Talk:Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)

New Idea for Merger

New Idea. On the Kobold Page, people thought that the folklore and gaming stuff should be seperate, at least. I see how the folklore stuff could be seperate (although it's still pretty short). Could we combine the two gamer pages, at least? GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Kobolds in gaming and Kobolds in Dungeons and Dragons can definately be merged in my opinion. If more information can be added to this page would help a lot, it would also cut down by one article that really doesn't need to be seperate. DeMyztikX 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Since D&D what the first game (AFAIK) to use kobolds, since the D&D article is so comprehensive, & since the information covering kobolds in other games is so short, my solution would be to add that information in a separate section of this article, such as "Kobolds in other games and media" (see the Gnoll article for something similar). This would prevent this article from becoming overly long should someone want to expand on, say the kobolds in Final Fantasy or WoW.--Robbstrd 01:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(again) Why? These are distinct concepts. The D&D Kobolds are lizardlike and have nothing in common with the kobolds of German folklore except their name. Kobolds in gaming is, similiarly, about the use of the name Kobold in fantasy games. They are about different subjects, they just happen to share the same name. I don't think the kobolds of folklore are used enough in games to justify a seperate article, but an article listing the various uses of the name is perfectly fine.--SB | T 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't D&D a fantasy game? Aren't they all (loosely) based on the same Kobolds from folklore? I can't imagine that the Nethack folks or Warhammer or Magic: The Gathering (or whomever) didn't either take the name from D&D, who took it from folklore. Even if they said, "oh, our Kobolds will be lizard-like instead of doglike," that's still coming out of the previous incarnation. I think the main question, as raised by Robstrd above, is whether Kobolds in gaming is the main page, with D&D as the most prominent game, or this D&D page becomes the main page, with a brief mention of the others. In either case, there should also be a disambiguation page. If they are kept seperate, then the D&D link should be at the very top of the gaming page, so that someone who thinks that the D&D is gaming would know where to find it. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Inspiration" has nothing to do with it. They are distinct concepts that share little in common aside from their name, and both articles have plenty of unique content, so there's (still) no reason to merge them.--SB | T 03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with T. Kolbolds in D&D have developed away from their origins in folklore to the point that they are distinct from it. In my line of thinking the Kobold article is subtopic of the game Dungeons and Dragons not subtopic about folklore. The two should be kept separate if Kolbolds as a D&D race are to be included with a link to the folklore section in the see also or some such. If anything they should be merged into the Draconic Creature (tho I'm not in favor of this b/c this page itself really isn't notable). There is a similar discussion about Dragonborn on the Draconic Creature page. I argued there that the notability of D&D races in general is in question given that the few pages I've surveyed almost exclusively rely on primary sources. There are larger questions at play here, mainly, are D&D races notable enough to be included at all? If so, by what test do we use to determine their notability if they fail the standard test? I think these notability tags stem more from lack of clarity of vision as to the general notability of D&D races rather than problems posed by a few of the lesser known races.Sugarcoma (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Previous Merger Proposal

I have proposed that 3 pages about Kobold be merged into the main page. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? This article is clearly about a distinct concept.--SB | T 05:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This would be a daft idea. A head-note to the alternate meanings might be an idea, but merging the articles would be a distinct error. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. See new proposal. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Kobolds & dragons

Other than sharing the same language (which is a 3E retcon), are there any sources which state these two creature definitely are (NOT "may be" or "possibly") related?--Robbstrd 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How about 'The Ascension of Kurtulmak', from Races of the Dragon? There it says that Kobolds were the children of a green dragon. It's a myth, but in DnD, myths are more than often true, at the DM's disgression. The Kobold race itself would probably attest their innate sorcerer abilities to their decendance from dragons. Khatoblepas 16:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also in the Neverwinter Expansion HotU, Deekin the kobold says several times that he has Dragon Blood in him, and can train to be a Dragon Disciple. Jacob "Badger Head" Morris 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As can any race in the game. Kobolds, humans, elves and dwarves are not dragon related as a species, just those individuals who have a dragon in their ancestory through the bestiality of the individual dragon (shape shited) in their heritage. Does evolution work in the D&D universe? I would have thought it would actually be a creationist universe in that it actually has a supreme god, Lord Ao.

Grand Moff Tanner (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Which D&D universe. Similarities exist but for instance Ao is an FR god. In the third edition core kobolds are certainly, if not "genetically' related, then somehow otherwise related to dragons. Of course the fact that this was a relatively recent concept and that in second edition and earlier kobolds were "small dog-men" was the core nature of kobolds. Also certain sections of this have far too much information that pertains to only 3.5 without noting it as such.

