Kobolds: The Goblins of 2e?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Their place in the lore and in the 2e corebook suggests otherwise.

That's the thing: they changed it to include goblins as a core race available for players who often play good-aligned characters, while kobolds didn't need much change, especially when people are as familiar with dragonborns as they can be with kobolds.

Given their matching dragon ancestry, kobolds can change as much as drows can, while I don't see goblins doing the same.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Their place in the lore and in the 2e corebook suggests otherwise.

That's the thing: they changed it to include goblins as a core race available for players who often play good-aligned characters, while kobolds didn't need much change, especially when people are as familiar with dragonborns as they can be with kobolds.

Given their matching dragon ancestry, kobolds can change as much as drows can, while I don't see goblins doing the same.

There's like a thousand threads on this forum already about how even in 1e goblins weren't "always chaotic evil" and unable to change. The literal first 1e AP, Council of Thieves, has a LN goblin that works with hellknights. I suggest you use the search tool on this forum before you start saying easily disproven things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always had a soft spot for kobolds and love the Paizo redesign. I was running a kobolds-only party through the Iron Gods AP on the boards (To KoBoldly Go!) pre-2e. We got about halfway through the AP before covid and other things derailed it. I just loved the idea of kobolds getting their little claws on blasters and explosives, but they were disappointingly well behaved little scamps in the campaign. It helped that there were all sorts of aliens and non-standard humanoids for allies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Side Note: The mention of kobolds and devils has reminded me of the brilliant and hysterical Mr. Pett's adventure "The Devil Box" from Paizo's run of Dungeon Magazine (#109).

Great Stuff! and I just dug out that issue and it has an amusing forward from a younger Mr. Jacobs serving as associate editor back then. : )


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grankless wrote:
JiCi wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Their place in the lore and in the 2e corebook suggests otherwise.

That's the thing: they changed it to include goblins as a core race available for players who often play good-aligned characters, while kobolds didn't need much change, especially when people are as familiar with dragonborns as they can be with kobolds.

Given their matching dragon ancestry, kobolds can change as much as drows can, while I don't see goblins doing the same.

There's like a thousand threads on this forum already about how even in 1e goblins weren't "always chaotic evil" and unable to change. The literal first 1e AP, Council of Thieves, has a LN goblin that works with hellknights. I suggest you use the search tool on this forum before you start saying easily disproven things.

The issue isn't their alignment, and I know that it can change, for any creature. For instance, Drizzt is a good-aligned Drow, while in Eberron, metallic dragons can be evil.

The problem is their nature. Kobolds are leagues smarter than goblins, in addition of having draconic ancestries that can easily match any alignment. They don't throw themselves in front of danger and blindly listen to bigger bosses.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Kobolds are leagues smarter than goblins

There's literally nothing about kobolds in either edition of Pathfinder that indicates them being smarter than goblins. I get, you're a Big Fan of kobolds, dragonborn and anything draconic, but that gets you only as far as facts go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They do seem better organized as a society, which is seen by some as being a sign of increased intelligence.

To be clear, I am not saying one ancestry is dumber than the other, only that I can understand why some people may think so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Kobolds are leagues smarter than goblins
There's literally nothing about kobolds in either edition of Pathfinder that indicates them being smarter than goblins. I get, you're a Big Fan of kobolds, dragonborn and anything draconic, but that gets you only as far as facts go.

Kobolds, back in P1E, didn't have a single penalty to a mental ability score, while goblins had one to Charisma. Also, in the Monster Codex, they had to explain how goblin alchemists worked with their formula books, given how they are illiterate. I know that there was a rule about barbarians being illiterate, but not alchemists. Finally, kobolds are trapsmiths. This alone requires some intelligence to build effectively.

The fact that they made goblins are widely available as humans feel like a slap in the face, or a "temporary" homage to Mighty Nein's Nott. People have been asking for Paizo's version of the Dragonborn for years, only to get rebuked over and over. Kobolds were too weak and the Wyvarans were too strong for adequate play.

Nobody would have complained if the kobolds were made into a core race with expanded lore.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

They do seem better organized as a society, which is seen by some as being a sign of increased intelligence.

To be clear, I am not saying one ancestry is dumber than the other, only that I can understand why some people may think so.

