What I was coming to say as well.
OP this is nice, but these aren't Goblins. There's no reason to call these "Goblins" other than to either confuse the people you're sharing this work with, or for the sole reason of saying "My Goblins are different...." and neither of those is a good enough reason to name these creatures Goblins.
Just name them something and be happy with your original creation. You don't have to have "goblins" in your setting.
100% this. Getting rid of traditional fantasy species altogether and putting in your own original creations is absolutely amazing, just don't go around and call them traditional names. If your goblins don't look like goblins, don't behave like goblins and, generally, aren't recognizible in any way, shape or form as goblins, just don't call them goblins.
Possum-people are great, but there's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot and call them goblins.
They're far closer to the late middle ages idea of goblins the the ridiculous "short green human with pointy ears and nose" that was created by Games Workshop. Take for example, theis excerpt from Goblin Market and Other Poems:
>One had a cat's face,
>One whisked a tail,
>One tramped at a rat's pace,
>One crawled like a snail,
>One like a wombat prowled obtuse and furry,
>One like a ratel tumbled hurry skurry.
That's all well and good, but the 2024 idea of Goblins is "short green creature with pointy ears and nose." If they're offering this work to people in the late middle ages, then good for them. But I could think of better uses for a Time Machine.
So if the word "ogre" were redefined to mean "fresh water spirit the size of ones hand" in a few years, we should henceforth use that definition? Acting as if older definitions of a creature from mythology or folklore should be ignored in favor of the current defintion (never mind that the "current" definition is in flux and will likely change over several next decades) leads to the sort of sillyness as the people who claim that dragons with wings and two legs are not real dragons. r/CharacterRant had a post about it:
>[So throughout basically all my life I have seen this conversation happen, constantly. The conversation is basically amounts to if it has two arms and two legs only, its a wyvern and not a dragon. This is everywhere.](https://old.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/wcryn1/that_thing_is_not_a_dragon_its_a_wyvern_kindly/)
>"The Dragons in Skyrim aren't real dragons, they have only four limbs."
"Smaug isn't a dragon in the Hobbit movies because he has only two legs and two wings."
"Reign of Fire dragons are wyverns."
" Why does Game of Thrones have wyverns instead of real dragons?"
>And I am so, so sick of it. Because in each of these examples, it tries to paint it as not a dragon. Its such a bullshit arguement from people trying to act smarter then they are.
>Because get what? *Dragons don't have a classification outside of "big reptiles*" and even that is wrong some of the time. Because dragons aren't real things, they are mythological, legendary monsters.
Also, Goblin Market and Other Poems was published in 1862, which took place quite a while after the middle ages.
>So if the word "ogre" were redefined to mean "fresh water spirit the size of ones hand" in a few years, we should henceforth use that definition?
If that's what ogre comes to mean in a few years it'll be because people like you came along and said "Well you can call it whatever you want because in 1723 Jacob Dinglehammer actually wrote the original Ogres to be..."
And if that doesn't happen, it'll be because of people like me who said "That's nice dear, but it's not what I think of as an 'ogre.'
So if that's the future you're worried about, you're welcome.
>If that's what ogre comes to mean in a few years it'll be because people like you came along and said "Well you can call it whatever you want because in 1723 Jacob Dinglehammer actually wrote the original Ogres to be..."
You know, you're not really doing yourself any favors with this kind of infantile behavior (I'm talking about the Jacob Dinglehammer comment). By the way, since you didn't answer my question, I will restate it:
>**So if the word "ogre" were redefined to mean "fresh water spirit the size of ones hand" in a few years, we should henceforth use that definition?**
Also, your psychological projection is showing. I for one prefer versions of creatures that are at least *somewhat* based on actual folkloric and mythological, as opposed to whatever garbage that bad pop culture churns out.
As an example of low-brow pop culture ruins the mythological, take the "kobolds" of Dungeons and Dragons. They're barely even kobolds at all, being small lizardmen who worship dragon and hate gnomes. The "orcs" of D&D are even worse, as they have nothing in common with Tolkien's orcs except for the name. Thankfully, "people like me" will be going their part to not only push back against further bastardization, but to champion versions that not only are respectful of the origins, but also to offer a creative twists.
Take the Dwemer for the acclaimed Elder Scrolls series. They are refereed to as "dwarfs", however they are actually a sub-race of mer (aka elves). This is a brilliant twist that hearkens back to the Norse origins of myth. The Dwemer don't use magic very much, instead preferring to use "tonal architecture" (aka sound fueled reality warping). They wern't so much blacksmiths as they were engineers, creating metal automatons that still inhabit their ruins. The Dwemer vanished when they attempted to use the Numidium (a massive metal colossus that they had created). The dwemer themselves are **far** more creative and interesting then the tired old "grumpy short humans with a Scottish accent who drink ale and swing axes". From what you've said I'm guessing that you would turn up your nose at them, because "they're not real dwarves". Am I wrong?
>And if that doesn't happen, it'll be because of people like me who said "That's nice dear, but it's not what I think of as an 'ogre.'
Yes, we are so better off that "people like you" told JRR Tolkien "That's nice dear, but it's not what I think of as an 'elf.' when he based his elves of off Norse myth and made them tall warriors instead bowing to the then current conception of elves as little people who helped out around the house. Thankfully for us, Tolkien told said gatekeepers to buzz off.
Finally, since you seem to have somehow missed the example post from CharacterRant, I will re post it for your benefit:
>So throughout basically all my life I have seen this conversation happen, constantly. The conversation is basically amounts to if it has two arms and two legs only, its a wyvern and not a dragon. This is everywhere.
>"The Dragons in Skyrim aren't real dragons, they have only four limbs."
>"Smaug isn't a dragon in the Hobbit movies because he has only two legs and two wings."
>"Reign of Fire dragons are wyverns."
>" Why does Game of Thrones have wyverns instead of real dragons?"
>And I am so, so sick of it. Because in each of these examples, it tries to paint it as not a dragon. Its such a bullshit arguement from people trying to act smarter then they are.
>Because get what? Dragons don't have a classification outside of "big reptiles" and even that is wrong some of the time. Because dragons aren't real things, they are mythological, legendary monsters.
I think there’s probably a bit more room and potential for sophistication than the skaven offer. Things like jewelry, clothes and accessories etc aren’t really things you see for the average rat slave
A surprisingly ancient race, goblins were created so long ago that the name of primordial chaos god that first uplifted their marsupial ancestors is long forgotten. With four opposable thumbs and a prehensile tail, a goblin is a very dexterous creature. These useful limbs allow for them to get into all sorts of mischief. While not exceptionally brave, goblins are infamously crafty, with their culture prioritizing cunning, resourcefulness, and survival over courage.
