PDA

View Full Version : D&D Monster Review: Goblin



Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-04-03, 04:47 PM
I reviewed each interpretation of the goblin from D&D and Pathfinder on my blog.

http://ultimatejosha.blogspot.ca/2013/04/d-monster-review-goblin.html

Any thoughts?

Togath
2013-04-03, 05:02 PM
it's a very good read, especially since I've always been a fan of goblins(since they have a simple base that's usually easy to get across, but still tend to have a lot of variety in how their portrayed), and it's fun to see the comparative illustrations between editions.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-04-03, 05:08 PM
Any thoughts on what I should do next?

Lupus753
2013-04-03, 05:25 PM
Would the drow be a good idea?

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-04-03, 05:29 PM
Would the drow be a good idea?

Its a good idea. I like the drow. My only concern is that the visual design has changed very little over the decades, and there would be little compare.

Togath
2013-04-03, 05:35 PM
Orcs maybe?, from my memory there's been different version each edition.

Xefas
2013-04-03, 05:52 PM
Baatezu, Tanarri, Dragons, and the Tarrasque are iconic D&D stuff, and IIRC, they've all undergone some design changes throughout the editions.

You could also look at how the various editions cover and represent the Gods?

Lupus753
2013-04-03, 06:04 PM
I do not know how much the iconic creatures have changed. Sahuagin? Mind-flayers? I suppose the Beholders have stayed constant. I don't know how common the Owlbear is. Going over demons or most religious creatures would leave you nothing for 2E.

Togath
2013-04-03, 06:15 PM
I do not know how much the iconic creatures have changed. Sahuagin? Mind-flayers? I suppose the Beholders have stayed constant. I don't know how common the Owlbear is. Going over demons or most religious creatures would leave you nothing for 2E.

Owlbear hasn't changed much(and goes all the way back to 1e if I remember right)

rorikdude12
2013-04-03, 07:09 PM
I'd recommend an overview of low-level demons and demonic structures through the editions. Nice blog, by the way. I liked the story of the sentient tree, so props for that.

Ravens_cry
2013-04-03, 07:17 PM
Owlbear hasn't changed much(and goes all the way back to 1e if I remember right)
It does indeed, though the original illustration doesn't look much like an owl or a bear.
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/2339/owlbear2.jpg

Lupus753
2013-04-03, 07:25 PM
I'd recommend an overview of low-level demons and demonic structures through the editions. Nice blog, by the way. I liked the story of the sentient tree, so props for that.

As I said, a major problem would be that he wouldn't be able to cover 2E. Granted, there would likely be plenty left to go over.

Xefas
2013-04-03, 07:44 PM
As I said, a major problem would be that he wouldn't be able to cover 2E. Granted, there would likely be plenty left to go over.

Here are stats for demons directly from the 2E monster manual. Link (http://www.dotd.com/mm/MM00280.htm).

Zahhak
2013-04-03, 07:45 PM
It's an interesting idea to look at the way the creatures have evolved over time, but I'd have like more of a review of the lore and other information the players get.

Geordnet
2013-04-03, 08:55 PM
You know, call me old-fashioned, but I actually liked the AD&D interpretation the best. Going down the list from there, the depictions get less and less "realistic" until you get to the 4th ED goblins, which I think just plain are ridiculous (in a bad way). :smallannoyed:


Oddly enough, this trend in my opinions reverses for Pathfinder. Perhaps it is because PF goblins are obviously supposed to be ridiculous, where the 4th ED version fails to be either serious or farcical...

Zahhak
2013-04-03, 08:59 PM
I don't know, I always think 2x creatures look ridiculous. 3x is generally my favorite, but I like PFs. 4ths look like crap

Lord Torath
2013-04-03, 09:10 PM
As I said, a major problem would be that he wouldn't be able to cover 2E. Granted, there would likely be plenty left to go over. All you need to do is replace Demon with Tanari, Devil with Ba'atsu, and the suffix Daemon with the suffix Loth (Mezzodaemon = Mezzoloth) And "poof!" There're your 2nd Edition Fiends.

Lupus753
2013-04-03, 09:18 PM
I can't decide whether my favorite is 4E or Pathfinder, but for different reasons (4E goblins are well-designed and as threatening as a Halfling-sized monster can be, Pathfinder goblins are delightfully ridiculous). 1E is my least favorite, though 2E looks like a shifty-eyed bandit: silly, but not intentionally so.

paddyfool
2013-04-03, 09:52 PM
Good idea... but of course, there are other RPGs.

Fantasy Craft's suggested fluff for Goblins (who, in that game, are a core species choice) goes as follows:

You’re a goblin, a crude, rambunctious creature notorious for
curiosity and mischief. Yours is a small subterranean people with
earth-toned skin, pointed ears, course black hair, beady eyes,
long noses, and big mouths (literally and figuratively). Though
your people share many traits with orcs, you don’t take yourself
nearly as seriously. Low cunning and humor are time-honored
traditions in your culture, making you a natural prankster,
rogue, and rapscallion. Despite your ilk’s stubby stature and ill-deserved
reputation for cowardice, you’re a rough-and-tumble
little bugger who can be incredibly tenacious when you set your
mind to something.

