Just thought I'd mention it, since the topic has come up here on the list before. Of particularly interesting note is someone's suggestion that they may be a form of Monotreme, due to their egg laying and seemingly mammalian characteristics.
There is a thread over at the ENWorld boards about the Races of the Dragon book. What is most interesting about it is the discussion about the history of the kobold in *D&D over the years. From the pictures and things from the 1st edition MM on the second page, it seems clear that the kobold was always intended to be reptilian (including text about them laying eggs from the 2nd Edition MM that I never noticed before), though with doglike features.
For Mystara though, I think it is more fitting to trace the Kobold back to its Basic D&D roots, since that is where the Known World was born. The Basic sets, Moldvay and Mentzer editions, clearly say kobolds are dog like, with scaled skin.
Also, The text in the description in the 1st edition Monster Manual is similar. That post by Kobold Avenger that you're quoting is simply off the mark.
There's been a slight redesign, but it's hardly the first, and it isn't any more fundamental than any other.
I don't think anybody questioned that they were doglike with scaled skin. They remain doglike with scaled skin in 3rd edition (they even kept the high-pitched yapping, although their features are less overtly canine).
There's been a slight redesign, but it's hardly the first, and it isn't any more fundamental than any other.
No, the real bone of contention, I think, is with the reclassification of them as Reptilian, instead of just humanoid. As one of the people who was once in the "doglike humanoid" camp, as opposed to the reptilian one, I find it interesting to see that the more scaly sort of point of view was there all along, if somewhat understated from the current "reptilian" version.
In my campagin (may it rest in peace) I was considering reconciling the fact that kobolds have the reptilian type with the humanoid history of the Orcs of Thar. I was thinking that at some point the beastman tribe that would one day evolve into the Known World's kobolds could have been part of a breeding program that involved dragons or half-dragons. Thus, keeping with the known history that kobolds orcs and goblins are all decended from the beastmen, but allowing for thier being reptilian.
I also consider myself converted to the Kobolds as reptilians camp. Although this doesnt automatically mean they cant be descendants of the Beastmen, I'm thinking they shouldnt be. That means IMC, only Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs and Bugbears are true descendants of the Beastmen. Trolls, Gnolls, Ogres, Minotaurs and Bargha also have Beastman blood in their veins, but are mixed with other races. Interestingly the four original beastman races parallell with the four major humanoid races Humans(orcs), elves(Hogboglins), dwarves(Bugbears) and halflings(Goblins). Since the Beastmen were originally created from evil souls of humans and demihumans, my theory is that they were based off the souls of these races.
Trolls and Ogres have Giant blood in them as well. Gnolls are ofcourse the result of Nithian experiments (I keep the Gnome+Troll thing vague IMC). Minotaurs and Bargha have a more complex background to them...
Kobolds then are related to Lizardmen, Gatormen, Caymen and the other reptilian races, which may indeed have connections to dragons...
Håvard
Interestingly the four original beastman races parallell with the four major humanoid races Humans(orcs), elves(Hogboglins), dwarves(Bugbears) and halflings(Goblins). Since the Beastmen were originally created from evil souls of humans and demihumans, my theory is that they were based off the souls of these races.
Hey, that's interesting! I never thought about that before but It's really cool.
As for the Kobold question, I'm in the 'canine' camp. Since my first exposure to kobolds came through the RC, I've always see them as described there: "dog-like humanoids" with "scaly, rust-brown skin [with] no hair". My veiw has always been that they had skin that was scaly, not a skin that had scales. The fact that it points out that the skin has no hair says to me that the skin was still fleshy as opposed to hardened scales.
I think they were never intended to have scaled, reptilian skin, as in having scales. Their skin was scaly, "having a thin flake or lamina". Notice also that the skin was coloured, not the scales. Anyhow, that's my opinion as to how I've always seen them.
They didn't look either doglike or scaled in that game (which was weird; you would have thought it would have been more closely based on D&D), which is why I thought of them as a kind of goblin. The D&D Basic set's description of them as doglike (with no illustration) just confused me. Then I saw the adorable little lizard-dog-rats of the AD&D Monster Manual and the pug-goblins of the Monstrous Compendium and I was even more confused.
Eventually, based on the Monstrous Manual text and the stuff in Mayfair's Dark Folk supplement (I think an old issue of Dragon called them reptilian as well), I decided they had to be some kind of mammal-like reptile. I also decided they had a queen that laid hundreds of eggs a day like a social insect, but that wasn't based on anything official.
Sam Wood's 3rd edition interpretation of them always seemed like a natural step to me.
As for the Kobold question, I'm in the 'canine' camp. Since my first exposure to kobolds came through the RC, I've always see them as described there: "dog-like humanoids" with "scaly, rust-brown skin [with] no hair". My veiw has always been that they had skin that was scaly, not a skin that had scales. The fact that it points out that the skin has no hair says to me that the skin was still fleshy as opposed to hardened scales.
I think they were never intended to have scaled, reptilian skin, as in having scales. Their skin was scaly, "having a thin flake or lamina". Notice also that the skin was coloured, not the scales. Anyhow, that's my opinion as to how I've always seen them.
I'm in this frame of mind for the same reason. Despite anyone evolving them into "reptiles," I'll continue to describe them as the canine humanoid with brownish skin and scaled hairless flesh, but never as a reptile, aside from the laying of eggs. They could have some connection to dragons that would explain that.