Are you assuming that there's one global society for goblins or kobolds in the setting? That's a wrong assumption, just look at any other ancestry. Humans run the whole gamut from high tech flying airship and guns society to loincloth and stone axes society.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Kobolds are leagues smarter than goblins
There's literally nothing about kobolds in either edition of Pathfinder that indicates them being smarter than goblins. I get, you're a Big Fan of kobolds, dragonborn and anything draconic, but that gets you only as far as facts go.

Kobolds, back in P1E, didn't have a single penalty to a mental ability score, while goblins had one to Charisma. Also, in the Monster Codex, they had to explain how goblin alchemists worked with their formula books, given how they are illiterate. I know that there was a rule about barbarians being illiterate, but not alchemists. Finally, kobolds are trapsmiths. This alone requires some intelligence to build effectively.

The fact that they made goblins are widely available as humans feel like a slap in the face, or a "temporary" homage to Mighty Nein's Nott. People have been asking for Paizo's version of the Dragonborn for years, only to get rebuked over and over. Kobolds were too weak and the Wyvarans were too strong for adequate play.

Nobody would have complained if the kobolds were made into a core race with expanded lore.

Charisma isn't Intelligence.

Are you trying to tell us that ancient Egyptians were dumb because they used hieroglyphs instead of an alphabet? Or any pre-alphabet society, for that matter.

For the rest, erm, yep, you're a Dragonborn fan who is hurt about the Bestest Ancestry Ever is not in Pathfinder. Cool, noted, now you can go and fight with the drow fandom in the room over there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Are you trying to tell us that ancient Egyptians were dumb because they used hieroglyphs instead of an alphabet? Or any pre-alphabet society, for that matter.

Go read that section about goblin alchemists in the Monster Codex, you'll understand what I mean.

Quote:
For the rest, erm, yep, you're a Dragonborn fan who is hurt about the Bestest Ancestry Ever is not in Pathfinder. Cool, noted, now you can go and fight with the drow fandom in the room over there.

When Paizo still cannot address one of the fans' biggest requests, it's worth pointing out.

Fine if they want to bring the goblins out... by as the ONLY new core ancestry? That's questionable...

The only other reason is that kobolds are often seen as the gnomes' most dangerous archnemesis... but what does it do for goblins then?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty clear that Paizo will never do Dragonborns (or something similar) since "everything is dragons" is the other folks (also, are they even OGL?) Dragons have relatively little to do with the metaphysics for Golarion and aren't really the basis for many things aside from "other Dragons" and "some sorcerers."

Kobolds on the other hand, are a thing that's older than either game. Most things that are from centuries old folklore work their way in somehow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Are you assuming that there's one global society for goblins or kobolds in the setting? That's a wrong assumption, just look at any other ancestry. Humans run the whole gamut from high tech flying airship and guns society to loincloth and stone axes society.

Not really. However, there are some societal trends and traits that seem to keep coming up regardless of technology level.

Some examples include kobolds being adept at creating traps and defending their warrens, and goblins being resilient and able to hodge-podge all sorts of junk together towards creative ends.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are the ratfolks more akin to how some of the more old-school kobolds are depicted? I kinda like the ratlike kobolds.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's pretty clear that Paizo will never do Dragonborns (or something similar) since "everything is dragons" is the other folks (also, are they even OGL?) Dragons have relatively little to do with the metaphysics for Golarion and aren't really the basis for many things aside from "other Dragons" and "some sorcerers."

Kobolds on the other hand, are a thing that's older than either game. Most things that are from centuries old folklore work their way in somehow.

I mean even if they never do half dragon type versatile heritage thing, I see wyvarans or even dragonkin possible things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's pretty clear that Paizo will never do Dragonborns (or something similar) since "everything is dragons" is the other folks (also, are they even OGL?) Dragons have relatively little to do with the metaphysics for Golarion and aren't really the basis for many things aside from "other Dragons" and "some sorcerers."

Kobolds on the other hand, are a thing that's older than either game. Most things that are from centuries old folklore work their way in somehow.

Kobolds started as rat-like or dog-like back in AD&D, and became reptilian in D&D3E, with the emphasis on dragons much later in that edition, including the alignment changes.

The issue is that in P1E, kobolds were so weak that even as a playable race, it wasn't possible to make them suitable for players. Sorry, but nobody is going to use a race with -4 STR, +2 DEX and -2 CON. Wyvarans were added much later, but those were often too powerful compared to the other 0-HD races

CorvusMask wrote:
I mean even if they never do half dragon type versatile heritage thing, I see wyvarans or even dragonkin possible things.

