Kobolds: East vs West

[HeroicSpirit]

(Source: https://www.deviantart.com/omny87/art/Clashing-Kobolds-753205394)

There are two types of kobolds in media: the eastern canine kobolds and the western draconian kobolds.

The cause of this difference is, according to some sources, the game Wizardry, which was popular in Japan and had wolf-like creatures called kobolds in it.

Here is a few examples:

Meanwhile, Western Kobolds stock to the D&D mold, which are reptilian in nature and became the little dragon worshipping lizard men we know.

Some examples of that:

That’s why I ask a single question to this forum: which is better?

 

[Evil]

Rather a loaded question to ask.
You haven't provided any background on the kobolds, what are they, the differences between them.

If I didn't see the word kobold, I would have thought they were a Lizardman and a Lycan.

You want to engage people for a discussion, set the foundation for the discussion better.

 

[Malice]

Both are cute.

 

[HeroicSpirit]

Rather a loaded question to ask.
You haven't provided any background on the kobolds, what are they, the differences between them.

If I didn't see the word kobold, I would have thought they were a Lizardman and a Lycan.

You want to engage people for a discussion, set the foundation for the discussion better.

Added more context.

Also, there’s the thread title.

 

[Kesil]

Strictly speaking, kobolds are German sprites/goblins. This isn't a matter of "west" or "east", but the way early Dungeons & Dragons was translated to Japanese (late D&D runs with the scaly design) where "vaguely dog-like" became "dog people" and such influenced media like the Wizardry games.

Physically wise, I prefer Dungeons & Dragons "later kobolds", but if we're talking about smut, I am not attracted to any.

 

[Herod_Hammerstar]

Personally I envision the Kobold as a scaly goblin, not particularly reptilian. This was how the original 1st edition of D&D illustrated them. Although I generally stick with the 3E kobold out of convenience, assuming them to have evolved from Compsognathus dinosaurs.

 

[Evil]

Was there really any need to resurrect a topic that has been dead for over a year?

 

[Herod_Hammerstar]

Personally I envision the Kobold as a scaly goblin, not particularly reptilian. This was how the original 1st edition of D&D illustrated them. Although I generally stick with the 3E kobold out of convenience, assuming them to have evolved from Compsognathus dinosaurs.

If the topic is interesting, there's no reason it can't be discussed across several years.

 

[Paradox01]

If it were interesting, there would have been more than four replies a lot more recently than 15 months ago.

 

[Herod_Hammerstar]

If it were interesting, there would have been more than four replies a lot more recently than 15 months ago.

Interest is subjective. The community changes over time. I wasn't here 15 months ago; I wasn't here 1 month ago. There may be others here who share my interest and simply didn't notice the topic before, because they have less time than I do for trawling the back archives. This doesn't strike me as being a forum that is so large and so busy that it seriously needs to strictly police the content density in order to avoid burying active discussions. If I am ever actually causing significant disruptions, I will stop, but for now that is clearly not the case.

 

[Kesil]

Personally -even if only for search tool purposes- I think that having multiple threads of the same topic is not ideal, especially when it comes to threads that aren't all that subjected to resurrection shaming due to the topic they cover. I think this was known as "white noise" by forum mods/admins that's being contained in one place.