"Kobold ninjas" have NOTHING on this, I'm telling ya... :P
Marsupials don't lay eggs, though. Platypuses are monotremes, which is what kobolds would be in this interpretation.
... whoops. Now would probably not be a good time to suggest that "it's weird, it's from Australia, that makes it a marsupial", right? (Please, don't tell the Canucks.) ;)
In any case, I decided to follow through on the notion. Updated to reference 'monotremes', to boot. :D
... whoops. Now would probably not be a good time to suggest that "it's weird, it's from Australia, that makes it a marsupial", right? (Please, don't tell the Canucks.) ;)
not everything that's from Australia and that's weird is a marsupial, I myself am also a mammal.
not everything that's from Australia and that's weird is a marsupial, I myself am also a mammal.
So you're a half marsupial half mammal?
:D
Sorry, coundn't resist
So the're canine, but scaly... Well, that can be reptilian or not as you see fit. Doesn't really matter. But I do lean towards the cunning fox/dog end of things.
The two subspecies of Mystaran kobold that spring to mind are both kind of reptilian dog, but the names (from Orcs of Thar) are way more dog than reptile. Take Canis minor numerus, the most common species perhaps, which chooses to overwhelm foes with sheer force of numbers. I see them as like little packs of determined mongrels. Then there's Canis minor militaris, who I see as the trap setters, the cunning dog like men who will make every step of their lairs deadly to invaders using every kind of trap at their disposal. They are, for me, as cunnning as foxes, and as smart as collies. And as nasty as starving wolves.
Think back to the cover of goold old dungeon module B2. Shows a fight at a cave entrance, red, kind of scaly, kind of doggy humanoids (bright red ones?) attacking some adventurers.
Those are hobgoblins. They just have horned helmets.
You can tell because of their blue noses, their orange skin, and the fact that they're dressed like samurai. They look like exactly like hobgoblins from the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual. Kobolds would (as you note) be much shorter; they would also have dark brown or black skin.
Granted, Mystaran hobgoblins look slightly different, but Orcs of Thar hadn't been published yet so no one was to know.
Granted, Mystaran hobgoblins look slightly different, but Orcs of Thar hadn't been published yet so no one was to know.
They fit the description of hobgoblins at the time (the illustration was surely based on the MM), but based on Orcs of Thar they look like red orcs instead. Mystaran red orcs look basically the same as hobgoblins do in other worlds (red hides, simian features), while Mystaran hobgoblins have copper or tan skin, and bulldog or toadlike features (probably inspired by the hobgoblin Lord Toede from Dragonlance).
The description of kobolds in the Basic Set was based on the illustration in the AD&D Monster Manual, so yes, they were supposed to have snakelike scales:
The best argument for kobolds as dogs, however, is found in Orcs of Thar as well, since that book explicitly catagorizes them as genus Canis, the same as gnolls and lupins. Of course, Bruce Heard's taxonomy is a little iffy at best (if bugbears are "shaggy, giant goblins" then why are they genus Ursus instead of Goblinus?). Not to mention that if all or most of the races of Thar are all descended from the ancient Beastmen they should all belong to the same genus, or at least the same family. And gnolls are Nithian experiments, while kobolds probably aren't (although it might explain their hatred for gnomes if they had gnomish blood in them).
It's also true that Mystara already has a race of pygmy reptiles, the caymen, so kobolds might reasonably be said to not need to fill that particular niche.
Here's a possible revision:
- Family Canidae
- Genus Canis
- Lupins Canis sapiens
- Gnolls Canis erectus
- Kobolds Canis minor
- Lupins Canis sapiens
- Genus Canis
- Family Hominidae
- Genus Therion (beastmen)
- Orcs Therion orcus
- Goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears Therion goblinus
- Orcs Therion orcus
- Genus Therion (beastmen)
For a good example of hobgoblins with toad like features, take a look at B5 Horror on the Hill art.
I don't see it.
Maybe you mean B11 (I'm pretty sure those are orcs) or B12?
So we need to go back to basics and consider that all of the Mystaran humanoud races as presented to us in Orcs of Thar are, in fact, recently the same species, i.e. beast men. So they're all best thought of as the same genus.
I propose that we call that genus Bestia.
The three goblinoid races all then become Bestia goblinus, with the subspecies given nomenclature according to type (haven't sussed that yet).
The canoids become Bestia canis, orcs become Bestia orcus, ogres Bestia bestia, and trolls Bestia horribilis. Or something along those lines.
And that leaves us with the intriguing little kobolds; canoids or not? Well, if they are, then they're part of Bestia canis group, but if not then maybe they're more closely related to the cay men and gator men. Or perhaps they would fit in closer to the lizard men and, dare I say it, carnifex?
Another option is that they're dog like but not of the same species as the other dog like humanoids; so they might be Bestia minor or perhaps Bestia serpentis?
I don't see it.
Look inside the module, there are several pieces showing toad-like hobgoblins.
They are also not related to Beastmen, unlike the other humanoids. The Northern Reaches Gaz suggests that Kobolds may be one of the major races (whatever that means), so having them be related to Dragons would be a good sollution to that mystery.
The categories from Thar may be used as argumentation against this, but may as easily be discarded as misunderstandings. I consider much of what is written in Thar as being written by Thar himself. Although Undead and highly intelligent, Thar is still an Orc, and doesnt always get his science right...
Håvard