Most goblins are born in pairs or threes and you probably
grew up in a subterranean warren with around a dozen others,
fighting for limited food and attention. This makes you intensely
competitive and self-aggrandizing — the more you can show
others up, the better. It sometimes makes life with an adventuring
party… interesting, but your boisterous nature and loyalty keep
things on an even keel.

Species art on page 14... closer to Froud's version than to any D&D one, I'd say.

In Legend... hm. Nothing yet. I expect they'll be written up in the Legend Monster Guide when that comes out.

Any other RPG incarnations of goblins that people would like to highlight?

Geordnet
2013-04-03, 09:54 PM
4E goblins are well-designed and as threatening as a Halfling-sized monster can be,
I wouldn't know; the very first thing I think when I look at them is "am I supposed to be frightened of such unwieldy weapons?" :smallconfused:


The ones with practical equipment seem scarier to me. :smalltongue:
(Maybe because I can actually imagine them existing in the real world...)

Joe the Rat
2013-04-04, 08:35 AM
Any thoughts on what I should do next?

Kobolds.

They actually got a significant aesthetic and taxonomic shift in 3e.
Bonus points for digging into B/X and BECMI to figure out when 'doglike' added 'scaly,' and where the whole dragon thing came from (I hope it wasn't me).

Totally Guy
2013-04-04, 08:56 AM
Am I right in thinking that way back in Tolkien's works Orcs and Goblins were the same thing? Uruk Hai being the big ones that most resemble the D&D orc.

Lupus753
2013-04-04, 09:04 AM
Am I right in thinking that way back in Tolkien's works Orcs and Goblins were the same thing? Uruk Hai being the big ones that most resemble the D&D orc.

I believe that 'goblin' was the term that hobbits used for orcs.

supermonkeyjoe
2013-04-04, 09:14 AM
That was really interesting, I would have liked if you delved into the rules a bit, discussed if they had stayed at a similar challenge level and what options there were for running them as a DM.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-04-04, 11:54 AM
That was really interesting, I would have liked if you delved into the rules a bit, discussed if they had stayed at a similar challenge level and what options there were for running them as a DM.

That is a good idea, and I will try to do so next time. I suppose I didn't this time because I don't really play D&D anymore, and when I look through the books, I naturally skip the rules content.

Zahhak
2013-04-04, 03:49 PM
Am I right in thinking that way back in Tolkien's works Orcs and Goblins were the same thing? Uruk Hai being the big ones that most resemble the D&D orc.

They were cousins who could mate, kind of like elves and humans in DND. Orcs were strong and disciplined, but slow and lacked endurance. Goblins were fast and meticulous, but couldn't go out in the sun. Uruk Hai were their offspring: fast, strong, disciplined, and can move in sunlight.

I remember they talk about that in the first (maybe second?) book, and somewhere in the movies, but only as a passing remark.

Geordnet
2013-04-05, 09:04 PM
They were cousins who could mate, kind of like elves and humans in DND. Orcs were strong and disciplined, but slow and lacked endurance. Goblins were fast and meticulous, but couldn't go out in the sun. Uruk Hai were their offspring: fast, strong, disciplined, and can move in sunlight.

I remember they talk about that in the first (maybe second?) book, and somewhere in the movies, but only as a passing remark.
Well, kind of.

The words "goblin", "orc", "yrch", and "Urūk" all meant the same thing; however, what they referred to was not one single homogenous species like any D&D race. For instance: some were as small as hobbits, while others were almost as large as men. The best metaphor I can come up with is how different breeds of dogs can be vastly different from each other, yet all are still called "dogs". (In fact, "Urūk-Hai" translates literally as "orc-race" or "breed of orcs". The word itself doesn't actually mean anything special, it's just that Sauroman's fighting Urūk-Hai were specifically bred for battle.)

The difference between the words is just language. "Goblin" is just the English translation of the word "orc", which itself is derived from the Sindarin (or maybe Quenya) word for the same creature. It would be just as proper to call them "Kobolde" (German for "goblins").

Basically, it comes down to where you're from. Dwarves, Hobbits, and Men of the North called them "goblins". Elves and Men of the West called them "Orcs".

Talakeal
2013-04-05, 09:26 PM
I actually like Warcraft's take on Goblins better than D&Ds. Having them as greedy capitalists and reckless inventors brings them a lot closer to the older source material such as the original Hobbit book or Christina Rossetti's Goblin Market. I find that it makes for a far more unique take on these species than just other dumb and savage humanoid race who exist only to raid and be raided by demi humans.

I also prefer Hobgoblins to be backstabbing murder monsters similar to the Redcaps of mythology, more like small D&D bugbears than D&D hobgoblins, but that is neither here nor there.