The venomtail kobold is close to a wyvaran though.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean, they aren't medium sized and don't have wings or really cool look :p


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What's with people always using phrases like "rebuked" or "slap in the face" when someone doesn't make something catered to their specific interests?

One of my least favorite internetisms.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
The fact that they made goblins are widely available as humans feel like a slap in the face, or a "temporary" homage to Mighty Nein's Nott.

This is a MASSIVE reach. Paizo made goblins a core race because their art design of goblins became widely beloved to the point that they’re essentially the mascots of the company. I highly doubt it has anything to do with Critical Role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Intelligence has nothing to do with being able to make traps and by that logic goblins are smarter given how they can jury rig a whole bunch of stuff and somehow make it work (specially if it creates a big boom).

What you are seeing there is the difference in the type of intelligence, which is both part nature and nurture. Ex: Humans regardless of where they are born and how much they have learned are great hunters and great at creating weapons. Kobolds being natural trap makers do not make them better than Goblins natural jury riggers.

The reason why Goblin society is weird has a lot more to do with: Low charisma, taboo against writing (and by extension reading), and extremely low life spam. The low charism prevents from a good social structure. The taboo against writing ensures that they are illiterate while making it harder to pass down ideas (writing is OP and anything that maintains it jumps up to OP). The low life span prevents long term projects from ever being completed without extremely lucky streak of goblins who want that project done.

Kobolds by comparison do use writing, they tend to live in highly regulated society, and they are more dedicated to long term projects; However they still have short life spans. Just the use of writing makes them more organized. The high regulation makes it so things flow more smoothly, but it also stiffles advancement in art and science. The dedication to long term project cancels out their short life ensuring at least a colony with dedicated traps is built.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
willfromamerica wrote:
JiCi wrote:
The fact that they made goblins are widely available as humans feel like a slap in the face, or a "temporary" homage to Mighty Nein's Nott.
This is a MASSIVE reach. Paizo made goblins a core race because their art design of goblins became widely beloved to the point that they’re essentially the mascots of the company. I highly doubt it has anything to do with Critical Role.

Yeah, that Critical Role campaign was launched in January 2018.

Second Edition was announced in March 2018. It’d be a safe bet making goblins core predates CR by just a bit with the lead time for developing the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding Wyvarans, I think that they are a bit under used, but that is partly because the region they are from is under used. They are from Vangeline Pass in the Shattered Range in North Garund, between Western Geb and Eastern Mwangi Expanse. A place noted as "rarely used because there are no major cities in eastern Mwangi Expanse".

They are also the type of creatures that would 1000% earn the Rare tag in PF2 given how straight up OP their stats are and how specific is the location where that ancestry lives. They are the very definition of a "monstruous ancestry" given they are the magical cross breed of Kobold and Wyvern.

Not including it has nothing to do with Dragonborn or Dragonkin either since Wyvaran has literally 0 to do with those. They aren't even directly related to true dragons. Its all about having literally 0 reason to be in the area were those are found, although maybe an AP will at least mention them soon. But I doubt it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

Intelligence has nothing to do with being able to make traps...

...[other things]

Sure. Those are all fine theories. Personally, I don't give ability scores that much influential weight over a society, but if you're going to think this out that thoroughly, I suppose you have to start somewhere. Seems like a logical premise to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Critical Role is great and all for DnD 5e. But they have very little to do with Pathfinder outside of the rare episode were they use the system. While they did add a bunch of people to the TTRPG market, most of that is concentrated on that little bubble.

Saying that Critical Role is responsible for anything in how Pathfinder is made is a massive misattribution to the work Paizo does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Intelligence has nothing to do with being able to make traps...

...[other things]

Sure. Those are all fine theories. Personally, I don't give ability scores that much influential weight over a society, but if you're going to think this out that thoroughly, I suppose you have to start somewhere. Seems like a logical premise to me.

I think that people should put more weight into what the ability scores means since they are what determine what the average population for an ancestry is like.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The "Goblins are core" thing follows from the fact that Paizo's Free RPG Day "We Be Goblins" adventures were *huge* hits and people specifically hooked onto Paizo's depiction of Goblins a la "what if Raccoons learned how to set fires".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

lThey are from Vangeline Pass in the Shattered Range in North Garund, between Western Geb and Eastern Mwangi Expanse. A place noted as "rarely used because there are no major cities in eastern Mwangi Expanse".

