D&D 5E Inappropriate breasts on female monsters

[Thank Dog]

As a science teacher, the argument that dragonborn should not have boobs because science makes me chuckle. Misunderstanding and misapplication of science to fantasy. Dragons are not lizards, dragonborn are not dragons or lizards (or reptiles). Neither option A (lady dragonborn with boobs) or option B (lady dragonborn without boobs) makes more or less sense from a scientific standpoint. You just look silly when you argue, "Boobs bad, because Science!" (insert "realism" for "science" at any time)

Arguing that lady dragonborn should or should not have boobs because sexism is also very silly. Boobs on fantasy races CAN be portrayed sexist, but is not inherently so. From this thread alone it's obvious that some women find dragon bewbs silly, and others find them identifying. Lady dragonborn boobs are only sexist if you presume to speak for all women. Which is sexist (unless you are a woman, then I'm not sure what it would be, other than exclusionary).

It's also obvious (to me, at least) that a fictional, anthropomorphic race of dragon people (hybrid of humans and dragons), from a story perspective, can be written to not have boobs, or to have them (or to have udders or whatnot) and make perfect sense. We've seen several examples in this thread alone. Even if you accept that dragons are reptiles, and dragonborn are also reptiles . . . why does a human-dragon hybrid race that leans towards the human (with the ladies having boobs) "make no sense"?

Not saying that you have to accept or love dragon boobs, but to make such an unholy fuss over it? Fantasy art definitely has a history of depicting women in a submissive and overly sexual manner, and while we are moving away from that era, we have not truly left it behind yet. But that doesn't make the dragonbewbs "controversy" any less silly or offbase . . . IMO, of course.

I have said all of this. Twice.

Thus has the thread officially come full circle

 

[thewok]

Dragons are not lizards, dragonborn are not dragons or lizards (or reptiles). Neither option A (lady dragonborn with boobs) or option B (lady dragonborn without boobs) makes more or less sense from a scientific standpoint.

Thank you. Granted, I've been skimming the thread to catch up, but this is the first post I saw mention this fact (sorry Thank Dog).

It's true that dragons, while appearing reptilian, are not reptiles. They are dragons, which is a classification all its own. Dragons have features of reptiles, felines, birds and many other animals all put into one breath weapon-utilizing creature. It's certainly possible that dragons could nurse their young. I've not read a lot of material on what happens after the egg hatches.

Dragonborn, of course, are not dragons. But they are sufficiently similar that it's safe to say that they, too, are not reptilian. And, honestly, we don't have enough dragonborn fiction to really judge how they raise their young. In fact, I know of only one prominent dragonborn in the D&D fiction, and he adopted two tieflings.

 

[Elf Witch]

As a science teacher, the argument that dragonborn should not have boobs because science makes me chuckle. Misunderstanding and misapplication of science to fantasy. Dragons are not lizards, dragonborn are not dragons or lizards (or reptiles). Neither option A (lady dragonborn with boobs) or option B (lady dragonborn without boobs) makes more or less sense from a scientific standpoint. You just look silly when you argue, "Boobs bad, because Science!" (insert "realism" for "science" at any time)

Arguing that lady dragonborn should or should not have boobs because sexism is also very silly. Boobs on fantasy races CAN be portrayed sexist, but is not inherently so. From this thread alone it's obvious that some women find dragon bewbs silly, and others find them identifying. Lady dragonborn boobs are only sexist if you presume to speak for all women. Which is sexist (unless you are a woman, then I'm not sure what it would be, other than exclusionary).

It's also obvious (to me, at least) that a fictional, anthropomorphic race of dragon people (hybrid of humans and dragons), from a story perspective, can be written to not have boobs, or to have them (or to have udders or whatnot) and make perfect sense. We've seen several examples in this thread alone. Even if you accept that dragons are reptiles, and dragonborn are also reptiles . . . why does a human-dragon hybrid race that leans towards the human (with the ladies having boobs) "make no sense"?

Not saying that you have to accept or love dragon boobs, but to make such an unholy fuss over it? Fantasy art definitely has a history of depicting women in a submissive and overly sexual manner, and while we are moving away from that era, we have not truly left it behind yet. But that doesn't make the dragonbewbs "controversy" any less silly or offbase . . . IMO, of course.

Yes, because this same argument isn't trotted out time and time again on pretty much any topic that the poster doesn't like about an edition. I'm not specifically accusing you of this Bill91, but, it's certainly a common tactic. I don't like edition X because edition X is so unrealistic - look, they put boobs on dragon people!!

I'd buy the argument a lot more if people were a tad more consistent in what they find objectionable. Like was said before there are fifteen other things that don't make a whole lot of sense when it comes to dragon born, but, hey, here's a low hanging fruit target, so, let's jump on. I mean, Draconians, all the way back to 1e, are drawn with tails. Why is that never, ever an issue with the "It's so unrealistic" crowd? In thirty years I've never once heard someone bitch about the fact that lizard folk (or lizard MEN if we want to get right down to it) have tails.