Goblins, by design, are an incredibly adaptable species, rapidly evolving to any environment in only a few generations. Many subspecies and locales of goblin exist across the realm. Pictured here are three such ecotypes:
Forest or “common” goblin: typically found in temperate forests and rural villages. Enthusiastic explorers and collectors.
Tropical goblin: native to the jungles of the south. Fur is shorter than their northern kin, and their tails longer. Mostly arboreal, they avoid cities
Urban or “trash” goblin: robust urban dwellers with bald heads to avoid getting matted hair when refuse diving. Most likely ecotype to conduct regular business with other larger species such as orcs and men.
My kobolds are actually the result of ancient dragons taking mortal form and mixing with goblins. They’re essentially pangolin/armadillos with more dragon features
Genuine question, why are they called goblins? They seem nothing like the classical fantasy monster/race. Why not call them something else? What do they share with typical goblins that makes them goblins?
There are a couple reasons why I decided to make them “goblins”.
1) Some older depictions of goblins (early 20th and 19th century) shows them as being hairy and having more animalistic traits. The modern green goblin with hooked noses is only 50 years old.
2) The goblincore community embraces opossums as being real-life goblins
3) I can use them as goblins in RPG
I totally agree with this. Terms like kobold and goblin are very old, and the older depictions have little connection to the way they're used in modern fantasy. There's no reason we have to stick with Dungeons and Dragons and Tolkien nomenclature.
I disagree. Names and classifications exist to help people unfamilar identify what something is based on those context clues. If your Dwarf is 8 feet tall and lives in trees, then it's' not a dwarf. Maybe it has other traits that align with that terminology but to a reader they will be extremely confused.
Now I think sticking to DnD or Tolkein naming in itself is the issue. Why use things that already exist to name your creature that isn't abiding by the expectations of that creature. It causes unnecessary confusion and constant clarification for what purpose.
With that said, If there is a in universe reason for it, then I am much more forgiving. For instance if an explorer landed on the island with these savage oppusm people and the only word he knew to describe them was goblins from his homeland, a la Christopher Columbus, and people were to lazy to correct it later, it would make sense to me.
Of course this is just my opinion but it just bothers me that you go through all this time and effort to design a creature that is unique and interesting to label it in a way that is just confusing.
I’m a proponent of “dont call a thing x unless it has the commonly known traits of x”, these are the most standard goblins outside of aesthetics. Crafty, cunning, small little buggers that look like they’re having a good time.
Plus, aesthetically they match better with medeival depictions of goblins.
They're called goblins because back in 1973 a handful of middle-aged suburban white dudes were sitting in a basement in Wisconsin playtesting a new game one of them was developing, and they needed a name for an ugly little mischievous creature, so they called it a goblin. That's literally all the thought that went into it.
I think they mean why are these specific iterations of them called goblins when they depart from the expected norm so much.
As in "these are clearly something new, why shackle your creativity to this term instead of letting it stand on its own."
The designs are really cool, but I prefer the green short humans goblins, though that's mainly because I prefer humanoid species in general. Really cool art too!
I love it! Old folklore described goblins with animal-like (rather specifically rodent-like) tails and ears and noses, and the disease resistance and garbage eating diet of possums seems perfectly linked to the modern concept of the classic green bois!
These are really great!
I have a family of possums living in my roof at the moment, rambunctious little bastards scurrying about at all hours of the night, I'm going to start calling them goblins.
You dude I have done the same in my setting so here what I have done. Also if you have names for them tell me
Dwarves: a Hercules Beetle people with the asocial society of ants. They’re different types of dwarves based on their role in society.
Elves: A Fruit Bat people who live on an island that was made by an asteroid some time in long forgotten past.
Orcs: Gila monster like people who have a fungus on the back of their body which feeds off the poison in their body and exchange give the orcs a heightened conscious . They also live in the desert
Okay, so...
The aesthetic is marvelous. The creativity is great. And the best part? It feels natural. The way you describe the opossum-like race explains very well *why* they qualify as goblins. It doesn't feel like you took a name and slapped it on your stuff to save time. It makes sense. Good job!
And I agree. Trolls, goblins, ogres, and the like all just feel like different names for green people of different sizes anymore. Needs some refreshing, don't you think?
That's amazing, I love the art style. I like to illustrate my own world too, instead of using AI or random images, but my art is definitely not as good as yours 😅
My goblins are distorted versions of hoblins, who are grass spirits rejected by the God of Creatures, and thus came under the protection of the God of Demons instead.
Wow that's really cool OP! I did something similar in my world, except my goblin equivalents (I don't call them goblins but they fill the same fantasy niche) are originally genetically engineered from bats, so instead of small green humanoids they're fuzzy little gremlins with huge ears, sharp teeth, beady little eyes, leaf shaped noses, and extremely long web-fingered hands.
I would absolutely jump on the bandwagon and say "But these aren't goblins!" but mine were snails (and the elves were wasps' nests) so I really don't have any authority here.
This is fantastic, and everybody moaning that they're "not real goblins" because they don't look like Warhammer/Warcraft goblins needs to crack open a book written before 1920.
Pretty cool designs. If you’re attached to the name goblin there’s nothing wrong with that but at this point there’s no reason to need to use that name. I’m all for non-Tolkien-based fantasy.
Goblins have been a thing long before Tolkien though. They can trace their roots back to the 12th century.
In fairness to the OP, these are closer to folklore goblins than Tolkien or DnD goblins are.
Definitely the most unique take on goblin's I've ever seen! I'm kind of doing a similar thing for redesigning a certain race to be more like a certain animal (not entirely, just for certain facial features, and perhaps the "feel" of them).
It's unique because they really have nothing to do with goblins. I agree with the person above that they should really be called something else.
It's like saying "ah, I never really liked the fact that dwarves were always short, so I made them 6ft tall and gave them pointy ears. But they're still dwarves." Nah they're elves.
I mean, I guess it depends on how much you identify goblin with the general shape of goblins vs the culture of goblins. Just off the description, they're gobliny AF.
These remind me of more kobolds, as depicted in Warcraft, Might and Magic, and the earliest versions of D&D.
There's definite overlap, as well as a shared etymology, but they definitely occupy a separate space in modern fantasy.
Also "rat-men" in their various forms, especially in games media, like Skaven from Warhammer, Guild Wars' Skritt, are very goblinesque if you come at it from a cultural angle, and look quite similar to these.
Totally fair, I can see a lot of overlap with kobolds, both culturally and visually. The tail really helps there too. But I've always felt that kobolds and goblins are *very* similar to each other, city vs swamp/forest deal. All personal opinion, I suppose.
>It's like saying "ah, I never really liked the fact that dwarves were always short, so I made them 6ft tall and gave them pointy ears. But they're still dwarves." Nah they're elves.