Its all about having literally 0 reason to be in the area were those are found, although maybe an AP will at least mention them soon.

Two of the three specific setting books for 2e are for the Mwangi Expanse and the Impossible Lands; the border between the two feels like a place plenty of folks might detour to (with a permissive GM) in Strength of Thousands or Blood Lords. The Shisk are from roughly the same region and they’re playable, and I think Ulgrem-Axaan from Monsters of Myth is as well. I think Kibwe, the busiest trade hub in the Mwangi, is sitting in the East just fine, so that “no Mwangi cities” comment is a little off.

Now, all that said, I think it’s telling that we haven’t heard a single mention of Wyvarans in 2e… but I think “magically-created drake/kobolds who live in the mountains of Fantasy East Africa” feels sufficiently distinct from the Dragonborn that Paizo has an option there. Hell, a Heritage that made you Medium and opened the door to flight feats later on does 99% of the job!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wyvarans are really cool, loved them in 1e despite them being kind of awkward, would be cool to see them show up in 2e in some fashion.

Being Large sized and Flying makes them problematic for 2e, but I don't think it would be that difficult to bump them down a bit and give them the normal ancestry flying pipeline. They'd still be "big draconids" even if they were 7 feet tall, and flying never felt as necessary to their identity as, say, Strix, which we've already seen them manage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Wyvarans are really cool, loved them in 1e despite them being kind of awkward, would be cool to see them show up in 2e in some fashion.

Being Large sized and Flying makes them problematic for 2e, but I don't think it would be that difficult to bump them down a bit and give them the normal ancestry flying pipeline. They'd still be "big draconids" even if they were 7 feet tall, and flying never felt as necessary to their identity as, say, Strix, which we've already seen them manage.

They’re Medium in every 1e source I can find, both as a playable Race and as monsters.

I do hope LOIL has at least a fleeting mention of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Temperans wrote:

lThey are from Vangeline Pass in the Shattered Range in North Garund, between Western Geb and Eastern Mwangi Expanse. A place noted as "rarely used because there are no major cities in eastern Mwangi Expanse".

Its all about having literally 0 reason to be in the area were those are found, although maybe an AP will at least mention them soon.

Two of the three specific setting books for 2e are for the Mwangi Expanse and the Impossible Lands; the border between the two feels like a place plenty of folks might detour to (with a permissive GM) in Strength of Thousands or Blood Lords. The Shisk are from roughly the same region and they’re playable, and I think Ulgrem-Axaan from Monsters of Myth is as well. I think Kibwe, the busiest trade hub in the Mwangi, is sitting in the East just fine, so that “no Mwangi cities” comment is a little off.

Now, all that said, I think it’s telling that we haven’t heard a single mention of Wyvarans in 2e… but I think “magically-created drake/kobolds who live in the mountains of Fantasy East Africa” feels sufficiently distinct from the Dragonborn that Paizo has an option there. Hell, a Heritage that made you Medium and opened the door to flight feats later on does 99% of the job!

I was literally quoting the wiki entry on Wyvarans. Yes Mwangi Expanse and Geb are getting APs now, but those regions were also underused in PF1 and does not change my statement that the region is under used.

Wyvaran wrote:
On Golarion, wyvarans are native to the Shattered Range in Garund[2] and and populous on the continent.[3]... A declining population of wyvarans remain, demanding tribute from the rare caravans that travel through Vangeline Pass from Geb to the Mwangi Expanse. Young wyvarans sometimes travel to Alkenstar, Nex, Katapesh, and beyond to seek their fortunes.[2]
Vangeline Pass wrote:
The pass is rarely used because there no major cities in the eastern Mwangi Expanse close to the Vangeline Pass and also the usual dangers of the mountains and the jungles are augmented by monsters migrating south from the Mana Wastes, or dragging themselves out of Draxmere, as well as monsters from the Axanir River to the south.[1]

Kibwe is located west of Nex and the Ndele Gap which is heavily travelled. It's about 1,500 miles away. The two closest cities to Vangeline Pass in Mwangi Expanse are Obisu (who doesn't have much going for) and Elokolobha (which is home to spriggans) and both at 1,000 miles away. In Geb the closes city is Graydirge which again not much going for them and also about 1,000 miles away.

So no, my comment is not "a little off" as even Paizo maps show that pass is not very travelled.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
The only other reason is that kobolds are often seen as the gnomes' most dangerous archnemesis... but what does it do for goblins then?

