds. There is nothing about them that is a reason to call them kobolds.
Like I said. It's shallow and uninteresting writing. If kobold is just a generic name you can put on anything, then you might as well call the "kobold" a smerp instead of the rabbit.
But it’s not.
D&D 5e Kobold’s have their own biology, culture and history. Yes all those have been retconned through out the editions but all the changes that were made was to make them more of a unique creature from other low level trash mobs. The mythology might have started as a template for the race, but that doesn’t mean it has to end there.
A name is just a name too and with tabletop, house rules trump all, so if you want your kobolds closer to their mythology then you can create them that way.
@scriver " But they do, as I said above, have to carry the essence of what a kobold is."
No, no they don't. They are kobolds in this mythology because kobolds are what they are called. They can call a rabbit a smeerp for all I care. A mythology follows its own rules.
Example:
German dragons aren't dragons at all. REAL dragons are giant snails like the Lou Carcolh of France. Breath fire? No shells? Might as well call them wheels since they have just as much in common with them as dragons.
It's nice to see that you've finally agreed with what I've been saying all along. They are just called kobolds for arbitrary reasons. There is no reason to call them kobolds. There is nothing about them that is a reason to call them kobolds.
Like I said. It's shallow and uninteresting writing. If kobold is just a generic name you can put on anything, then you might as well call the "kobold" a smerp instead of the rabbit.
But it’s not.
D&D 5e Kobold’s have their own biology, culture and history.
And I repeat again. Then why are they kobolds?
A name is just a name too
You might as well say "a generic name is generic. It's a very superficial standpoint.
I think the point isn't that they need to be very similar to the original folklore (if I'm understanding correctly), but more that they need to have a niche, or some consistent defining traits that make them distinct from, say, a goblin. Like, baboons and gorillas. Their behaviour, diet, the way they communicate, etc. (or "culture", if you will) are very different from each other, as well as their physiology. Personally, I think these differences are important for flavour, but to each their own. As long as there's room for exceptions, outliers, growth and so on.
Anyway, I think the discussion is moving further and further away from the topic of BG3 early access I don't have a problem with likeable goblins, personally.
@scriver "And I repeat again. Then why are they kobolds?"
Because that's what they are. They have a unique culture not shared by other races. Your insistence that they MUST follow German folklore is bizarre. There's no reason for it.
@scriver "And I repeat again. Then why are they kobolds?"
Because that's what they are. They have a unique culture not shared by other races. Your insistence that they MUST follow German folklore is bizarre. There's no reason for it.
So you are agreeing with me that it's entirely arbitrary once again, then. You agree that they have no reason go be kobolds. You agree that it's entirely superficial writing.
Comments
Malicious IS evil. And D&D kobolds have never been based on any of the things you've mentioned. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
That is what I'm saying. What makes the kobolds? There's nothing koboldy about them. They're not kobolds.
Love everything I saw so far. Do not know if I can call it BG3 (personally, would leave "BG" part, just instead of the number would add some description, like "Baldur's Gates - New Beginning" or something), but I can wholeheartedly call it a "great entertainment".
I'm sorry, I still don't see what you're getting at. Are you criticizing DnD-FR kobolds (the only ones that should matter in a discussion about BG) because they have little to no basis in real-world mythology? Not every creature has to, nor do they have to conform to classic fantasy tropes, as long as they're reasonably consistent within the setting itself.
If memory serves I don't think Kobolds changed much between DnD editions, in the Forgotten Realms at least.
Why are elves, elves?
Malicious
adj. Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful.
This is intentional cruelty for its own sake. No purpose, just hurting others for the sake of fun. This cannot apply to good or even neutral characters.
"So why are they kobolds?"
This might surprise you, but there are more than one mythology in the world, and they can even exist independent of each other.
Cheque matte, arthurists
Yeah sure mate DnD came up with kobolds completely independent of German folklore. Just covergent invention.
Never claimed they did. D&D is still a separate mythology from German folklore. If you want, I can complain about all the concepts in German folklore that are contemporary or are even predated by other cultures.
Same reason as to why the gorgons from Ancient Greece were turned into poison-breathing metal bulls: IP owners on drugs.
The hells carry the essence of both Hell and Hel. Mount Celestia carries the essence of Heaven. They are called what they are called because of the attributes of the concepts make them relevant to the concepts called such in the derived work. If the "kobolds" of the derived work has none of the attributes of a kobold, then they lack reason to be called kobolds. It's shallow and uninteresting writing.
Fair enough. Kobolds are generally just a generic low-level fantasy creature that changed over the course of several editions. They aren't exactly the high point of DnD.
Hmm you're right, for some reason they have been in my head as long-snouted cowardly lizards with faint draconic traits since 2nd edition, but they do look more like pugs in the art for that.
https://store.steampowered.com/newshub/app/1086940/view/2896336186753128622
No, no they don't. They are kobolds in this mythology because kobolds are what they are called. They can call a rabbit a smeerp for all I care. A mythology follows its own rules.
Example:
German dragons aren't dragons at all. REAL dragons are giant snails like the Lou Carcolh of France. Breath fire? No shells? Might as well call them wheels since they have just as much in common with them as dragons.
It's nice to see that you've finally agreed with what I've been saying all along. They are just called kobolds for arbitrary reasons. There is no reason to call them kobolds. There is nothing about them that is a reason to call them kobolds.
Like I said. It's shallow and uninteresting writing. If kobold is just a generic name you can put on anything, then you might as well call the "kobold" a smerp instead of the rabbit.
But it’s not.
D&D 5e Kobold’s have their own biology, culture and history. Yes all those have been retconned through out the editions but all the changes that were made was to make them more of a unique creature from other low level trash mobs. The mythology might have started as a template for the race, but that doesn’t mean it has to end there.
A name is just a name too and with tabletop, house rules trump all, so if you want your kobolds closer to their mythology then you can create them that way.
And I repeat again. Then why are they kobolds?
You might as well say "a generic name is generic. It's a very superficial standpoint.
Anyway, I think the discussion is moving further and further away from the topic of BG3 early access
Because that's what they are. They have a unique culture not shared by other races. Your insistence that they MUST follow German folklore is bizarre. There's no reason for it.
So you are agreeing with me that it's entirely arbitrary once again, then. You agree that they have no reason go be kobolds. You agree that it's entirely superficial writing.
It's relevant to BG3 by way of the discussion of how goblins are depicted in BG3