D&D 5E Inappropriate breasts on female monsters

Umbran said:

As a science teacher (reformed) I don't mind it so much. Because there's an un-spoken point here: Why are they using a lizard-form at all? They can us any body form imaginable, but they specifically chose a basically reptilian form. They did it to use a trope. Having made that choice, they set expectations in the audience that it fits the trope - if it looks lizard-like, we expect it to *be* lizard like, and these days, science tells us what lizards are like. When it fails to be lizard-like, it should be for a good reason.




Because it isn't a snake woman, any more than it is a woman snake. It is a chimerical thing - a creature composed of body parts of several different creatures. Our expectation is set that it will have qualities of each of those creatures.

Nitpick: is it begging the question? Traditionally, "Begging the question," does not mean, "begs for the question to be asked." It means, "assumes the conclusion."

Click to expand...

Arguably a dragon is also a chimeric creature, being a combination of snake, lion or other big cat predator, and a bird of prey (the 3 monsters of nature that primitive man most feared) - at least by some of the earliest descriptions of dragons. Because a dragon is so iconic in fantasy, however, it has settled into specific tropes that essentially abandon their chimeric origins. Of course none of those chimeric aspects of a dragon include a human, as other chimeric creatures, like minotaurs and harpies. I see no justification of dragon boobs from human myth origins point of view. Still the concept of dragon is so far removed from its origins, that an argument basing on origins has little meaning.

Iosue said:

Dismissive, yes. Demeaning, I don't think so.

Click to expand...

If I laugh("chuckle") at you and say your arguments are silly, misapplied, and based on misunderstandings; it's not exactly affirming, dignified, or respectful. It's patronizing. It's not a compelling argument; it's a transparent ploy to "win" by shifting the parameters of the debate. There are certain boundaries that have to be accepted within any debate for the debate to be possible and not just trolling; in this particular case (actually almost any debate involving D&D), one of those boundaries is that verisimilitude matters and that certain logics can be applied and have merit within the confines of a fantastical fiction even if they don't within the real world.

Nellisir said:

One wonders if dragonborn could be just less overly endowed.

Hrm. I just looked through the race and class section of the 5e Players Handbook. Is there actually a picture of dragonborn with boobs in there? I don't mind a tempest in a teacup, but is there even a teacup?

Click to expand...

So your suggesting they make molehills out of mountains?

gamerprinter said:

Arguably a dragon is also a chimeric creature, being a combination of snake, lion or other big cat predator, and a bird of prey...

Click to expand...

If you want to speak in Campbellian terms of the philosophical deep origins of mythological elements, you may have a solid argument for that. In fictional trope terms, though, chimerical critters are named after, of course, the chimera - a critter where the different parts are clearly differentiable. Does your dragon have furry forelegs with retractable cat claws, feathered wings, and a serpent's head with a raptor's beak? Then it is a chimera. If it is one overall lizardy thing, then it is just a lizardly dragon.

When creating elements of fiction for an audience, you ought to apply a certain amount of, "what you see is what you get." You can violate expectations, but you should have a good reason, relevant to the story.

Still the concept of dragon is so far removed from its origins, that an argument basing on origins has little meaning.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The thing is what it is. If you evoke it in image and name, you're setting the audience on a particular path, and should only jerk their chain for calculated effect, not just because.

Elf Witch said:

I don't understand how simply discussing a preference has turned into an argument on using science in a fantasy game is badwrongfun style of play.

Click to expand...

No. Read my post again. There is nothing wrong with using science and realism in your D&D games, it helps with the suspension of disbelief (theater term) if you do.

When you argue that "dragonbewbs = bad, because science", it's not that you are using science in your games, it's that you are NOT using science but think that you are. You are misusing and misunderstanding how science works.

And now it seems that if you have an opinion then it is either because you see it it as a feminist or sexist issue.

Click to expand...

If you don't like boobs on your lady dragonborn, that doesn't make you sexist or anything really, it just means you have a preference. Nothing wrong with that. It when you try to justify your preference with "science" or "sexism" that becomes a problem, IMO. Art is subjective and what one person sees as sexist another person does not . . . which is my point. Some folks are made uncomfortable by dragonbewbs, others prefer them, for all sorts of non-sexist reasons.

EDIT: Hmm, upon re-reading I think my use of "you" above seems to much like I'm trying to attack Elf Witch. I meant it in the more general sense, not specifically at Elf Witch.

Umbran said:

If you want to speak in Campbellian terms of the philosophical deep origins of mythological elements, you may have a solid argument for that. In fictional trope terms, though, chimerical critters are named after, of course, the chimera - a critter where the different parts are clearly differentiable. Does your dragon have furry forelegs with retractable cat claws, feathered wings, and a serpent's head with a raptor's beak? Then it is a chimera. If it is one overall lizardy thing, then it is just a lizardly dragon.

When creating elements of fiction for an audience, you ought to apply a certain amount of, "what you see is what you get." You can violate expectations, but you should have a good reason, relevant to the story.



Agreed. The thing is what it is. If you evoke it in image and name, you're setting the audience on a particular path, and should only jerk their chain for calculated effect, not just because.

Click to expand...

The visibility of a dragon's chimeric nature depends on the artist, but in general dragons are in fact combo creatures. That they are not also generally patchwork creatures doesn't change that, it just makes them more of a species and less of an individual aberration. This is part because more modern artists have usually tried to move dragons towards being a species rather than an amalgam. That said, finding art where dragons have much more discernible parts and pieces is pretty easy. Doing a quick image search for 14th century art, the first thing I find is two wyvern-esque dragons with heads like goats, bird wings and claws, and lizard tails. More modern images will include many images of dragons with beards and mammalian facial features - Dragonlance art is heavily mammalian-looking. This trend includes non-Western "dragons," like the lungs, which have beards, cat paws, and antlers.