I always thought kobolds were in conflict with dwarves, not gnomes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:
JiCi wrote:
The only other reason is that kobolds are often seen as the gnomes' most dangerous archnemesis... but what does it do for goblins then?
I always thought kobolds were in conflict with dwarves, not gnomes.

Dwarves and Kobolds quite happily live together in Cloudspire, as of 2e lore.

I'm not familiar with any historical Dwarf-Kobold strife more broadly. I know that they have a lot of conflict with Eberron's Gnomes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Gnomes' most dangerous antagonists are themselves. These are people who die if they get too bored.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:
JiCi wrote:
The only other reason is that kobolds are often seen as the gnomes' most dangerous archnemesis... but what does it do for goblins then?
I always thought kobolds were in conflict with dwarves, not gnomes.

In terms of mechanically relevant racism/favored foe/racial enmity, I believe dwarves are opposed to orcs, goblins, and giants traditionally.

Gnomes on the other hand had (in their initial d&d playable stats if I recall) a more vague emnity with scalykind humanoids and goblins. In third edition-ish, that was mostly faded out but there was an "in-setting" explanation of kobold-gnome hatred stemming from a gnomish God destroying a massive kobold lair when escaping from the kobold deity (Garl Glimmergold and Kurtalmak are vaguely their names, Forgotten Realms lore).
In Pathfinder, gnomish mechanical racism was revived with bonuses against reptilian humanoids (which kobolds are [Edit:typoed here, kobolds are reptilian in pf1]) and goblins. I don't believe kobold-gnome tensions are Golarion canon otherwise but I wouldn't be surprised if it came up in Gnomes or Kobolds of Golarion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xethik wrote:
Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:
JiCi wrote:
The only other reason is that kobolds are often seen as the gnomes' most dangerous archnemesis... but what does it do for goblins then?
I always thought kobolds were in conflict with dwarves, not gnomes.
In terms of mechanically relevant racism/favored foe/racial enmity, I believe dwarves are opposed to orcs, goblins, and giants traditionally.

I found where I got dwarves from - Classic Monsters Revisited, way back in the 3.5 days.

The mention gnomes too. I don’t really get that one. I understand kobolds and dwarves both being subterranean races competing for the same underground resources. Maybe deep gnomes too. But surface gnomes? I don’t know how often they would come across each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Wyvarans are really cool, loved them in 1e despite them being kind of awkward, would be cool to see them show up in 2e in some fashion.

Being Large sized and Flying makes them problematic for 2e, but I don't think it would be that difficult to bump them down a bit and give them the normal ancestry flying pipeline. They'd still be "big draconids" even if they were 7 feet tall, and flying never felt as necessary to their identity as, say, Strix, which we've already seen them manage.

They’re Medium in every 1e source I can find, both as a playable Race and as monsters.

I do hope LOIL has at least a fleeting mention of them.

for some reason I could have sworn their race builder version was large.

yeah that's perfect then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Didn't follow the whole discussion, but since goblins are core Paizo has needed another stand-in for "comedic psychotic small humanoids." I think that's it.

I rather like their cute reimagination, but I think they're "too cute" for my liking. They're supposed to be, well, killed. On more than one occasion while running the Beginner Box (or watching playthroughs on YouTube) I've seen people see the artwork and say "Aww, they're cute!"

I have the Crown of the Kobold King and I'm happy with the artwork - it looks like they're walking back on the "cute" angle a bit. From what I've read of it so far, these kobolds are evil and vicious in the story, and their artwork plays up their evilness. (Check out the new cover art)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub "The Rules Lawyer" wrote:

Didn't follow the whole discussion, but since goblins are core Paizo has needed another stand-in for "comedic psychotic small humanoids." I think that's it.

I rather like their cute reimagination, but I think they're "too cute" for my liking. They're supposed to be, well, killed. On more than one occasion while running the Beginner Box (or watching playthroughs on YouTube) I've seen people see the artwork and say "Aww, they're cute!"

I have the Crown of the Kobold King and I'm happy with the artwork - it looks like they're walking back on the "cute" angle a bit. From what I've read of it so far, these kobolds are evil and vicious in the story, and their artwork plays up their evilness. (Check out the new cover art)

Evil plushie.

Also the writer/narrator for Treasure Vault is a kobold, so we shall see how that affects the perspective.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's a direct corollary between being cute and ugly, and being good and evil. Didn't you know?

