Kobolds - canine vs reptilian

[Tanarii]

I can't stand any of the art from 2e and before. It's all horrible, like a cross between a fever dream and a bad trip, illustrated by a child.

Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley, and Keith Parkinson. Of course, good stuff was usually cover art. But 2e was when they started (sometimes even full page) color art inside the books.

Just not for the monsters. And they went for a "make them look nasty" style for evil creatures, which ended up mostly making them look indistinguishable for the humanoids.

[Sigreid]

I'm probably a heretic. I can't stand any of the art from 2e and before. It's all horrible, like a cross between a fever dream and a bad trip, illustrated by a child. 3e is ok...sometimes. 4e is decent, if very much overdone. 5e is...ok. But not great.

Eh, I like the drawings in the original monster manual a lot better than the current art. But it's art, preferences are personal.

[JellyPooga]

I'm probably a heretic. I can't stand any of the art from 2e and before. It's all horrible, like a cross between a fever dream and a bad trip, illustrated by a child.

That's one of the reasons I *like* 2e art...the crude "childlike" style gives you the impression that what you're looking at isn't a photorealistic depiction, but a crude rendition drawn by someone that's seen something far worse than their artistic style is capable of rendering, or the best an artist could do based on a feverish ravings of a man driven mad by the visions he's seen. It lends fuel to the fire of imagination rather than limiting the possibilities. The kobold being an ambiguous combination of lizard, rat and dog on a spindly childlike frame is not an accurate description any more than the descriptions of "donkey-headed men" and "gold-digging ants" from Herodotus; it's a travellers interpretation brought home and vaguely or inaccurately remembered and inexpertly documented. Imagine a scene in a barroom full of travellers and adventurers;
"I came across the Kobolds of Derren-Vos! Horrible ratlike creatures that barked like a dog and claws longer than a kitchen knife!"
"Pah! I've been there and that's rubbish. They're miniature lizardfolk and nothing more. Friendly enough if you've something to trade."
"What are you raving about? My caravan was ambushed by them like we was being harvested like grain. Military precision and a cruel streak. I wouldnae dare go back to Derren-Vos, no sir."
"I heard they've got whisker and tail like a rat, but are covered in scales. They ride giant bugs, too. No doubt."
"They're demons from the pits of hell, I tell you. I saw one disappear in a puff of sulphurous smoke! Their eyes glow in the dark and they eat babbies"

Now imagine you're Volothamp Geddarm sitting in that barroom trying to piece together exactly what a Kobold looks like, what they are and how they behave.

So yes. Kobolds are, in my headcanon, something of a Schrödinger's Cat; both reptilian and dog-like and rat-like and demonic and draconic and whatever else you can imagine in between, because that's what the stories about them tell...until the Player Characters actually encounter some in one of my games, at which point they're whatever I need them to be at that time for that story.

[Mith]

I generally use the lore that Kobolds are descendents of goblins who swore service to dragons. They are then comparable to dragonborn who are descended from Bigfolk who made similar pacts (Humans, hobgoblins, dwarves, elves).

I also have a bit of lore that kobold tribes that are not a following a dragon can appoint a leader that suitably impress the kobolds as the head of the clan. This ritual acts like a reincarnation that turns the individual into a Dragonborn. I like to have the two races strongly interconnected.

[MaxWilson]

Anyone else still portray Kobolds the old way, as dog-men, albeit scaly ones?

... But still, it's interesting the direction that Kobolds have gone.

I don't really use kobolds much but I do still think of them as doglike little lizards, and I don't do the dragon connection. (Stirges, on the other hand, are larval dragons IMG.)

[Kuulvheysoon]

I don't really use kobolds much but I do still think of them as doglike little lizards, and I don't do the dragon connection. (Stirges, on the other hand, are larval dragons IMG.)

...okay, you can't drop that on us and not explain. Now you've caught my attention.

[stoutstien]

I don't really use kobolds much but I do still think of them as doglike little lizards, and I don't do the dragon connection. (Stirges, on the other hand, are larval dragons IMG.)

Lol. Stirges are larval trolls in my games.

[Joe the Rat]

Personally, I prefer the 1st ed scaly horned dog-men aesthetic. I was a big champion of the "Kobolds are related to dragons" in 2e era, particularly in their being longer-lived, egg-laying "goblin" types, and appearing in settings and scenarios tends to correlate with dragons without a humanoid cotype (Draconians supplant for Dragonlance, the lack of traditional dragons - and kobolds - in Dark Sun being examples). I might have seeded the pot on that idea, which makes me somewhat sorrowful.

The aesthetic shift aligns with 3rd ed's obsession with having weird mix-and-match-monsters somehow make sense (see the nightmare that is the hippogriff)

But I have a thought to that...

