Monday, June 17, 2024

A (Very) Partial Pictorial History of Goblins

During the course of looking into the pictorial history of kobolds last week, I noticed that, starting in the late First Edition AD&D era and extending into early Second Edition, kobolds started looking more goblin-like in illustrations. This was particularly striking in light of Dave Sutherland's original depiction of them as short, horned, scaly dog-men, a depiction unique to old school Dungeons & Dragons. Thinking further on the matter, I began to ponder just what I meant by "goblin-like." Had my notion of a goblin in D&D been similarly influenced by the depictions of them to which I'd been first exposed during my entrance into the hobby of roleplaying? Given the popularity of my kobold post last week, I thought this a question worth investigating.

So far as I can tell, the very first depiction of a goblin in any Dungeons & Dragons product is this one from the original 1974 release of the game. Drawn by Greg Bell, this early goblin looks to me more like a deranged dwarf than a monster in the usual sense of the term:

Dave Trampier provided the illustration for goblins in the AD&D Monster Manual (1977) and I suspect this is the ultimate source for my own imagining of what they look like:
In the same year, Minifigs in the UK produced a series of Dungeons & Dragons miniatures that included goblins among them. Here's one that looks to be quite similar to Trampier's art, right down to the little horned helmet:
In 1980, Grenadier Models produced its own take on goblins, which, again, are broadly consonant with Trampier's depiction, though, to my eyes anyway, they seem slightly more feral. 

1981 is the year Tom Moldvay's D&D Basic Set is released. Though the rulebook does not include artwork for any of the game's traditional humanoid enemies, it does include this Dave LaForce – were all of TSR's early artists named Dave – piece from the alignment section in which there's a bound and gagged figure whom my childhood friends and I assumed was a goblin. He certainly matches many of the characteristics associated with goblins, though he seems to be taller and less stocky than previous depictions.
Like the Moldvay Basic Set, Frank Mentzer's 1983 revision does not include any illustrations of its monstrous humanoids. However, in its solo adventure, there is the following piece of artwork (by Jeff Easley) that, from context, would seem to depict goblins. Once again, they wear horned helmets.
The same year, the Doug Niles D&D Basic adventure, Horror on the Hill, was published. The adventure's primary antagonists are goblins and hobgoblins. Jim Holloway provides numerous illustrations throughout the module, but, aside from a couple of contextual clues, it's not at all clear (to me anyway) when he's depicting a goblin and when he's depicting a hobgoblin. A big of why that's the case is that the two races look very similar to one another. Are these two goblins or hobgoblins? Regardless, I think they're representative of Holloway's broader take on these humanoids.
In the third and final season of the D&D cartoon, there's an episode entitled "The Dungeon at the Heart of Dawn" that features a character who looks very much like Dave Trampier's original Monster Manual illustration of a goblin, though he's not explicitly called a goblin. He even has – yet again – a horned helmet, although, in this story, the horns serve to focus a magical blast that he shoots from his helmet. 
Second Edition's Monstrous Monstrous Compendium (1989) gives us a different Jim Holloway take on goblins. You can definitely see in this piece an evolution of Trampier's original, right down to his pose. He still wears a small helmet, albeit one without horns. This goblin is a bit more wizened in appearance than his 1e counterpart, which, strangely, calls to mind Greg Bell's dwarf-like OD&D version.
Finally, there's this goblin image from the 2e Monstrous Manual (1993) by an artist I can't quite identify. He's vaguely reminiscent of Holloway's goblins from Horror on the Hill, but also seems vaguely "fairy tale-ish" in his attire, particularly the oversized shoes. 

As the title of this post implies, this is an incomplete examination of the evolution of goblins in TSR era Dungeons & Dragons. I am sure there are other illustrations depicting this classic evil humanoid to be found during the period between 1974 and 2000, but I've presented here only those with which I am most familiar. If there are other examples from this period you think are particularly relevant to this discussion, please feel free to post them in the comments. This is especially true if the depiction differs radically from what we see above. My own take on goblins from the Dwimmermount and Urheim setting of Telluria owe a lot, I think, to the illustrations I saw in the TSR products of my youth, which just goes to show how important evocative artwork is in bringing a game and/or setting to life.