Dragons as lizards is actually not very close to their historical OR modern use.

Neonchameleon said:

This is a genuine issue where argument on the internet has made me change my perspective. At first I thought they were stupid - but if I was going after stupid I'd go after the flail snail, the flumph, and the beholder. Sexist? I thought so too at first. But I frequently read posts like @HardcoreDandDGirl 's first on this thread - which is both the single most relevant and informative post on this entire thread and appears to have been lost to the discussion, so I'm quoting it in full:

Click to expand...

1st, thank you, and second I think your post nailed most of the argument in a fair and balanced way...

The issue is that there are two competing sexist tropes to be dealt with. The first is pornification; the obvious examples of which are Pneumatic Breasts Everywhere and the boob plate, and the second is erasure.

Click to expand...

Tasteful dragonborn breasts aren't especially pornified. So they aren't seen by most women as a sexism problem that way. They are just something that is. But on the other hand they deal with the female erasure problem.

Click to expand...

if every picture looked like the 2e hanging out porn, I would be against it... but when the art of 5e makes women look like women AND Bad ass instead of falling out, I believe wotc is doing better. Infact I love the 5e art. There are some sexy and some full plate and some inbetween.

And I suspect that I've just summarised the sexism argument at Viking Bastard's table - with one of the women arguing about pornification, one about erasure, and the player actually playing a dragonborn giving hers breasts for better identification.

Click to expand...

this and

From everything I can tell here you are speaking for women without actually listening to them. We've already had @HardcoreDandDGirl give one female perspective - that she wants dragonborn with breasts. We've had a second female perspective from @Elf Witch say "If it makes female gamers feel more represented then fine. I just know that the female players I know don't really have a passionate view about boobs on monsters." We've had @Viking Bastard give an account of a table where things were argued both ways by women. And yet despite the comments of everyone I am aware of on this thread who is a woman or has directly referenced women (again we run into the "default gender is male" thing I was talking about earlier) you've decided what is and isn't sexist.

Click to expand...

this

at the end of the day there is no 100% on this. I'm not just a woman, I'm Me. I don't speak for all women, hell I don't speak for all twenty something women... I speak for me. There is a debate that could be had, but I don't believe that we are doing it well.


this thread has gone into science and feminism and art, and inclusion and even edition wars. Is there really anything left to say?



To again summarize. I opened my 4e book wanting to make a cool warrior with a high str, I found dragon born as a cool half dragon like race with cool fluff and +2 str and a breath weapon. I could see a female dragon born picture, but a dragon born mini (yea you try finding female minis not meant for a prono) and easily identify her as a woman. If I opened it up and found the cool fun str race had women only differentiated by say color or ploomage... I would have been disappointed... it would have felt to me like 'women are only strong when they aren't women'. WotC did market research and found having anthropomorphic races look female was better for them... and I agree.

That isn't to say that no race can ever not look female... thri kreen seem fine as it... although I would kill for a female warforged. (I mean really these things were made... are you telling me no perv made buffy bots, no women made strong warrior women?

on the other hand if art had dragon boobs falling out every second, that too would piss me off. Can we get a middle ground...

Actually, what really put me off of dragonborn, aesthetically, are those phallic noses.

HardcoreDandDGirl said:

That isn't to say that no race can ever not look female... thri kreen seem fine as it...

Click to expand...

As someone who played a female thri-kreen, I think a lot of this hinges on the aesthetic you're going for with the race.

Dragonborn are meant to be basically relatable people, not that different from people-in-funny-suits, so their biology is basically human. Not too different from an elf or a dwarf, they're just humans that are a little different than humans. They're Star Trek aliens -- they look funny, but they're basically people.

Part of the aesthetic that thri-kreen truck in is that they're alien. They're weird bug people. They don't think like you or me. They have a sort of cold, insectile logic. What you're going for when you go thri-kreen is that you have weird biology. Having a body that is fundamentally nonhuman works with that aesthetic (thinking on it, this is part of why I prefer them to have a thorax, and be a bit centauroid, too -- it's weird).

Warforged are interesting on that front, as part of what makes them attractive as a race is exploring their artificiality, about how their body shape was determined by, like, some dude in Sharn they can go meet and ask questions about. They were made sexless because they're just tools, and they don't need a gender any more than your toaster does...but then I am reminded of Battlestar Galactica, and the toasters there deliberately acquiring gender as an element of their plan, and of mimicing their forebearers.

Changelings also become interesting there, because their gender is a matter of their own choice. Do I feel male or female today? How do I use gender to accomplish what I want? What happens when I'm pregnant and I become an egg-laying lizard-person?

Now I want to play a transgendered warforged who was created with the body of a man but feels herself to truly be a woman and is trying to modify her equipment to be as biologically female as possible, maybe hoping to be a mother someday....which trucks in some really interesting territory.

HardcoreDandDGirl said:

If I opened it up and found the cool fun str race had women only differentiated by say color or ploomage... I would have been disappointed... it would have felt to me like 'women are only strong when they aren't women'.

Click to expand...

Why do you equate (reduce?) being female with boobs? Do you really think that boobs are such a important part of females that someone without them isn't a full/real woman any more?