Togath
2013-04-05, 09:33 PM
I actually like Warcraft's take on Goblins better than D&Ds. Having them as greedy capitalists and reckless inventors brings them a lot closer to the older source material such as the original Hobbit book or Christina Rossetti's Goblin Market. I find that it makes for a far more unique take on these species than just other dumb and savage humanoid race who exist only to raid and be raided by demi humans.

I also prefer Hobgoblins to be backstabbing murder monsters similar to the Redcaps of mythology, more like small D&D bugbears than D&D hobgoblins, but that is neither here nor there.

Aye, I enjoy Warcraft take as well(and it's fun to have a fantasy setting with a greedy capitalist race at all)

Zahhak
2013-04-06, 06:23 PM
Well, kind of.

The words "goblin", "orc", "yrch", and "Urūk" all meant the same thing; however, what they referred to was not one single homogenous species like any D&D race. For instance: some were as small as hobbits, while others were almost as large as men. The best metaphor I can come up with is how different breeds of dogs can be vastly different from each other, yet all are still called "dogs". (In fact, "Urūk-Hai" translates literally as "orc-race" or "breed of orcs". The word itself doesn't actually mean anything special, it's just that Sauroman's fighting Urūk-Hai were specifically bred for battle.)

The difference between the words is just language. "Goblin" is just the English translation of the word "orc", which itself is derived from the Sindarin (or maybe Quenya) word for the same creature. It would be just as proper to call them "Kobolde" (German for "goblins").

Basically, it comes down to where you're from. Dwarves, Hobbits, and Men of the North called them "goblins". Elves and Men of the West called them "Orcs".

I swear to god in the Hobbit book it talks about the racial differences between Orcs and Goblins.

TuggyNE
2013-04-06, 06:31 PM
I swear to god in the Hobbit book it talks about the racial differences between Orcs and Goblins.

Other than the relatively minor differences of size and ferocity, no. They're basically described as different breeds of the same thing even there, if memory serves.

Zahhak
2013-04-06, 06:41 PM
I'm pretty much positive when the group is in the goblin city they escape into sunlight because the goblins cannot follow them.

Talakeal
2013-04-06, 06:41 PM
Gandalf does say that the mountains north of mirkwoodare home to Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Orcs in one passage, which strongly implies that they are three seperate things.

TuggyNE
2013-04-06, 06:43 PM
I'm pretty much positive when the group is in the goblin city they escape into sunlight because the goblins cannot follow them.

That's common to nearly all orc varieties. (Well, less "cannot" and more "don't want to". Sunlight makes goblins "giddy" and "weak in the knees".)

Terraoblivion
2013-04-06, 06:52 PM
Gandalf does say that the mountains north of mirkwoodare home to Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Orcs in one passage, which strongly implies that they are three seperate things.
On the other hand, when the goblins are first introduced the word is explicitly said to just be a different word for orc.

Zahhak
2013-04-06, 07:03 PM
That's common to nearly all orc varieties. (Well, less "cannot" and more "don't want to". Sunlight makes goblins "giddy" and "weak in the knees".)

I'm pretty sure the big ones that are called Orcs are fine with it. Whole daylight raids and all.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-04-06, 08:27 PM
I've started writing a review of the Myconid. Afterwards, I'm probably going to do something completely nonhumanoid like the carrion crawler.

Talakeal
2013-04-06, 09:16 PM
On the other hand, when the goblins are first introduced the word is explicitly said to just be a different word for orc.

Upon closer examination you are correct, however the information is in the authors note rather than the text itself. The authors note also makes referance to a larger sort of Orc called a hobgoblin, which is never mentioned at all in The Lord of the rings and might refer to Saurons orcs, Uruk hai, or something else entirely.

Also, the passage I mentioned does clearly refer to orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins as three separate things, so there is some distinction, atleast in gandalfs a mind.

Zahhak
2013-04-06, 09:23 PM
This of course arises an interesting problem: do we take the word of the author, or a demigod the author made?

Also, holy crap have we gotten off topic.

paddyfool
2013-04-07, 06:52 AM
I'm pretty sure the big ones that are called Orcs are fine with it. Whole daylight raids and all.

That was a special trait of the Uruk Hai that Saruman bred into them. (Possibly as part of experiments that are hinted at involving goblin-men hybridisation).

Sauron, by contrast, never bothered - he simply turned the sky dark instead.

Surfnerd
2013-04-07, 11:12 AM
I am pumped for myconids!!!! I've always loved the mushroommen!!! My first thought when you asked what you should do next was the carrion crawler.

Another creature that I feel like changed alot are troglodytes. I seem to remember they even changed a bit during 3x.

I also think beholders artwork atleast has evolved alot since its inception.

On the note of some the planar creature suggestions, including the diterlizzi planescape images and concepts would be a nice inclusion into the comparison over editions.

Also Slaads seem to have been given evolving thought over the course of the editions. Anyway thats my ideas.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-04-07, 12:21 PM
I just did the mind flayer, because I didn't feel like doing the myconid.

http://ultimatejosha.blogspot.ca/2013/04/d-monster-review-mind-flayer.html

Myconid will come next.