I generally use the lore that Kobolds are descendents of goblins who swore service to dragons. They are then comparable to dragonborn who are descended from Bigfolk who made similar pacts (Humans, hobgoblins, dwarves, elves).

...and it's something like that. 3+ Kobolds are pacted to Tiamat - whether through Kurtulmak, or if Kurtulmak's representation changes to fit the views of the subset. And their appearance reflects this connection.

So a tribe whose ancestors bonded or pacted with different entities could produce different morphisms. A historical connection with an Arcanoloth or Glabrezu could produce a distinctly dog-like appearance.

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyone else still portray Kobolds the old way, as dog-men, albeit scaly ones?

Yeah, but that's due to long habits in Pre WoTC stuff.

but even as little dragon-men.

I have gotten used to it. But all that makes Dragonborn is kobold's on steroids.

[Cicciograna]

#TeamReptilians. In a way, I see them as part of a trio with Lizardfolks and Troglodytes, kind of like Goblins, Hobgoblins and Bugbears (even though I still consider the three reptilian races as separated, unlike goblinoids).

[MaxWilson]

...okay, you can't drop that on us and not explain. Now you've caught my attention.

Short version:

Dragons in my game are an r-strategist species (lots of cheap offspring, like mosquitos or frogs, as opposed to K-strategist species like humans with small numbers of expensive and valuable offspring), and there's only one dragon race instead of every dragon type being a different race. Dragons lay eggs which hatch into stirges, but they don't consider stirges to be dragons yet and feel no attachment or emotion whatsoever towards them (just as humans generally feel no particular emotion towards egg and sperm cells, as opposed to babies) until they eventually drink enough blood to become wyrmlings--and even then, adult dragons are still pretty cold-blooded about wyrmlings compared to human parents.

A dragon's color is determined by its personality, and it's at least theoretically possible for behavioral changes to manifest as color changes. Stupid, brutal dragons become white. Friendly, benevolent dragons become silver. Ruthless, tyrannical dragons become red; ruthless but individualistic dragons become blue; cruel, malicious dragons become black; crafty, sneaky dragons become green; kind but reclusive dragons become gold. (And I just don't use the other metallic dragon colors at all.)

Dragon names also get shorter as they age.

I imagine my take on dragons is partially influenced by Fred Saberhagen's Book of Swords, where dragons are likewise r-strategists.

[deljzc]

I've grown to like the new Kobolds.

I've built their entire race into the mythology of Dragons and dragonborn.

In my mythology, long ago (like 250,000 years), was the age of super beasts (i.e. dinosaurs and the like), but also the beginning of both Giants and Dragons (which basically fed on dinosaurs and the like). This was long before elves, humans, etc.

During the first war of Giants and Dragons, Annam slew the first Dragon, Io with his ax, cutting the "World Dragon" in half. At this point almost all of Annam's and Io's children were unique beings. Giants and Dragons didn't have need to "procreate", they were so great nothing in the world could harm them except each other.

But the first war changed that. Io being cut in half became Bahamut (the head) and Tiamat (the tail). The rift of how to respond to the Giants' aggression caused the division between Metallic and Chromatic Dragons. Bahamut wanted caution, Tiamat wanted immediate revenge.

Eventually, Tiamat won and led most of the great unique dragons of the age into a massive war against the Giants that destroyed Ostaria. Annam was so disgusted his "offspring" lost the war that he abandoned his people (it is possible Annam roams the Concordant Crossroads now). But the loss of unique life on both sides actually caused and opened the door for the other races to emerge. Most of the dragons and giants died.

This war lasted tens of thousands of years. The rift between metallic and chromatic dragons widened.

Eventually, about 100,000 years ago, a further extinction event happens on the planet (probably an asteroid or something). It mostly wipes out the dinosaurs and the large mammoth creatures of the age. Further losses in Giant and Dragon populations.

Once Tiamat sees the rise of other races (after the extinction event, elves, dwarves, humans, etc. start to populate the planet), she has to find a way to repopulate her dragons (she's not strong enough to just birth unique dragons like Io did). Tiamat's method is to create Kobolds (remember this is a time when many deities are creating races of sentient beings in their images).

Kobolds "appear" to be just a weak race of dragon servants and peasants, but the reality (and this is a highly kept secret) is that Kobold eggs very, very, rarely hatch a chromatic dragon. And since chromatic dragons are almost always so evil they would eliminate their young, the true purpose of the Kobold is to hide newborn dragons, taking them to remote locations and layers, where they raise them during those first decades until the dragons are old enough and strong enough to survive on their own.

