Dragons. Dragons. Dragons.

When I think of Red Dragons I think more Vlad the Impaler, Atilla the Hun rather than Napoleon Bonaparte or Sun Tzu...or even Alexander of Macedonia. Due to their extraordinary minds, they are capable of extreme calculation. However, their unparalleled might and ferocity makes their keen minds borderline redundant. So instead of shrewd, they are capricious. They are impatient, reactionary...and their god-like physicality affords them such luxury. Even greater than their might and ferocity is their vanity...and vanity leads to wild, flailing vindictiveness if it is not paid proper respect and tribute. They may lay waste to an entire town for no other reason but to prove that they can...some perceived slight that may exist only in their mind...an apex predator's territorial response. However, its just as likely that the same Red would hold that town hostage to fulfill its unprecedented, avaricious desires; perhaps forcing the townsfolk to sacrifice their livestock or first-born, perhaps enslaving their greatest craftsman for constant tributes...merely because the great Red can do it.

Only rarely would they leverage their amazing minds as they would likely look down upon (and rightly so) all usurpers to their crown (typically other Reds). An adventuring party is of little threat...but how dare they enter my lair and challenge ME! They possess the sort of deranged perception of themselves that only a creature that lives on the precipice of Godhood but is shackled by intense human failings could know; a propensity for a blind and raging fury that would give the Queen of Hearts pause and an insatiable vanity that would make Snow White's Queen blush.

They take because they endlessly want (territory, tribute, "stuff"). They take because they can and its because its easy and so rarely are they tested and so tasty is the terror they inflict upon their lessers that getting up close and personal is their most natural response to conflict.

I like the new Red. I don't like the prissy, erudite posture of the former Red. I see a nigh-omnipotent creature waning in detached, bemused disinterest one moment and explosively waxing in a primal fury the next. I think the picture depicts that sudden reaction quite well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

i love how they presented the red dragon. Big, scary, mean, these are all things that define a red dragon and they should look it.

While i love it for a red dragon the other dragons (most of them anyway) should avoid this look. Gold dragons and silver dragons should have this buffed up look but maybe not so much as they did to the red dragon
 

Although the dragon is good, I think the Lockwood Dragon is more what I imagine. They are intelligent but they don't have very much patience. Though, they still won't show it or throw a tantrum. There mere presence creates fear, so most listen to them. The 1st Dragon looks more like a brute, which is fitting for a white dragon, but not a red dragon.
 

When I think of Red Dragons, I think they shouldn't be red. At least not exclusively. Color-coded dragons is a stupid concept that needs to go.

Currenty, as a Red Dragon, the first thing I'd do is to use magic to change my skin-color.

I vastly prefer Earthdawn's take on dragons: Every (adult) dragon is an individual and can have any coloration. They have developed different abilities depending on where they grew up and what region they've chosen for their lairs but also have some traits common to all dragons.
Their personalities and magical abilities are just as varied as among any other intelligent race.

The least offensive D&D dragons are the ones from the Eberron setting: at least they get to choose their alignment and all of them are able to polymorph.
 

Apropos of nothing, here's the 4e Red Dragon, as depicted by Lars Grant-West:

[sblock]
4e_red_dragon.jpg

[/sblock]

Seems a middle ground between the Lockwood red and Big Red.

Another feature of Big Red I forgot to mention: His eyes are positioned closer to the head's front than Lock Red's, hinting at a more binocular sight. I kinda like it.

And while we're talking dragons, I'd be remiss not to mention this painting of St. George and the Dragon, as done by the great Donato Giancola:

[sblock]
stgeorge.jpg

[/sblock]

The pose, the wings-folded-as-cape, the horns, everything makes the dragon look eeeeevil.
 

"Flame" (?) from the Dunegon mag cover.

Best, red, dragon, ever.

Read the adventure...
 

Attachments

  • 220px-Dungeon_Magazine_Cover.jpg
    220px-Dungeon_Magazine_Cover.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 575


"Flame" (?) from the Dunegon mag cover.

Best, red, dragon, ever.

Read the adventure...
As much as I love Keith Parkinson (and I LOOOOVE his art), that dragon is too humanoid. Look at the pose, the anatomy of the arms, the humanlike hands. It's a giant dragonborn/dragonkin/draconian.
 


On a related note, I wish we'd get art of flying creatures that showed them flying. "Just standing around" doesn't seem like a pose you'd meet a dragon in very often. Flying? Sure. Swooping in? Absolutely. Sleeping? If you're lucky. Standing around like a dinosaur with vestigial wings that are just there to look menacing? Not how I usually portray my dragons.

I completely agree. Dragons should fly. In combat and even in their art, flight should come first. Sure the huge size and the elemental breath are important parts of a dragon, but flying is the part of the dragon that lets them be above the entire world.

That's what I don't quite like about the new look, it looks less like it was made for flight, and more like it was made to wrestle.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top