D&D 5E Inappropriate breasts on female monsters

[steeldragons]

Wow in the middle of a subscription drive you want to tell people stop posting... Enworld used to be my example of a friendly board

Why would what Vic Ferrari has to say to anyone have anything to do with EN World's subscription drive?

He's not a moderator or have anything to do with the site, as far as I know.

 

[Dire Bare]

I was going to make that same argument, but according to the MM they are.

"True dragons are winged reptiles of ancient lineage and fearsome power." pg 86 of MM 5e, first line in the description of the category Dragons.

I am perfectly fine with dragonboobs, and to me you are right dragons are dragons a mythical creature not a lizard or reptile, but the lore seems to disagree with us.

Nivenus had a good response on this also, but my take:

D&D lore has described dragons as reptiles at times and as not reptiles at others. Dragons (and dragonborn) are clearly reptilian, as in reptile-like. But not only is science revisiting what is and is not a reptile, when we describe a fictional monster in D&D as a reptile, we aren't assigning a scientific category to it, we are simply using a descriptive term. Again, it's not science.

And, again, dragonborn are related to dragons, but are not dragons. Personally, I would find boobs on a dragon silly looking (although I wouldn't get into an internet battle over them), but I do not find boobs on dragonborn silly at all.

 

[Dire Bare]

And yet in all versions I have never heard of d&d dragons nursing their offspring.
Rather, in all versions I know eggs often were abandoned in the wild with the wyrmlings fending for themselves. So they certainly do not need their parents for food/nursing.

Sigh. And yet, we aren't talking about dragons, we are talking about dragonborn. Humanoid dragons, human-dragon hybrids. Related, but not the same thing.

However, since dragons are also fictional, while it wouldn't be my preference, I wouldn't care if D&D or any other fantasy property described dragons with big ol' boobs.

By the way, what kind of target group is not able to tell female from male unless you put boobs on them?

Most people. Breasts are obvious sexual indicators in humans. Of course, not all humans with breasts are female, and not all females have noticeable breasts (or even breasts at all). But to somehow posit that breasts aren't visual clues towards gender, is one of the more ridiculous things in this thread so far.

 

[Dire Bare]

This justifies anything. Why bother with musculature or proportion or any of it? It's all make-believe. None of it has value.
"It's not real so it doesn't matter" is fundamentally a dismissive, demeaning argument.

No.

I actually think it's important to use science and realism in our fantasy. Making some aspects of our fantasy worlds more realistic allows us to more readily "believe" in the more fantastic parts.

But, if you are going to use science, use science. Don't *not* use science and say you are. To say that science dictates dragonborn ladies can't have boobs is bad science. There is nothing in modern science taht tells us that a fictional humanoid hybrid of a dragon and a human can't have boobs.

To use a study of anatomy to more accurately paint musculature on a dragon or other creature is a great use. One of the reasons I can't stand Jeff Easley's work, he's never had a good grasp on anatomy and musculature. Those are some dragons that have offended mine own eye.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

So, the magical creators of a magical race that is a hybrid dragon-human, or a dragon molded into the shape of a human, can't have boobs because dragons are reptiles (except when they're not) and therefore the dragon humanoids just can't? I doubt we'll convince each other either way, but I'm not tracking that argument at all.

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.

I see what you are saying here (I think), that lillends are a chimeric merger of snake and woman, not a more "natural" blend of dragon and human like a dragonborn. While I think I get the difference you are trying to make, I do think it's semantics. Sure, there is a difference, but in degree, not kind, IMO.

 

[Elf Witch]

Just to extend my earlier point. If people simply argued that they didn't like dragon boobs and they thought they were stupid, that would be fine. WOTC would be in the position of knowing whichever way it went, it was going to make someone annoyed, so, do a bit of market research and go with the group that's going to give you the most money. Maybe that means no dragonboobs, maybe it means dragonboobs. Whatever.

But, the argument never stops there. Sure, [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] has made her preferences perfectly clear. No problem. But then there's the next step in the argument. "I don't like dragon boobs because they are unrealistic and thus bad and anyone who likes them just doesn't understand science/realism". They're trying to justify their preference by making it sound like it's an objective issue - it's totally unrealistic for reptiles to have boobs, so, let's go with realism. it's more believable.

Of course, that argument ignores the fact that Dragonborn are a created race, specifically called out in the race lore, and made to model humanoids - which do have boobs. IOW, the presence of dragonboobs is actually justified by the background of the race.