That's like Adventuring 101.

;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:
The mention gnomes too. I don’t really get that one. I understand kobolds and dwarves both being subterranean races competing for the same underground resources. Maybe deep gnomes too. But surface gnomes? I don’t know how often they would come across each other.

You know how in D&D the elf and orc deities are at odds? Apply this to Garl Glittergold and Kurtulmak, and you have the gnome/kobold rivalry I'm talked about. If the elf/orc or even the dwarf/giant rivalries made it to Pathfinder, pretty sure that the gnome/kobold one followed not far behind. Maybe that changed, I dunno... but here's the kicker: any kobold of any alignment threw their morality out of the window when they see a gnome, as if it triggered a bloodthirsty rage of some kind.

Yes, your gold or silver-scaled kobold LG champion/paladin would backstab its NG gnome companion out of ancestral hate.

Point is, kobolds already have a lot of lore that could have been nice to explore in Pathfindr 2E as a core race, especially related to dragons, which fans have been asking for years, instead of getting probably the most obnoxious and annoying race/creature D&D has ever spawned...

Radiant Oath

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'd argue kobolds (and goblins for that matter) have always been cute to some extent, specifically in the form of "ugly cute" or "busukawaii," combined with the "underdog cred" of being low-challenge, early-game opponents.

Paizo just leaned into that aesthetic further, first with the goblins in 1e and now the kobolds in 2e.

JiCi wrote:
Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:
The mention gnomes too. I don’t really get that one. I understand kobolds and dwarves both being subterranean races competing for the same underground resources. Maybe deep gnomes too. But surface gnomes? I don’t know how often they would come across each other.
You know how in D&D the elf and orc deities are at odds? Apply this to Garl Glittergold and Kurtulmak, and you have the gnome/kobold rivalry I'm talked about. If the elf/orc or even the dwarf/giant rivalries made it to Pathfinder, pretty sure that the gnome/kobold one followed not far behind. Maybe that changed, I dunno...

It's less that it changed and more that it was carried over from 3.5 D&D to Pathfinder without that cultural context attached, and as ancestries became more customizable with "alternate racial features" the Hatred trait steadily lost relevancy and in the shift to 2e has all but faded into obscurity. Unlike with some ancestries like orcs, where these changes explicitly occurred in the setting's lore, the assumed rivalry between gnomes and kobolds was essentially just ignored as there was no in-lore justification for it the way it was in D&D.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Yes, your gold or silver-scaled kobold LG champion/paladin would backstab its NG gnome companion out of ancestral hate.

No, they wouldn't if they wanted to stay Good.

I really shouldn't have to spell out "irrationally killing your ally out of pure racism" is Evil and yet here we are now.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

Point is, kobolds already have a lot of lore that could have been nice to explore in Pathfindr 2E as a core race, especially related to dragons, which fans have been asking for years, instead of getting probably the most obnoxious and annoying race/creature D&D has ever spawned...

You must have some solid data on the fact that dragonborn fans outnumbered goblin fans, care to share?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

The old edgy PF1E description expresses a fairly random ancestral cycle of disharmony and violence, not some sort of supernatural kill mode.

PF2E CRB wrote:
Nearly all dwarven peoples share a passion for stonework, metalwork, and gem-cutting. Most are highly skilled at architecture and mining, and many share a hatred of giants, orcs, and goblinoids.

I'm pretty sure if you pointlessly backstabbed an ally as a dwarf and then said "but my ancestry lore!" you'd just find yourself looking for a new game, and hopefully not finding one while that idea of yours persists.

The Rot Grub wrote:
They're supposed to be, well, killed.

Gross.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Yes, your gold or silver-scaled kobold LG champion/paladin would backstab its NG gnome companion out of ancestral hate.

"Ancestral hate" is a story theme from a different version of a different game. PF2 does not use that as a theme for their stories.

Complaining that a 2018 game is different than a game written 50 years ago is a pretty good example of your unfamiliarity with the game you're trying to critique.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Kobolds are cool.

I like kobolds.

Kobolds were not very mascot-like at the end of PF1, having little visual distinction from D&D and with the unique portions of their PF1 lore having not really caught on.