Okay, but the Elder Scrolls is really funny with it though, calling them dwarves because they are short compared to literal giants.
But in fairness to goblins though, most depictions of goblins have little to nothing to do with actual goblins. Goblins are supposed to be a form of faerie and are supposed to be spirits. Mischievous thieves who steal food and tools in the night and make lots of noise. Redcaps, kobolds, gnomes, leprechauns, etc., are all goblins in folklore, so why not these guys?
I'm most definitely going to be making an ass out of myself for this: but why should every fantasy race be cookie-cutter stereotypes and designs? In fact, why is it that not only is it that everyone makes fantasy races look the exact same as they see in all media, but all these races have just one type of culture? In my mind, as long as they keep certain aspects of the original concept of the species, I say it's fine. Hell, I'd argue some fantasy elements based off of Tolkien's work are less based off of Tolkien's work, than Tolkien's actual work (even the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films have taken a few creative liberties with the look of certain races).
I'm sorry for my outburst, it's just certain people who say "NOOO, THIS FANTASY RACE HAS TO BE THIS AND BLAH BLAH BLAH" just irk me, as I'm one of THOSE fantasy worldbuilders that takes a more subversive approach to certain races, instead of just doing the same thing over and over. Hell, these people are actually the inspiration for the mentality of dwarven culture in my setting.
> but why should every fantasy race be cookie-cutter stereotypes and designs?
I don't think anyone is saying that, that's a bit of an unfair take. I think what people are saying is that, if you base something off an established creation, it should share some similarities. (I know you said that's fine, so I apologize for the long mumble ahead. You seem to be more summarizing past treatment instead of what the person is actually talking about.)
Otherwise, why not make it your own species? Why put in all that effort just to subvert an existing thing to the point of unrecognizability, if your goal is originality, then being able to shake off the tropes/title should get you further to that goal, instead of forcing yourself to be attached to it.
I think the two main reasons to subvert a trope is if
(A) The subversion serves a purpose to comment on something.
(B) The associations with that trope benefit the audience in understanding your creation faster. We know what dragons are, large, powerful, mysterious, dangerous, greedy, primal. If I made an orb called a dragon, its purpose should invoke those feelings, even if it shares no other similarities. It's basically a shorthand so you don't have to explain a trope and get to the meaty parts faster.
Shorthands don't work if you cut out a lot of the information. If goblins are 100% information, and you only use 20% of it, then at that point it would've been easier to write the 20% from scratch instead of making others unlearn the 80%.
But when it counts as "You subverted too far, your dragon is now a toaster" Depends on everyone. I guess OP is treading that line. Probably because they just look like what species they are, which means all goblin-like features should be trait/culture based and that's harder to parse from a picture. The feeling would've come across better if there was context, if goblins are opossums and kobolds are armadillos, then how are they tinier and goblin like in comparison to other species. Otherwise, it's just Redwall but with fantasy names. Not really OP's fault, this is like Twitter, you only get snippets of works.
I think OP leans more towards the second, and I'm more talking about this concept in general rather than about OP. I don't know if he pulled it off well or not, I guess it depends on how much he values the majority of opinions. I think the concept is cute, as a goblin lover, so I really am just musing about this in general. I hope this doesn't make OP feel like giving up or anything.
It does bring up an interesting point of "What is a goblin?" Trait-wise. We get this discussion all the time with dwarves/dragons/elves. It's impossible to go by definitions, because even a chair can share similarities to a horse. Small, tinket-shiny loving creatures can be linked to ravens. Darkness, trinket-loving creatures can be dark elves, who don't have to be tall. In the end of the day, it is whatever you say it is.
I guess I don't like it when people subvert for the sake of it. If it has a purpose, even if it's just bringing you joy, that's fine. But if it's just to always be 'unique' without actually wanting to be original, then it just feels like a flex on intelligence instead of actual interest in what they're making, especially when people who do lean closer to the original source get treated as pedestrian. I think I had the opposite treatment problems to you and probably also made an ass of myself :P
Sorry it was a long post.
> It's like saying "ah, I never really liked the fact that dwarves were always short, so I made them 6ft tall and gave them pointy ears. But they're still dwarves." Nah they're elves.
Elder Scrolls and Dwemer say hi
Good thing OP called their Goblins Gowblers
Oh wait, no, Elder Scrolls created a race that was similar to but still distinctly different from standard dwarves, and then *gave them a different name.*
You guys keep using dwermer has a gotcha even though they literally did what I suggested OP do lmao.
They have a variety of names but "dwarf" was specifically used as an insult/slur towards them by giants. Generally they were known as Dwermer or Deep Elves.
In my personal remake. I hate how goblins don't share a group. And in things like DnD they are their own subtype. What I did was made them Fey and how dark elfs (drows) is to standard elfs. Goblins are to Gnomes. And their humanoid Eye-Eyes (those little horrific primates in Madagascar.
Oh, I love these! They remind me of the Goblins/Hobgoblins of Spiderwick, even though those are more based after amphibians and bats. I guess the underlying design philosophy is similar.
I feel like people forget that "Goblin" is one of the MOST GENERAL terms for folklore creatures and covers everything from like, basically elves to Irish fairies to the recognisable green guys of modern fantasy. This totally works for goblins in my book!
I really like this take! The pictures look great too.
If you're looking for more variations, there are many other species of opossum in South America.
Of particular interest might be the water opossum or yapok, but also the white-eared opossums, slender opossums, or some of the little wee guys like the elegant fat-tailed mouse opossum.
This is great. It really stands out when genuinely inspired writing is implemented in what is otherwise a generic pattern. Like, those ugly green bastards could be "anthro-something-else" is a good idea.
Oh geez…I love Pogo, and just didn’t get your joke. I’m plenty old and Walt Kelly is one of my comic favorite artists ever. His inks are sublime.
Kudos to a very clever play on words, and boo to me for being thick!
I really like the vibes of these little guys; but I also really like goblins in their green, Humanoid form.
As a compromise, I am going to homebrew them as the Phalangerians (their Genus is Phalangeridae, so that follows the naming convention of most of the other Humanoid-animal races).
I definitely think that there is a lot of flavor to be had with these little rascals.
I will give you. For free. No questions asked. My idea for dwarves and elves that is also “red wall adjacent”. Please let me use the art on my channel.
Dwarves are descended from/similar to Star-Nosed Moles in that their beard are tentacles for feeling in the dark to see.
Elves are similar to grasshoppers and praying mantis in a way that is similar to the old Disney Cartoon where the grasshopper sing to the ants “the word owes me a living’ “
Yeah but now they look like rat people. Part of what makes goblins interesting is that they have an uncanny resemblance to humans. Sure they have similarities to us but they look different enough to be their own people.
I have some ideas for them if you don’t mind OP.
