>>96908111
It also matters a lot what that inventiveness is for. Kobolds are typically trappers, not besiegers, which makes kobold shitbuilds inherently more sympathetic. They're working with what they have at home, and that's usually not very much in the way of industry. Goblins are usually working with stuff they've stolen, and will bring their shitbuilds to try and burn down or blow up a village. In contrast, if you get hit with a kobold trap... there's a good chance you've chosen to put yourself in a place that you already know might have kobold traps.
It's very, very easy to turn existing kobold characterization into mundane coexistence as a part of D&D "civilization." They aren't inflexibly chaotic. Individual kobolds aren't particularly predisposed towards attacking people (they are acutely aware of how weak they are). They don't necessarily need to kill or steal from people to satisfy their biological needs OR their usual goals. There's not a lot of wind behind the "kobolds as evil hordes" sails EXCEPT when you make whatever they serve evil... in which case it's not really the kobolds' fault directly. It's not like they'd survive rebelling - you might even pity them for being used that way as you're fighting them.
By the last edition of D&D that called kobolds lawful evil, they were already closer to lawful neutral in practice. If the narrative gives them no concrete reason to be hostile to you (like them serving a hostile dragon or you invading their home), there's little besides a couple of mostly ignored lines in ancient splatbooks to imply that they would invent a reason or attack without one like a goblin would.
...Unless you're a gnome (in which case they already have plenty of good reasons, screw gnomes).
As an aside, one thing I wish we saw more of in D&D stuff is kobolds working for metallic/good dragons. I suppose the lack makes sense, since kobolds (and chromatics) are a good bit more common to encounter than metallics.