Which then leads to the next level in the argument. Since arguing science doesn't work (mostly because it's a very uphill climb to argue that a magical race created by another magical race should follow science) critics then break out the "sexist" argument. It's prurient to add boobs to dragon born. Never minding actually looking at the images in question to learn whether or not the pictures actually are exploitive - are we talking about boob windows in the armour? Chainmail bikinis? Overtly sexualised images worthy of a Marvel comic book? No, we don't actually see any specific examples. Adding boobs is sexist because, well, making a creature look easily identifiably female is apparently sexist.

So, instead of the issue simply being one of preference, in which case, the conversation is largely over, we see critics constantly beating these two drums in order to force their preferences on everyone else.

Please don't drag me into the feminist argument. I have zero opinion on the issue that I care to share.

But, the funny thing is, there's a pretty strong correlation between "I really don't like edition X" and "Edition X is bad because it breaks my suspension of disbelief". It gets even stranger when you start to point out the fifteen similar things that were done in another edition that didn't break suspension of disbelief but are apparently a bridge too far when done in another edition.

All you have to do is look at pretty much any edition war thread and you see it. "I hate 4e because 4e healing is too fast" "But, 4e healing is only slightly faster than 3e, by maybe a day or two for natural healing, so, did you have a similar issue before?" "Oh, hell no, they're totally different. One day vs three days is a completely and utterly different thing and i can totally buy healing from six seconds from death in three days. I only have a problem with one day."

Or:

"I can't believe the AEDU structure, it totally breaks my suspension of disbelief. It's so unrealistic!" "So, do you have similar issues with bardic music and barbarian raging?" "Oh, hell no, those are perfectly fine and right. "

Or:

"It's wrong for dragon born to have boobs since reptiles can't have boobs. 4e is so stupid for doing this." "But, dragons aren't reptiles and the lore for the race specifically says they were created to model humans." "Doesn't matter, 4e is stupid."

On and on and on. Pick pretty much any issue and you see the exact, identical argument - Damage on a miss, minions, martial powers that cause enemies to take actions (AKA martial mind control), etc. etc. etc.

Saying you don't like dragon born to have boobs is fine. Saying that dragon born shouldn't have boobs because SCIENCE is complete and utter ballocks.

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.



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.

Please tell me where I took it to if you like dragonboobs you are wrong? I stated my reasons for not liking them again for emphasis my opinionI prefer dragons and their kinds to be more reptile less mammals because to me that is more interesting and as such I would want them to be like most of Earth's reptiles. hence why I used the science example for my version of them. I never said it was the only valid version. Again it is more believable to me but again that is my opinion and I have stated over and over in many posts that I make here on Enworld that opinions are not facts.

I didn't break out the sexist argument at all others did. But I will say this if the only reason you are putting boobs on a monster is to make them sexy for male gamers then that is sexist. but I don't think that is why WOTC did it. I also get that there are female players who want a more human female form on a PC class and that is a valid thing. I know female players who make a point of saying there female dwarves don't have beards. I also know who say they do. Neither is wrong it just a preference.

There is no way you can take from anything I ave said that one preference is right and one is wrong. Unless you are deliberately being obtuse for some agenda of your own.

You know what I find interesting is that it is perfectly okay to sling things at 3E like wizards and muggles or BMX biker and angel summoner and that is not edition warring but god forbid someone says I don't enjoy 4E because it did not deliver the kind of play style I enjoy. Nor is it edition warring to not like how a 4E class or race is done. My dislike of how WOTC does dragonborn has nothing to do with my not liking 4E. Yes I freely admit I kind of wish tieflings and dragonborn were not core classes. But I totally get why they are included. It is no big deal to me because at my home table I can do as I want. if asked yes I will say what my preference is but I am not going to nerdrage over it.

Dire bare I never said it dragonboobs were bad science read what I said above.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think you should quit while you're
behind, please, really, it's enough.

Thanks for bringing your class act to our discussion about female depiction in D&D art. Really brightens up the place.

One more to add to the ignore list.

 

[Dire Bare]

It probably should be noted - since others have briefly touched on the idea - that the male members of "reptilian" races like dragonborn, lizardfolk, etc. shouldn't have mammalian genitalia either; external phalli are - more or less - like breasts a distinctly unique feature to mammals. Birds, crocodiles, lizards, and snakes all have cloaca, sometimes with an internal penis, sometimes without (this is also true of amphibians and monotreme mammals).

So yes, dragonborn shouldn't have (human) junk either if we're going by the realism argument. Which personally is fine with me but admittedly it comes up a lot less often than the breasts argument.

Well, who knows what dragonborn men have under their kilts? It's a mystery!

We should start a new outrage thread though, that all dragonborn males should be described as having internal penises. To keep it consistent.

 

[rollcrit]

I can't believe this thread is still going lol. If ever there was a thread to be locked and deleted.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I can't believe this thread is still going lol. If ever there was a thread to be locked and deleted.

I disagree with what you've said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.