Dragonborn: Boobs or No Boobs?

RPG_Tweaker

Explorer

• Dec 19, 2007

• #1

Because it had to be done...


I personally prefer no boobs. I think Dragonborn should be unique from the traditional male-female cliché.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

K

KingCrab

First Post

• Dec 19, 2007

• #2

Definitely no boobs. It makes the race more distinct.

 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

• Dec 19, 2007

• #3

Why would reptiles need them?

Dragons don't have boobs, do they?

No, no, no....though I think the males and the females should be distinct, it should be either through more subtle distinctions than us humans (for instance, females slightly stockier and built with broader hips) or more obvious than us humans (males have horns, crests, something flashy).

Leave the mammaries to the mammalia.

 

V

Voss

First Post

• Dec 19, 2007

• #4

Reptiles aren't mammals.
This isn't star trek. The races don't need to be human with a prosthesis stuck on their heads.

 

Frostmarrow

First Post

• Dec 19, 2007

• #5

I say yes to boobs and no to eggs. Dragonborn should give birth and not lay eggs.

 

D

Dr. Strangemonkey

First Post

• Dec 19, 2007

• #6

I don't know something about Dragons as milk-producing really appeals* to me. I think it makes the species more intriguing and unique.

Sort of like the nega-verse version of a platypus, a milk-producing lizard rather than an egg laying mammal.








* - and not in that way

 

V

Voss

First Post

• Dec 19, 2007

• #7

Well, most Nega-verse creatures are disturbingly mammalian. Except the generals, of course, but even they tend to go bishonen after awhile. Only Queen Beryl knows why.

 

D

Dausuul

Legend

• Dec 19, 2007

• #8

Dragonborn went on my "house-rule this the hell out of my game" list the moment I saw them, so my opinion is perhaps not that relevant, but...

For dragonborn as they are, if I were in a game which had them, I'd say females should not have breasts. Give them lighter, more graceful frames perhaps, but breasts are a mammalian thing and dragonborn are clearly not mammals. They lay eggs, for God's sake.

In my first 4E game, since I'd like everyone to be able to try out all the new races stat-wise if not fluff-wise, I plan to lift the dragonborn stats, scrape off the fluff, and re-flavor them as demonspawn. Since demonspawn will be mostly humanoid with a few demonic traits, the females will have breasts. But I don't think that's quite what you're asking for.

 

Last edited: Dec 19, 2007

K

kunadam

Adventurer

• Dec 19, 2007

• #9

They can still technically give birth. There are a number of lizards (also fish) that "give birth" see the wikipedia entry on vivipary. So that would no be a problem.

Sexual dimorphism is rather subtle in humans, the only outside distinction is the boobs (generalisation, but try to imagine how an alien would see us). This is - among others - that we are obsesses with boobs in every monster we create...
On the other hand just flip through some animal picture book and realize that there are numerous ways of expressing the difference between the sexes.

There is no need for boobs, to make them distinct. Actually female dragonborns can even be bigger! Now there is a race where it is biologically reasonable, and WotC did not ventured there.

 

Li Shenron

Legend

• Dec 19, 2007

• #10

No.