26 comments:

  1. The artist for the last picture is Tony DiTerlizzi. He discussed that very illustration in a recent post on his website: https://diterlizzi.com/behind-the-monstrous-manual-part-2/

    ReplyDelete
  2. That last one is Di Terlizzi.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Holloway's goblins seem to draw some inspiration from simians, particularly orangutangs, around the eyes and mouth.
    The Monstrous Manual goblin illustration is Tony DiTerlizzi. It does look zoomed in and there's no sig, but it's unmistakably his. He's very forthright (as if it wasn't obvious) about his Arthur Rackham inspirations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My own goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears are clearly related - I'd be happy having a continuum of "goblin" that at least spanned goblins and hobgoblins, but it's splitting hairs in D&D. I have sorted out the functions, though - bugbears are scouts; goblins are gatherers; and hobgoblins are defenders. A true goblin band has all three and is somewhat iterant, as bugbears locate loot; goblins seize it; and hobgoblins protect them. On their own, goblins tend to be somewhat erratic in their gathering, going through phases of stealing things like chickens, baskets, or saddles for reasons they don't identify or question. Hobgoblins work as mercenaries for whoever will take them on; bugbears do the same things they do - sleep, eat, bash things, and steal whatever they want.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The last is from Tony Diterlizzi who did half of the the monsters in Monstrous Manual - his illustrations are a real bright spot for 2E art IMO. He’s got an interesting series on his blog about his humanoid (and other monsters) visual interpretations. https://diterlizzi.com/behind-the-monstrous-manual-part-2/

    ReplyDelete
  6. The AD&D goblin my by Tony DiTerzeli (spelling?), who also did the bugbear and most of Planescape. On his blog he's going over the pieces he did foe the manual with some notes/stories.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the AD&D2 image may be by DiTerlizzi, but it's on the sketchier side if so.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For me, goblins are Games Workshop goblins. That particular depiction is so strong in my mind that any other variant seems "wrong".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting post! My first thought is that the distinction between "dwarf" and "goblin" is something that D&D helped to define in the popular imagination (building on Tolkien) - see also OD&D's bearded elf, which probably strikes people as odd now in a way that it wouldn't have back then.

    You might find this blog post of interest - it sets out how Citadel sedulously followed the MM illustration and description in an early goblin boxed set: https://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2020/04/but-wait-theres-more.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting bit of history there. I recall ads for that set but never saw them in person.

      Delete
  10. I clock that final goblin as a sub-standard DiTerlizzi job. Knowing that, I tracked it down: it's a mini illustration of a kobold taken from the Dragon Mountain adventure and blown up to size. DiTerlizzi makes some relevant remarks on his site here: https://diterlizzi.com/behind-the-monstrous-manual-part-2/

    ReplyDelete
  11. For me the 2e monstrous compendium is closest to what I imagine a goblin to be like, though I think of their skin tone being more like a warty toad.

    My first contact with a goblin would be the Marvel supervillain the Green Goblin and this precedes my teacher reading out the Hobbit to class in 1980.

    The Moldvay image doesn't sit quite right as a goblin for me, and when I owned B5 I too couldn't tell the goblins and hobgoblin apart.
    Warhammer goblins from the 80s mostly got it right apart from the colouration.

    The best goblins are Jim Henson's in Labyrinth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wonder if and to what extent the 1980 Rankin-Bass Return of the King animated movie had an impact (esp. on the Holloway illustration).

    ReplyDelete
  13. I sorta figured your "failure" to identify the DiTerlizzi goblin was bait, and sure enough, the same links folks posted on the Kobold entry cover his goblin illustration too. Hey, it definitely worked!

    ReplyDelete
  14. While they aren't directly D&D, Paizo's Pathfinder goblins are quite distinctive designs that have remained consistent through two editions and a Starfinder translation as well. Their cartoony "football head" look somewhat inevitably brings the main character of the old Hey, Arnold! Nickelodeon show to mind. Also noteworthy for having them shift from the more Tokein-esque wolves/wargs as riding animals to using war dogs instead.

    Myself, I prefer a more folk-tale feel (and muppet-ish look) for goblins than D&D usually uses. Rather make them childishly, thoughtlessly cruel than willfully evil, perhaps with the odd very frustrated hobgoblin trying to get them to stay focused long enough to do something sensible instead of random acts of vandalism and torturing small animals and children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember Paizo commenting back in the day about developing a distinctive look and identity for their goblins to set them apart.