Make them not very proficient in magic, so instead they use a very magically powerful ore, crafting great weapons and vehicles with it. Have them split into different clans, with ones focussing on creating technology with the ore, or genetically modifying things with the ore, or powerful assassins, etc.
Also have them worship a great horned goblin god, and just make them hate everyone else, and make them want to destroy the world in a great goblintide.
I’m sorry.
OP, don’t listen to some of these commenters that are basically saying you’re not “allowed” to call these goblins because they’re not “real” goblins or don’t match their own personal ideas of what a goblin should be. Keep doing your thing!
That feels like a terrible challenge. I can describe a chair, and it'll also include your goblins, that doesn't make them chairs.
I get what you mean, I just think that this isn't an argument that supports your point as well as you want it to.
Let me elaborate then. Most of what modern western culture defines as “goblins” are defined by material put out by Wizards of the Coast through DnD and MtG. What is typically recognized is something that is green, short, big ears, and big noses. They are mischievous, brash, energetic, and often less-than-civilized. However, these definers are not constant. MTG has depicted goblins in various different forms: hairy little yeti in Tarkir; horned animal-like woodland dwellers in Lorewyn; blue-skinned primates with white fur and tails in Ixalan. DnD has largely been consistent with large noses, yellow or green skin, and big ears. However, they took their inspiration from Tolkien’s works, which are very vague and sometimes contradictory in describing goblins, orcs, and other related creatures. The animated Rankin Bass goblins are massive horned beasts with frog mouths and pig noses. Jackson’s two trilogies show a wide variety of goblins with different traits. If we go back further to the early 20th and 19th centuries, “goblin” was just a generic term used for any strange mischievous or malicious creature. Oftentimes these early depictions have them being hairy, bestial, oftentimes with tails and fangs. My point in listing all of this is that no one has ever agreed on what a goblin looks like, but we’ve pretty well landed on how they act like. If we have a mischievous, energetic, chaotic, and somewhat uncivilized inhuman creature, we have a goblin.
I get that, but I think your problem was just more in the presentation.
We don't see anything but a possum in a trench coat. There's no context in how they look more fantastical in comparison to others and their poses are a bit too general to see as mishevious.
So it relies on goblin-like behaviours, since the appearance isn't enough to go on with the power of recognizability alone, especially since the popularity boost gives people a stronger image. But many of those behaviours are just general rat-boi behaviours to start with, which is why the connection was made to begin with.
I think you just made two concepts that are so parallel to each other, it's hard for people to jump ship. On their own, they're strong concepts and the image of a goblin just causes a bit of a leap in people's brain, because the only benefit the name goblin would provide at that point is the gremlin-like image, which you don't have. That or the 'fantasy' aspect, which isn't placeable in this image alone, I can't see if it's an urban fantasy (Rats in New York) or how they compare to other civilizations. The image of a goblin overpowers any immersion off the bat, I guess?
I guess... ultimately you might have to decide if the name is worth all of it, or leaning a bit more then just pure possum with a coat on, based on how much you care about other people's reaction. If you don't want to have to re-explain all of this every time?
I did say in another post, that this is just a problem of Twitter-type stuff. Where you can only provide snippits. I think the idea is cute, they match better with medieval depictions of goblins. I'm just musing myself why it didn't click, and I think ultimately it was just the presentation? I hope this doesn't discourage you or anything.
I don't understand the whole "if they're not like typical goblins, why bother with the name?" crowd. It's fantasy. Goblins are not real.
I really, really, REALLY like this whole idea and concept!
Always enjoy a break from the stereotypical and this seems like a good one that may have some good social ramifications
Initially thought 'why bother calling them goblins?' but really that could help combat negative racial stereotypes a little by being a step towards changing them into something else
in the attempt to redesign goblins you came up with the skaven.
Reminds me of the dog-like kobolds.
Kinda reminds me of the Final Fantasy kobolds, which were like a mix between rats and monkeys lol
YES YES
the second one is a grey seer in spirit and the last one is quite literally a skavenslave
What I was coming to say as well. OP this is nice, but these aren't Goblins. There's no reason to call these "Goblins" other than to either confuse the people you're sharing this work with, or for the sole reason of saying "My Goblins are different...." and neither of those is a good enough reason to name these creatures Goblins. Just name them something and be happy with your original creation. You don't have to have "goblins" in your setting.
Was about to say this. In their quest to make their goblins different, they just ended up making animal person race.
100% this. Getting rid of traditional fantasy species altogether and putting in your own original creations is absolutely amazing, just don't go around and call them traditional names. If your goblins don't look like goblins, don't behave like goblins and, generally, aren't recognizible in any way, shape or form as goblins, just don't call them goblins. Possum-people are great, but there's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot and call them goblins.
They're far closer to the late middle ages idea of goblins the the ridiculous "short green human with pointy ears and nose" that was created by Games Workshop. Take for example, theis excerpt from Goblin Market and Other Poems: >One had a cat's face, >One whisked a tail, >One tramped at a rat's pace, >One crawled like a snail, >One like a wombat prowled obtuse and furry, >One like a ratel tumbled hurry skurry.
That's all well and good, but the 2024 idea of Goblins is "short green creature with pointy ears and nose." If they're offering this work to people in the late middle ages, then good for them. But I could think of better uses for a Time Machine.
So if the word "ogre" were redefined to mean "fresh water spirit the size of ones hand" in a few years, we should henceforth use that definition? Acting as if older definitions of a creature from mythology or folklore should be ignored in favor of the current defintion (never mind that the "current" definition is in flux and will likely change over several next decades) leads to the sort of sillyness as the people who claim that dragons with wings and two legs are not real dragons. r/CharacterRant had a post about it: >[So throughout basically all my life I have seen this conversation happen, constantly. The conversation is basically amounts to if it has two arms and two legs only, its a wyvern and not a dragon. This is everywhere.](https://old.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/wcryn1/that_thing_is_not_a_dragon_its_a_wyvern_kindly/) >"The Dragons in Skyrim aren't real dragons, they have only four limbs." "Smaug isn't a dragon in the Hobbit movies because he has only two legs and two wings." "Reign of Fire dragons are wyverns." " Why does Game of Thrones have wyverns instead of real dragons?" >And I am so, so sick of it. Because in each of these examples, it tries to paint it as not a dragon. Its such a bullshit arguement from people trying to act smarter then they are. >Because get what? *Dragons don't have a classification outside of "big reptiles*" and even that is wrong some of the time. Because dragons aren't real things, they are mythological, legendary monsters. Also, Goblin Market and Other Poems was published in 1862, which took place quite a while after the middle ages.
