The tag implication #44165 kobold -> scalie has been rejected.

Reason: Regardless of what franchise they belong to (if any), “kobold” as used by the furry fandom is the term for a type of reptilian biped that resembles a dragon, so the scalie tag, at least, is appropriate. And yes, that includes the furred variety, as long as they still have reptilian features.

I split this implication request off from the kobold -> dungeons_and_dragons request so they can be discussed separately.

EDIT: The tag implication kobold -> scalie (forum #333092) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

furrin_gok said:
post #3245085
Kobolds can be furred_kobolds. Furred Kobold implies Kobold. Kobolds cannot imply Scalie.

Still stands. I don't know what's going on with the Furred Snake stuff, but a furry character is not a scalie character (normally).

furrin_gok said:
Still stands. I don't know what's going on with the Furred Snake stuff, but a furry character is not a scalie character (normally).

Still wrong. feathered_dinosaur also exists, especially since the discovery that some dinosaurs were probably covered in feathers like birds are. So unless you want to argue that the dinosaur -> reptile implication should be removed, then scalies can have things other than scales. It’s not about the scales so much as it is about them being reptilian. Which kobolds are.

post #2906297

Even if you were right, though, the solution would be to remove the furred_kobold -> kobold implication since kobolds are canonically scalie, and the furred variety is just a fanmade invention. Kinda like furred_snake, actually.

scaliespe said:
Even if you were right, though, the solution would be to remove the furred_kobold -> kobold implication since kobolds are canonically scalie, and the furred variety is just a fanmade invention. Kinda like furred_snake, actually.

Really it depends on what canon you're going by. It could be argued that reptilian kobolds are a fanmade invention, since Kobolds from folklore were child-like sprites. Even in D&D, only 3rd edition and beyond has the reptilian kobolds. Prior to that, they were more like goblins. Kobolds in Warcraft are rat-like, they are dog people in a lot of Japanese media, and in Lagotrope's Fen Quest they have a wide variety of appearances (including reptilian and canine varieties).

Sure, there is a general consensus among modern artists of reptilian kobolds, but that doesn't necessarily make it canon to all kobolds.

riverinadryland said:
Really it depends on what canon you're going by. It could be argued that reptilian kobolds are a fanmade invention, since Kobolds from folklore were child-like sprites. Even in D&D, only 3rd edition and beyond has the reptilian kobolds. Prior to that, they were more like goblins. Kobolds in Warcraft are rat-like, they are dog people in a lot of Japanese media, and in Lagotrope's Fen Quest they have a wide variety of appearances (including reptilian and canine varieties).

Sure, there is a general consensus among modern artists of reptilian kobolds, but that doesn't necessarily make it canon to all kobolds.

Didn't Lagotrope also have a few rabbit ones too, or were those just long-eared dogbolds?

The kobolds in Suikoden are doglike and definitely not scalie.

furrin_gok said:
Didn't Lagotrope also have a few rabbit ones too, or were those just long-eared dogbolds?

I don't recall any kobolds with rabbit-like ears in Fen Quest. You might be thinking of the Neumono race from AsteroidQuest, another one of Lagotrope's works.

strikerman said:
The kobolds in Suikoden are doglike and definitely not scalie.

That’s Japanese kobold. There’s a separate tag for it already. It does not imply kobold. They are not the same creature. They do not use the same tag.

riverinadryland said:
Really it depends on what canon you're going by. It could be argued that reptilian kobolds are a fanmade invention, since Kobolds from folklore were child-like sprites. Even in D&D, only 3rd edition and beyond has the reptilian kobolds. Prior to that, they were more like goblins. Kobolds in Warcraft are rat-like, they are dog people in a lot of Japanese media, and in Lagotrope's Fen Quest they have a wide variety of appearances (including reptilian and canine varieties).

Sure, there is a general consensus among modern artists of reptilian kobolds, but that doesn't necessarily make it canon to all kobolds.

I’m not talking about “all kobolds,” though. I’m talking specifically about the post-2e DnD kobolds. If you actually look at the results for kobold, you’ll see that the tag is used pretty unanimously for that kind of kobold.

• the dog people from Japanese media is Japanese kobold. There’s a separate tag for it already. It does not imply kobold. They are not the same creature. They do not use the same tag.
• the rodent people from Warcraft are kobold_(Warcraft). There’s a separate tag for it already. It does not imply kobold. They are not the same creature. They do not use the same tag.
• the mythological kobold seems to just be the Germanic form of the goblin seen in other myths. There does not appear to be a tag in existence for them currently, but as they are essentially just goblins, it’s probably best to just tag them as goblin rather than having another separate tag for them. TWYS and all that. I don’t really think anyone here is going to confuse such a creature for the scalie kind, however. They’re quite obviously different things.

Any more questions?