It seems clear to me, even speaking as someone who really likes kobolds more than goblins, that kobolds just didn't hold a candle to goblins in terms of "distinct to/associated with Paizo", "widely played", or "something Paizo would want in the core rulebook". (I honestly think ratfolk stood a better chance than kobolds were at the time, with their Starfinder core status.) And yeah, you can say they weren't played because their stats were bad, or that they had potentially interesting lore- but none of that stacks up against (probably) thousands of players having already enjoyed at least one We Be Goblins module.

Now, things might be different. Kobolds have a much more unique design than they used to, they have a playable free one-shot, and they're associated with the employee union. I think they're automatically PFS playable? So I expect kobolds to get more attention in the future. But so much of that is after PF2's release.

Sorry for the long message. I'm a big fan of kobolds too, but I got what I wanted: they're playable with balanced stats, they have options that don't focus on dragons while still having draconic options for people who want that, and I can even make a kobold-tiefling.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I dislike the idea that there is any class of thing that is prima facie supposed to be killed. Just having this as an option is going to cut off all potential stories about whatever horrible thing actually being reasonable or capable of redemption or at least being a temporary ally.

It feels like it's easy enough to signpost how human bandits, cultists, necromancers, etc. deserve death at the hand of the PCs that there's never any need to have a thing that needs murking just because what it is. If nothing else, this is going to cut off all stories where the PCs work together with the nasty thing. Like it's not like there's no potential in, for example, a story where the PCs have a Kyton as a patron that is looking to prevent some Abyssal incursion.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I came here to talk about my love of Kobolds and Goblins...I see sadly this has turned into a conversation about bashing one or the other. Or explaining why one deserves a spot more or the other.

People, they are both little creatures. Let them hold hands, let them be friends. Let them save the world and fight tyrants together. Anyone can be a little hero, be it the tiny dragon buddies that like to build traps and work together, or the Innovative and boastful goblins that build stuff out of junk and love fire and song. No one needs to be innately evil and you don't gotta hate on one to love the other. Yeah goblins were in the core rulebook, and Kobolds became one of the first Uncommon ancestries to become common for Pathfinder Society. They are both loved by the fanbase and have been given their due.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I have to be a little critical here and risk committing sacrilege. Having had the last year to mull it over, I've decided I'm not a huge fan of the new kobold designs.

I do love their new stats, and I think the designs are beautifully drawn and quite creative. For better or for worse, it is kind of the goblins all over again. When the new goblin content was released, it was a distinctive and eye-catching rework meant mainly to liven up a stale monster premise. It gave the ancestry a much clearer visual identity, but limited PC options in the process. Many goblin-loving players chose to simply ignore it altogether when they made their PCs.

The new kobold design revitalized a (debateably) tired monster design, and the new attention has likewise revitalized interest in the ancestry. Sort of. See, people have been begging Paizo to focus more on kobolds for years, so it's more like PF2 finally deigned to acknowledge that kobolds are one of the most popular "evil" ancestries ever designed, and the community is accordingly quite pleased. I think we would have reacted the exact same way if kobolds had gotten this attention while going back to the old 3.5 designs.

I personally think that serious ancestry designs should always focus on being versatile for different playstyles and character concepts. No ancestry should limit itself to any one tone--that's how you get short-lived gag PCs. It's a point of disappointment for me that hobgoblins, goblins and kobolds look so hyper-realistically gimmicky that certain character archetypes simply don't work with them without stumbling. A goblin romantic heroine is a lot more buyable when goblins are just short green-skinned people with pointy teeth and huge ears--less so when they're grotesque pickle-obsessed gremlins.

Of course, you can still play a sexy kobold femme fatale with the current shark-headed designs. Some will tell me I'm basic for feeling weird about it. That said, there's a lot more heavy lifting involved when it comes to the suspension of disbelief. Most people don't find the canon goblins attractive.

People can and will simply ignore setting content that doesn't fit their characters. I just don't think a good ancestry should put you in that position as heavily as the kobold and goblin art does.

tl;dr kobolds would be better if they were designed the way furries draw them send tweet


6 people marked this as a favorite.

KC, if you want the Kobolds to have hips, just say so...

I'm quite fond of this Aphorite Kobold who looks a little more dignified than usual; slap some clothes on them and they're not any stranger in War for the Crown than a halfling, IMO. Likewise, the Mbe'ke Kobold from the Mwangi book (presumably a member of a local Fellowship, Cloudspire's combinations of extended families and trade unions) feels more like a 'person.'

There's a lot of room for them to be more than just critters.

151 to 200 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Kobolds: The Goblins of 2e? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.