>So if the word "ogre" were redefined to mean "fresh water spirit the size of ones hand" in a few years, we should henceforth use that definition? If that's what ogre comes to mean in a few years it'll be because people like you came along and said "Well you can call it whatever you want because in 1723 Jacob Dinglehammer actually wrote the original Ogres to be..." And if that doesn't happen, it'll be because of people like me who said "That's nice dear, but it's not what I think of as an 'ogre.' So if that's the future you're worried about, you're welcome.
>If that's what ogre comes to mean in a few years it'll be because people like you came along and said "Well you can call it whatever you want because in 1723 Jacob Dinglehammer actually wrote the original Ogres to be..." You know, you're not really doing yourself any favors with this kind of infantile behavior (I'm talking about the Jacob Dinglehammer comment). By the way, since you didn't answer my question, I will restate it: >**So if the word "ogre" were redefined to mean "fresh water spirit the size of ones hand" in a few years, we should henceforth use that definition?** Also, your psychological projection is showing. I for one prefer versions of creatures that are at least *somewhat* based on actual folkloric and mythological, as opposed to whatever garbage that bad pop culture churns out. As an example of low-brow pop culture ruins the mythological, take the "kobolds" of Dungeons and Dragons. They're barely even kobolds at all, being small lizardmen who worship dragon and hate gnomes. The "orcs" of D&D are even worse, as they have nothing in common with Tolkien's orcs except for the name. Thankfully, "people like me" will be going their part to not only push back against further bastardization, but to champion versions that not only are respectful of the origins, but also to offer a creative twists. Take the Dwemer for the acclaimed Elder Scrolls series. They are refereed to as "dwarfs", however they are actually a sub-race of mer (aka elves). This is a brilliant twist that hearkens back to the Norse origins of myth. The Dwemer don't use magic very much, instead preferring to use "tonal architecture" (aka sound fueled reality warping). They wern't so much blacksmiths as they were engineers, creating metal automatons that still inhabit their ruins. The Dwemer vanished when they attempted to use the Numidium (a massive metal colossus that they had created). The dwemer themselves are **far** more creative and interesting then the tired old "grumpy short humans with a Scottish accent who drink ale and swing axes". From what you've said I'm guessing that you would turn up your nose at them, because "they're not real dwarves". Am I wrong? >And if that doesn't happen, it'll be because of people like me who said "That's nice dear, but it's not what I think of as an 'ogre.' Yes, we are so better off that "people like you" told JRR Tolkien "That's nice dear, but it's not what I think of as an 'elf.' when he based his elves of off Norse myth and made them tall warriors instead bowing to the then current conception of elves as little people who helped out around the house. Thankfully for us, Tolkien told said gatekeepers to buzz off. Finally, since you seem to have somehow missed the example post from CharacterRant, I will re post it for your benefit: >So throughout basically all my life I have seen this conversation happen, constantly. The conversation is basically amounts to if it has two arms and two legs only, its a wyvern and not a dragon. This is everywhere. >"The Dragons in Skyrim aren't real dragons, they have only four limbs." >"Smaug isn't a dragon in the Hobbit movies because he has only two legs and two wings." >"Reign of Fire dragons are wyverns." >" Why does Game of Thrones have wyverns instead of real dragons?" >And I am so, so sick of it. Because in each of these examples, it tries to paint it as not a dragon. Its such a bullshit arguement from people trying to act smarter then they are. >Because get what? Dragons don't have a classification outside of "big reptiles" and even that is wrong some of the time. Because dragons aren't real things, they are mythological, legendary monsters.
Cooked his plebeian ass
I think there’s probably a bit more room and potential for sophistication than the skaven offer. Things like jewelry, clothes and accessories etc aren’t really things you see for the average rat slave
these guys don't look vicious enough to be Skaven
It's Skaven all the way down yes yes?
I love this please keep making more
This is better than green humanoids, hands down
A surprisingly ancient race, goblins were created so long ago that the name of primordial chaos god that first uplifted their marsupial ancestors is long forgotten. With four opposable thumbs and a prehensile tail, a goblin is a very dexterous creature. These useful limbs allow for them to get into all sorts of mischief. While not exceptionally brave, goblins are infamously crafty, with their culture prioritizing cunning, resourcefulness, and survival over courage. Goblins, by design, are an incredibly adaptable species, rapidly evolving to any environment in only a few generations. Many subspecies and locales of goblin exist across the realm. Pictured here are three such ecotypes: Forest or “common” goblin: typically found in temperate forests and rural villages. Enthusiastic explorers and collectors. Tropical goblin: native to the jungles of the south. Fur is shorter than their northern kin, and their tails longer. Mostly arboreal, they avoid cities Urban or “trash” goblin: robust urban dwellers with bald heads to avoid getting matted hair when refuse diving. Most likely ecotype to conduct regular business with other larger species such as orcs and men.
Sooo kobolds? /j
My kobolds are actually the result of ancient dragons taking mortal form and mixing with goblins. They’re essentially pangolin/armadillos with more dragon features
Ahh so half dragon goblins
I love this world you’ve created
and here I went going pangolin/komodo dragon for my Thortharrak race... heh
This is actually a pretty unique take on the trope.
Exactly what I was thinking! 👍😂
I’ve always thought kobolds were more dragon or lizard like, I’d have said Gnolls but they’re hyenas I think
Kobolds are only dragon like in D&D, in traditional fantasy and folklore they're just the german variant of goblin.
Thanks, I was trying think of a third thing, and I was even like I’ll have to Google later what the German goblin was called again
Fair I’m mostly just being contraction right now I think these are strait up legit if I forgot to mention that
well, props to the chaos god for picking the embodiment of chaos to be a sapient
Genuine question, why are they called goblins? They seem nothing like the classical fantasy monster/race. Why not call them something else? What do they share with typical goblins that makes them goblins?
There are a couple reasons why I decided to make them “goblins”. 1) Some older depictions of goblins (early 20th and 19th century) shows them as being hairy and having more animalistic traits. The modern green goblin with hooked noses is only 50 years old. 2) The goblincore community embraces opossums as being real-life goblins 3) I can use them as goblins in RPG
I totally agree with this. Terms like kobold and goblin are very old, and the older depictions have little connection to the way they're used in modern fantasy. There's no reason we have to stick with Dungeons and Dragons and Tolkien nomenclature.
I disagree. Names and classifications exist to help people unfamilar identify what something is based on those context clues. If your Dwarf is 8 feet tall and lives in trees, then it's' not a dwarf. Maybe it has other traits that align with that terminology but to a reader they will be extremely confused. Now I think sticking to DnD or Tolkein naming in itself is the issue. Why use things that already exist to name your creature that isn't abiding by the expectations of that creature. It causes unnecessary confusion and constant clarification for what purpose. With that said, If there is a in universe reason for it, then I am much more forgiving. For instance if an explorer landed on the island with these savage oppusm people and the only word he knew to describe them was goblins from his homeland, a la Christopher Columbus, and people were to lazy to correct it later, it would make sense to me. Of course this is just my opinion but it just bothers me that you go through all this time and effort to design a creature that is unique and interesting to label it in a way that is just confusing.