Kobold eggs also occasionally hatch into winged kobolds, different color kobolds and of course, all the dragonborn. Kobolds, dragonborn and dragons are all the same species. In my campaign, only chromatic dragons are part of this culture. And only chromatic dragons are dragonborn.

Once Tiamat started this secret method of spawning dragons, Bahamut granted the normal ability to procreate to the metallic dragons as a "checks and balances" to Tiamat's evil plot. So metallic dragons actually have to mate and spawn and have eggs on their own (although very rarely) and also protect their young from evil dragons (who can think of nothing better than to kill a young metallic dragon).

Kobolds are really, really important. And no one really knows it except a select few in each Kobold community what their true purpose is. And their sole purpose is to protect that one, very rare kobold egg (like 1 in 100,000) that hatches as a dragon.

[Nifft]

Yup, that's the classic dog-headed with scales piece of art. There were a few other ones that were this 1e style iirc.

My experience with dogs doesn't really match this head.

- Dogs don't have horns.

- Dog ears do NOT work like that guy's ears.

- Scales, etc.

The only feature which seems dog-like on that head is the nose, and perhaps the jaw but that's not uniquely dog-like. The nose is very dog-like, though, and isn't a good fit for non-dog noses.

It's mostly just the nose which is dog-like.

Contrast that with reptile-like features (horns, scales over entire body, total lack of hair) and it's not surprising to me that kobolds are not considered dog-like, but rather reptile-like.


That said, the ears look obviously elfin, which could make them some kind of Fey -- and if they were Fey, then their body features would just be cosmetic with no necessary biological justification. Make them some kind of chaotic mischief spirits which sabotage the incursions of civilization into nature (e.g. mining infrastructure).

[Grim Portent]

I just scrapped them being a race of humanoids entirely and went more folkloric, instead they're Fey who look like tiny ugly men with bad beards, or less commonly like tiny ugly women with bad beards. Despite being willfully unpleasant to look at, rude, and generally odious, they take great offense if anyone calls them ugly or is generally rude when talking to them or about them. They can go invisible at will, fly and scare things in a similar manner to quasits.

They live in places mortals live or work, and basically exist to play cruel, sometimes deadly, pranks. Stuff like killing mine canaries to make miners panic, hiding tools or other important objects in dangerous places to look, breaking things, leaving things like nails or shoes for people to step on or trip over, poisoning food, frightening pets and livestock, framing people for various kinds of wrongdoing. It gets worse the more people react, and they act much worse to new people or guests than they do to long time residents or employees of their place of residence.

If they get properly malicious they might go full poltergeist and start throwing things, physically assaulting people, sometimes outright murdering people. Usually in response to being insulted or someone trying to force them to leave.

They, along with many Fey in my games, can't be killed and can't be banished because they are from the Material Plane, so there's nowhere to send them. Generally the best bet is to beat them round the head with something made of iron until they're knocked out, then stick them in an iron kettle, lock the lid on somehow and then throw it into a hole, river or the ocean. By the time the fey gets out everyone it has beef with is probably dead and it likely very lost.



There's so many humanoids races in D&D that none of them really have space to breathe, so I just got rid of a bunch or turned them into more magical things that don't need to fit into more normal stuff like politics, wars and farming. Do I need gnomes, halflings, goblins, kobolds, dwarves, and a dozen or so other races whose main gimmick is being short and frequently living underground to greater or lesser extent? The answer is a firm no, basically anything I want to do with any of those races can be done with a single one split into multiple groups, which has the side benefit of changing how players interact with the 'bad guys'. Kobolds have more interesting qualities than most of the short races in D&D, but ultimately I don't need a race of tiny dragon worshippers with a superiority complex anymore than I need a race of tiny green guys trapped in the stone age with a religion based around bullying.

[Dragonsonthemap]

I generally lean much more into either kobolds being specifically dragon-like or generally reptilian, but I'm the sort of person who always plays an Argonian in Elder Scrolls games, so.

It also helps that dragons tend to play some sort of precursors role in my settings, so having some species that are directly tied to them is generally thematically useful.

[Nifft]

The only feature which seems dog-like on that head is the nose, and perhaps the jaw but that's not uniquely dog-like. The nose is very dog-like, though, and isn't a good fit for non-dog noses.

It's mostly just the nose which is dog-like.

Actually looking around the internet a bit I see that the mouth & nose might not be uniquely dog-like.

Here for example is a bear:



That's not quite identical to a Kobold's jawline, but it's darn close.

The nose is a perfect fit, which I hadn't expected.

So... now the best I can see is that a Kobold combines features of both mammal (not specifically dog) and reptile.

[Ettina]

Actually looking around the internet a bit I see that the mouth & nose might not be uniquely dog-like.

Here for example is a bear:



That's not quite identical to a Kobold's jawline, but it's darn close.