If you want this badly to push an implication, then suggest more tags similar to Japanese Kobold. Something like Lizard_ or Dragon_ kobold. The umbrella tag does not fit.

scaliespe said:
I’m not talking about “all kobolds,” though. I’m talking specifically about the post-2e DnD kobolds. If you actually look at the results for kobold, you’ll see that the tag is used pretty unanimously for that kind of kobold.

Predominately yes, but unanimously no. As Furrin suggested, I think it's best to keep kobold as an umbrella tag for all varieties of kobolds (since they are all still kobolds of a sort) and create something like a scalie_kobold or kobold_(D&D) tag or similar for that particular variety.

riverinadryland said:
Predominately yes, but unanimously no. As Furrin suggested, I think it's best to keep kobold as an umbrella tag for all varieties of kobolds (since they are all still kobolds of a sort)

Would it really be worth having kobold as an umbrella tag for all the kinds of kobolds there are? Is someone really going to want a tag that covers D&D-based (including Pathfinder's) kobolds, Warcraft-style kobolds, Japanese kobolds, and Germanic kobolds, all together? I think most people who think just "kobold" are going to think the scalie critters popularized by D&D, and not bother with a more particular tag like scalie_kobold.

Kobold scalie -> Scalie_kobold is kind of redundant?

alphamule said:
Kobold scalie -> Scalie_kobold is kind of redundant?

Considering there are plenty of Kobolds who aren't scalies, no.
Maybe we don't need something so specific as kobold_(d&d)--or rather, something so confusing in D&D's case since it applies to multiple types--but furry_kobold already exists, we can have scalie_kobold or skin_kobold (or something better, that sounds awful) for the ones that look more human/goblin like, no fur or scales, only hair if even (Can't say they're "bald" if they do have hair).

furrin_gok said:
...or skin_kobold (or something better, that sounds awful) for the ones that look more human/goblin like, no fur or scales, only hair if even (Can't say they're "bald" if they do have hair).

?

furrin_gok said:
If you want this badly to push an implication, then suggest more tags similar to Japanese Kobold. Something like Lizard_ or Dragon_ kobold. The umbrella tag does not fit.

I don’t think it’s an umbrella tag at all, nor should it ever be. We don’t really have any precedent for creating umbrella tags for completely unrelated species.

riverinadryland said:
Predominately yes, but unanimously no.

Almost exclusively. As far as I could tell, the number of non-scalie kobolds may be less than 200 in total, compared to nearly 13,000 results.

As Furrin suggested, I think it's best to keep kobold as an umbrella tag for all varieties of kobolds (since they are all still kobolds of a sort)

Are they, though? As far as I can tell, they share a name and nothing more. This idea sounds not much different from suggesting that dragon should be an umbrella tag for anything called a dragon, regardless of whether or not it has any relation to the mythological beast, and creating a separate mythological_dragon tag that implies dragon alongside “real dragons” like komodo dragon and bearded dragon. You know that could never work (plus I don’t know why anyone would want that in the first place). But even that, at least, would make slightly more sense than this idea as they are all reptilian. They have at least that one thing in common besides the name “dragon.” Meanwhile, the DnD scalies, the Warcraft rats, and the Japanese dogs could hardly be more dissimilar. They’re not even all mammalian, much less a related species.

and create something like a scalie_kobold or kobold_(D&D) tag or similar for that particular variety.

The issue I see with this is that the vast majority of kobolds posted here are of the scalie variety. You’re never going to successfully get the average user to find the correct suffixed tag. They’re just too popular, and that will create an endless tag cleanup project. They’ll just tag “kobold” and move on, because that’s what the furry community at large considers to be a kobold. Better to just reserve the kobold tag for the one that most people use the tag for anyway and keep separate suffixed tags for the more obscure species that have the same name. As I’ve said before, this is just like mario. The existence of mario dalmatian (mario toledo) with a whole 4 posts should not require mario with over 2000 posts to be disambiguated. Pretty much everyone knows what the tag is referring to already, and we really don’t need to be creating more tagging work where it isn’t necessary.

furrin_gok said:
...or skin_kobold (or something better, that sounds awful) for the ones that look more human/goblin like, no fur or scales, only hair if even (Can't say they're "bald" if they do have hair).

clawstripe said:
kobold_humanoid?

Doesn’t the existing goblin tag suffice? Would you really be able to tell the difference (TWYS) between a Germanic kobold and a “generic” goblin? Wikipedia even says that the kobold ”spread into Europe with various spellings including goblin and hobgoblin,” indicating that they’re essentially the same thing.

Edit: and if you’re all still not convinced that this is necessary, note the fact that, by my estimation, the scalie tag is missing from nearly 4000 kobold posts. That’s nearly one third of all the kobold posts on the site…

The tag implication kobold -> scalie (forum #333092) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.