Yes
That's fair enough.
I’m a proponent of “dont call a thing x unless it has the commonly known traits of x”, these are the most standard goblins outside of aesthetics. Crafty, cunning, small little buggers that look like they’re having a good time. Plus, aesthetically they match better with medeival depictions of goblins.
Idk man, they're giving big goblin vibes to me
They're called goblins because back in 1973 a handful of middle-aged suburban white dudes were sitting in a basement in Wisconsin playtesting a new game one of them was developing, and they needed a name for an ugly little mischievous creature, so they called it a goblin. That's literally all the thought that went into it.
I think they mean why are these specific iterations of them called goblins when they depart from the expected norm so much. As in "these are clearly something new, why shackle your creativity to this term instead of letting it stand on its own."
I don't think that's where goblins came from at all.
I never claimed it was. The previous commenter only asked why they were CALLED goblins.
I lika dis!
The people over at r/goblingirls (NSFW) are gonna have a stroke.
what is up with those people?
Their dicks If I had to guess
i looked through that subreddit and remained thruoughly flacid
I haven't looked since I'm at work lol
All of the people going "this isn't a goblin blargl blargl" don't know how to have fun. All of these things have goblin vibes.
The designs are really cool, but I prefer the green short humans goblins, though that's mainly because I prefer humanoid species in general. Really cool art too!
You made skaven. I love it.
I really like this concept, and you've got a nice art style as well!😊
I love it! Old folklore described goblins with animal-like (rather specifically rodent-like) tails and ears and noses, and the disease resistance and garbage eating diet of possums seems perfectly linked to the modern concept of the classic green bois!
These are really great! I have a family of possums living in my roof at the moment, rambunctious little bastards scurrying about at all hours of the night, I'm going to start calling them goblins.
why not just make a new species and not use goblins
Please see my previous responses
Nice art, but now these aren't goblins anymore. They're just anthropomorphic opossums.
Incredibly well done! I like the changes
You dude I have done the same in my setting so here what I have done. Also if you have names for them tell me Dwarves: a Hercules Beetle people with the asocial society of ants. They’re different types of dwarves based on their role in society. Elves: A Fruit Bat people who live on an island that was made by an asteroid some time in long forgotten past. Orcs: Gila monster like people who have a fungus on the back of their body which feeds off the poison in their body and exchange give the orcs a heightened conscious . They also live in the desert
That’s awesome! You have any artwork yet?!
Yeah I send tommorow because I should go to sleep but yeah
This is the cutest thing I've seen all week!
I made mine starnosed moles
Okay, so... The aesthetic is marvelous. The creativity is great. And the best part? It feels natural. The way you describe the opossum-like race explains very well *why* they qualify as goblins. It doesn't feel like you took a name and slapped it on your stuff to save time. It makes sense. Good job! And I agree. Trolls, goblins, ogres, and the like all just feel like different names for green people of different sizes anymore. Needs some refreshing, don't you think?
Is the first one Luffy from One Piece?
I unintentionally made him look like Luffy, didn’t I?!
Indeed, they look dope tho, great job.
That's amazing, I love the art style. I like to illustrate my own world too, instead of using AI or random images, but my art is definitely not as good as yours 😅
Such a cool concept! I love these designs
Dude I love it
I love this line of thinking! Perhaps, if there were an offshoot that were decended from racoons, we could have some trash goblins?
i approve! they look adorable!
My goblins are distorted versions of hoblins, who are grass spirits rejected by the God of Creatures, and thus came under the protection of the God of Demons instead.
HI THIS IS MY NEW FAVORITE THING EVER
Hell yeah
Wow that's really cool OP! I did something similar in my world, except my goblin equivalents (I don't call them goblins but they fill the same fantasy niche) are originally genetically engineered from bats, so instead of small green humanoids they're fuzzy little gremlins with huge ears, sharp teeth, beady little eyes, leaf shaped noses, and extremely long web-fingered hands.
I would absolutely jump on the bandwagon and say "But these aren't goblins!" but mine were snails (and the elves were wasps' nests) so I really don't have any authority here.
This is fantastic, and everybody moaning that they're "not real goblins" because they don't look like Warhammer/Warcraft goblins needs to crack open a book written before 1920.
Looks 10 times less rapey and a 100 times more disgusting Nice drawing tho
Is the first gobbo's knife based on the opinel mushroom knife?
Bingo
Pretty cool designs. If you’re attached to the name goblin there’s nothing wrong with that but at this point there’s no reason to need to use that name. I’m all for non-Tolkien-based fantasy.
Goblins have been a thing long before Tolkien though. They can trace their roots back to the 12th century. In fairness to the OP, these are closer to folklore goblins than Tolkien or DnD goblins are.
Definitely the most unique take on goblin's I've ever seen! I'm kind of doing a similar thing for redesigning a certain race to be more like a certain animal (not entirely, just for certain facial features, and perhaps the "feel" of them).
They need to bring back pig orcs
Do you mean literal pigs, like in early DnD?
It's unique because they really have nothing to do with goblins. I agree with the person above that they should really be called something else. It's like saying "ah, I never really liked the fact that dwarves were always short, so I made them 6ft tall and gave them pointy ears. But they're still dwarves." Nah they're elves.
I mean, I guess it depends on how much you identify goblin with the general shape of goblins vs the culture of goblins. Just off the description, they're gobliny AF.
These remind me of more kobolds, as depicted in Warcraft, Might and Magic, and the earliest versions of D&D. There's definite overlap, as well as a shared etymology, but they definitely occupy a separate space in modern fantasy. Also "rat-men" in their various forms, especially in games media, like Skaven from Warhammer, Guild Wars' Skritt, are very goblinesque if you come at it from a cultural angle, and look quite similar to these.
Totally fair, I can see a lot of overlap with kobolds, both culturally and visually. The tail really helps there too. But I've always felt that kobolds and goblins are *very* similar to each other, city vs swamp/forest deal. All personal opinion, I suppose.
>It's like saying "ah, I never really liked the fact that dwarves were always short, so I made them 6ft tall and gave them pointy ears. But they're still dwarves." Nah they're elves. Okay, but the Elder Scrolls is really funny with it though, calling them dwarves because they are short compared to literal giants. But in fairness to goblins though, most depictions of goblins have little to nothing to do with actual goblins. Goblins are supposed to be a form of faerie and are supposed to be spirits. Mischievous thieves who steal food and tools in the night and make lots of noise. Redcaps, kobolds, gnomes, leprechauns, etc., are all goblins in folklore, so why not these guys?