The nose is a perfect fit, which I hadn't expected.

So... now the best I can see is that a Kobold combines features of both mammal (not specifically dog) and reptile.

Fun fact: the mammalian order Carnivora has been subdivided into Feliformia (cat-like carnivores) and Caniformia (dog-like carnivores), and bears are in Caniformia.

Also, when people say hyenas are closer to cats than dogs, what they mean is that hyenas are in Feliformia.

[hamishspence]

The nose is a perfect fit, which I hadn't expected.

So... now the best I can see is that a Kobold combines features of both mammal (not specifically dog) and reptile.

Yup. Just like dragons, which have a very catlike build - dragons have physical traits of both mammals and reptiles.

[Willie the Duck]

Looking at skull features might be going too far into the weeds on this. Kobolds probably don't need to be either dragons or dogmen anymore than tabaxi are actually cats or pre-5e gnolls were actually hyena-related -- they just need to be reminiscent of a thing enough to remind people in-world of the thing.

In my gameworld, kobolds are humanoids-- mammalian humanoids. With scaly skin, perhaps pangolin-like, or maybe just scale like in the descriptive and without any homology. I liked 3e's idea of them believing themselves to be dragon adjacent, but with actual dragonborn, half-dragons, sorcerers, Dragon Disciples, and PrCs of dragon-worshippers and the like, I always thought it was too many entries fighting for the same role. Kobolds as 'lowest in the hierarchy amongst the normally adversary races' actually seemed like there was more room for them to exist, although I understand those who think that means it is hard to distinguish between them and goblins.

[Segev]

Here for example is a bear:



That's not quite identical to a Kobold's jawline, but it's darn close.

The nose is a perfect fit, which I hadn't expected.

So kobolds are ancestors of owlbears!

[Imbalance]

So kobolds are ancestors of owlbears!

Urds are bearowl cubs?

[stoutstien]

Urds are bearowl cubs?

Planted in kobold nests like American cockoo egg?

[Nifft]

Fun fact: the mammalian order Carnivora has been subdivided into Feliformia (cat-like carnivores) and Caniformia (dog-like carnivores), and bears are in Caniformia.

Also, when people say hyenas are closer to cats than dogs, what they mean is that hyenas are in Feliformia.

Yup. Just like dragons, which have a very catlike build - dragons have physical traits of both mammals and reptiles.

Oh my, that really cramps the Kobold's backstory -- if the Kobold is a reptile-Caniformia mix and the Dragon is a reptile-Feliformia blend, then the Kobold's ancestral claim about Dragons are in serious jeopardy.

This needs to be a plot-point in my next game.

Urds are bearowl cubs?

Urds are the other half of Owlbears.

They're where the Wizard-to-blame threw all the useless parts of that unholy amalgamation.

[hamishspence]

Some caniforms are pretty feline-looking (foxes) and some feliforms are pretty canine-looking (hyenas). Basically, a dragon's skeleton looks more like mammals, especially carnivorans, in general, than lizards, crocodiles, dinosaurs, etc.

[Naanomi]

This was always my classic (pre-dragonizing) image of them...

[Forum Explorer]

Reptilian every time. Mostly because I have dragons actually create kingdoms, and Kobolds are their primary subjects, who do all the tedious trading, tax collecting, and all the other gears of bureaucracy that make civilization work. I basically lift their lore directly from 3.5's Kobolds.

Dragonborn however are slightly different. They aren't a natural species, but a creation of dragons who decided their armies needed shock troops. In my lore, Dragonborn are extremely long lived, but effectively sterile. However the creation of Dragonborn is a well known ritual that only needs a tooth of a dragon and a kobold egg to complete, so they can kinda reproduce via magic.

Basically I thought of them as the Space Marine version of Kobolds, though with more personality and no 'nothing but war' brainwashing.

[Hytheter]

This was always my classic (pre-dragonizing) image of them...

Is that not just a goblin?

[Dragonsonthemap]

Is that not just a goblin?

I mean, there's a reason they decided kobolds needed a different appearance...

[Mabbly]

I like the canine-dragon cross look! It helps set them apart from the many other reptile-adjacent creatures. And there aren't many dog-like peoples so it fills that niche too. Here's a portrait I did of one of my player's kobold characters: https://www.instagram.com/p/B0gb1kSn...dium=copy_link

[Tanarii]

I like the canine-dragon cross look! It helps set them apart from the many other reptile-adjacent creatures. And there aren't many dog-like peoples so it fills that niche too. Here's a portrait I did of one of my player's kobold characters: https://www.instagram.com/p/B0gb1kSn...dium=copy_link

That one looks kinda like a eastern dragon. Which often have dog-like faces anyway.