Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8875745" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Those look exactly like dragonborn. They even have breasts. I've used that very image in the past as justification for dragonborn being mythically supported.You may dislike the serpent thing all you like; they are still explicitly dragons, even in the original Greek, Chinese, Slavic, etc. "Dragon" is and has always been a flexible category.Plus... they're not meant to be "stand-ins for dragons." There are already dragons! They aren't standing in for anything. That would be like saying that tieflings are "stand-ins" for actual fiends, or that elves were stand-ins for actual faeries, or that aasimar were stand-ins for actual angels. They aren't, because all of those things actually exist in D&D. You don't need a symbolic representation of them, you can just have them show up, or be discussed, etc. Dragonborn are connected to dragons, but they are not somehow supposed to be taking the place of dragons or like...fulfilling the quota of dragon-ness for fantasy. They're just people with a close connection to dragons. That's all they have ever been, and all they were ever intended to be.Tell me, are you familiar with the 4e lore for dragonborn?</blockquote>