I'd buy the argument, "I don't like dragonboobs because I think they look stupid". That's just a personal opinion and that's fine. But, "I don't like dragonboobs because reptiles can't have boobs, it's unrealistic and spoils my suspension of disbelief" doesn't really pass the sniff test.

As far as blowing it, see below:



But, the reason has already been answered. The market research they did told them that adding boobs to dragon born was better received by the audience. THAT'S why they did it. They actually took the time to research this and their research told them that boobs was the way to go. So, no, leaving them off would not make sense given that you spent money to find out which version people like better.

What they didn't know was that things like this would become rallying flags for edition warring and blown WAY out of proportion to the point where we're still seeing people bitch about it two years after the game has stopped being published.

I mean, has anyone seen a 5e pic of a dragon born with boobs? I don't have the books, so, I'm honestly asking here. Did you folks bitch long and loud enough and won? If so, then why are you continuing to flog the dead equine?

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. If I want my in my game world dragonborn and dragons to be reptiles and treat them like most earth style reptiles then some how I am doing it wrong because you know fantasy science and realism don't mix. If WOTC wants to make them warmblooded giving live birth and nursing their young then hey no biggie I don't have to use that in my game.

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. In my case I don't see it that way but more of a preference on how you want your dragons and their kin to be.

Also now it seems if you don't like how WOTC is doing it is some kind of edition warring. I sometimes think some people choose to see edition warring in everything.

And I have to wonder why your sniff test is more important than someone else preference why can't someone feel that they want boobs on dragonborn because in it breaks their suspension of belief because in their views the bulk of reptiles don't have them.

And of people want to discuss for what ever reason and you think it is beating a dead horse then wouldn't it be simpler to stay out of a thread you have no interest in?

 

[Paraxis]

It's true that dragons, while appearing reptilian, are not reptiles.

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.

 

[transtemporal]

I also think you got those a bit backwards. The first one looks like a hairy demon minotaur, or maybe WoW and Mr. T collaborated to create it. The second looks like a minotaur.

The real question is: Why has no one ever seen a dragon with back? I mean, don't you guys fantasize about Tiamat with a lot of junk in the trunk? How many boobs does a five headed dragon have? 10? 6? 2? You are worried about a dragonborn with boobies when there are far more pressing matters.

You guys are killing me with your minotaur choices, but definitely DnD needs more monster back. Lloth basically already has it!

 

[Nivenus]

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.

To be fair, I think the lore's wildly inconsistent there. In the Draconomicon (for 3rd edition) the lore said dragons weren't reptiles. Even though dragons and related creatures like kobolds were classified as reptilian by a lot of other books. So, you know... you mileage may vary.

Also, as I stated earlier, the entire category of "reptile" is now up for debate IRL, considering we now know that birds and crocodiles really represent a different (and more closely related) clade than lizards and snakes (or turtles or tuataras for that matter). Modern taxonomists are more likely to classify crocodiles as archosaurs and snakes as lepidosaurs than either one of them as reptiles.

Likewise, while mammals used to represent an entirely independent clade from reptiles, they and mammal-like reptiles (such as the frequently misidentified dimetrodon) are now considered to all be part of a single clade, Synapsida.

 

[Derren]

To be fair, I think the lore's wildly inconsistent there. In the Draconomicon (for 3rd edition) the lore said dragons weren't reptiles. Even though dragons and related creatures like kobolds were classified as reptilian by a lot of other books. So, you know... you mileage may vary.

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.


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

 

[Ragmon]

The problem is that even when WotC went out of there way to say that dragonborn are not reptile in origin, and that they do breast feed, that wasn't good enough...

Not to be insulting, but I don't see a problem there. If some don't like it, then they don't have to accept it. Thats a personal/subjective opinion, we can't do anything about that.
That is why i try to keep my opinions as objective as possible. W/e.

 

[Hussar]

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. If I want my in my game world dragonborn and dragons to be reptiles and treat them like most earth style reptiles then some how I am doing it wrong because you know fantasy science and realism don't mix. If WOTC wants to make them warmblooded giving live birth and nursing their young then hey no biggie I don't have to use that in my game.

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. In my case I don't see it that way but more of a preference on how you want your dragons and their kin to be.

Also now it seems if you don't like how WOTC is doing it is some kind of edition warring. I sometimes think some people choose to see edition warring in everything.

And I have to wonder why your sniff test is more important than someone else preference why can't someone feel that they want boobs on dragonborn because in it breaks their suspension of belief because in their views the bulk of reptiles don't have them.

And of people want to discuss for what ever reason and you think it is beating a dead horse then wouldn't it be simpler to stay out of a thread you have no interest in?

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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is just furthering my point, drawing a line is fine at certain points, just because it's fantasy, does not mean humans should all fly, etc.

See my earlier reply.

Haven't really heard anyone reply to the point that dragonborn, minotaurs, and shardminds are all artificially created creatures, with an appearance chosen by an intelligent entity, who may have created them this way with a deliberate purpose.

But I still think the metagame argument is more important and more relevant for the design.