      Agree about the folk-tale goblins. I think they have two sorts of "kings/queens": large, gluttonous, and grossly evil; or tall, sleek, and magical, with a more whimsical or subtle malice.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, Paizo are clearly big fans of goblins in general, and have managed to make theirs pretty distinctive in both fantasy and their Starfinder sci-fan setting.

      I confess I'm also quite fond of Games Workshop's take on them and the whole "greenskin" ecology they've built up over the years, which does a pretty good jobs of explaining why both orcs/orks and goblins/grots are so hard to completely wipe out. Stepping away from D&D's goblinoid trinity was a decent idea, although of course GW has the even tinier snotlings as well so they really just shifted the scale downward when they ditched hobgobs and bugbears. Of course, GW orks never stop growing, so they really don't need a "big boy" greenskin species.

      The overall green coloration is tedious and uninspired, though. The symbiotic algae thing just isn't all that interesting.

      Delete
    3. LetsfightsomeslimesJune 17, 2024 at 10:57 PM

      Games Workshop did briefly have hobgoblins, as part of the Chaos Dwarfs army. I thought they looked pretty cool too.

      Delete
  15. It would be interesting to look at the depictions of these creatures as miniatures, but that could be very tricky to research...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Lost Minis wiki would greatly simplify finding images of many of the early figs. One minor complication might be the question of scale. While most goblins (especially those aimed at RPG players) have been loosely 25mm scale and up (albeit smaller than humans in most cases) the fact that they tend to appear in large numbers and appear in so many fantasy settings means there have been a fair number of 15mm offerings and a few 10mm and 6mm ones as well, designed for use with various mass combat wargame rules. I'm particularly fond of the 15mm ones from the Demonworld range, which is sold by Ral Partha Europe these days.

      Delete
  16. Don't forget the (Parkinson? Truman?) version depicted in the first edition Forgotten Realms boxed set (cant recall which book, atm) The gnoll is terrible , but the rest are well done.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Goblins end up as my go-to when I'm using humanoids, I need to be more moderate with them. I tend to picture them somewhere between 3e's depiction and Warhammer's version.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I got to wondering recently just where the D&D depoction of goblins -yellow-to-orange and hairy -- went in pop culture. From Magic: the Gathering, World of Warcraft, and Marvel comics, I always thought of goblins as green. But where did that come from? My best guess for a long time was that this was something that bled into pop culture from Warhammer (a franchise I never got involved with), perhaps based on the notion goblins were basically small orcs. I was surprised then that there was a green goblin in Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions (though briefly) once I finally got around to it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I read somewhere, IIRC, that hobgoblins traditionally are smaller than goblins, but D&D flipped that - the hobs are bigger. Then I went to Mirriam Webster today to look up what they say about the differences and this is what they say:

    "What's the difference between a goblin and a hobgoblin?

    While a goblin is often portrayed in folklore as a grotesque, evil, and malicious creature, a hobgoblin tends to traffic more in mischief than malice. (The character Puck in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream might be regarded as a hobgoblin.) First appearing in English in the early 16th century, hobgoblin combined hob, a word meaning "sprite" or "elf" that derived from Hobbe, a nickname for Robert, with goblin a word ultimately from the Greek word kobalos, meaning "rogue." American writer Ralph Waldo Emerson famously applied the word's extended sense in his essay Self-Reliance: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.""

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'flipping' followed Tolkien in The Hobbit: he includes the term "hobgoblins" once in the main text and says in the introduction that it's sometimes used as a "translation" for the larger kinds of orcs ("orc" is generally "translated" as "goblin"). But he ditched this idea before the The Lord of the Rings because he'd read up on the etymology. He may have been succumbing to the etymological fallacy here, though: I believe "hobgoblin" had come to take on a more sinister connotation over the course of the seventeenth century (with its preoccupation with witchfinding and demonology). So Shakespeare's Puck ("Some hobgoblin call me, or sweet Puck/I do their work and they shall have good luck") gives way to Bunyan's "hobgoblin or foul fiend" in Pilgrim's Progress.

      Delete