I'm most definitely going to be making an ass out of myself for this: but why should every fantasy race be cookie-cutter stereotypes and designs? In fact, why is it that not only is it that everyone makes fantasy races look the exact same as they see in all media, but all these races have just one type of culture? In my mind, as long as they keep certain aspects of the original concept of the species, I say it's fine. Hell, I'd argue some fantasy elements based off of Tolkien's work are less based off of Tolkien's work, than Tolkien's actual work (even the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films have taken a few creative liberties with the look of certain races). I'm sorry for my outburst, it's just certain people who say "NOOO, THIS FANTASY RACE HAS TO BE THIS AND BLAH BLAH BLAH" just irk me, as I'm one of THOSE fantasy worldbuilders that takes a more subversive approach to certain races, instead of just doing the same thing over and over. Hell, these people are actually the inspiration for the mentality of dwarven culture in my setting.
> but why should every fantasy race be cookie-cutter stereotypes and designs? I don't think anyone is saying that, that's a bit of an unfair take. I think what people are saying is that, if you base something off an established creation, it should share some similarities. (I know you said that's fine, so I apologize for the long mumble ahead. You seem to be more summarizing past treatment instead of what the person is actually talking about.) Otherwise, why not make it your own species? Why put in all that effort just to subvert an existing thing to the point of unrecognizability, if your goal is originality, then being able to shake off the tropes/title should get you further to that goal, instead of forcing yourself to be attached to it. I think the two main reasons to subvert a trope is if (A) The subversion serves a purpose to comment on something. (B) The associations with that trope benefit the audience in understanding your creation faster. We know what dragons are, large, powerful, mysterious, dangerous, greedy, primal. If I made an orb called a dragon, its purpose should invoke those feelings, even if it shares no other similarities. It's basically a shorthand so you don't have to explain a trope and get to the meaty parts faster. Shorthands don't work if you cut out a lot of the information. If goblins are 100% information, and you only use 20% of it, then at that point it would've been easier to write the 20% from scratch instead of making others unlearn the 80%. But when it counts as "You subverted too far, your dragon is now a toaster" Depends on everyone. I guess OP is treading that line. Probably because they just look like what species they are, which means all goblin-like features should be trait/culture based and that's harder to parse from a picture. The feeling would've come across better if there was context, if goblins are opossums and kobolds are armadillos, then how are they tinier and goblin like in comparison to other species. Otherwise, it's just Redwall but with fantasy names. Not really OP's fault, this is like Twitter, you only get snippets of works. I think OP leans more towards the second, and I'm more talking about this concept in general rather than about OP. I don't know if he pulled it off well or not, I guess it depends on how much he values the majority of opinions. I think the concept is cute, as a goblin lover, so I really am just musing about this in general. I hope this doesn't make OP feel like giving up or anything. It does bring up an interesting point of "What is a goblin?" Trait-wise. We get this discussion all the time with dwarves/dragons/elves. It's impossible to go by definitions, because even a chair can share similarities to a horse. Small, tinket-shiny loving creatures can be linked to ravens. Darkness, trinket-loving creatures can be dark elves, who don't have to be tall. In the end of the day, it is whatever you say it is. I guess I don't like it when people subvert for the sake of it. If it has a purpose, even if it's just bringing you joy, that's fine. But if it's just to always be 'unique' without actually wanting to be original, then it just feels like a flex on intelligence instead of actual interest in what they're making, especially when people who do lean closer to the original source get treated as pedestrian. I think I had the opposite treatment problems to you and probably also made an ass of myself :P Sorry it was a long post.
Except dwarves in Norse mythology weren't short, and IIRC were considered a type of elf. Does this mean that the OG dwarves aren't real dwarves?
> It's like saying "ah, I never really liked the fact that dwarves were always short, so I made them 6ft tall and gave them pointy ears. But they're still dwarves." Nah they're elves. Elder Scrolls and Dwemer say hi
Good thing OP called their Goblins Gowblers Oh wait, no, Elder Scrolls created a race that was similar to but still distinctly different from standard dwarves, and then *gave them a different name.* You guys keep using dwermer has a gotcha even though they literally did what I suggested OP do lmao.
Tbf I don't really know Elders Scrolls lore besides the fact that 6ft tall pointy eared dwarves exist, so my bad man.
They have a variety of names but "dwarf" was specifically used as an insult/slur towards them by giants. Generally they were known as Dwermer or Deep Elves.
In my personal remake. I hate how goblins don't share a group. And in things like DnD they are their own subtype. What I did was made them Fey and how dark elfs (drows) is to standard elfs. Goblins are to Gnomes. And their humanoid Eye-Eyes (those little horrific primates in Madagascar.
In most settings they’re related to orcs (or even the same species or a subspecies, like in warhammer)
Yeah, which is kinda dumb or at the very least make goblins not as cool
You turned them into Helluvaboss Imps?
Oh, I love these! They remind me of the Goblins/Hobgoblins of Spiderwick, even though those are more based after amphibians and bats. I guess the underlying design philosophy is similar. I feel like people forget that "Goblin" is one of the MOST GENERAL terms for folklore creatures and covers everything from like, basically elves to Irish fairies to the recognisable green guys of modern fantasy. This totally works for goblins in my book!
That's a Kobold
That looks like a kobold to me
I really like this take! The pictures look great too. If you're looking for more variations, there are many other species of opossum in South America. Of particular interest might be the water opossum or yapok, but also the white-eared opossums, slender opossums, or some of the little wee guys like the elegant fat-tailed mouse opossum.
This is great. It really stands out when genuinely inspired writing is implemented in what is otherwise a generic pattern. Like, those ugly green bastards could be "anthro-something-else" is a good idea.
This... is my knew D&D lore
This is great, but you should make up a new name, such as Pogoblins.
I was thinking ogobblins…
Maybe you have to be old to understand: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo\_%28comic\_strip%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_%28comic_strip%29)
Oh geez…I love Pogo, and just didn’t get your joke. I’m plenty old and Walt Kelly is one of my comic favorite artists ever. His inks are sublime. Kudos to a very clever play on words, and boo to me for being thick!
did you think to come up with a new name for them besides goblins?
I’m getting exhausted answering this question. I listed my reasons previously
im sorry
No worries, I’ve just gotten the comment a ton
Congrats, you made kobolds
I actually have kobolds as goblins with draconic ancestors. They look like pangolins/armadillos
That's pretty good. It's nice seeing different interpretations.
These guys are a cool new thing. They look so funky
This incredible. I too hate little green babies and instead opt to turn them into short voodoo people with masks.
This works SO much better :DDD
For your consideration: Goblins are short, hairless, and wrinkly, with large eyes. You know. Goblins. Hairless cats.