Goblinoid vs. Reptilian

What is this? Goblinoid or Reptilian. - Peregrine Fisher 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reptilian, according to the Monster Manual 3E, but knowing nothing of the original game, I'll be bold and note that it was originally Goblinoid. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reptilian doesn't seem to be one of the Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons). - Peregrine Fisher 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Goblinoid isn't a type, either, but a subtype. Reading the Monster Manual, it says a Kobold is a "Small Humanoid (Reptilian)" (direct quote). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin

Where did D&D get the idea of changing the dwarf-like kobolds of German fairy tales, into the reptile-dog with horns? My theory is that they got the idea from a 1555 German woodcut from Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus, by Olaus Magnus. In it, a mining 'gnome' (mabey 'kobold' in German) looks like a black demon with horns, which resembles the D&D kobolds. [1]76.81.194.199 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No original research. Give us proof that they deliberately based it off that woodcut and not off a fairy tale with kobolds in it. Until then, all we have is speculation. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kobold.jpg

Image:Kobold.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Claim of copyright violation

I have removed the section on "Tucker's Kobolds" because a user has claimed that including it here constitutes a copyright violation. Please do not restore this material until the issue is resolved. Nandesuka (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on WP:AN/I is to leave this material in, with the redirect and history restored. Done. Nandesuka (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kobold Ecology, History, Etc

Would it be possible to do a section on this information as it pertains to the older editions of the game as well. 3e Kobolds and AD&D Kobolds differ in a number of ways. Emry (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Why is it that Pun-Pun merits his own position? He is not cited in any legitimate media, and despite his strength, does not deserve mention. Far more important things do, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica.Ch ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.5.52 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pun-Pun probably should be regarded as notable, not for his strength but for his fame as an example of the Character Optimization sub-hobby within D&D, taken in his case to the Nth degree. His name crops up a lot on the Wizards boards, Giant in the Playground, and no doubt other places. I'd put him in a "non-canonical" subhead of the Famous Kobolds list, but am too lazy to look up references and such so I'll let someone else do it if they agree with me that it's fitting. 71.34.53.124 (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mythological Origins

I see little relation between dnd kobolds and kobolds173.190.168.218 (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) I have an account now Pointy stick of doom +99 12:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointy stick of doom +99 (talk • contribs)

Kobolds in other media.

In the cartoon "Unforgotten Realms" & the MMO "Rift: Planes of Telara," Kobolds are canines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The culling of the fold

Hello! In an attempt to bring this article closer to an encyclopediac tone, I discarded and rewrote a lot of the content. The previous version heavily covered the subject from an in-universe perspective, documenting kobold physiology and society as if they were real creatures. It also provided an overwhelming list of every D&D monster book which described kobolds, which seems to be most D&D monster books. While it certainly looks like I'm burning the Library of Alexandrea, it is my good-faith belief that this deletion is a substantial improvement, and may hopefully lead to an article which reflects more non-fictional content about the subject. Much of the in-universe descriptions are duplicated on the Forgotten Realms Fan Wiki, and you can read the last version before my edit at this diff. If you think this was a mistake, please tell me about it below. Best wishes, RoxySaunders (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello RoxySaunders! Thanks for taking care of the excessive in-universe perspective! For my taste the culling went a bit too far, though. First, I would have kept the publication list. It may have been long, but that's just in the nature of the topic, and it was one of the parts that actually was not in-universe. If that list seems excessive, I think at least we should have a sentence like "The kobold appeared in all editions of the game." and preserve the primary sources as reference there.

Next, I think a little more description than what we have now would be helpful for a reader completely new to the subject.

Then, I think we should keep a mention of the urds (because it's just a non-negligible sub-topic, has a now unsatisfactory redirect here, and appears in Collaborativ Worldbuilding), Tucker's kobolds (where we have a non-independent secondary source, and is an concept related to but pointing beyond the Kobold), and Deekin (where we have a redirect and a secondary source).

Well, that at least is my opinion.

Lastly, in case you should be interested in improving the article further, beyond the former content, the deletion discussion mentioned a number more secondary sources. And of course Collaborative Worldbuilding for Writers and Gamers is a secondary source that has quite a bit of further information. Best regards, Daranios (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Daranios: Great points. I definitely may have missed some notable stuff among the former content worth including. It might be worth preserving the book references from the publication history section, in a diminished format. My takeaway from most entries was "kobolds, a common D&D race, are in this book of D&D races", and their description across later Monster Manuals seemed very similar, so except for a few notable exceptions, that information didn't seem very useful to the article. I definitely want to reference the publications which give a notably "original" take on the AD&D kobolds, so the 3.5 book Races of the Dragon (expanding the "kobolds as dragon-worshippers" lore), "Tucker's Kobolds" (what if kobolds were smart?), and the entry on Urds in the AD&D 2e Monstrous Manual (1993) do warrant inclusion.

While the redirect will need fixing, I'm not sure Deekin from Neverwinter Nights, nor the other named kobold characters, are especially notable. The D&D kobolds seem to be defined by being numerous, weak, and disposable, so the named kobold characters listed in that section seem to only be notable as the exception to the rule, and that information is probably best documented elsewhere. There aren't many "Notable Kobolds" in the same way Frodo is a notable Hobbit, or Spock is a notable Vulcan.

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that this article would best serve as one generally about kobolds as a "stock monster" in fantasy media (distinct from the article on the specific Germanic sprite called kobold). Their depiction in the D&D game is very notable and deserves due weight, as it seems to be what rose them to relative popularity in western media, but I think that material belongs in a subsection on an article more broadly focused on their role in media. This makes it much easier to find secondary sources. Kobolds' varying appearances in other fantasy games like Pathfinder (toadlike), World of Warcraft (ratlike), and Kobolds Ate My Baby! (doglike?) (respectively) also seems notable. I'm much more familiar with making edits to pre-existing articles (in this case sweeping edits), but I do care about this subject, and want to make it as good as possible. Should I just start drafting a different article entitled Kobold (fantasy creature)? RoxySaunders (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think starting a separate page for the fantasy creature in general, is a good idea. I think User:Sariel Xilo might be able to add something to this one here in the meantime? BOZ (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)