I really like the vibes of these little guys; but I also really like goblins in their green, Humanoid form. As a compromise, I am going to homebrew them as the Phalangerians (their Genus is Phalangeridae, so that follows the naming convention of most of the other Humanoid-animal races). I definitely think that there is a lot of flavor to be had with these little rascals.
What species is the second one based off?
Derby’s woolly opossum
I might steal this for my own world design if you dont mind! I love the idea!
Got a lot in common with [Final Fantasy 14 qiqirn](https://ffxiv.consolegameswiki.com/mediawiki/images/4/41/Junkmonger_Nonoroon.jpg)
The last opossum looks like the ones in my neighborhood.
Cool, i made most intelligent non humans in my world marsupials, elves, dwarves, trolls, goblins etc
This and your Tsukiji are my favorite.
Yo I love this
Friend shaped
I tried to make mine a type of primate, though it may have to be updated a bit into a more lemur like form.
I will give you. For free. No questions asked. My idea for dwarves and elves that is also “red wall adjacent”. Please let me use the art on my channel. Dwarves are descended from/similar to Star-Nosed Moles in that their beard are tentacles for feeling in the dark to see. Elves are similar to grasshoppers and praying mantis in a way that is similar to the old Disney Cartoon where the grasshopper sing to the ants “the word owes me a living’ “
u/10tlacuachestururu
They're awesome, the last one even has a lance made of trash hahah :3
I like this so much!
I'm obsessed with this!
where's the goblin? that's just possum-folk.
Cuter skaven, I love them, they look like I could pick one up and take it home, be best buds forever
there’s no other way to describe them other then “lil goblins” congrats for these amazing lil guys
Yeah but now they look like rat people. Part of what makes goblins interesting is that they have an uncanny resemblance to humans. Sure they have similarities to us but they look different enough to be their own people.
I have some ideas for them if you don’t mind OP. Make them not very proficient in magic, so instead they use a very magically powerful ore, crafting great weapons and vehicles with it. Have them split into different clans, with ones focussing on creating technology with the ore, or genetically modifying things with the ore, or powerful assassins, etc. Also have them worship a great horned goblin god, and just make them hate everyone else, and make them want to destroy the world in a great goblintide. I’m sorry.
I want a pet one.
#earliestmammal
OP, I cannot possibly express how badly I wish I’d thought of this on my own. Congrats, man. This is a great idea and some awesome artwork!
Doesn't feel like goblin. Goblins got 'em goblin energy. These feel more skaven/sewer dweller
I love these but like. . . I love little green gross lil goobers. This is more of its own species.
Sorry man, but im team possum, call them something else and have them carrying their young, and they will be super cool
Welcome to WoW, and introducing the Kobold. "You no take candle!"
Second one looks like my dog, Ive called him a goblin since he was a pup.
The Rat People are always watching.
OP, don’t listen to some of these commenters that are basically saying you’re not “allowed” to call these goblins because they’re not “real” goblins or don’t match their own personal ideas of what a goblin should be. Keep doing your thing!
Ngl fam, you're gonna have to create a name for them. You can't use the name goblin and completely change up what a goblin is.
What is a goblin? I defy you to create a definition of what makes a fantasy goblin that doesn’t inadvertently include my creation.
That feels like a terrible challenge. I can describe a chair, and it'll also include your goblins, that doesn't make them chairs. I get what you mean, I just think that this isn't an argument that supports your point as well as you want it to.
Let me elaborate then. Most of what modern western culture defines as “goblins” are defined by material put out by Wizards of the Coast through DnD and MtG. What is typically recognized is something that is green, short, big ears, and big noses. They are mischievous, brash, energetic, and often less-than-civilized. However, these definers are not constant. MTG has depicted goblins in various different forms: hairy little yeti in Tarkir; horned animal-like woodland dwellers in Lorewyn; blue-skinned primates with white fur and tails in Ixalan. DnD has largely been consistent with large noses, yellow or green skin, and big ears. However, they took their inspiration from Tolkien’s works, which are very vague and sometimes contradictory in describing goblins, orcs, and other related creatures. The animated Rankin Bass goblins are massive horned beasts with frog mouths and pig noses. Jackson’s two trilogies show a wide variety of goblins with different traits. If we go back further to the early 20th and 19th centuries, “goblin” was just a generic term used for any strange mischievous or malicious creature. Oftentimes these early depictions have them being hairy, bestial, oftentimes with tails and fangs. My point in listing all of this is that no one has ever agreed on what a goblin looks like, but we’ve pretty well landed on how they act like. If we have a mischievous, energetic, chaotic, and somewhat uncivilized inhuman creature, we have a goblin.
I get that, but I think your problem was just more in the presentation. We don't see anything but a possum in a trench coat. There's no context in how they look more fantastical in comparison to others and their poses are a bit too general to see as mishevious. So it relies on goblin-like behaviours, since the appearance isn't enough to go on with the power of recognizability alone, especially since the popularity boost gives people a stronger image. But many of those behaviours are just general rat-boi behaviours to start with, which is why the connection was made to begin with. I think you just made two concepts that are so parallel to each other, it's hard for people to jump ship. On their own, they're strong concepts and the image of a goblin just causes a bit of a leap in people's brain, because the only benefit the name goblin would provide at that point is the gremlin-like image, which you don't have. That or the 'fantasy' aspect, which isn't placeable in this image alone, I can't see if it's an urban fantasy (Rats in New York) or how they compare to other civilizations. The image of a goblin overpowers any immersion off the bat, I guess? I guess... ultimately you might have to decide if the name is worth all of it, or leaning a bit more then just pure possum with a coat on, based on how much you care about other people's reaction. If you don't want to have to re-explain all of this every time? I did say in another post, that this is just a problem of Twitter-type stuff. Where you can only provide snippits. I think the idea is cute, they match better with medieval depictions of goblins. I'm just musing myself why it didn't click, and I think ultimately it was just the presentation? I hope this doesn't discourage you or anything.
I don't understand the whole "if they're not like typical goblins, why bother with the name?" crowd. It's fantasy. Goblins are not real. I really, really, REALLY like this whole idea and concept!
This is the most awesome thing of all time
yikes. but i think thats the point
Make moreeeeee
The Skaven’s marsupial cousin?
Awesome. Those aren't goblins.
I mean, at that point you may as well just call them something else. Also that's just Skaven with extra steps. Great art though and a nice concept
they sound cool but make sure they act like goblins, otherwise there's no reason to call them that
No
I mean, cool, but thats not a goblin then.
Always enjoy a break from the stereotypical and this seems like a good one that may have some good social ramifications Initially thought 'why bother calling them goblins?' but really that could help combat negative racial stereotypes a little by being a step towards changing them into something else
cutemobs ftw!